Amanda Knox - Is she guilty or innocent of murder in Italy?

[gsjackson]

After looking at more evidence -- yeah, guilty as sin. The prosecution even produced a store owner saying that Knox had showed up as soon as the store opened that morning to buy cleaning equipment.

[Nailer]

The Pacific Northwest is full of psychopaths.

[Adama]

I haven't heard enough of the Italian's evidence. It seems the real thing is that she lied. But for what reason did she lie? What is the evidence that was so compelling that she would have to lie?

So she's lying because she's guilty, by logic, right? But what is the evidence of her guilt?

No doubt she's a whore though, by having intercourse with three random dudes in under one week of being in a foreign country, and she wasn't even a prostitute. Maybe that's why. In conservative places among older people, some American whore coming by having sex with three dudes in one week, well of course they think she murdered her roommate in a sex game. They already think she's a super whore just by having had intercourse with three men for free in one week, without being a prostitute. Some people might surmise that if she's a whore, she's filled with all evil, and not simply just a whore.

[gsjackson]

Some of the evidence: Footprints that matched hers and Sollecito's were found tracked through the blood. Her DNA and Kercher's was found in one of those footprints, as well as on a knife in Sollecito's apt. that could have been the murder weapon. Sollecito concocted a bullshit story about the knife -- Kercher being over at his place to cook -- but later retracted it. Sollecito's DNA was found on Kercher's bra clasp.

The perpetrator staged a phony break-in that was obvious to police. The only reason for doing that is to deflect attention from someone who had access to the house. Knox was the only one in town at the time who had access to the house.

The guy convicted of the crime, Guede, who was clearly at the scene, said that Knox and Sollecito were there and committed the murder. Investigators concluded from the crime scene evidence that it could not have been committed by only one person. Contrary to the propaganda spread by Knox's PR firm, Guede was not a drug-dealing drifter. He had lived in Perugia since age 5, had an apt. nearby, and had no criminal record. Knox did have her drug dealer on speed dial, but it was someone else.

And talk about an alibi not holding up. First it was that she had slept at Sollecito's until 10:30 A.M. As soon as Sollecito backtracked a bit on this, she came up with the story of being at the scene with her boss, who committed the murder -- a pure fabrication that took the cops two weeks to get sorted out. This fabrication was not coerced in any way, as Knox later claimed. The interview lasted 2 hrs and 15 minutes, she had a translator, was offered food and drink. Then when her boss was exonerated she went back to the sleeping in story, which was contradicted by phone and computer records, as well as by the store owner who sold her cleaning supplies the minute the store opened on the morning of the murders.

Further going to motive, Kercher had withdrawn a large sum of cash that day for rent, and suspected that Knox stole it. She may have accused Knox, justly or unjustly.

I had been taking Knox's continual histrionics in talking about the case as indicative of trauma and sincerity. I now think CE and jamesbond are on the money -- this girl is play acting. She's a psychopath..

[Adama]

Some of the evidence: Footprints that matched hers and Sollecito's were found tracked through the blood. Her DNA and Kercher's was found in one of those footprints, as well as on a knife in Sollecito's apt. that could have been the murder weapon. Sollecito concocted a bullshit story about the knife -- Kercher being over at his place to cook -- but later retracted it. Sollecito's DNA was found on Kercher's bra clasp.

The perpetrator staged a phony break-in that was obvious to police. The only reason for doing that is to deflect attention from someone who had access to the house. Knox was the only one in town at the time who had access to the house.

The guy convicted of the crime, Guede, who was clearly at the scene, said that Knox and Sollecito were there and committed the murder. Investigators concluded from the crime scene evidence that it could not have been committed by only one person. Contrary to the propaganda spread by Knox's PR firm, Guede was not a drug-dealing drifter. He had lived in Perugia since age 5, had an apt. nearby, and had no criminal record. Knox did have her drug dealer on speed dial, but it was someone else.

And talk about an alibi not holding up. First it was that she had slept at Sollecito's until 10:30 A.M. As soon as Sollecito backtracked a bit on this, she came up with the story of being at the scene with her boss, who committed the murder -- a pure fabrication that took the cops two weeks to get sorted out. This fabrication was not coerced in any way, as Knox later claimed. The interview lasted 2 hrs and 15 minutes, she had a translator, was offered food and drink. Then when her boss was exonerated she went back to the sleeping in story, which was contradicted by phone and computer records, as well as by the store owner who sold her cleaning supplies the minute the store opened on the morning of the murders.

Further going to motive, Kercher had withdrawn a large sum of cash that day for rent, and suspected that Knox stole it. She may have accused Knox, justly or unjustly.

I had been taking Knox's continual histrionics in talking about the case as indicative of trauma and sincerity. I now think CE and jamesbond are on the money -- this girl is play acting. She's a psychopath..

Thanks for filling in the details.

I think that may be the case too. Just from reading some of her statements about her flashbacks and dreams, it makes it sound like she's insane, not being able to distinguish her dreams from reality. That is an untrustworthy person with some serious issues.

I wonder if the three of them wanted to include Kercher, but she refused and then they decided to murder her instead.

[gsjackson]

I suspect they got drugged up, said "let's go make that prude our bitch," took a knife to make her submit, she resisted, and one thing led to another. Guede's story is that he was alone with her, went to take a dump, and the murder happened while he was on the can. Said he clearly identified Knox's voice. Seems more likely they took him along as Kercher's would-be rapist. In staging the crime scene, including moving the body a significant distance, they tried to make it appear that a sexual assault took place.

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I suspect they got drugged up, said "let's go make that prude our bitch."

Exactly, Knox hated the victim for criticizing Knox about her sexual licentiousness. Knox, being a narcissist, went into a narcissistic rage and saw to it that the victim got her just desserts.

Women like Knox are not used to being judged or criticized, so when a Brit told her the truth about herself, the Brit got killed.

Knox is a dark triad person, narcissistic (How dare you judge me?), psychopathic (I would never hurt a fly), and Machiavellian (My African boss from the bar killed her) all rolled into one. The evidence certainly indicates this.

[Traveler]

I don't believe Know was guilty. I think she was a victim of political correctness gone wild.

"The Italians, in their hysterical zeal to prove themselves not 'racist,' have seemingly done everything possible to frame, conspire, and otherwise collude to ensure that an African man is not solely responsible for this brutal crime despite all contrary evidence. Italian authorities were quite comfortable with this being a partially minority-on-minority crime—just so long as it did not solely involve minorities."
http://takimag.com/article/why_italy_he ... z4k3Uz8zR3

[gsjackson]

I don't believe Know was guilty. I think she was a victim of political correctness gone wild.

"The Italians, in their hysterical zeal to prove themselves not 'racist,' have seemingly done everything possible to frame, conspire, and otherwise collude to ensure that an African man is not solely responsible for this brutal crime despite all contrary evidence. Italian authorities were quite comfortable with this being a partially minority-on-minority crime—just so long as it did not solely involve minorities."
http://takimag.com/article/why_italy_he ... z4k3Uz8zR3

This article is a faithful recitation of the talking points distributed by Knox's PR firm and a complete distortion of the evidence in the case (a 50-hour interrogation, LOL). Every finder of fact who looked at the evidence, including the court that rendered the final verdict dismissing the case, concluded that Knox and Sollecito were likely guilty, and that the crime could not have been committed by one person. There is a very substantial record of the evidence that can be found online, if, unlike the author of this article, you want to look at it.

As far as political correctness, the prosecutor in the case is usually attacked for the opposite of that, for being a devout, conservative Catholic, who sees the work of Satan everywhere.

[Winston]

But she claims that the police interrogated her and abused her and hit her for 50 hours. So she broke down and was forced to tell them what they wanted to hear.

Nope. It does not add up. If she were hit for 50 hours, where are the photos of the bruises and injuries? Also, how does she figure the police want her to falsely accuse another man? She did that of her own accord and the police wasted time and energy arresting the poor man who was later exonerated and released. It does not add up.

Well obviously the prosection would not take photos of them abusing or hitting amanda, if they in fact did, otherwise it would be used against them. Also there is no audio recording of the interrogation, at least not one thats available to the court. So its basically her word against theirs.

So basically she cant prove that she was abused but they cannot prove that she wasnt, since they have no audio recording of the interrogation. The fact that they dont is a little suspicious.

Amanda claims she was questioned for 40 hours and hit and abused and deprived of food and water and coerced into signing a confession. But the prosection hotly denies that and said they will sue her and her parents for slander if they continue saying that.

The court has already ordered amanda to pay 40,000 euros to her former boss Patrick Lumumba for slandering him and destroying his business by falsely implicating him.

Amandas defense is that they coerced her to accuse patrick because they brought up her text message to him that said "see you later" and assumed she was gonna meet him that night. So they demanded to know what she was gonna do that night with Patrick. So she claims they injected a false memory into her of Patrick being at the crime scene. So in other words, involving Patrick was their idea, not hers. Lol.

[Winston]

This black american civil lawyer named richard dwyer explains why he thinks amanda knox is guilty. He makes a lot of sense. His chief argument is that amanda falsely and knowingly accused an innocent man, her boss Patrick Lumumba, who had an airtight alibi. And that innocent people do not do that. Only guilty people do that, to try to divert blame away from themselves. Innocent people will usually try their best to try to help police find the real killers. But she didnt do that.

Furthermore, she let Lumumba sit in jail for two weeks and did not recant her accusation that he was there. If she made a mistake she would have recanted later. But she didnt. This also strongly indicates her guilt. Because it means that she was hoping the investigation would be diverted away from her for as long as possible and that she hoped they might find something on him. It was to her advantage for him to be a suspect. So she let him sit in jail for two weeks.

Moreover, amanda told many other lies and kept changing her story too. Only guilty people do that, not innocent ones. She even lost her alibi when her boyfriend raffaele sollecito said that she wasnt with him all evening and didnt come to his apartment until 1am that night. So she was forced to change her story and admit that she was at the crime scene, which she later retracted of course. Even her boyfriend kept changing his story too, perhaps to protect her if he himself was innocent.

Also, Amanda kept having nervous breakdowns when asked hard questions that she wanted to avoid. She kept saying, "I can't remember. I don't know. My memory is a hazy fog" during the nervous breakdowns. Only guilty people do that to get out of answering an incriminating question. She even had a nervous breakdown when the police showed her the knives in her kitchen drawer and asked her if any knives were missing. That's unusual. Why have a nervous breakdown when shown knives unless you are suppressing some memory associated with knives?

Heres the videos where richard makes these good points.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcAQlgUWBBo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdpWm7GQ-Rs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SFkBdj9Kcc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NORIo-k_RZA

Also here is a criminal investigator named aphrodite jones explaining in a podcast why amanda is probably guilty. She makes sense too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDZQFPljUR0

[Winston]

Here is an analysis of Amanda Knox's body language and micro expressions during her interview with Diane Sawyer of ABC. The video is slowed down to reveal something disturbing. Each time amanda said "no" when asked if she committed the crime, she would NOD while she said no! Thats creepy! When people say no they usually shake their head, not nod. So this is very incriminating body language that shows subconscious guilt. She NODS TWICE in fact during her first two "no"s!

[Winston]

For anyone wanting to research both sides of the amanda knox case, here are comprehensive wiki sites for both sides from both camps that contain a lot of information and evidence to support their case.

Pro Amanda guilt websites:

http://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.com
http://www.truejustice.org

Pro Amanda innocence websites:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.com
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com

As you can see, many facts are in dispute on both sides. So its hard to know what to believe. I guess it all comes down to the balance of probability and preponderance of cumulative evidence.

[pete98146]

The comical thing is both sets of her divorced parents both live a mile from my house here in Seattle...

[Winston]

I haven't heard enough of the Italian's evidence. It seems the real thing is that she lied. But for what reason did she lie? What is the evidence that was so compelling that she would have to lie?

So she's lying because she's guilty, by logic, right? But what is the evidence of her guilt?

No doubt she's a whore though, by having intercourse with three random dudes in under one week of being in a foreign country, and she wasn't even a prostitute. Maybe that's why. In conservative places among older people, some American whore coming by having sex with three dudes in one week, well of course they think she murdered her roommate in a sex game. They already think she's a super whore just by having had intercourse with three men for free in one week, without being a prostitute. Some people might surmise that if she's a whore, she's filled with all evil, and not simply just a whore.

She lied because she lost her alibi when her boyfriend said she was out all evening until 1am, which contradicted her statement that she was with her boyfriend all evening until the next morning. So she had to admit that she was at the crime scene, but that her African boss, Patrick Lumumba, committed the murder. She lied to deflect attention from herself. She told many other lies too. That's when she became a suspect. These policemen are intelligent and trained to spot criminals. If they can track down and arrest the Italian mafia, then surely they can tell when an American girl is lying to them.

The physical evidence against her is:

1. Her DNA on a knife handle found at her boyfriend's apartment, along with the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the blade. The DNA on the blade was a very small sample, not enough to do a second test, but it was a 100 percent match. The knife was also the only one that was clean in the kitchen, so someone tried to clean it and erase all blood and DNA it seems in an attempt to cover it up.

2. Her boyfriend Raffaele's DNA was on the bra clasp of the victim. But it was collected 6 weeks after the crime, so the defense said it was contaminated. (What else do you expect the defense to say? lol. That's their only out.)

3. Amanda's DNA was in the blood in the bathroom of her apartment which turned out to be the victim's blood. She said it might have been her menstrual blood or blood from her new ear piercing. Then later the defense said it may have been from her saliva because she lived there. Whether it was her DNA or blood that was there mixed with Meredith's blood is in dispute.

Officially the prosecution had 10,000 pages of evidence against Amanda Knox. The evidence is detailed and listed at the links below on the biggest "Amanda is guilty" website.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Evidence_List

Of course, lying is evidence too, because it indicates that you have something to hide. An innocent person does not need to lie and risk incriminating themselves. Only guilty people need to take such a risk to divert blame from themselves.

Amanda's boyfriend Raffaele also lied when he said that the reason Meredith's DNA was on the knife in his kitchen was because she was over at his place and while he was cooking he accidentally pricked her with the knife. But when it turned out that Meredith was never at his place, he changed his story and said he doesn't know how it got there then. Why would he claim that Meredith was at his place if she never went there before? Why did he lie? Very suspicious.

Another suspicious fact is that both Amanda and her boyfriend turned off their cell phones at 8:40pm at night then then turned them on again at 6am in the morning. This contradicted their story that they were asleep until 10am. It also is unusual since they never turned off their cell phones at all in Italy except during the night of the murder. They have no explanation for that. The defense team lawyers, out of desperation, reportedly said that maybe Raffaele's cat accidentally turned off and on their cell phones. LOL. That excuse was so lame and insulting to the intelligence, that they didn't dare repeat it. LOL. Not even a child would believe that one. LOL

By turning off their cell phones all night, it prevented them from being traced. The phone company can trace where you are if your cell phone is on. So they needed to cover up their location that night. That's an indication of guilt and very suspicious.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/E ... lar_phones

Moreover, during the interrogation, Amanda had a nervous breakdown a number of times. When asked hard key questions, she would break down and cry and exclaim "I don't know! I don't remember! My memory is a hazy fog." Again, only guilty people do that, not innocent ones. Also when the police showed her a drawer of knives in her own kitchen and asked her, "Are any knives missing in this drawer?" she also had a nervous breakdown, which she admitted in her own testimony and book. Who would have a nervous breakdown at the sight of knives, unless they are trying to suppress some memory associated with knives?

I don't know if she's a whore or not. That's in dispute too. But even if she were, Europeans are not prudes about sex like Americans are. They are very open about it and even show nude women and naked breasts in mainstream magazines. So I doubt that they would have a bias against her just because she slept around a lot. Their case was fully evidence based it seems.