Amanda Knox Heading to ‘GMA’ First After Guilty Verdict

Amanda Knox Heading to 'GMA' First After Guilty Verdict

Getty Images

The twice-convicted murderer will speak to Robin Roberts on Friday

“GMA” has nabbed the first interview with Amanda Knox after being found guilty of murder for the second time.

Knox will speak with anchor Robin Roberts on Friday's show, a network representative told TheWrap.

The news of the scheduled appearance arrives just hours after an Italian court once again found Knox guilty of murder. The former American student whose case created an international furor has vowed not to return to Italy, and is sure to appeal.

See video: ‘GMA’ Discusses Lena Dunham Nudity Question With TheWrap's Tim Molloy

A panel of two judges and six jurors sentenced Knox to 28 years in prison in the death of her roommate, British student Meredith Kercher. The judges and jurors also found her Italian ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, guilty, and said he should be sentenced to 25 years.

Knox and Sollecito were first convicted and sentenced to 26 years in the 2007 killing. But in 2011, an appeals court acquitted Knox and Sollecito, finding that police had tainted key DNA evidence.

In April, Knox published a memoir about the case. It describes her story as a “labyrinthine nightmare of crime and punishment, innocence and vindication.”

Also read: Amanda Knox Found Guilty Again in Italian Retrial

This is the latest win for “GMA” in the morning show battle for viewers against NBC's “Today.” ABC's morning show has ranked No. 1 every week in total viewers for more than 18 months.

ABC previously landed the very first interview with Amanda Knox before any other network. She spoke with Diane Sawyer in primetime last April.

Additional reporting by Tim Molloy

  • MikeTX62

    This is a “face-saving” verdict. The Italian “justice system” has gotten a real black eye globally over how sloppily they handled the original investigation. I believe they also are punishing Amanda b/c she didn't return to Italy for this round. Today's verdict is an absolute travesty. Among other problems I have with the case – no DNA, no proof that Amanda and Raffaele were even present at the time of the murder – I have a real issue with the fact that, as far as I'm aware, the prosecution has never PROVEN motive. First they said Amanda & Raffaele killed Meredith in the throes of a “sex game gone awry.” When THAT didn't fly, the motive became some kind of “drug-induced rage.” When they couldn't prove THAT, the motive became Amanda's alleged rage over Meredith's sloppiness and that the bathroom was not properly or completely cleaned. These so-called “motives” all have one thing in common, and that is that there has never been any evidence offered by the prosecution to prove ANY of them. They are all just prosecutorial THEORIES. To my mind, if they can't PROVE a motive for Amanda & Raffaele, then their entire case falls apart. Think about it . . . no DNA, no proof that the defendants were present, and no motive. Where is this conviction coming from???

    • socrates1947

      Where did you get your law degree?

      • MikeTX62

        @socrates1947 – First, I don't have a law degree, and I never claimed to have one in the first place so your snarky little question is irrelevant. Second, one does not require a law degree to understand such things as the difference between direct knowledge and hearsay or the concept of needing to show a motive to establish guilt. When there is no eyewitness to an act, as in this case, then one of the steps necessary, at least in my mind, to prove someone committed the act is to demonstrate that the person in question had a compelling reason (referred to as a MOTIVE) to commit that act. Frankly, I've understood those very basic concepts since I was 8 years old.

        • socrates1947

          Two things. First, there is far more to it than you care to mention, but I won't go into it. Second, and most importantly, she can go back and bring with her an American lawyer if she wants. Am sure there are plenty of them who would volunteer at this stage. That lawyer would surely raise the proper questions. Short of that, she has no excuse.

    • thecrusader

      exactly. i read everybody's comments and i agree with you fully. people show so much naivety when it comes to verdicts and courts. they declare themselves judge, jury and executioner. the person in question is always seen as guilty on the preconceived notion of guilt in their stupid brains. even if she did do it, she should not be convicted because there is no evidence. i won't congratulate her for a successful murder because i condemn such behavior, but she pulled it off, only four years she had to do and then tricked her way out of prison on appeal. clever murderer. let her conscience deal with it if she's guilty, and if she no conscience, well then she's not worth a single thought anyway. it's no one else's business anyway. people saying she is guilty based on nothing. jumping on the bandwagon because it's easy to point to the finger. someone tell me what evidence there is, id love to hear your arguments????????????

  • Joseph Vance

    Send her back

    • tk2014

      no way

  • Canis Dirus

    She was found guilty, and later got off on a technicality. They have reexamined the case, and the same original verdict was reinstated.

    Send her back.

    • tk2014

      your just jealous

      • Canis Dirus

        Of what?

        It's “you're” by the way.

        • tk2014

          f__k you grammar nazi

          • terer

            how could one be jealous of a murderer, maybe feel sorry for her because of the poor upbringing, another OJ?

          • tk2014

            your jealous as well you probably wished you were as famous as her

          • Canis Dirus

            Infamous, not famous…. and it is nothing to strive for.

          • tk2014

            your probably still jealous though why else would you want someone who was acquited to be sent back to jail

          • Canis Dirus

            It's a spelling mistake, not a grammatical error, to be concise.

          • tk2014

            i don't care anyone who corrects anyone's spelling online is a too l who needs to get a life

          • Canis Dirus

            Indeed, why should I help you improve yourself… I'm sure anyone looking at anything you write will ignore the blatant mistakes.

          • tk2014

            i know how to spell i just choose not to, but I guess your job is to harrass commenters over trivial things online, tell me is it a good paying job can i get one like that to

          • Canis Dirus

            Chose not to, that's rich.

          • tk2014

            wow your an even bigger tool than I thought

          • tk2014

            you must have no life to be correcting a complete strangers grammar online

        • Dean Walls

          Silly really, but if you are to correct people then one should be perfect oneself. Reexamined is not a word and should be either two words or should be hyphenated i.e.
          Not perfect myself either but don't pretend to be so please stick to the discussion and chill folks :-)

          • Canis Dirus

            Merriam-Webster disagrees with you. I'll go with them.

          • tk2014

            nerd alert, word of advice nobody likes a know it all

          • Canis Dirus

            Only dummies say that.

          • tk2014

            only a holes say what you say as well

          • Canis Dirus

            I'm tempted to say “educated” instead of your description, but any 5th grader should know the difference between your and you're.

          • tk2014

            oh s hut up enough with the grammar corrections who are you everyone's mother

    • Guest

      Sadly if its international law I'm afraid you would be right. We in America thank God have a constitution that forgives such things its section is on “Ex post Facto” law. It specifically forbids retroactive application. Thus if your convicted you can “reexamine the case” then reinstate the verdict. I know it sounds great right your doing “justice” in your mind. Say you were convicted of a crime then after you were released and totally out of the system 20 years someone applied a condition of release upon you that basically installed new conditions that restricted your freedom, would that be right? What if they decided after your sentence it wasn't handled properly and you did four years and they tossed out the verdict. Just how many cracks do they get at a defendant? Two, three or more. In international law that is exactly what happens a kangaroo court that keeps going at it until they get the result they want. That's a fair hearing? You seem to hold so much credence on a verdict. Truth is most citizens and especially more in this country more juries are made up of morons. They know even less about the constitution that law makers who make laws against the constitution do. Basically you can convince them even contrary to the law someone is guilty and it holds up. Now they throw it out and want a second shot wow what a shocker of course they do. sadly people like yourself want to allow just that then when this process is brought to the US and they get two or three cracks at you or your kids then you have a problem with it.

  • Raymond Murdock

    There is a great deal of courage and boldness unbridled to commit crimes and a great cowardice sinister, liar, hypocrite, etc to accept the facts and pretend to impunity.

    • MikeTX62

      @raymondmurdock:disqus – HUH???!!??!

  • Isabel

    Is she realy guilty? I doubt

    • tk2014


  • robjh1

    What does she possibly have to tell us now. Just go away.

  • socrates1947

    Good morning and good bye Ms. Knox.

  • MikeTX62

    @mr_wilson47:disqus – Just a couple of points for clarification. First, Amanda was convicted in the original trial “with DNA evidence” that has since been completely discredited. Second, the only “witness” that ever put Amanda and Raffaele at the scene was Rudy Guede, the guy who actually murdered Meredith, and whose DNA was “all over the place.” As for my point about motive, your opening sentence pretty much proved my point. You are making the blind assumption that Amanda is a “murdering sociopath” to gloss over the fact that there was no EVIDENCE of a MOTIVE. I find it interesting that the prosecutor attempted the same shell game. He wants us to believe the motive of the moment (to date, I count THREE theories, none of them proven), but YOU want us to believe Amanda is a “murdering sociopath” and therefore didn't NEED a motive. Maybe you two should get your signals straight.

    • StupidPolice

      Well stated!

  • Sendherback

    to all of those trying to defend this vile, and guilty as hell excuse for a human being, please just answer me this: why did she lie to implicate someone else and then sit silent about it while the poor guy sat in prison? Of course the fact that she was found guilty, got off on a technicality and was then found guilty again when the case was reinvestigated is all of the proof any serious person could ever need. But one things for sure, she'll get what's coming to her :) I just hope her disgusting family don't get away with the way they have tried to pervert justice.

  • jorge serrano

    Bye bye amanda, u can play sex games with you cellmates in prison

  • Infamous

    A third person Rudy Guede confessed, was sentenced, and has just been released for this same crime. What I fail to understand is why Guede has never been called as a witness. His testimony would either clear or possibly convict Knox & Sollecito. The latter two have been put in double jeopardy by the Italian legal system. This would not happen in UK for example.They were cleared at one point not on a technicality, but because the prosecution evidence was full of inconsistencies. I personally will always feel that I have never really seen all the facts of this case. But for sure Knox & Sollicito behaved very oddly for people whose friends had been murdered so violently.

    • ElenaJ

      This case shows up all the tragic flaws of the Italian justice system. They immediately decide “you're it”, and then do somersaults to find evidence against you, while ignoring leads in other directions. This has happened over and over and over in many cases, not as sensational as this one.

  • Marcus Lydon


    • tk2014

      america won't send her back

  • disqus_k3oycamN0W

    The Kercher family and Perugian prosecutors spread so many lies about 2 innocent students, in hopes that if you lie, lie, and lie again, something will stick, that in eyes of many people Amanda and Rafaele were smeared. Their “justice” website repeats old lies that were disproved long ago by forensic experts independent from perugians, but Kerchers conveniently failed to notice. They don't care that real murderer Guede may be released this year to commit more crimes, they don't care that evidence was planted by perugian “justice” (like their “forensic expert” was caught on video using dirty gloves ). Kerchers just want to crush Amanda and Rafaele by any cost. This family didn't have any issues with the fact that Guede's DNA was found inside and on Kercher's body only when forensic team from Rome came 17 days after the murder. (Perugian police was busy this 17 days interrogating Amanda in foreign language, not letting her sleep and promising her she will be in prison for life if she doesn't admit what they told her). Only Guede's DNA and footprints and fingerprints in blood were found at the scene – in large amounts, but that doesn't bother liers who created “justice” website. What a screwed up family!

  • Ann Vella

    Finally some justice…..the family of Meredith Kercher deserve this.
    They have been put through hell

  • Ann Vella

    Can people post comments that make sense please, instead of insulting one another.
    Thank you