Amanda Knox

A Primal Nut

Giruilla wrote: »

the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom;
[/qoute]
Contamination? I would expect more than just one bra strap.

the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede;

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html disputes this and it seems the prosecution admitted they couldn't prove it was made in blood.

the fact that Raffaele’s own father blew their alibi that they were together in Raffaele’s flat at the time of the killing with indisputable telephone records;

Well its not actually what happened. All it did was confirm that they had their dinner earlier than Amanda said they did. I guess Amanda didn't remember but was pressured into giving a time - I'm sure many of us would not be able to say what time we had dinner at.

the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife in Raffaele’s flat which Raffaele himself sought to explain as having been from accidentally “pricking” Meredith’s hand in his written diary despite the fact Meredith had never been to his flat (confirmed by Amanda Knox);

I would say this was a lie. The police told him that the DNA had been found and shocked and afraid, and pressured by the police to explain it, Raffaele came up with an excuse - he thought he had to say something. This was a trick the police used again and again - make an allegation with little or bad evidence and force the suspects to explain it (so they ended up lying themselves). This was how the police got so much circumstancial evidence and tried to show the judge that the suspects were contradicting themselves. I would expect Raffaele to behave the same way regardless of whether he was guilty or not. Someone more experienced would have known to keep their mouth shut. They also told Amanda she had Aids, that Raffaele said she left the house, etc; it was a tactic to get Amanda to change her story. Her and Raffaele's original accounts made directly in the aftermath of the murder show little contradiction with evidence. It was only when the police made false statements, that the two suspects began changing their stories to fit with this - they felt they had to explain it somehow.

the correlation of where Meredith’s phones were found to the location of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guedes’s flats;

Not sure what's meant by correlation in this context.

the computer records which show that no-one was at Raffaele’s computer during the time of the murder despite him claiming he was using that computer;

Nobody knows the time of the murder so again that statement is inaccurate. He said they used the computer until a certain time and then went to sleep. I doubt he remembered the exact time (same as Amanda regarding Dinner).

Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s in five different places just feet from Meredith’s body;

I haven't heard about this. What was her DNA found in?

the utterly inexplicable computer records the morning after the murder starting at 5.32 am and including multiple file creations and interactions thereafter all during a time that Raffaele and Amanda insist they were asleep until 10.30am;

Can't really explain this but the hard drives were destroyed which doesn't help. And leads me to be suspicious about that information.

the separate witnesses who testified on oath that Amanda and Raffaele were at the square 40 metres from the girls’ cottage on the evening of the murder and the fact that Amanda was seen at a convenience store at 7.45am the next morning, again while she said she was in bed;

If the prosecutors were willing to bribe Rudy Guede (with a reduced sentence) to testify I wouldn't put it past them to do the same with a homeless guy.

the accusation of a completely innocent man by Amanda Knox;

Again the police made the accusation and pressured Amanda to sign it.

the fact that when Amanda Knox rang Meredith’s mobile telephones, ostensibly to check on the “missing” Meredith, she did so for just three seconds - registering the call but making no effort to allow the phone to be answered in the real world

Don't have an explanation for this - I'd be surprised if the Telecom operator can tell how long the phone rang for. And even if they did, it's hardly incriminating.

the knife-fetish of Raffaele Sollecito and his formal disciplinary punishment for watching animal porn at his university – so far from the wholesome image portrayed;

Seems similiar to the "not true" stories about Amanda

the fact that claimed multi-year kick-boxer Raffaele apparently couldn’t break down a flimsy door to Meredith’s room when he and Amanda were at the flat the morning after the murder but the first people in the flat with the police who weren’t martial artists could;

Probably decided it would be better to wait for the police. I imagine the police would have more experienced at breaking doors down.

the extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox;

Did he do anything other than hash? Not sure why it matters anyhow.

the fact that Amanda knew details of the body and the wounds despite not being in line of sight of the body when it was discovered;

No she didn't.

the lies of Knox on the witness stand in July 2009 about how their drug intake that night (“one joint”) is totally contradicted by Sollecito’s own contemporaneous diary;

They remember a small issue in different ways. Happens all the time.

the fact that after a late evening’s questioning, Knox wrote a 2,900 word email home which painstakingly details what she said happened that evening and the morning after that looks *highly* like someone committing to memory, at 3.30 in the morning, an extensive alibi;

How does this suggest guilt?

the fact that both Amanda and Raffaele both said they would give up smoking dope for life in their prison diaries despite having apparently nothing to regret;

Wtf?? What has this got to do with anything. Whoever wrote this has an unhealthy obsession with their hash-smoking. Seems to be more motivated by their anti-drugs stance than anything else.

the fact that when Rudy Guede was arrested, Raffaele Sollecito didn’t celebrate the “true” perpetrator being arrested (which surely would have seen him released) but worried in his diary that a man whom he said he didn’t know would “make up strange things” about him despite him just being one person in a city of over 160,000 people;

Wasn't he already a suspect at this point? Is this the most incriminating thing in his diary?:D

the fact that both an occupant of the cottage and the police instantly recognised the cottage had not been burgled but had been the subject of a staged break-in where glass was *on top* of apparently disturbed clothes;

A staged break-in doesn't implicate Knox or Sollecito. Its possible Kercher let Guede into the house voluntarily.

that Knox and Sollecito both suggested each other might have committed the crime and Sollecito TO THIS DATE does not agree Knox stayed in his flat all the night in question;

He does agree that she stayed there all night; other than the unlikely possibility that Knox got out of bed while he was asleep.

the bizarre behaviour of both of them for days after the crime;

Its not as bizarre as the police made it seem.

the fact that cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito’s flat but had left the flat at a time which is completely coincidental with Guede’s corroborated presence near the girl’s flat earlier in the evening;

Cellpone records show no such thing. They were turned off so there are no records at that time.

the fact that Amanda Knox’s table lamp was found in the locked room of Meredith Kercher in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up;

If its true, no reason to believe it wasnt Guede.

the unbelievable series of changing stories made up by the defendants after their versions became challenged; Knox’s inexplicable reaction to being shown the knife drawer at the girl’s cottage where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head.

I guess she was shocked. Her story changed because the police pressured her to explain things which have shown to be not true.

I know it seems like "there is an explanation for everything" and there are "too many co-incidences" but all of this can be summarised as poor police work by a force using all the tricks in the book to incriminate Knox and Sollecito; and the two suspects weren't smart enough to realise.

Tayla

Giruilla wrote: »

Just gonna post these points. Disregard the dna evidence, but what do you make of the other points?

Ok so leaving out the DNA which has been discredited...........

the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede;

The footprint couldn't have belonged to Raffaele either according to independent experts.

the computer records which show that no-one was at Raffaele’s computer during the time of the murder despite him claiming he was using that computer

The police computer experts destroyed the hard drives and no independent analysis could be done.


the separate witnesses who testified on oath that Amanda and Raffaele were at the square 40 metres from the girls’ cottage on the evening of the murder and the fact that Amanda was seen at a convenience store at 7.45am the next morning, again while she said she was in bed;

The first witness was a homeless heroin addict and his account was completely wrong, he mentioned people wearing masks and waiting for buses, halloween was the night before and there were no buses on the night in question.


The shopkeeper didn't even mention it to the police when he was questioned, it was only months later that this supposedly came out, he also said that he only saw her from the side but later mentioned her bright blue eyes, how could you see them from the side?
This witness said Amanda bought bleach, guess what no bleach was put through the till!!

the accusation of a completely innocent man by Amanda Knox;

Accusing an innocent man, that one has already been explained.


the knife-fetish of Raffaele Sollecito and his formal disciplinary punishment for watching animal porn at his university – so far from the wholesome image portrayed;

the fact that claimed multi-year kick-boxer Raffaele apparently couldn’t break down a flimsy door to Meredith’s room when he and Amanda were at the flat the morning after the murder but the first people in the flat with the police who weren’t martial artists could;

the extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox;

Raffaele said he collected knives from when he was a little boy, I never read too much into that, maybe it's common enough in Italy, who knows?

Animal porn, didn't know about that one but pretty much everyone I know has had a good laugh at animal farm at one stage or another, it's not like he had stacks and stacks of dvds of it or anything.

Which drugs was he supposed to be a hard user of?


the fact that Amanda knew details of the body and the wounds despite not being in line of sight of the body when it was discovered;

Amanda did not know details of the injuries that she couldn't have known, there is no proof of that.

the fact that when Rudy Guede was arrested, Raffaele Sollecito didn’t celebrate the “true” perpetrator being arrested (which surely would have seen him released) but worried in his diary that a man whom he said he didn’t know would “make up strange things” about him despite him just being one person in a city of over 160,000 people;

What a deliberately misleading question, so he was 1 person in a city of 160,000, how is that relevant?
He was also 1 person out of a total of 2 other people who had been arrested for it. If rudy was going to blame anyone would he pick a randomer or the man already in jail?? Of course he'd blame Amanda and Raffaele. Of course you'd worry about that.


the fact that both an occupant of the cottage and the police instantly recognised the cottage had not been burgled but had been the subject of a staged break-in where glass was *on top* of apparently disturbed clothes;

Rudy had previously broken into an office through a window 15 feet off the ground, this window was 13 so that's a question for Rudy!

that Knox and Sollecito both suggested each other might have committed the crime and Sollecito TO THIS DATE does not agree Knox stayed in his flat all the night in question;

The police asked them deliberately leading questions, they were not sure why they were in jail, they'd been together a week, would you be completely 100% sure the other person didn't do anything wrong if you'd only been with them for a week? Plus they were asleep so they couldn't have possibly known if the other was there or not.

the bizarre behaviour of both of them for days after the crime

That's a matter of opinion and speculation, for example the thing about the cartwheels, Amandas mother said that Amanda was talking to the police and they asked her to show them a cartwheel. The police leaked it to make it look like she was a cold sadistic killer.
Different people react to shock in different ways.

the fact that cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito’s flat but had left the flat at a time which is completely coincidental with Guede’s corroborated presence near the girl’s flat earlier in the evening

Amandas phone was switched off.

the fact that Amanda Knox’s table lamp was found in the locked room of Meredith Kercher in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up;

Anyone could have put that there.

the unbelievable series of changing stories made up by the defendants after their versions became challenged;

The police wanted them to back up their theory, unfortunately they illegaly obtained Amanda backing them up, it just stresses the importance of having a lawyer.

Knox’s inexplicable reaction to being shown the knife drawer at the girl’s cottage where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head.

Makes no sense and I doubt it's accuracy, according to the prosecuters the knife was at Raffaeles house. Sounds like a bull**** story to me

fran oconnor

Yahew wrote: »

My twitter feed, on the day of Amanda's release, was full of people going that the Kercher's are back at "square one" and have to find the killer.

I'd like to see a documentary similar to the Rolling Stone interview.

EDIT: No is now winning.

What was this Rolling Stone intervew if you don't mind me asking??.

Tayla

fran oconnor wrote: »

What was this Rolling Stone intervew if you don't mind me asking??.

I presume Yahew was talking about this article.........http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627

fran oconnor

Tayla wrote: »

I presume Yahew was talking about this article.........http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627

Cheers thanks for that.

nagirrac

Giruilla wrote: »

Just gonna post these points. Disregard the dna evidence, but what do you make of the other points?


http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

The truejustice.org site a scary site set up by a very scary individual. There are not many people who post there and only a few regulars. Some of the most vile sex obsessed hateful material on this case has been posted there. They are 100% convinced of the Magnini sex crazed orgy fantasy which is what truly interests them.

The Massei report is in essense a conspiracy theory foisted upon a jury who believed it. truejustice and it's sister site Perugia Murder File layers their own embellished conspircy theory on top. They both have now gone from 100% defending the Italian justice system to 100% ridiculing it.

If you want to read a rational and logical point by point refutation of the Massei report, go to beforeyoutakethatpill.com

Ellie2008

nagirrac wrote: »

Giruilla wrote: »

Just gonna post these points. Disregard the dna evidence, but what do you make of the other points?


http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

The truejustice.org site a scary site set up by a very scary individual. There are not many people who post there and only a few regulars. Some of the most vile sex obsessed hateful material on this case has been posted there. They are 100% convinced of the Magnini sex crazed orgy fantasy which is what truly interests them.

The Massei report is in essense a conspiracy theory foisted upon a jury who believed it. truejustice and it's sister site Perugia Murder File layers their own embellished conspircy theory on top. They both have now gone from 100% defending the Italian justice system to 100% ridiculing it.

If you want to read a rational and logical point by point refutation of the Massei report, go to beforeyoutakethatpill.com

I did as you suggested and now I think I've changed my mind and I'm more inclined to agree with you, I think of myself when I was twenty and I would never do some of the things I did then now maybe all she s guilty of is being a very silly girl who was framed.

LordSutch

Could have been the guy from the Ivory Coast? but then again, young foxy knoxy may have another side to her? I think the police should have put foxy in a room with Sollecito (+ a hidden tape recorder), that may have produced some interesting chat, and that may have led to the defining evidence?

nagirrac

LordSutch wrote: »

Could have been the guy from the Ivory Coast? but then again, young foxy knoxy may have another side to her? I think the police should have put foxy in a room with Sollecito (+ a hidden tape recorder), that may have produced some interesting chat, and that may have led to the defining evidence?

Could have been?? He has a history of breaking and entering (by throwing rocks though windows), his footprints, fingerprints and DNA were all over the bedroom where Meredith was murdered, DNA evidence of a sexual assault by him, he fled the country and ws arrested in Germany..

As to your second point, Knox and Sallicodo's phones were tapped for the 4 days before they were arrested, not one incriminating peep from either of them to each other or to anyone.

Tayla

LordSutch wrote: »

but then again, young foxy knoxy may have another side to her?

I won't comment on your other 2 points because nagirrac has already answered them but what you've mentioned above is what the prosecuters over there tried (and managed) to convince people of during the trial......there wasn't a scrap of evidence to suggest she had 'another side to her'

Mensch Maschine

Biggins wrote: »

Its funny you should mention evidence.

* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were threatening her?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were putting words in her mouth?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were hitting her?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove that ANY tapes if they existed, were got rid of?

Did she produce any evidence that the evidence was destroyed?

Fixed

Yahew

* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were threatening her?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were putting words in her mouth?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were hitting her?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove that ANY tapes if they existed, were got rid of?

Lord, you would be a prime apologist for a police State. The whole confession was illegal, as decided by the Supreme Court. If Knox has decided from the beginning to implicate her boss she would have done it lawyered up at the start. She signed the illegally obtained confession at 5AM. Clearly she was bullied, and didnt really know what she was saying. I believe the confession also implicated her.

The prosecution wanted to arrest that guy, when it didn't work and the DNA didnt match, they went for Guede. On him there was no detective work at all, his DNA was everywhere and was on record. In a world without DNA, Guede would not even have been a suspect, and Mignini - who has been jailed already for for abuse of power ( and shouldn't be working in my view) would have found some occult practice in someone else had Knox had an cast iron alibi.

There was no DNA from Knox in the murder room. She wasn't there. The middle-aged fantasy of Evil Twenty Year old Witches in Sex OCcult Murders with Evil Eyes, that needs to stop now.

Thrill

Mensch Maschine wrote: »

Did she produce any evidence that the evidence was destroyed?

Fixed

It's the police themselves who say the tapes do not exist.

jill_valentine

Good Guardian piece on the portrayal and perception of Amanda Knox:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/amanda-knox-facial-expressions

A Primal Nut

Biggins wrote: »

Its funny you should mention evidence.

* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were threatening her?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were putting words in her mouth?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were hitting her?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove that ANY tapes if they existed, were got rid of?

Most of the evidence got from police interviews is not used against her in the judges report so it seems they dismissed it. The fact that nothing was recorded and the fact that they released lies to the media (things which have been proven to be lies) removes any doubt about the police's behavior.

1) They told her she had AIDS and encouraged her to make a list of her sexual partners for medical reasons. They then gave this list to the media and told them she is a sex-crazed maniac. I believe her regarding this - why the hell would anyone make a random list of their sexual partners and show the police?

2) They took all her clothes for forensic purposes (they don't deny that) and then she went with Raffaele Sollecito to buy underwear. The police told the media they were buying sexy lingerie in the aftermath of her friend being murdered. Therefore they said she is a sex-crazed maniac.

3) Its also known the interrogations were up to 12 hours at a time. The police haven't denied that. Interrogating for 12 hours at night counts as sleep deprivation in my book - what else are they capable of?

4) If they had nothing to hide they would have recorded the confessions as required by law.

5) With regard to the Lumumba accusation she wrote a note the very next day (before Lumumba's alibi was known) saying that the story she signed seemed unreal to her. She alleges that the police told her that Sollecito told them she left the apartment (Sollecito denies this he said this) and that they had evidence that she and Lumumba were at the house (again not true). She believed the police and so starting doubting her own memory and is clearly very confused but ultimately she says it is unreal to her. It reads like someone who is exhausted, confused and psychologically broken down by hours of tough questioning. The fact she wrote that the Lumumba story was unreal to her before Lumumba's alibi became known about, shows she wasn't covering her own tracks.

6) The police said that Knox and Sollecito were happy and smiling while kissing. The video proves otherwise - they are a young couple in love consoling each other:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sgA8xWXQc8

Inappropriate and immature, yes but they are aged 20 and 23. It's nothing to be suspicious about.

These are all reasons to trust her over the police in my opinion. Many, many more to go along with that.

Everything she has said was/is speculation from the mind of a possible murderer trying to escape punishment.
To be honest, I wouldn't expect anything less - and if she had ANY proof of ANY of the above, why didn't she produce it at her main trial?

If escaping punishment was her end goal, she would have flown back to America when her parents advised her to. Instead she stayed because she wanted to help with the investigation. She hasn't got any evidence the police did these things - what kind of evidence would you expect? The fact police repeatedly lied to the media (as I discussed in the six points above) is enough for me to believe her.

Meanwhile, while she goes off on one trying to possibly spin more versions of her episode there to the multiple ones she has already told, the police have been doing their checking, their alibi investigations, their timing of who was where and with whom, their analysis of her groups transport (where and when it was seen and not seen), the search of it and the house, the cross-analysis of her statements with others - and you know what?

The police lied to her, she panicked, and under duress she changed her story to accommodate these "facts" (which were actually lies told by the police). The police used every trick in the book to convince her to change her story and then used the fact she changed her story against her. This is a good example of why even innocent people should exercise their right to remain silent.

She has been found very wanting for a bit of truth - in fact not enough truth to actually find her innocent but convicted guilty.

There is nothing to contradict the story her defence gave in the trial.
Her original statement made in the aftermath of the murder has mostly being backed up by evidence except for a minute details regarding the time she ate dinner, etc. Something few people would remember. Given that the police are clearly a joke, I will believe her over them when it comes to her accusations of cruel interrogations.

Frankly, looking at this case since it started, in the limited stuff that we, the public do know or are allowed know, she is VERY much guilty in my mind according to actual produced evidence - not just her mind version of events with feck all evidence to back her case!

Actually the evidence proves she wasn't at the crime scene. The prosecution alleged that a sex orgy took place followed by multiple stabbings. Thus there should be plenty of skin, blood, sweat, fingerprints, etc at the crime scene. Guede's was found all over the crime scene. What was found belonging to Knox? Absolutely nothing.

Common sense says it is impossible to engage in a lengthy sex orgy followed by stabbing someone to death with the victim's blood everywhere and not leave any forensic evidence behind. Its also impossible to clean up your own DNA and leave somebody else's.

The evidence proves she wasn't at the crime scene during the alleged sex orgy and stabbing; so she was released. Everything else is irrelevant once you know she wasn't at the crime scene. She didn't get off on a technicality.

All this stuff about conflicting evidence, etc only seems suspicious if you come from the assumption she is guilty. If you come from the assumption that she is innocent it seems normal behavior for a naive, immature 20 year old caught up in an awful situation which very few people here know what its like to be involved in.

All this circumstantial evidence and co-incidences seem like a lot - but really they can be summarized as immaturity on behalf of Knox and Sollecito; and terrible police work on behalf of the police.

parker kent

jill_valentine wrote: »

Good Guardian piece on the portrayal and perception of Amanda Knox:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/amanda-knox-facial-expressions

I was going to mention that article as well. Some really good points in the article about trial by media and the role her looks and nationality played.

The best parts are these:

Little about Knox's behaviour during that time matched how the investigators imagined a wrongfully accused woman should conduct herself. She appeared too cool and calm, they said – and yet also, it seems, oddly libidinous. One policeman said she "smelled of sex", and investigators were particularly disturbed by a video that first appeared on YouTube, shortly after the investigation began, which showed Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in each other's arms outside the cottage in which Kercher was murdered, as the investigation proceeded inside.

In fact, the video is anything but sexy. Knox, looking wan and dazed, exchanges chaste kisses with Sollecito, who rubs her arm consolingly. But the police professed shock. "Knox and Sollecito would make faces, kiss each other, while there was the body of a friend in those conditions," tutted Monica Napoleoni, head of Perugia's murder squad. A detective said he complained to Knox when she sat on Sollecito's lap, describing her behaviour as "inappropriate". Knox later explained to Rolling Stone magazine, via an intermediary, that she had been pacing up and down when Sollecito pulled her on to his knees to comfort her. The only strange thing about this is that an explanation for simple physical affection became necessary.

The Italian police's overheated interpretation of Knox's behaviour was a particularly pungent manifestation of a universal trait, one that frequently leads criminal investigators and juries astray: overconfidence in our ability to read someone else's state of mind simply by looking at them. This is not a uniquely modern error, born of pop psychology books. Shakespeare was wary of it. In Macbeth, he has Duncan remark how hard it is "to find the mind's construction in the face". It's a warning that law enforcement officers often seem unable, or unwilling, to heed.

Amanda Knox wasn't able to communicate her thoughts and feelings directly, either to the police or to the wider public. Her Italian, at the time of the murder, was poor, and her arraignment meant that she couldn't speak to the media. But there were plenty of pictures to go on. There was, therefore, an even greater emphasis on her expressions and physical behaviour than there would normally be in such a situation, right from the beginning.

This focus on the superficial shaped not just Knox's fortunes in the original trial, but her reputation around the world. Italian prosecutors were quick to leak stories about Knox doing cartwheels while in custody, because they knew the image, even if only imagined, would lead people to conclude that she was guilty. When the press published pictures of Knox with a smile on her face, readers around the world reacted the same way: no innocent person accused of a crime would behave like this. An Italian friend of Kercher's, Giacomo Silenzi, was widely quoted: "Her eyes didn't seem to show any sadness, and I remember wondering if she could have been involved." The tape of Knox embracing Sollecito was played over and over, often with a commentary suggesting there was something odd or distasteful about it.

It is astonishing how quick we are to draw conclusions about how a person ought to look or behave in circumstances we haven't ourselves even come close to experiencing. How many of us have returned to our home after a night away to discover that our flatmate has been brutally murdered? How many of us can know what it feels like to be at the sharp end of a punishing interrogation, in a foreign country, carried out by men in uniform who seem absolutely convinced that they know what happened, who are as certain as we are confused, fearful and exhausted? None of us. And yet we feel free to blithely pronounce, from a great distance, on whether someone in this situation is "acting weird" or not.

Our unwillingness to devote much effort to understanding how others might actually think or feel is exemplified by the popular assumption that Knox's initial admission to police that she had been present at the scene of the murder, and her false implication of the bartender, Diya "Patrick" Lumumba, revealed a guilty conscience. "She lied!" declared her critics, slamming the collective gavel in condemnation. But of course we know, empirically, that under the extreme duress of an intense interrogation, a terrified person will say almost anything the police want them to say. Quite apart from falsely implicating others, people will falsely implicate themselves.

The Innocence Project is an American organisation devoted to exonerating those wrongfully convicted of serious crimes, frequently murder, by using DNA evidence. Of the 250 people they have successfully exonerated, a quarter had confessed under interrogation (Knox has indicated an interest in working for the Innocence Project, now she is free). Because we find it hard to imagine that we might do the same, we assume that others wouldn't do it either: a confession is still regarded by lawyers as the nuclear weapon of evidence, the one thing that, even in the absence of physical evidence, can guarantee conviction.

AudreyHepburn

I'm not sure what to make of Amanda Knox to be honest.

Some of the things she said and did during the investigation just don't add up. Why for instance would she implicate a completely innocent man. And how could have had a shower and missed the blood all over the apartment...not to mention Meredith's body?

I know there is no admissable evidence to implicate her but I still think she knows more than she let on.

Yahew

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not sure what to make of Amanda Knox to be honest.

Some of the things she said and did during the investigation just don't add up. Why for instance would she implicate a completely innocent man. And how could have had a shower and missed the blood all over the apartment...not to mention Meredith's body?

I know there is no admissable evidence to implicate her but I still think she knows more than she let on.

We've been through all of this. Read the thread. None of what you said is accurate.

AudreyHepburn

Yahew wrote: »

We've been through all of this. Read the thread. None of what you said is accurate.

Isn't it? Did she not accuse her boss of killing Meredith? Did she not claim to have had a shower and not noticed anything amiss? Did she not behave oddly in the days after the murder?

Am I not allowed to give my opinion just because it's been said already?

Yahew

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Isn't it? Did she not accuse her boss of killing Meredith? Did she not claim to have had a shower and not noticed anything amiss? Did she not behave oddly in the days after the murder?

Am I not allowed to give my opinion just because it's been said already?

You are supposed to read the thread. Thats in every forum charter. Otherwise threads go in circles.

AudreyHepburn

Yahew wrote: »

You are supposed to read the thread. Thats in every forum charter. Otherwise threads go in circles.

Yes teacher :rolleyes:

Look instead of cocky and dismissive why don't you help me by linking me to posts which explain the points I raised?

A Primal Nut

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not sure what to make of Amanda Knox to be honest.

Some of the things she said and did during the investigation just don't add up. Why for instance would she implicate a completely innocent man.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/amanda-knox-facial-expressions

The police; who were used to interrogating mafia suspects, broke her down until she signed off that Lumumba killed Meredith. She withdrew the allegation in a confused note the next day. I would like to see you withstand that interrogation and not sign. It shows more about the police's determination to convict based on their instincts rather than anything to do with Amanda Knox. Lumumba is lucky he had a watertight alibi or we would have also found himself wrongly convicted and in prison.

And how could have had a shower and missed the blood all over the apartment...not to mention Meredith's body?

Sorry to be mean, but you obviously haven't done even the most basic research. Its accepted by all sides that Meredith's body was found in her locked bedroom.

Also, there wasn't blood all over the apartment. Only in Meredith's room and a small amount in the bathroom sink. She noticed it after the shower as far as I remember and that's why she started to be suspicious, although she initially thought it might be related to menstrual problems.

Tayla

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Isn't it? Did she not accuse her boss of killing Meredith? Did she not claim to have had a shower and not noticed anything amiss? Did she not behave oddly in the days after the murder?

Am I not allowed to give my opinion just because it's been said already?

You said that 'some of the things she said and did don't add up' that's what you're basing your opinion on, those things do add up.

The prosectution and media during the first trial would have had every believe that Amanda had a shower in a bathroom which was full of blood, blood everywhere, it wasn't true...most people would miss it.

She didn't behave oddly as far as I'm concerned, the police said she did but I don't think what they described is odd at all. Loads of people would react the way she did. What's normal behaviour exactly in times of grief and stress? some people don't take it in and act like nothings changed, some people are hysterical, some people go into self descructive mode, Bare in mind that one of the investigators said that he knew without a doubt that Amanda and Raffaele had did it when he saw them 3 days later eating a pizza....yes eating a bloody pizza.....wow that's strange behaviour alright!!

Amanda didn't do anything that odd at all. The way some people go on about her 'strange' behaviour you'd swear she was going around stapling her ears to the walls and painting her windows......:rolleyes:

nagirrac

A more interesting question now is why do so many people still believe Knox and Sallicido are guilty. Over 40% of the respondents to this thread's survey believe she is guilty of murder (not that there is doubt).
This is known as "confirmation bias" where we only accept data that confirms our original view and cannot consider data that contradicts it. It is an interesting human trait, proven over and over again. It is very difficult for people to change their viewpoint regardless of how much contradictory evidence is produced.

youcrazyjesus!

After seeing her choice of Halloween costume I'm leaning more towards guilty. There is something very seriously and deeply wrong with you if you are her and think it'd be fun to dress as a burglar on the 4th anniversary of the murder 5 minutes after you're released from prison. There is something very sociopathic about that choice. Very, very odd. Particulary if you can accept that somebody close to her would have warned her in advance about the costume. It might seem like a small thing to some people but to me it's an utterly insane choice to make. It's deliberately provocative...why?

Millicent

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

After seeing her choice of Halloween costume I'm leaning more towards guilty. There is something very seriously and deeply wrong with you if you are her and think it'd be fun to dress as a burglar on the 4th anniversary of the murder 5 minutes after you're released from prison. There is something very sociopathic about that choice. Very, very odd. Particulary if you can accept that somebody close to her would have warned her in advance about the costume. It might seem like a small thing to some people but to me it's an utterly insane choice to make. It's deliberately provocative...why?

Oh, well that just proves it then.

I dressed up as Sally from The Nightmare Before Christmas for Halloween; doesn't mean I'm about to start stitching and un-stitching my own limbs.

To be honest, it's not a very cat burglary costume. Looks more like a French dude. How many cat burglars wear a football scarf?

Johro

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

After seeing her choice of Halloween costume I'm leaning more towards guilty.

Lost me there.

Yahew

Johro wrote: »

Lost me there.

there is no evidence again her but she wore a halloween costume so that proves her guilt, burn the witch!

Millicent

Yahew wrote: »

there is no evidence again her but she wore a halloween costume so that proves her guilt, burn the witch cat burglar!

They were all out of witches' costumes.

youcrazyjesus!

Millicent wrote: »

Oh, well that just proves it then.

I dressed up as Sally from The Nightmare Before Christmas for Halloween; doesn't mean I'm about to start stitching and un-stitching my own limbs.

To be honest, it's not a very cat burglary costume. Looks more like a French dude. How many cat burglars wear a football scarf?

Missing the point completely.

youcrazyjesus!

Yahew wrote: »

there is no evidence again her but she wore a halloween costume so that proves her guilt, burn the witch!

Admit it, it's a bizarre choice.

Millicent

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Missing the point completely.

Not really. I did say it didn't really look like a cat burglar costume. How is that missing the point?

ETA:

Comments on this picture here say she is dressed as "Roger Levesque of the Seattle Sounders soccer team." Fits with my question about the sports' scarf.

Seems plausible, given his appearance.

youcrazyjesus!

Seems unlikely to me. The costume looks very much like the thing people are perceiving it to be.

youcrazyjesus!

Johro wrote: »

Lost me there.

It's quite easy to follow really whether you agree or not. Can't help you there mate.

humanji

How in god's name does that look like a burglar?

Snakeblood

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Seems unlikely to me. The costume looks very much like the thing people are perceiving it to be.

Are you essentially saying that it looks like the thing you think it looks like here?

For what it's worth, I think it does look cat burglary. On the other hand, I don't think it's quite the same as dressing as a murderer. If she'd been acquitted of breaking into houses, then I'd think 'yeah, that's poor taste' but then if she had, we wouldn't still be talking about it.

Snakeblood

humanji wrote: »

How in god's name does that look like a burglar?

It's a bit like a french cat burglar. In my head, the type that Clouseau is trying to stop taking the Pink Panther (WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY A DIAMOND). with the curly mustache and all.

Millicent

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Seems unlikely to me. The costume looks very much like the thing people are perceiving it to be.

It's Roger Levesque. Did I not already clear this up for you?

fran oconnor

Looks more like a joker to me, i think people are going a little ott with this now.

youcrazyjesus!

Millicent wrote: »

It's Roger Levesque. Did I not already clear this up for you?

I disagree, did you not see my post.

Mr. Presentable

There was some discussion on the radio this morning.

Why did Knox say she was in Kercher's bathroom with her hands over her ears to drown out the screams? She later changed the story, but why say it in the first place? Even if she was bullied into a confession, why add a detail like that?

humanji

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

There was some discussion on the radio this morning.

Why did Knox say she was in Kercher's bathroom with her hands over her ears to drown out the screams? She later changed the story, but why say it in the first place? Even if she was bullied into a confession, why add a detail like that?

Because you say anything and everything under heavy interrogation.

Snakeblood

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

There was some discussion on the radio this morning.

Why did Knox say she was in Kercher's bathroom with her hands over her ears to drown out the screams? She later changed the story, but why say it in the first place? Even if she was bullied into a confession, why add a detail like that?

Because she was being bullied into a confession? Maybe she thought it was whatever the person bullying her wanted to hear, maybe he or she suggested it so she'd repeat it back?

There's an excellent book called 'Homicide, a year on the killing streets' about things like this. Detectives who interrogate people suggest possibilities to their suspects, as if they were friends, looking out for their best interests. The suspect, thinking their new friend is looking out for them, agrees, and hey presto, a 10 stretch in the big house.

Never talk to the police. Well, not if you're a suspect. That's the rule.

Immaculate Pasta

She's been found innocent, let the girl get on with her life I say. :cool:

--Kaiser--

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

There was some discussion on the radio this morning.

Why did Knox say she was in Kercher's bathroom with her hands over her ears to drown out the screams? She later changed the story, but why say it in the first place? Even if she was bullied into a confession, why add a detail like that?

I've emboldened the important part of your post.
The fact of the matter is that there was no DNA evidence to convict Knox but plenty to convict Guedde. Ergo all so-called 'circumstantial evidence' and dubious confessions can be discarded entirely

youcrazyjesus!

Snakeblood wrote: »

Are you essentially saying that it looks like the thing you think it looks like here?

For what it's worth, I think it does look cat burglary. On the other hand, I don't think it's quite the same as dressing as a murderer. If she'd been acquitted of breaking into houses, then I'd think 'yeah, that's poor taste' but then if she had, we wouldn't still be talking about it.

Not follow the case? The burglary aspect to it?

For those saying yeah, it looks a bit like a burglar but or it came off looking like a burglar but that wasn't the point...you're missing the point. do a quick Google News search to see what some intelligent journalists have made of it. It's about perception. If I was her, number one on my list this Halloween, of all days, would be to keep a low profile, NOT dress like a fox or a burglar or a jailbird or anything with any connotations like that. The fact she didn't and clearly has the appearance of a cat burglar (PMSL at the soccer player suggestion BTW) says a lot about her IMO. What it says to me about her has implications for her potential for deception and guilt. I may well be wrong but that's my opinion. I'm utterly amazed nobody stopped her going out looking like that.

Giruilla

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

There was some discussion on the radio this morning.

Why did Knox say she was in Kercher's bathroom with her hands over her ears to drown out the screams? She later changed the story, but why say it in the first place? Even if she was bullied into a confession, why add a detail like that?

Or because she really is guilty, was panicking, and couldn't decide on a good cover story.

ejmaztec

It seems that the Kercher family is going to be keeping tabs on Amanda Knox for the rest of her days, and pick fault every step of the way.

youcrazyjesus!

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I've emboldened the important part of your post.
The fact of the matter is that there was no DNA evidence to convict Knox but plenty to convict Guedde. Ergo all so-called 'circumstantial evidence' and dubious confessions can be discarded entirely

There was DNA evidence. It was eventually thrown out as unreliable but it did exist.

Snakeblood

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Not follow the case? The burglary aspect to it?

For those saying yeah, it looks a bit like a burglar but or it came off looking like a burglar but that wasn't the point...you're missing the point. do a quick Google News search to see what some intelligent journalists have made of it. It's about perception. If I was her, number one on my list this Halloween, of all days, would be to keep a low profile, NOT dress like a fox or a burglar or a jailbird or anything with any connotations like that. The fact she didn't and clearly has the appearance of a cat burglar (PMSL at the soccer player suggestion BTW) says a lot about her IMO. What it says to me about her has implications for her potential for deception and guilt. I may well be wrong but that's my opinion. I'm utterly amazed nobody stopped her going out looking like that.

How many years at halloween should she keep a low profile if she's done nothing wrong? Also, a fox? Would you have thought to yourself 'OH SHE'S A FOX SHE DID IT?'. A fox? Really?