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

[Winston]

Some good films and documentaries about the Amanda Knox case that you can download below.

Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy

A good Lifetime movie about the Amanda Knox case, dramatized with actors. The dramatization is neutral and presents both sides of the case for her and against her.

https://thepiratebay.org/description.php?id=6195908

Amanda Knox

2016 Netflix Documentary that contains clips from those involved in the case on both sides. But is considered to be a mostly pro-Amanda Knox documentary.

https://thepiratebay.org/description.php?id=15968206

The Face of an Angel (2014)

Strange movie about a journalist and filmmaker meeting in Italy to write about the Amanda Knox case. What's odd is that they discuss the case and go on a lot of side adventures and trips, but never even talk to Amanda Knox or Raffael.

https://yts.mx/movies/the-face-of-an-angel-2014

@Contrarian Expatriate have you seen any of these? Watch the Netflix film above and let me know what you think and if it changes your mind.

[Winston]

A behavior panel analyzes whether Amanda Knox is really innocent or not. Part 1 and 2.





Podcast discussion about Amanda Knox's lies, contradictions, and changing stories, by critics of her.

[Winston]

Dr. Todd Grande analyzes Amanda Knox's behavior and case and concludes she must be innocent. This just goes to show that this guy isn't very smart and is very one-sided, so those of you who praise him must be as ignorant and narrow and one-sided as he is. He jumps to conclusions without looking at all the data. He thinks all the evidence shows that Amanda is innocent but he doesn't even take into account all of her lies, contradictions and changing of her stories, something innocent people don't do. Obviously he's ignorant and didn't even research this case.

[Winston]

Some incriminating things about Amanda and her boyfriend. Perhap @Contrarian Expatriate was right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRxVlk9Mh7E

1) The confession.

Knox confessed that she was in the house on the night of the murder and that she heard Miss Kercher scream, identifying a Congolese bar owner, Patrick Lumumba, as the assailant. She told the court during the trial that the confession was made under duress but then repeated the entire account in a five page memorandum the next morning.

2) The false accusation.

The prosecution said the fact that Knox falsely accused Lumumba of being the killer was a sign of her own guilt and an attempt to throw them off her trail. He was arrested in a dawn raid by armed police and spent two weeks in jail. It was only by chance that a Swiss businessman read about the case and came forward to say he had been talking to Lumumba in his bar on the night of the murder — offering him a rock-solid alibi. Lumumba says Knox nearly ruined his life and is suing her for defamation.

3) The alibi.

Sollecito could not back up Knox’s alibi on the night of the murder.
She claimed she spent the evening with him, smoking marijuana, watching the French film Amelie and making love. But Sollecito told police he could not remember if Knox was with him that evening or not.

Even assuming his memory was hazy because of the drugs, it seemed odd that a young man who had just embarked on a new relationship could not recall whether he had spent the night with his girlfriend or not.

4) Computer and telephone records.

Sollecito claimed he used his computer to download and watch cartoons and Amelie. But computer experts told the court that there was no activity on his laptop between 9.10pm on Nov 1, and 5.32am the next morning — the time frame in which the murder took place.
Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones on the night of the murder, from around 8.40pm, and turned them back on at around 6am, inviting further suspicion.

5) The staged break-in.

A bedroom belonging to one of Miss Kercher’s Italian flatmates was ransacked on the night of the murder, with a window smashed with a rock. But police said the break-in was staged – broken glass from the window was found on top of clothes scattered on the floor, suggesting the window was broken after the contents of the room were messed up. Prosecutors accused Knox and her boyfriend of staging the break-in to make the killing look like a burglary that had turned into rape and murder.

[Winston]

@Contrarian Expatriate

Here is a recent interview where Amanda Knox tells her side of the story of what happened. What do you think? Does she sound sincere and convincing?

[Contrarian Expatriate]

@Contrarian Expatriate

Here is a recent interview where Amanda Knox tells her side of the story of what happened. What do you think? Does she sound sincere and convincing?

She sounds like a manipulative psychopath trying to paint herself as the innocent victim.

The tactic is called “damseling” and it tends to work best on men because women often see right through it.

My opinion remains the same based on the facts I discussed earlier in the thread.

[jamesbond]

@Contrarian Expatriate

Here is a recent interview where Amanda Knox tells her side of the story of what happened. What do you think? Does she sound sincere and convincing?

She sounds like a manipulative psychopath trying to paint herself as the innocent victim.

The tactic is called “damseling” and it tends to work best on men because women often see right through it.

My opinion remains the same based on the facts I discussed earlier in the thread.

I agree, no matter how many interviews she does to try and make herself look like an angel, I look at the evidence and still conclude that she is as guilty as sin!

[Winston]

@Contrarian Expatriate

Here is a recent interview where Amanda Knox tells her side of the story of what happened. What do you think? Does she sound sincere and convincing?

She sounds like a manipulative psychopath trying to paint herself as the innocent victim.

The tactic is called “damseling” and it tends to work best on men because women often see right through it.

My opinion remains the same based on the facts I discussed earlier in the thread.

Did you notice that she wore a white dress to look like an innocent damsel? And she grew out her hair to look feminine too? She definitely looks innocent and sincere.

Notice also that around her and the interviewer are what look like flames or fire. People in the comments section said that it looks like the universe is trying to tell you she is guilty and damned or something. lol. That's funny. It's sure strange to have that around an interview circle.

[Winston]

Here's something interesting. I was wondering if Knox took a lie detector test or not. So I Googled it and apparently she has agreed to but never actually took one yet. See below. Notice that when she says she is willing to take a lie detector test, she shakes her head. Why does her body language always contradict her words? That's strange. Hasn't she been trained and rehearsed by the PR firm that her parents hired, about how to show honest congruent body language rather than contradictory body language?

Also, why didn't the Italian police give her a lie detector test? Knox's defenders say that they didn't because if she passed, their case would have been weakened and discredited, so it wasn't to their advantage to do so. What do you think? How accurate are lie detector tests and why aren't they admissable in court?

[Winston]

@Contrarian Expatriate

I took another look at this case and re-watched the Netflix documentary again last night. Here's what it comes down to.

You say that Knox must be guilty because she lied many times and changed her story many times. Same with Sollecito. However, according to them, they only did that because the police interrogation was long and brutal and they would not accept their story, so they told them to "imagine a different scenario about how it could have happened". So they were in effect forced to lie and changed their story.

Essentially it's their word against the police's word. How do we know who to believe? How do we know who is lying? Isn't it a matter of faith which side you trust? Do you see what I mean? You guys weren't there. So you choose to take on faith either what Amanda and Raffael says or the police.

For example, Knox says the police interrogation was 52 hours and she was hit and given no food or water. The police and prosector says the interrogation was only 2 hours and she was treated nicely. 52 vs 2 is a very big difference. Is there any proof to tell which side is lying? One of them must be lying for sure. How do we know which one?

Another example: Knox claims she accused Lumumba because the police found her "see you later" text on her phone and demanded she try to remember seeing him that night because she must have. So she was forced to implicate him. Again, it's her word vs theirs. How do you know who to believe? You see what I mean? Isn't it a matter of faith ultimately?

Knox does seem sincere and non-violent and not the killer type at all. When she talks she does sound credible. But that would mean that the 12 staff at the police station were lying. Is that plausible? But remember staff can lie if their job depends on it, and plus as we know, many policemen are Freemasons and have taken an oath to defend each other, even if one of them has committed murder. So yes, multiple people can collaborate on a lie. Either way, it's all speculation right?

Here's one thing in Knox's defense though, that doesn't make sense.

Suppose I was Knox and I just murdered a kill and tried to cover it up. If the murder happened at 1am or 2am, that would give me plenty of time to cover up the crime scene. I'd make sure all the blood in the bathroom and hallway was cleaned up and gone, and wash the bathroom mat with the bloody footprint too. I'd make sure the only blood left was in Meredith's room. It would take me maybe 2 or 3 hours to clean everything up, and then leave before morning. Then I'd go to Raffael's house and stay there and not come back. I certainly wouldn't be there at 10am in the morning when the postal police came by. I'd stay at Raffael's house and let the other two roommates come back first and discover the body, so that they could be implicated before me. Then I'd be the last one to show up and pretend to know nothing and just say "what's going on guys?" I'm sure Knox is very intelligent and would have done the same if she were the murderer and tried to cover it up.

Furthermore, I'd tell Raffael that we need to get our story straight, including the timeline and version of events, so that when we are interrogated by the police later, there will be no contradictions in our story, and hence no suspicion. When two or more people decide to cover something up, that's what they do. They get together and decide on one consistent story to stick with, so that no contradictions or lies are discovered.

That's what a logical intelligent person would do. Isn't that what you would do too if you were trying to cover something up that you were guilty of? Think about it. Have you ever given this some thought before? I'm sure an intelligent educated girl like Knox would do the same right?

I also would not return to the crime scene until the last possible minute, because I would try my best to distance myself from it. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to discover the body first. I would not be there at 10am when the postal police arrived. Furthermore, I would also tell the postal police that Meredith was probably out and not home yet, and I'd offer to take her lost phone and give it to her later. I wouldn't draw attention to her room yet until the last possible moment. Isn't that what you would do too if you were a murderer trying to divert suspicion from you?

I guess you could say the same for Rudy Guede too. If I were him and I just raped and killed a girl and fled the country, I wouldn't tell my friend on Skype that a girl I was with had just been murdered. I'd pretend not to know her and distance myself from her and pretend I never met her. Why would he tell his friend something that could connect him to her murder? That doesn't make sense either. Maybe he's not as smart and didn't calculate everything out well? Or maybe he trusted his friend to tell him stuff that could implicate him? Could he be telling the truth that the murderer was another person that was never identified? If so then that person got away.

What do you think? How do you explain all that?

[Winston]

Another thing:

Regarding this page here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/K ... h%27s_Body

I don't understand something. Why would Knox mention any locked door at all? Whether guilty or innocent, there was no need for her to even mention that at all. A normal person would just say "There's Meredith's door, go and knock and see if she's home." Why didn't Knox just say that? Then if no one answered, then Knox could say "I guess she's not home. She may be out somewhere. I can take the phone if you like and give it to her when I see her." Then normally the police would give her the lost phone and leave right? Why the fuss about the locked door? And why didn't they all just assume Meredith was out? None of this makes much sense. In real life, people just assume that if you don't answer your door and the door is locked, that you must be out somewhere. So why was there any need to break down her door?

If I was Knox, whether I was guilty or not, there's no need for me to mention anything about Meredith locking her door. It's irrelevant. I simply have no need to mention it and arouse suspicion. Furthermore, if I were Knox and knew I was guilty, I certainly would not even be there. I'd hang with Raffael or go somewhere with him, and be the last to return home. I'd let others discover her body first so as to distance myself from the victim. That's what a logical person would do.

So whether guilty or innocent, I don't get her behavior. Why not take the lost phone and let the police go away and then continue doing whatever she was doing before they arrived? Isn't that what normal people do in that situation? Can you explain?

[Contrarian Expatriate]

@Contrarian Expatriate

I took another look at this case and re-watched the Netflix documentary again last night. Here's what it comes down to.

You say that Knox must be guilty because she lied many times and changed her story many times. Same with Sollecito. However, according to them, they only did that because the police interrogation was long and brutal and they would not accept their story, so they told them to "imagine a different scenario about how it could have happened". So they were in effect forced to lie and changed their story.

Essentially it's their word against the police's word. How do we know who to believe? How do we know who is lying? Isn't it a matter of faith which side you trust? Do you see what I mean? You guys weren't there. So you choose to take on faith either what Amanda and Raffael says or the police.

For example, Knox says the police interrogation was 52 hours and she was hit and given no food or water. The police and prosector says the interrogation was only 2 hours and she was treated nicely. 52 vs 2 is a very big difference. Is there any proof to tell which side is lying? One of them must be lying for sure. How do we know which one?

Another example: Knox claims she accused Lumumba because the police found her "see you later" text on her phone and demanded she try to remember seeing him that night because she must have. So she was forced to implicate him. Again, it's her word vs theirs. How do you know who to believe? You see what I mean? Isn't it a matter of faith ultimately?

Knox does seem sincere and non-violent and not the killer type at all. When she talks she does sound credible. But that would mean that the 12 staff at the police station were lying. Is that plausible? But remember staff can lie if their job depends on it, and plus as we know, many policemen are Freemasons and have taken an oath to defend each other, even if one of them has committed murder. So yes, multiple people can collaborate on a lie. Either way, it's all speculation right?

Here's one thing in Knox's defense though, that doesn't make sense.

Suppose I was Knox and I just murdered a kill and tried to cover it up. If the murder happened at 1am or 2am, that would give me plenty of time to cover up the crime scene. I'd make sure all the blood in the bathroom and hallway was cleaned up and gone, and wash the bathroom mat with the bloody footprint too. I'd make sure the only blood left was in Meredith's room. It would take me maybe 2 or 3 hours to clean everything up, and then leave before morning. Then I'd go to Raffael's house and stay there and not come back. I certainly wouldn't be there at 10am in the morning when the postal police came by. I'd stay at Raffael's house and let the other two roommates come back first and discover the body, so that they could be implicated before me. Then I'd be the last one to show up and pretend to know nothing and just say "what's going on guys?" I'm sure Knox is very intelligent and would have done the same if she were the murderer and tried to cover it up.

Furthermore, I'd tell Raffael that we need to get our story straight, including the timeline and version of events, so that when we are interrogated by the police later, there will be no contradictions in our story, and hence no suspicion. When two or more people decide to cover something up, that's what they do. They get together and decide on one consistent story to stick with, so that no contradictions or lies are discovered.

That's what a logical intelligent person would do. Isn't that what you would do too if you were trying to cover something up that you were guilty of? Think about it. Have you ever given this some thought before? I'm sure an intelligent educated girl like Knox would do the same right?

I also would not return to the crime scene until the last possible minute, because I would try my best to distance myself from it. I certainly wouldn't want to be the one to discover the body first. I would not be there at 10am when the postal police arrived. Furthermore, I would also tell the postal police that Meredith was probably out and not home yet, and I'd offer to take her lost phone and give it to her later. I wouldn't draw attention to her room yet until the last possible moment. Isn't that what you would do too if you were a murderer trying to divert suspicion from you?

I guess you could say the same for Rudy Guede too. If I were him and I just raped and killed a girl and fled the country, I wouldn't tell my friend on Skype that a girl I was with had just been murdered. I'd pretend not to know her and distance myself from her and pretend I never met her. Why would he tell his friend something that could connect him to her murder? That doesn't make sense either. Maybe he's not as smart and didn't calculate everything out well? Or maybe he trusted his friend to tell him stuff that could implicate him? Could he be telling the truth that the murderer was another person that was never identified? If so then that person got away.

What do you think? How do you explain all that?

I addressed my view on the matter before, no need to beat a dead horse. What I will say is innocent people don't wrongly accuse others who then have to be exonerated by police. Also, innocent people (of normal intelligence) do not implicate themselves and then change their stories citing later.

The police investigation was botched from the start because a prosecutor directed it instead of skilled police detectives. Whenever there is a crime with no witnesses, there is always a huge burden of proof to overcome.

[Winston]

I addressed my view on the matter before, no need to beat a dead horse. What I will say is innocent people don't wrongly accuse others who then have to be exonerated by police. Also, innocent people (of normal intelligence) do not implicate themselves and then change their stories citing later.

The police investigation was botched from the start because a prosecutor directed it instead of skilled police detectives. Whenever there is a crime with no witnesses, there is always a huge burden of proof to overcome.

But do you see my point? Amanda doesn't claim that she lied or changed her story. The Italian police said that. You are taking their word on faith. How do you know they aren't lying? You don't right? Your belief is based on the assumption that the police are 100 percent honest right? Think about it. You can't know that right? What if Amanda's version is the truth? Then she's innocent right? Do you see the problem? You are choosing who to believe on faith only.

Do you have any way of knowing who is telling the truth or what the facts are? It seems both sides don't agree on the facts. They can't even agree on whether Rudy Guede has a criminal record or history of burglary or not.

Knox claims she was forced to implicate Lumumba remember? Have you heard her side of the story? She was told to "imagine a scenario involving Lumumba" after they found her "see you later" text to him on her phone. So the police forced her to implicate him. If she's telling the truth, then her accusation was forced under duress, and not her own free will. Do you see what I mean? Suppose Amanda is telling the truth, then your argument doesn't hold right? How do you know she wasn't coerced as she claims? You are taking on faith what the police claim right? How do you know they aren't lying? Do you see what I mean? You don't.

Haven't you considered this?

[Contrarian Expatriate]

I addressed my view on the matter before, no need to beat a dead horse. What I will say is innocent people don't wrongly accuse others who then have to be exonerated by police. Also, innocent people (of normal intelligence) do not implicate themselves and then change their stories citing later.

The police investigation was botched from the start because a prosecutor directed it instead of skilled police detectives. Whenever there is a crime with no witnesses, there is always a huge burden of proof to overcome.

But do you see my point? Amanda doesn't claim that she lied or changed her story. The Italian police said that. You are taking their word on faith. How do you know they aren't lying? You don't right? Your belief is based on the assumption that the police are 100 percent honest right? Think about it. You can't know that right? What if Amanda's version is the truth? Then she's innocent right? Do you see the problem? You are choosing who to believe on faith only.

Do you have any way of knowing who is telling the truth or what the facts are? It seems both sides don't agree on the facts. They can't even agree on whether Rudy Guede has a criminal record or history of burglary or not.

Knox claims she was forced to implicate Lumumba remember? Have you heard her side of the story? She was told to "imagine a scenario involving Lumumba" after they found her "see you later" text to him on her phone. So the police forced her to implicate him. If she's telling the truth, then her accusation was forced under duress, and not her own free will. Do you see what I mean? Suppose Amanda is telling the truth, then your argument doesn't hold right? How do you know she wasn't coerced as she claims? You are taking on faith what the police claim right? How do you know they aren't lying? Do you see what I mean? You don't.

Haven't you considered this?

I addressed my view on the matter before, no need to beat a dead horse. What I will say is innocent people don't wrongly accuse others who then have to be exonerated by police. Also, innocent people (of normal intelligence) do not implicate themselves on signed statements, nor change their stories citing forceful coercion much later.

[Winston]

One more thing you guys didn't consider. Keep in mind that the police also deliberately LIED to Amanda when she was in jail and told her she was HIV positive, just to get her to name every guy she's had sex with, so they could use it against her. That makes them a proven liar and means they could have lied about Knox's interrogation and even planted DNA evidence against her if they had none. As we all know, once someone is a liar, their credbility is shot. That goes for the police too. You guys didn't consider that important fact.

Also consider the fact that Knox's angel face SELLS newspapers, whereas Sollecito and Guede's face does not. So the Italian police and media had a vested interest to focus on Amanda and keep the case focused on her. Because she's attractive and attractive faces SELL newspapers. That could be why they chose to focus on her rather than Guede which is the most likely culprit. He was also a drug user and drug seller so he could have been high and violent that night too.