Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Amanda Knox interview tonight

Don't expect much "hard hitting" questioning from Diane Sawyer, but you will probably get to see dead eyes and a reptilian flick of a tongue or two.

by Anonymousreply 26705/09/2013

from which one?

by Anonymousreply 104/30/2013

She is so creepy. Ditto Diane Sawyer.

by Anonymousreply 304/30/2013

I'm pretty sure Amanda Knox is one of the Greys. It's Diane Sawyer who's a Reptilian.

by Anonymousreply 404/30/2013

Diane Sawyer's actually pretty chill and cool, R3. One of the more gracious and down to earth people you'll meet. She's good at what she does but doesn't take herself very seriously.

by Anonymousreply 504/30/2013

I can't read r5 without picturing a lizard tongue flicking between every few words.

by Anonymousreply 604/30/2013

How dare you insult my people, VOTN?

by Anonymousreply 704/30/2013

Madam V, you're a Silurian, species Homo reptilia, who ruled the earth before the fall of the dinosaurs. I could never dis a Silurian.

Zeta Reticuli, whence the Reptilians come, that's just the galaxy's Alabama.

by Anonymousreply 804/30/2013

Amanda Knox is hardly a murderer. She was railroaded by an absolutely corrupt Italian prosecutor. Read "The Monster of Florence" is you want details about why this man is so corrupt and insane.

by Anonymousreply 904/30/2013

OK I'm an idiot. What are Greys?

by Anonymousreply 1004/30/2013

Meet the Greys.

by Anonymousreply 1104/30/2013

You passed the test, VOTN, though next time you might try to use fewer words.

by Anonymousreply 1204/30/2013

I doubt she had anything to do with the murder, but I think she knows more than she's ever admitted. Also, her empty eyes creep me out.

by Anonymousreply 1304/30/2013

Amanda does have empty eyes. She's hardly the seductress the Italian press painted her out to be though.

by Anonymousreply 1404/30/2013

Not seeing it in my tv listings, op. what time/network?

by Anonymousreply 1504/30/2013

I think it is 10pm on ABC

by Anonymousreply 1604/30/2013

Thanks, r16. I don't know how I missed it. Got it DVRed.

by Anonymousreply 1704/30/2013

"Amanda does have empty eyes. She's hardly the seductress the Italian press painted her out to be though."

That way men can read all sorts of stuff into the emptiness.

by Anonymousreply 1904/30/2013

I'd really like to know the truth about this case, but it's probably not possible at this point with all the pr. There needs to be a European (non Italian) high quality documentary about it.

by Anonymousreply 2004/30/2013

Thanks VOTN! BTW, I'm a big fan of your posts :) You're smart - and brave to identify yourself!

And I learned about the Canadian rock band The Greys as a bonus.

by Anonymousreply 2104/30/2013

The nicer explanation would be that if she has no innate spark and expression behind her eyes, she's less likely to give off natural cues, some of which may be disapproving or could be interpreted as disapproving looks. Insecure guys could really go for that.

But I also agree with R19. I'm sure that there are a few dopes out there who will pour all sorts of attributions into what looks like an empty person.

by Anonymousreply 2204/30/2013

She's reminding me a lot of Claire Danes so far.

by Anonymousreply 2304/30/2013

R9: I agree. The "Monster of Florence" is extremely revealing about that crazy Italian prosecutor and a very good read to boot. Amanda Knox was railroaded. She was just a naive and reckless young girl who paid enough of a price with 4 years in an Italian prison.

by Anonymousreply 2404/30/2013

She was doing cartwheels because she'd been held at the police station for hours on end and needed to stretch.

by Anonymousreply 2504/30/2013

r25: that sounds like a crazy explanation.

by Anonymousreply 2604/30/2013

Why crazy r26? She didn't have any clue she was being considered the murderer at that point so why would a young girl not want to get up an exercise to ward off numbness?

by Anonymousreply 2704/30/2013

The Monster of Florence was a great book. The prosecutor was a corrupt, ego maniac, who would do anything for a conviction. He even accused the reporter and book author of murder. How could he be allowed to prosecute any case, let alone a huge case like the Knox case? She was railroaded and victimized by a corrupt system.

by Anonymousreply 2804/30/2013

She wasn't doing any goddamn cartwheels. However, she was told she was HIV positive by the Italian police to rattle her. Nice.

by Anonymousreply 2904/30/2013

How anyone could watch this soulness woman's interview and not know with absolute certainty that she is guilty? And let's not forget that little tidbit of her accusing an innocent man of the crime and ruining his life. Oh yeah, sorry. No one does that, despite brutal interrogations. She did it. Deal with it. I hope the US extradites her murderess ass back to Italy.

by Anonymousreply 3004/30/2013

Why do television "journalists" always ask accused killers, who have spent years denying any guilt, if they committed the murder? Like all of a sudden, they're going to say, "Well, I never wanted to admit it in a court of law, but I will tell you and your viewers, yes, I did it. I am the murderer."

by Anonymousreply 3104/30/2013

She also lied about being at the apartment when the girl was killed...

by Anonymousreply 3204/30/2013

r27: doing cartwheels inside is goofy. At a police station? Goofier still. There are other ways to stretch in a less nutso way.

Yeah, I'd being doing cartwheels while being held at a police station. Or maybe that's just her being American and having no social graces whatsoever.

by Anonymousreply 3304/30/2013

r31: smooches, you're cute.

by Anonymousreply 3404/30/2013

Just because she seems like a sociopath doesn't mean she's guilty.

by Anonymousreply 3504/30/2013

anyone watching it? Any comments about the show?

by Anonymousreply 3604/30/2013

The look of pure hatred when she was asked what she wanted to tell the victim's family was so revealing.

And she's seems little concerned for Raffaello for all that.

Everything is about her. Me, me, me, me, me. That's where all her emotion was in the interview.

I also thought it was interesting that she couldn't bring herself to use the old cliche "Why do bad things happen to good people" by saying "Why do bad things happen to regular people" and then opined that "all people are good."

Really?

by Anonymousreply 3704/30/2013

R29, American policee routinely lie during interrogations too.

by Anonymousreply 3804/30/2013

She said she wasn't doing cartwheels, she did do the splits. Still weird but I chalked it up to her generation not seeing beyond themselves and not having social graces.

by Anonymousreply 3904/30/2013

i forgot to DVR! I was watching Grimm!

by Anonymousreply 4004/30/2013

There is a law against lying to the police, but there is no law against the police lying to you. Remember that.

by Anonymousreply 4104/30/2013

She's a Satanist! This was a cult sacrifice murder on All Sains Day.

by Anonymousreply 4204/30/2013

She's acting.

Is she guilty?

I can't say 100% for sure.

But she is acting.

by Anonymousreply 4305/01/2013

I agree....a lit of it...all of it really...seemed rehearsed. The cocking of the head, the expressions...the answers to the questions approved by her legal advisors in advance.

That said...I don't think she did any killing. I think she knows A LOT more than she is saying.

by Anonymousreply 4505/01/2013

She really does have souless, empty eyes. I can't decide if she's innocent or guilty, but it wouldn't be surprising if she was one of the killers after all.

by Anonymousreply 4605/01/2013

She did cartwheels because the Italian police asked her to. They asked her to do the cartwheels because at some point during the questioning it came up that she used to be a gymnast. Look it up.

Anyway, she and her Italian ex-boyfriend didn't do it because there was not one single shred of credible DNA evidence against them, whereas the DNA of the actual killer was smeared all over the room. Anyone who has read up on any of the actual FACTS of the case knows this. Thinking otherwise is nothing more than buying into pure media sensationalism. And saying over and over again that she has "dead eyes" isn't exactly a riveting indictment.

by Anonymousreply 4705/01/2013

She lied about her alibi & when her boyfriend didn't back her up she fingered the wrong black guy. Total psychopath & the bloody footprints and staged break in ? Guilty as sin. Google the Guardian for details of the case.

by Anonymousreply 4805/01/2013

She reminds me a lot of Karla Holmoka in Canada. There was DNA evidence along with a myriad of other evidence. The problem is the prosecution decided on the weird satanic angle. I think her roommate hated her slutty ways & she wanted to punish her. Have you read her prison diaries? Narcissistic sociopath of the first order.

by Anonymousreply 5005/01/2013

Did the other black guy go free?

by Anonymousreply 5105/01/2013

I saw a conversation on Twitter where someone was saying that they just don't like Amanda Knox and that something seems really off about her. I've never been interested in this case, found the whole thing boring, but after reading that comment and some of the posts here, I wish I had've seen the dang Diane Sawyer interview. Sociopaths are scary/fascinating.

by Anonymousreply 5205/01/2013

I wish people would stop tossing the word "sociopath" around like this.

by Anonymousreply 5305/01/2013

Susan Smith

by Anonymousreply 5405/01/2013

R53 is right. That word should be reserved for the worst of the worst.

by Anonymousreply 5505/01/2013

I've been obsessed with this case and don't want to bore you all with a long post, but I remained completely objective and believe 100 per cent she is not guilty. She was railroaded. Deviously.

by Anonymousreply 5605/01/2013

If the shoe fits. . .

Seriously, who wants to mark a man to life in a 6x6 cell for something he didn't do?

That's what Amanda did to her boss.

Plus, all of this little evidence talk needs to cease. Amanda and her boyfriend bought cleaning supplies to clean up the evidence. It's what killers do.

by Anonymousreply 5705/01/2013

Why are the fonts on this site all of the sudden smaller?

by Anonymousreply 5805/01/2013

[quote]Also, her empty eyes creep me out.

I challenge any of you vultures to get thrust into the spotlight & come out looking any better.

by Anonymousreply 5905/01/2013

R57 please learn just a little about the case before you join the conversation

by Anonymousreply 6005/01/2013

Raffaele Sollecito = babe

by Anonymousreply 6105/01/2013

Exactly R57. She's definitely guilty. Only a guilty person would accuse the wrong man of a crime he had absolutely nothing to do with. They do it in an attempt to throw the police off their trail and of their back. Think of all the Susan Smiths of the world who have done just that.

by Anonymousreply 6305/01/2013

To all the idiots asking why she was doing cartwheels at the police station - she wasn't, that's another the many lies that have been spread and obviously stuck in the empty minds of the idiots.

R57 perpetrates another of the bullshit lies: she was held for hours without food overnight and "interviewed" almost solely in Italian, which she didn't know much of then, and told that her boss did it so why doesn't she just admit it. Oh, and this "interview" was not recorded. Ever thought about why not?

Ditto with R57's bullshit about the cleaning fluids. R57 has obviously read nothing on this case, except the tabloid bullshit regurgitated straight from the judge/prosecutor's office (Mignini, who has many counts of fabricating evidence and abuse of office against him), at the height of the Foxy Knoxy satanic murders frenzy.

Don't you remember that the prosecution was first trying to present this as a satanic cult murder? That's obviously been quietly dropped because it was too implausible even for the anti-Knox tabloid scare media outside of Italy.

The so-called DNA evidence was also blasted out of court by the independent scientific review.

by Anonymousreply 6405/01/2013

so how did she seem in the interview with Sawyer?

by Anonymousreply 6705/01/2013

[quote]I hope the US extradites her murderess ass back to Italy.

So her ass is the real killer?

by Anonymousreply 6805/01/2013

r18: Because she's innocent. Just like me. You can mark my words on that.

by Anonymousreply 6905/01/2013

r71 believes we never landed on the moon.

by Anonymousreply 7105/01/2013

Diane Sawyer likes to get crunk-ass drunk.

by Anonymousreply 7205/01/2013

Did none of you people watch "The Central Park Five"? Police interrogation techniques are frightening and confusing to naïve young people. They "confess" because the police lie to them and tell them that their friend/s have already implicated the suspect and are going to testify that the suspect did it and that the suspect is going to get the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole. Then they say, "Now let's go over this again. This time, you'll tell me what really happened and who helped you. Now, who helped you do this?"

The police should not be allowed to lie to suspects (they are allowed to) and should not be able to hold someone for 24 hours. They should let anyone go who says, "I want to leave," unless they want to charge that person right then and there with a crime. If they can't charge the person with a crime, let them go. Especially young people.

In the case of the Central Park Five, the police wanted to charge them because the cops were a bunch of white guys who hated black teenagers. In the Kutchner case, the cops wanted to charge Knox because she was a clueless American girl and they saw her as being overly privileged and spoiled.

by Anonymousreply 7305/01/2013

Sorry -- the Kercher case, not the Kutchner case. I haven't finished my coffee.

by Anonymousreply 7405/01/2013

I don't think she's guilty. There isn't a shred of physical evidence and zero motive. All of the people who think she's guilty are basing it on the fact that they don't like the way she behaved. Well, she can be weird or unemotional, but that doesn't make her a killer. Rudy Guede's DNA was all over that apartment and his story makes no sense whatsoever. He also has almost no connection to Amanda Knox, but they're supposed to be convicted of killing someone together? More likely the police have found the real killer in Guede, but don't want to admit they railroaded Amanda and continue to proclaim her guilt. Also the boyfriend was supposedly a co-conspirator, but in 5 years has never turned on Amanda even though it would have saved his own ass? There's no way he'd do that if she was even slightly guilty.

by Anonymousreply 7505/01/2013

Where's the video of the interview?

by Anonymousreply 7605/01/2013

Hmm, would it have saved his own ass? If he was really guilty, his best course of action would be claiming total innocence of them both, claiming they weren't even there. They are both free at the moment.

by Anonymousreply 7805/01/2013

r78, I think Casey Anthony would blow that theory.

by Anonymousreply 7905/01/2013

MHB, is that you?

by Anonymousreply 8005/01/2013

Yeah, genius, r78, and I'm sure men committing 90+% of all murders is just one more reason to admire and trust them.

by Anonymousreply 8105/01/2013

R57, R64: Agree, she is guilty. She may not have plunged in the knife. But she is strongly involved in the murder.

If not, then why did she lie?? Innocent people don't need to lie, or accuse others of the crime. She's an actress. It was obvious last night. A very pretty, calculating young woman who knows she can manipulate others with her looks and "charm" (or thought she could, until this happened). She got off on technicalities and may do so again. But many will continue to believe she is guilty.

by Anonymousreply 8205/01/2013

I can't decide who I hate more, this one or Jody Arias.

by Anonymousreply 8305/01/2013

She didn't implicate Lumumba out of the blue. She was coerced into naming him after being interrogated for hours, smacked on the head, and being repeatedly told that she was misremembering and that he was involved and she just needed to admit it.

by Anonymousreply 8405/01/2013

Unlike other DL posters, I lack the ability to look at someone and determine whether he or she is guilty of a crime.

Because of that shortcoming, I am forced to consider the evidence. In this case all of the evidence I've read about says that Knox was not present at the scene of the crime, so I believe she's innocent.

by Anonymousreply 8505/01/2013

It would have been so cool if she had strangled Diane Sawyer right there on camera. Sociopaths have no sense of occasion, for all their theatricality.

by Anonymousreply 8605/01/2013

Not "all the evidence" no. She was there, her DNA was on a knife, she admits to being in the bathroom, she bought the cleaning supplies - not normal cleaning supplies. R85 so why didn't Raffaello turn on her if the police interrogation methods were so effective? You want it both ways.

by Anonymousreply 8705/01/2013

Everyone who isn't her says she didn't get along with Meredith.

by Anonymousreply 8805/01/2013

MK knew karate, that was something interesting I learned last night.

by Anonymousreply 8905/01/2013

Her DNA was on a knife that was found at her boyfriend's apartment. The police claim she cleaned up her own DNA at the crime scene, but then she keeps the knife, brings it back to Raffaele's, and fails to clean it? Utterly ridiculous. As for the interrogations, most reports indicate her interrogation was far worse than Raffaele's, she barely spoke Italian, and there are gender differences as well. It doesn't surprise me that she would be more likely to break down and implicate someone else.

by Anonymousreply 9005/01/2013

[quote] she bought the cleaning supplies - not normal cleaning supplies.

What sort of cleaning supplies did she buy? And how soon after the murder?

by Anonymousreply 9105/01/2013

And Meredith's DNA was on that knife.

by Anonymousreply 9205/01/2013

Did she barely speak Italian? She has a high opinion of her language skills. She read Harry Potter in GERMAN and then was going to read the next one in Italian, on a video before she went there.

by Anonymousreply 9305/01/2013

There was zero evidence of her DNA in the room where Meredith was killed. The fact that Meredith was found covered with a blanket suggests that the killer had empathy, so if Amanda did do it, then the sociopath theory that keeps getting thrown around on DL is bullshit.

However, in the interview it is very obvious that she is lying when she denies being present at the night of the murder and not having any further knowledge about Meredith's death. She knows something but I doubt we will ever know what it is.

Everyone thinks she's either a victim or a murderer so I'm sure this interview did what it was supposed to: help sell her book.

by Anonymousreply 9405/01/2013

No, Meredith's DNA wasn't on the knife. The faulty testing is why the conviction got overturned.

And Amanda's Italian wasn't great when she got there. In the Harry Potter video she talks about wanting to read the book in Italian but admits she probably won't understand most of it.

by Anonymousreply 9505/01/2013

It's really amazing that some people who have not actually followed the development of this case have such strong opinions on it. For example, the DNA "evidence" was totally trashed on appeal when independent DNA experts were brought in to examine it. The DNA amounts that were supposedly found on the knife were absolutely tiny anyway.

Yeah, she went into the bathroom, her DNA was in the bathroom - it was the bathroom of the house she lived in.

As r95 points out, there was absolutely no evidence of Knox's DNA in Meredith's bedroom - or of Rafaelle's. Yet this was the room in which they apparently enacted some kind of ritual sex killing which must have lasted a while and involved lots of activity and all sorts of stuff being shed from bodies. Presumably, then, their DNA would be all over the place - except it wasn't found anywhere. Oh, they cleaned it up. Yet, there was no evidence of any such cleaning and the DNA of Rudy Guede, Meredith's real killer (and whom Amanda and Rafaelle did not know), was all over the room. Funny, they managed to clean up their DNA but his remained. That was amazing cleaning!

By the way, I am currently in Florence and have also been to see the house in which the girls lived and Meredith was killed in Perugia. It's an isolated house, standing all alone on one side of a kind of highway, with trees and fields around it. It's also set some way beneath the road that runs past it. It would have been extremely easy for Rudy Guede to jump in and out of the window, but very difficult for people in the houses opposite - which are a great distance away - to have heard anything (a resident from one of these houses claimed to have heard a scream at an hour that would have been incriminating for Knox and Raffaele).

The Knox attackers keep coming back to "evidence" that has been fully debunked - the DNA (thrown out by an independent review), Amanda doing cartwheels in the police station (she wasn't), the cleaning fluids purchase (no sign of any strange cleaning, no "extra" cleaning products found anywhere, no receipt for the purchase of any extra cleaning fluids, the "witness" who claims to have sold Amanda the cleaning products only came forward a year later, his assisstant said she never saw Amanda that morning), the witness who claims to have seen Amanda in the nearby square was an old drunk tramp who in the appeals court clearly didn't know what he was talking about and got laughed out of court). Oh yeah, and all the stuff about her being in trouble with the police back in Seattle (she had a party, there was some noise as at any party, the police went to check. What an abnormal teenager she is!)

Yet, these amazing armchair detectives know she did it because they've looked into her eyes! (Through the tv screen, of course.)

by Anonymousreply 9605/01/2013

R94, I don't know what Amanda's opinion of her language skills is because I've never heard her talk about them, and I doubt you have either. In fact, despite the fact she is one of the most written about people in the past few years and about whom many have strong opinions, we have heard almost nothing from Amanda herself until now. What is the big deal about her reading German? She is part German, her grandmother with whom she grew up around in Seattle is actually from Germany. Reading children's literature is a good way for people to keep up or improve their languages. So, she read Harry Potter in German - that proves she's a murderess!

But, I don't know exactly how good her Italian was when she was being interrogated and supposedly accused Patrick Lumumba - because that interrogation was not recorded. Pretty strange, don't you think?

There is a huge problem with the Italian criminal justice system. It's a convulated system that gives huge power to judges/prosecutors, and they can be very corrupt. Anyone who wants to learn a little more should read "The Monster of Florence" by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi, a chronicle into the investigation of the Monster of Florence, active in the 1970s and 1980s, which was completely bungled. The ritual satanic killing theory was also put forward by a prosecutor for these killings too, Michele Giuttari. Amanda's prosecutor, Mignini, worked with Giuttari and helped develop the satanic cult ritual killing theory. Mignini put forward this satanic cult ritual killing theory to arrest Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Solecito too.

The appeals court that examined the evidence released Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Solecito and stated that there was no evidence they committed this murder. The prosecution's appeal of the appeal was based on procedure and has nothing to do with an examination of evidence. We will find out when the report comes out exactly what this procedural error was, but let's not forget the levels of corruption in Italy. But let's not forget that Italy has one of the worst records in the European Court of Human Rights - and the European Court covers cases in countries like Russia and Turkey.

The Court of Cassation may have ordered a retrial simply because it didn't want to make it seem that the Italian prosecution at the first trial had completely fucked up. Since Knox and Solecito had already been released by the appeals court they at least wouldn't have to feel bad that they were keeping two innocent people were still being kept in prison. Because the Court of Cassation was fully confident that at a retrial Knox and Solecito would be completely vindicated then they could demand a retrial to save the honour of the Italian judicial system. That's unfortunately how things work in Italy.

By the way, the appeals court had also overturned Amanda's conviction for defaming Lumumba, her boss. The Court of Cassation upeld that - it recognised that the conditions in which her "accusation" was made were conditions of duress and illegal, as she should not have been held and interrogated in that way. Not to mention the fact that no recording was made.

The Monster of Florence is going to be turned into a film starring George Clooney as Douglas Preston.

by Anonymousreply 9705/01/2013

Meredith Kercher's murderer has been found and is now in prison for it. He is called Rudy Guede and he was originally imprisoned for 30 years. This was reduced to 16 years because his "evidence" was used to help incriminate Kox and Solecito. Although, that doesn't make that much sense either, because he still maintained his own innocence but just claims he saw Knox and Solecito in the apartment (he was supposedly sitting on the toilet as they were murdering Meredith, but claims he didn't hear a thing).

So, even though the courts believed that he, in association with Knox and Solecito, killed Meredith, they also believe him when he says he didn't kill her but saw Knox and Solecito in the apartment. Yeah, right.

Oh, and his DNA was all over Meredith, and inside her. He had a history of break-ins. He fled Italy after the murder. He was a known drug-dealer and general all-round useless person. And, he didn't know Knox and Solecito, but randomly engaged in a ritual murder with them. Apparently.

by Anonymousreply 9805/01/2013

P.S. R95 is right when he says "There was zero evidence of her DNA in the room where Meredith was killed."

But, talking nonsense when he says: "However, in the interview it is very obvious that she is lying when she denies being present at the night of the murder and not having any further knowledge about Meredith's death. She knows something but I doubt we will ever know what it is.

"Everyone thinks she's either a victim or a murderer so I'm sure this interview did what it was supposed to: help sell her book."

You can tell she was there from seeing her on TV?

And, so what if she wants to sell her book? Is that a bad thing? Is it bad for her to want to tell her side of the story? Is it bad for her to make money from her experience? I'm definitely buying the book (when I'm allowed to, for some reason it can't be published in the UK because of libel laws).

by Anonymousreply 9905/01/2013

DNA evidence

by Anonymousreply 10005/01/2013

[quote]Meredith Kercher's murderer has been found and is now in prison for it. He is called Rudy Guede and he was originally imprisoned for 30 years.[/quote]

That's true, R99, and I understand that Rudy Guede will be eligible for work release in 2014. His DNA was found on Meredith, inside Meredith, on Meredith's purse, and scattered around the room where she was killed. How is justice served by letting her convicted killer walk the streets so soon?

Meredith's family should turn their attention to Rudy. He holds the answers they are waiting for.

by Anonymousreply 10105/01/2013

The "cleaning supplies" evidence was completely made up. There were never any receipts for cleaning supplies like bleach. It was made up by a british reporter

by Anonymousreply 10205/01/2013

I agree R102, Meredith's family should have their attention on Rudy. I feel bad for her family, but it seems that they never acknowledge the fact there was no DNA evidence linking Amanda to the crime scene.

by Anonymousreply 10305/01/2013

Kercher's family are really way out of line. The evidence does not exist to put Knox or Sollecito at the crime scene, nor was there any reason for them to kill her.

On the other hand, the guy with the history of breaking into buildings and committing robberies, whose DNA was all over Kercher, broke into the apartment to rob it, found Kercher there, raped and killed her.

That they have a hard time believing this and seek to extract revenge from two innocent people speaks a lot about them.

Their daughter is dead and Knox and Sollecito are alive. Get over it. Shit happens and life is unfair. That doesn't mean you get to take out your rage on people who didn't do anything wrong other than smile and remain alive. I'll bet their daughter would be horrified to see them behaving this way towards people who had nothing to do with her death.

by Anonymousreply 10405/01/2013

Thank you for being the voice of reason R97-100. That was a good recap.

by Anonymousreply 10505/01/2013

Court appointed Italian forensic experts said that DNA on the knife blade was inconclusive. They also said that all evidence collected by police was contaminated because it was not collected in accordance with international protocol. Police left a bra clasp on the floor for weeks and it had been mysteriously transported from one end of the apartment to the other when finally collected

by Anonymousreply 10605/01/2013

Consider as you read this what is your own possible explanation for each of the following:

the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom;

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 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;

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);

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

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;

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

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;

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 accusation of a completely innocent man by Amanda Knox;

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

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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;

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

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;

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;

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.

by Anonymousreply 10705/01/2013

Sollecito visited Knox in Seattle.

If they actually did turn on each other as noted in R108, why would he do that and why would she allow it?

by Anonymousreply 11005/01/2013

I agree, great post R108, she's definitely guilty.

by Anonymousreply 11105/01/2013

She shows no remorse for the woman that was murdered. I saw the interview. She was cold to the bone. Why? Who knows....

by Anonymousreply 11205/01/2013

Guede's story is he had sex with Meredith and then Knox and Sollecito killed her while he was in the bathroom, taking care to prevent leaving evidence, right?

by Anonymousreply 11405/01/2013

Was she sleeping with the black men she accused? I don't think she's a slut btw, I want to get to the bottom of this. I do think she's part of the murder, if not did it herself.

by Anonymousreply 11505/01/2013

She is not innocent. Period.

by Anonymousreply 11605/01/2013

I mean the idea of motive is the key. If Knox & Sollecito did it, I doubt it was some ritual sex play. There would have been a compelling motive, such as Kircher was threatening to accuse Raffaelle of rape, or Amanda of dealing drugs or something. There would have been a very concrete motive.

by Anonymousreply 11705/01/2013

Sex with multiple people? Stop the presses! She must be guilty.

Clearly many people cling to the long-discredited items listed in the post by R108. And they probably always will, no matter what the final verdict is. Such is the power of the tabloid scandal sheets.

by Anonymousreply 11805/01/2013

It was clearly said last night that the bloody footprint matched the actual thief/murderer not the boyfriend. And there was zero Amanda DNA at the murder site (although tons of blood and DNA from the actual murderer).

by Anonymousreply 12005/01/2013

R120, so you believe that Amanda Knox is innocent? Come on! I don't say that she must have killed that poor girl but i believe that her wicked character made her an accomplice. She is also such a liar!

by Anonymousreply 12105/01/2013

Well, R119, why don't you prove that they've been discredited. Go line by line and provide credible ( remember that means nothing that can be found in 'tabloid scandal sheets') evidence that everything listed at R108 has been discredited. It should be easy for you since you appear to be a member of Amanda's legal team or were there the night of the murder or maybe even the ghost of Meridith Kercher.

by Anonymousreply 12205/01/2013

I think she may have a touch of the Aspergers or something. I think she's innnocent, but she's trying very hard to "show" the appropriate emotion for the situation- and failing.

by Anonymousreply 12305/01/2013

She comes across as off in the sense of affect. Similar to a person with mild autism.

by Anonymousreply 12405/01/2013

[quote]She also basicall admitted she was a slut. She slept with 4 guys back in her hometown and 3 guys in italy. She spoke about that so openly. I slept with 7 different guys! Whew! lol I was sitting there like wow did she just admit to having sex with multiple people?

DL has gotten so lately that I don't know if this was written by a judgmental queen or a judgmental frau who accidentally googled her way here.

by Anonymousreply 12505/01/2013

The problem R121, is that you were only being told her side of the story.

And here's another big question. How did she get a job working for the guy she accused of the murder? Surely, jobs are not that plentiful in a town filled with foreign students. How did Amanda luck into this opportunity?

by Anonymousreply 12705/01/2013

I tend to agree with r124 and also suspect that she may be somewhere on the autistic spectrum (high functioning), which triggers all these thoughtful SHE MUST BE A SOCIOPATH LOOK AT HER DEAD EYES ON TEH TV OH SHES A KILLER WHERE IS HER REMORSE arguments.

by Anonymousreply 12805/01/2013

he knife was a common kitchen knife. The knife was retrieved from the kitchen of Raffaele Sollecito. The knife was chosen from the drawer because it looked clean. No other knives were taken to be tested. Was this an extraordinary case of good luck by the detectives or was this knife not the murder weapon after all?

Italian forensic police expert Patrizia Stefanoni performed the DNA testing on the knife. When the knife was tested, Amanda's DNA was found on the handle. This was expected because Amanda often prepared meals at Raffaele's apartment. She used the knife for cooking.

A sample was taken from the knife blade and was tested for blood. The result was negative. There was no blood on the knife. This needs to be repeated,

THERE WAS NO BLOOD ON THE KNIFE.

What was left of the sample from the blade was tested for DNA.. The results were negative.There was no DNA on the blade. This is when all guidelines for testing DNA were thrown out the window. Stefanoni used a very new, unproven technique called low copy number DNA profiling.

Patrizia Stefanoni had neither the proper equipment nor the proper laboratory to perform low copy number DNA profiling, but she did it anyway. There are only a few such laboratories in the world. Her own lab was not even certified to perform ordinary DNA profiling at the time these tests were performed. Stefanoni performed tests that do not conform to any standard, anywhere.

Even with the low copy number method, Stefanoni was still not getting the desired result. The tests kept coming back "too low." She took even more drastic measures. The machine parameters were over-ridden. The machine parameters were pushed far past the level of reliability finally producing the result she needed. Keep in mind, the test was done in a lab using large amounts of Meredith's DNA. No negative controls were used. The alleged match to Meredith’s DNA is completely unreliable because the result was so infinitesimally small (less than 100 picograms, with a picogram being a trillionth of a gram, or 0.000000000001 gram). The procedures used to get the result Stefanoni needed were deeply flawed. The DNA found on the knife came from the lab. The knife had no DNA from Meredith Kercher on the blade when it arrived for testing. The DNA sample was so small that only one test could be performed. No additional testing will ever be available.

Keep in mind,

No blood was on the blade.

No DNA was on the blade.

The knife doesn't match most of the wounds on Meredith.

The knife doesn't match the bloody imprint left on the bed.

No other knives were taken from Raffaele's apartment. No control tests were done. A spoon from Raffaele's kitchen could have provided the same result.

by Anonymousreply 12905/01/2013

Here you go, R123. The contents of the Hellmann-Zanetti Report (see link below).

To those speculating that Amanda seems a little "off," I've met many people here in Seattle who are chilly in manner and more than a little inappropriate in their behavior. I'm not originally from Seattle, but I've lived here for 9 years and completed my BA and Masters at UW.

These people aren't evil, "wicked," or uncaring. They're just into their own thing and entirely unaware of the effect they have on others. There's little attention paid to "comme il faut" here. Also, perhaps you've heard of the famous Seattle Freeze?

by Anonymousreply 13005/01/2013

[quote]And here's another big question. How did she get a job working for the guy she accused of the murder? Surely, jobs are not that plentiful in a town filled with foreign students. How did Amanda luck into this opportunity?[/quote]

We were given to understand that Lumumba's bar was much frequented by students, and that the job in question--standing outside handing out fliers and drumming up customers--was usually given to pretty girls. It was a low-paying job with high turnover, as you can imagine.

by Anonymousreply 13105/01/2013

R131, if that report roundly discredited everything posted in R108, the Italian Supreme Court wouldn't have ordered a retrial, dear. You don't seem to understand that there can been different expert accounts of a factual scenario. And clearly, the Supreme Court ain't buying your report. Again you were either there or the ghost of Meredith Kercher.

by Anonymousreply 13205/01/2013

the people here who believe AK is guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt - while using terms like "bitch" - even though there is NO DNA EVIDENCE AT ALL, WHICH IS A STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY IF SHE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT - are really really fucking disturbing.

Makes me wonder what grief and trouble you cause people in your life when you're off the computer. If you're *ever* off the computer that is.

by Anonymousreply 13305/01/2013

R133, the Italian Supreme Court is trying to save face. Each case is entitled to three levels of trial, so they have chosen to take the Knox/Sollecitto case all the way to the third level.

Yet I believe that the final verdict will be closer to the careful weighing of evidence that characterized the Hellman decision than the deeply flawed misjudgment that came from the absurdities of the Massei/Mignini witchhunt.

by Anonymousreply 13405/01/2013

She didn't do it but she figured Rudy did as he was her drug connection, right?

by Anonymousreply 13505/01/2013

Why did she need a job. Her family is apparently rich.

by Anonymousreply 13705/01/2013

That's a lot of bullshit, but what they did was culture the DNA to make it grow from a tiny amount. That is routinely done in American labs. And how would Meredith's DNA ever be found unless there was cross-contamination in the lab, or deliberate tampering? Whether or not she was "certified" to perform the study, to say that the result was a fake you are alleging incompetence that would doom any lab at any technology level. And that's a stretch. There is no reason why Meredith's DNA would ever be on Raffaello's knife if she were never at that apartment and Raffaello didn't know her. Now Amanda did, so if she touched meredith and then touched the knife blade, something could have transferred in minute quantity, but again this it not some bizarre rocket science, creating a medium for expanding a DNA sample. It's done in the USA all the fucking time.

by Anonymousreply 13805/01/2013

Also the Italian justice system guilt standard is not the same as the American "beyond a reasonable doubt."

by Anonymousreply 13905/01/2013

They had convincing evidence the "break-in" was staged.

by Anonymousreply 14005/01/2013

Dad is now Corporate Controller of Restaurants Unlimited according to linkedin 3d one down on this page.

Macy's shitcanned him btw.

by Anonymousreply 14205/01/2013

Restaurants Unlimited

by Anonymousreply 14305/01/2013

What difference does it make what her father does or that Macy's fired him.

Why would an American jury convict a poor black girl in the US of the same crime without solid DNA evidence? I don't anyone would care so much about how many guys she slept with.

I still don't see a motive for three people who barely knew each other to gather together to commit this crime. I don't think satanic sex ritual really flies as a motive.

by Anonymousreply 14405/01/2013

I had the same feelings, R124 and R125.

I feel like she's innocent but just did not express herself in a conventional way right after the murder. That said, something does seem 'off' about her.

I wish a trained body language expert could have given their 2 cents on her interview demeanor. Her nonverbal reactions seemed strange at times. I did wonder if she had a low level of autism.

There were strange delays in her answers and I wonder if she had trouble processing the questions. And yet at other times she seemed very focused and plugged in.

I remember reading an article by a body language expert which said that people tend to blink rapidly when they are stressed and they will not make eye contact when they are uncomfortable with what they are saying. Additionally, when people lie they tend to look off to the left. (I noticed Amanda kept looking off the right constantly throughout the interview.)

She was sending out a lot of noticeable non-verbal cues throughout the interview.

by Anonymousreply 14505/02/2013

She knodded her head yes after she said no to killing mk.

by Anonymousreply 14605/02/2013

As weird as she is I don't think she did it.

by Anonymousreply 14705/02/2013

An innocent person has no reason to lie.

Knox told police that she had met up with Patrick at a neighborhood basketball court the evening of the murder, and that they had gone together to the cottage around 9:00 p.m. She said that Patrick and Meredith had soon retired to Meredith's bedroom, and that she later had heard Meredith screaming.

Why make up such an elaborate story she knew to be a lie?

An innocent person has no reason to lie.

by Anonymousreply 14805/02/2013

Patrick or Rudy r149?

by Anonymousreply 14905/02/2013

R149, as hard as it is to understand, innocent people do make false confessions when they are put under enough pressure. Police doing interrogations around the world know how to put on the pressure and lie to get what they want.

For example, look at the confessions of the Central Park Five.

by Anonymousreply 15005/02/2013

[quote]innocent people do make false confessions

A confession is not accusing an innocent third party.

Forced confessions are common, yes. And yet none of Amanda's statements claim she committed the crime. Some "forced confession."

Why lie and accuse someone else she knew to be innocent?

by Anonymousreply 15105/02/2013

So it seems that those convinced of Knox's guilt, at least on this thread, are uniquely irrational if not utterly stupid. You have body language analysis. You have the "look at those eyes" arguments. Them comes the "she wasn't involved, but somehow knows all about what happened" (wtf! How does that even make sense?). And now someone is suspicious because she had a job? Is this suspicion inspired by an episode of Scooby Doo?

by Anonymousreply 15205/02/2013

Did Diane do Amanda?

by Anonymousreply 15305/02/2013

She didn't implicate Lumumba out of the blue. She was coerced into naming him after being interrogated for hours, smacked on the head, and being repeatedly told that she was misremembering and that he was involved and she just needed to admit it.

by Anonymousreply 15405/02/2013

Wasn't she sued/charged/whatever for lying about being smacked on the head and admitted it never happened?

by Anonymousreply 15505/02/2013

[quote]the Italian public who get to see accurate media coverage

Is this coverage that comes from the Berlusconi-dominated and no doubt impartial Italian media?

by Anonymousreply 15705/02/2013

How do you no what I no, R159?

Do you get your information the Sun or the Daily Mail? You probably cried buckets when Woopert pulled the plug on NoTW.

by Anonymousreply 15905/02/2013

Trolldar yourself, bunny.

[quote]And it's "Know", dear. That alone proves you don't KNOW much.

[quote] The Italians and Meredith's family no much more about this case than you do.

by Anonymousreply 16205/02/2013

Interesting statement analysis

by Anonymousreply 16305/02/2013

R161 is so irrational and crazy.

A poor, black American girl would NEVER have been charged in a similar case in the US without a motive and strong DNA evidence. No one would care that she had boyfriends, took drugs, acted nutty or anything else.

The guy whose DNA was found in the victim would have been found guilty. The end. There would be no reason to get other people involved.

by Anonymousreply 16405/02/2013

On the other hand, I love r161's reply. Foxy Knoxy lied throughout this ordeal, except when she actually admitted to the murder. Oh,I'm sorry, she only admitted to it because she was so tired-I've done the same thing many times-"I'm exhausted, yeah ill confess to murder and spend the rest of my life in prison now can I grab a nap?"

by Anonymousreply 16505/02/2013

R165, I don't agree with you because I do think a poor, Black, Latino or even White ( because it's the poor who makeup the overwhelming majority of prison inmates and that's not a coincidence) person would already be eating their last meal if they were accused of this crime.

Look at all of the innocent people being released from prison after 20 years who were convicted with very little evidence. They're all poor people who were railroaded. But my primary point was/is that you have ( subconscious) preconceived notions that lead you to believe that a girl like Amanda couldn't possibly commit such a heinous crime. Therefore, you dismiss any evidence to the contrary. You identify with her in a way that you wouldn't if she were Black/Latino, poor,less attractive ( I don't really see it), and most definitely if she were a man.

by Anonymousreply 16605/02/2013

[quote]How do her parents not sleep at night with at least one eye open?

I always wonder the same thing regarding the three guys in the Robert Wone murder case in DC. The judge didn't convict them because she felt that one of the three may be innocent. They're still together. Does one of them need to keep one eye open?

by Anonymousreply 16705/02/2013

Looks like she tried to pin it on Stefano before she tried to pin it on her boss.

by Anonymousreply 16805/02/2013

The British view

by Anonymousreply 16905/02/2013

What about the lesbian rape scenario in Amanda Knox's short story, where the victim's sensations are described in lurid detail?

by Anonymousreply 17005/02/2013

Guilty or innocent

by Anonymousreply 17105/02/2013

There were 8 people living in that house but only Meredith home that night. Who would know that other than 1) a burglar casing the joint; and 2) a resident who hadn't left like Amanda. Rudy wouldn't have known that the four guys downstairs weren't there.

by Anonymousreply 17205/02/2013

Breaking down the lies in the Knox email.

by Anonymousreply 17305/02/2013

Also it turns out Rudy Guede is not quite the ne'er do well Knoxites say.

by Anonymousreply 17405/02/2013

Wasn't lesbian rape in the Knox story, it was male on female rape. Sorry.

by Anonymousreply 17505/02/2013

let's talk Rudy

by Anonymousreply 17605/02/2013

Amanda quit posting on the Datalounge!!

by Anonymousreply 17705/02/2013

She didn't want to read what those nassssty people said.

by Anonymousreply 17805/03/2013

R131 is correct and has definitely experienced what people are like in the PNW! Very well put, R131!

The people who talk about "Asperger's" and "Autism" make me sick. Are these two words going to be trotted out every time some is rude, socially inept, or a psychopath?

She is either rude, socially cluess/inept, lack in empathy, especially in the PNW way described at R131

OR

She is a psycopath and somehow involved

It's hard to tell which one.

by Anonymousreply 17905/03/2013

People with Aspergers are socially cluess and inept practically by definition and, as a result, come across as rude. Not saying that Knox is an Aspie.

by Anonymousreply 18005/03/2013

Wow, r108 is full of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, inventions and downright lies. This is the kind of bullshit that has just been circulated and recirculated, most of which has been fully debunked. None is particularly scientific (especially the DNA) and there is no real proof (certainly not the DNA or the footprint). R108 also doesn’t provide any links or proof for many of his claims (e.g. the supposed diary material, drug use, violent porn watching).

The other thing those who want to push hate against Amanda Knox always avoid doing is providing an actual reconstruction of their imagined scenario. I would be very interested in r108 actually taking us, step-by-step, through what he thinks happened that night and the next morning, trying to fit his theory of the killing into a specific timeframe and specific actions. Like, please reconstruct for us how these two drugged-out kids managed to become bosom buddies with Rudy Guede, whom they didn’t know (and Rafaelle and Amanda themselves had only met about eight days before), then be so stoned out of their heads that they managed to come up with a grand plan to kill Meredith in a satanic sex ritual (this is in fact the prosecution’s claim), which involved, within the space of a few hours, taking a knife from Rafaelle’s apartment, staging a break-in, opening the door for Rudy, getting drugged out, jumping on Meredith, having a satanic sex ritual, killing her, going to buy lots of cleaning fluids the next morning near Rafaelle’s apartment, cleaning Meredith’s room of Amanda and Rafaelle’s DNA but still cunningly keeping Rudy’s there, going back to Rafaelle’s, going back to Amanda’s, switching computers and mobiles on at certain times, dumping Meredith’s mobiles, making a series of calls, etc. All this being done at the time the junky saw them going in and out.

Go on, do it, r107, reconstruct the timeline and stages of the murder. Otherwise, you have no credibility.

Another thing that must be remembered in Italy is the power of local prosecutors, who are able to manipulate things to a very great degree.

R173, why wouldn’t Rudy know the guys downstairs weren’t there? It was the guys whom he knew and hung out with. Also, it was a holiday period when most people, especially students, return home.

“the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom;” The DNA evidence is highly controversial and all DNA’. The independent review at the appeal demolished the original DNA report. Sollecito’s DNA is NOT on the bra clasp.

“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;” False. It doesn’t fit Sollecito and more likely fits Guede. DNA experts from the US have also demolished the prosecution’s so-called DNA “evidence”.

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;

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); Again, the DNA evidence is highly disputable.

“the correlation of where Meredith’s phones were found to the location of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guedes’s flats;” Thrown by someone running out the back of the house in Perugia where Meredith was killed. Totally ridiculous “evidence”.

by Anonymousreply 18105/03/2013

“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;” Aha! Well, here is another example of the prosecution’s excellent evidence-gathering skills – they accidentally wiped off all the material on the hard drives of Rafalle’s, Amanda’s and Meredith’s computers! By the way, the claim that Raffaele’s computer showed he was not using it at the time he said is another lie. “Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s in five different places just feet from Meredith’s body;” The DNA evidence would not be admissible in any US court or the court of any other western country.

“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;” False. There is no such computer evidence – and the computer evidence cannot be checked as the prosecution accidentally wiped off all the material on the hard drives.

“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 was a heroin addict who was laughed out of court at the appeal and much of whose “evidence” was wrong (e.g. the times of the buses he claims he saw) The second “witness” only appeared a year after the murder had happened, after he had already been interviewed three times during which times he had never remembered seeing Amanda or Rafaelle. Moreover, his assistant, also in the shop that day, did not remember seeing them.

“the accusation of a completely innocent man by Amanda Knox;” Erm, she was told to name this man by the police. She was interrogated, illegally, for hours, overnight, no food or water, no lawyer, in a language she barely knew. No recording of the interviews. She has been fully exonerated for this, even by the Court of Cassation. And, the reason that they accused Patrick Lumumba and tried to get Amanda to say she had staged the murder with him was because they had illegally taken her mobile phone from her, despite her not being a suspect at the time and having no lawyer with her, seen a text she wrote to him saying “see you later” and came to the grand conclusion that she was saying “see you later at the ritual murder we have planned for Meredith Kercher”. Fantastic prosecution!

“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” More made-up stuff.

“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;” More made-up stuff. Where’s the evidence for the animal porn claim?

“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;” So?

“the extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox;” An absolute lie.

“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;” More complete lies.

“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;” More lies. You mean, Rafaelle kept a diary in which he noted all his drug use?

by Anonymousreply 18205/03/2013

“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;” Not a fact and not true.

“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;” What? Where did you read this? So what if they decided to give up dope. Are you saying dope makes you a frenzied killer? In any case, how do we supposedly know what’s in their prison diaries? You mean, the prison authorities take their personal journals and leak them to the media?

“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;” Link please? “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;” Well, considering a number of people had already walked in and out of the room and the room-mate, Filomena Romanelli, had herself already disturbed the clothes, it would be difficult to say where the glass, or even the clothes, had originally been. It was certainly all over the place by the time the crime scene people came along. One funny thing, though – they didn’t bother doing any kind of fingerprint or other forensic testing of the glass shards or the window-frame or the window sills on the inside and outside walls. Also, considering Filomena was a trainee lawyer she’d feel herself obliged to say what the all-powerful prosecutor’s office told her to say.

“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;” Another lie.

“the bizarre behaviour of both of them for days after the crime;” What’s that? Being confused? Young and perhaps a bit stupid? How would you react in that situation? Much of the tabloid comment at the time was about how “weird” Amanda was to go and buy underwear at such a time – well, she wasn’t allowed in her house, she had no underwear!

“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;” Another lie.

“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;” Oh yeah, the room in which, after such a thorough clean-up they had managed to remove all traces of Amanda’s and Rafaelle’s DNA but Rudy’s was all over the place And, despite being so thorough, they forgot the lamp! Hey, I’ve lent my room-mates things and they’ve kept them in their rooms sometimes!

“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.”

What changed stories? What inexplicable reaction to the knife? Which girl’s cottage? Did this stuff come out of your mushy little head?

by Anonymousreply 18305/03/2013

Notice all the guilters rely on junk science like psychological profiles, email analysis, body language experts, my brother's a cop and he thinks she's guilty, etc. Actual scientists who were impartial and appointed by the court, took a long and thorough analysis of the real evidence. The knife and bra clasp were utterly discredited. This is not to mention that the prosecutors key eyewitness was destroyed on the witness stand. You have murder weapon, no motive, no witness and no DNA. What you are left with is a prosecutor with a whacky theory that this was a Halloween ritual killing. The same prosecutor who concocted a Satanic conspiracy theory to explain murders in Florence.

by Anonymousreply 18405/03/2013

Yes, and the result of all their work is a new trial R185, not an acquittal.

by Anonymousreply 18505/03/2013

Fact: Amanda's initial timeline conflicts with everyone else's story and the police evidence. She does not have an alibi for the time of the murder.

by Anonymousreply 18605/03/2013

was she in the house or not when it happened?

by Anonymousreply 18705/03/2013

Amanda and R. Sollecito claimed they could not remember where they were all night. Amanda said she was at Sollecitos all night until he told the police she had gone home at some point in the evening. Then she had to change her story.

* If she knew that she had purposefully accused an innocent man (because the police made her) why didn't she say so publicly the guy didn't have to spend weeks in jail?

When Sollectio was told that merediths dna was found on a kitchen knife from his kitchen, he said he accidentally pricked her while she was over at his house cooking dinner. Why wouldn't he have said "I have no idea she has never been in my house?"

I think Raffy, Rudy and Mandy were looking to steal money from Merediths room to buy some drugs. Meredith startled them and it escalated from there. The wounds she had suggest more than 1 attacker, I haven't seen that theory debunked.

by Anonymousreply 18805/03/2013

How much pot had they been smoking? Had they also been drinking? It wouldn't be surprising to have a sketchy timeline or missing bits if they were stoned and/or drunk.

by Anonymousreply 18905/03/2013

Which has to do solely with Italy's corrupt system R186. Do you know that one half of Italy's verdicts are eventually tossed on appeal, but it can take a decade worth of trials to achieve this?

The initial judge proved to be corrupt by allowing none of the scientific analysis to begin with. We can either believe corrupt judges with no scientific background or we can listen to impartial scientists who could not have been more clear in their assessment.

by Anonymousreply 19005/03/2013

Knox and Sollecito were stoned and having sex at his place and no credible witnesses place them anywhere else. They turned their phones off because they were having sex. Sollecito used his computer that night and it would have cleared him, but the police "accidentally" destroyed the hard drive during the investigation.

by Anonymousreply 19105/03/2013

Her DNA is on the murder weapon. She's guilty.

by Anonymousreply 19205/03/2013

Knox is for white people what OJ was for black people.

by Anonymousreply 19305/03/2013

The only thing the "murder weapon" cut was potatoes.

by Anonymousreply 19405/03/2013

Knox's mother Edda Mellas made a comment "Amanda doesn't know how to lie" GUFFAW!!!

One thing I'd like to know is why would the prosecutors, the courts and the Italian govt. want to keep , clothe and feed this foreigner for 25 years when they could have just deported her.

The state dept has investigated the Knox case and made not attempt to intervene. That is telling.

Sollecito's father is a wealthy doctor, his sister is in the Italian police .....the proscutor is corrupt but not corrupt enough to be bought off??

by Anonymousreply 19505/03/2013

I might get shit for this but here goes. Amanda and Raff were pot smokers. If they burned a lot, every day or a few times a week, that would most definitely have an affect on how she responded to the events. Any of you ever been a burnout or regular smoker of pot? I have and I can imagine that confronted with something like a murder that I am a suspect for I might act a lot of ways that might seem suspicious. My general grasp of things might not be solid considering that my body is full of THC. Just think about the people you know that get high on anything regularly and ask yourself, "How would they do in this situation?"

The other thing is if it were me I know I would have to control my temper. I'm a hot head and I would be pissed at having to go through what she went through if I were innocent. I would be pissed and scared out of my mind and depressed. Again I might act a lot of ways that seem suspect so I would have to suck in anything but calmness and I would have to control a lot of what I might want to say that might be impulsive and hostile or desperate or defeated.

One thing she could be lying about is whether or not she went back to the house that night. I think it is possible that she might have gone back to grab something or smoke another joint or make a phone call whatever. I know when I was that age sometimes I'd go out for a while to a bar or whatever then stop home to grab something out the fridge or grab another shirt etc. then leave again. Usually I would be high or have had a few drinks. I might not notice that anything was wrong because I was a little fucked up. I could walk in and out and not really see anything except what I needed to see to do what I needed to do or get what I came in for. But she could never admit to going back and she could never admit to going back and being fucked up because then what ever she said would not be credible.

I think she went back to the house and didn't notice a fucking thing cause she was high. I think she is lying about that. I don't think she killed her friend.

by Anonymousreply 19605/03/2013

the brother and sister of the victim (Meredith) are 100 hundred percent convinced that Amanda and Rafaelle were involved.

by Anonymousreply 19705/03/2013

Did they ever say what convinces them, R198?

by Anonymousreply 19805/03/2013

i don't recall, but i do give a LOT of weight to it. obviously, you can't convict on that, but i beleive people have animal instincts, particularly where loved ones are concerned. I strongly believe this. I think they can look into another person's eyes and feel the evil and just KNOW. that's just my opinion.

by Anonymousreply 19905/03/2013

here's an interview with meredith's sister...

by Anonymousreply 20005/03/2013

Okay but what would be the motive r200? Why would she/they kill Meredith? Pot is not one of those drugs that make people go nuts and slaughter other people. It just doesn't make any sense.

by Anonymousreply 20105/03/2013

she and meredith were not friends at the end. they were enemies. for a psycho like amanda, the household conflict would be enough to trigger serious rage. if you read up, you'll discover that knox and meredith clashed often.

by Anonymousreply 20205/03/2013

another good article

by Anonymousreply 20305/03/2013

She doesn't sound like she's convinced Amnda is guilty in tat article.

by Anonymousreply 20405/03/2013

r200: I agree

by Anonymousreply 20505/03/2013

oh, she is. i've read other things. she is being diplomatic.

by Anonymousreply 20605/03/2013

I think she's guilty as well. Can't believe how many morons believe she is innocent. Now she will profit too.

by Anonymousreply 20705/03/2013

LOL at the people who have posted that Amanda and Meredith didn't get along, like this is somehow valid evidence that Amanda was involved in the murder. First of all, you're completely talking out of your asses regarding something you know absolutely nothing about. AT BEST, you're regurgitating flimsy gossip from people who definitely weren't living with Amanda and Meredith, and thus have no real idea what was truly going on between the two girls - and that's without even taking into account the possibility that these people might be exaggerating, or even outright making things up for a myriad of potential personal reasons. At any rate, YOU certainly weren't there, which means you definitely cannot speak with any kind of authority about what the girls' relationship was actually like. Second, even if it is true that they didn't get along famously - Who the fuck cares? They didn't even know each other before they were randomly assigned as roommates to one another. Sometimes roommates aren't best friends. Sometimes they even get on each other's nerves a lot, and the relationship between them might be chilly. Failing to be besties with your roommate, or even bitching to your friends behind their back about what a shitty roommate they are, does not in any way constitute a legitimate motive to fucking MURDER them.

But oh yeah, that's right - You're all being perfectly reasonable in using this ridiculous, unprovable, possibly completely made up "evidence" in order to justify her supposed guilt, because you've looked into her eyes through the TV screen and you just KNOW that she did it.

by Anonymousreply 20805/03/2013

THANK YOU, R182 / R183 / R184. Everything R108 posted is tabloid garbage which has already been debunked - but hey, I guess for some people, it's simply SO much more satisfying to continue to cling to juicy gossip than it is to objectively examine the actual facts using all the available information.

Here's the one thing I truly can't get over regarding this case: EVERYONE SHOULD BE OUTRAGED that the one man who UNDOUBTEDLY raped and murdered Meredith Kercher got all of 16 fucking years, and on top of that, will be eligible for work release NEXT fucking year. In addition to the fact that Rudy Guede has not been brought to true justice for the heinous crimes he committed, there's also the pesky little fact that when he gets out - which will happen all too soon - it's extremely likely that he will continue to pose a serious threat to innocent people. Why waste so much time and energy trying to implicate two people who don't have a single shred of credible evidence against them, while in the mean time not saying a word about the fact the one person who FUCKING DID IT, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is going to be walking around free in no time? You know, since this is truly about justice for Meredith and all.

by Anonymousreply 20905/03/2013

Why do you think she and Rafaelle are guilty, r208? As you explain your beliefs, please give a reconstruction and timeline of events. Otherwise, your opinion of their guilt will carry no weight.

It's funny how the Knox hounders always seem to ignore the prosecution's actual scenario - that this was a ritual satanic sex killing. Do you believe it was a ritual satanic sex killing, r208?

The "morons" you are referring to who believe Knox and Sollecito to be innocent have probably done more reading around the issue, spent more time trying to understand the "evidence" being presented and have got a better understanding of the politics and personalities at play in the Italian criminal justice system than the baying mobs who scream out "she's guilty, I can see it in her eyes!"

R196, for example, doesn't know much about the problems of the Italian prosecutorial system. The corruption is not about money, but about power and prestige. Mignini feels his power and prestige have gone through the roof, thanks to this trial.

Sollecito's sister was thrown out of the carabinieri because of the accusations against her brother. Which reminds me of another weird point about the Italian criminal justice system - why are there two police forces, the civilian police and the carabinieri?

R211, it's not quite a retrial, it's an appeal of the appeal. It's the way the Italian criminal justice system (dys)functions - a case can go on for years, if not decades, and through various stages before any final conclusion is reached. In this particular case, the Italian criminal justice system locked up two people for four years (for two of which years they had not been sentenced for anything), who it then released as innocent and who it may, in a few years, decide are guilty again. In the meantime, one of those individuals has left the country and may never return. So, if you believe they were innocent then you would be outraged that they were locked up at all. If you believe that they are guilty then you should be outraged at the Italian criminal justice system for releasing them.

In your opinion, "Foxy the murderous, psychopath needs to be locked away for life", but, thanks to the Italian criminal justice system, she will never be locked up again (she is certainly not going to be extradited by the US). You should be outraged that the Italian criminal justice system has let Foxy Knoxy go free!

by Anonymousreply 21105/04/2013

So why Sollecito's computer online starting 5 a.m. when Amanda said they were asleep? Why did Amanda say she was in the house and heard Meredith scream but her original position was that she wasn't in the house?

by Anonymousreply 21205/04/2013

Blah blah blah

She has no alibi, the victim didn't like, she accused innocents, she staged a phoney break-in, if the police had looked between her house and Raffaello's they doubtless would have found her gloves.

by Anonymousreply 21305/04/2013

r214 obviously knows nothing about the case. Typical.

by Anonymousreply 21405/04/2013

[quote]She lied about her alibi & when her boyfriend didn't back her up she fingered the wrong black guy.

Didn't happen.

by Anonymousreply 21505/04/2013

Still waiting for anything other than psycho babble or lies to be put forward by the guilters. Once again it is impossible for 2 people to erase all of their invisible DNA in a bloody murder room after stabbing someone and beating them to death, but yet leave the third party's all over the room. Even if one were clairvoyant it would still be impossible.

by Anonymousreply 21605/04/2013

Yet once AGAIN there is a retrial. A retrial for a reason. Some dope keeps yapping about Italy's corrupt system not understanding that this is the same (supposed) corrupt system that set this lying, murderous, psychopath free. R196 makes some excellent points. In this thread you have to wade through a bunch of deranged, unread novels ( whose author talks to herself) to get to the sensible posts.

by Anonymousreply 21705/04/2013

So, since there are so many "lies" and "misunderstandings" regarding "poor Amanda," could someone post the trial transcripts? That is the only way to get the truth. Since everything I posted was a "lie." let's see what was admitted in court as the truth.

by Anonymousreply 21805/04/2013

Interesting blog comments on Knox.

by Anonymousreply 21905/04/2013

More junk science (body language analysis). Still no DNA, murder weapon, motive or eyewitness.

by Anonymousreply 22005/04/2013

Same back at you. If they are as corrupt as you say, they would have faked her DNA. They were trying to get at the truth and her conduct identified her to them, the same way that Tamerlan and Dzokhar did.

by Anonymousreply 22105/04/2013

You're the one with the junk science in fixating on Rudy Guede. She was stabbed 43 times by different size objects. It's not the work of one crazed rapist.

by Anonymousreply 22205/04/2013

It's the work of someone who knew her and was very angry.

by Anonymousreply 22305/04/2013

No, not a crazed rapist, R223. As R224 says, it was someone Meredith knew, someone she had met in the company of Giacomo and the other boys living downstairs. Someone with whom she had hung out downstairs on a couple of occasions, socializing and smoking a little hash.

Now that man (Rudy) was very angry indeed at being interrupted in mid-burglary by someone who would recognize him.

See link below for a reconstruction of how he overpowered her (warning: graphic).

by Anonymousreply 22405/04/2013

Confession by pronoun

Read it and judge for yourself.

by Anonymousreply 22505/04/2013

Ron Hendry's full of shit. Amanda is bigger than Rudy and stronger.

by Anonymousreply 22605/05/2013

He also forgets that Rudy had sex with Meredith, which clearly invalidates the burglar story.

by Anonymousreply 22705/05/2013

R228, you did not read carefully or completely. The undressing and the sexual assault did not happen until the knife assault was over and Meridith was dying/dead. That is clear from the knife damage to Meredith's clothing and the blood deposit on the material. It is the blood evidence that guides the reconstruction of events.

[quote]Next Rudy pulls her pants and underwear off. At this point, she has completely lost consciousness,

Rudy grabs the pillow and places it under Meredith's hips. In lifting up Meredith’s hips to slide the pillow under her, he steps on the pillow several times. His bloody fingerprint will later be found on the pillow along with his shoe prints.

Blood is now beginning to run down beside the nightstand and also toward the wardrobe closet. Rudy finds a couple of towels, perhaps making a trip to the bathroom. He uses them to wipe away blood. He then performs some form of sexual assault that leaves his epithelial DNA, but no semen, inside her body.[/quote]

by Anonymousreply 22805/05/2013

Nonsense, R227. Amanda Knox is very slim and far from tall. Even weedy Sollecito towered over her at 5'10". Rudy Guede was about 6' with a sporty build from all that basketball.

by Anonymousreply 22905/05/2013

Sorry, all that was supposed to be in quotes:

Next Rudy pulls her pants and underwear off. At this point, she has completely lost consciousness,

[quote]Rudy grabs the pillow and places it under Meredith's hips. In lifting up Meredith’s hips to slide the pillow under her, he steps on the pillow several times. His bloody fingerprint will later be found on the pillow along with his shoe prints.

[quote]Blood is now beginning to run down beside the nightstand and also toward the wardrobe closet. Rudy finds a couple of towels, perhaps making a trip to the bathroom. He uses them to wipe away blood. He then performs some form of sexual assault that leaves his epithelial DNA, but no semen, inside her body.

by Anonymousreply 23005/05/2013

[quote]I don't think she murdered anyone since her DNA was not at the scene and all of that.

I agree, but she certainly gives the impression that she's avoiding telling the truth. She also has weird statements about her involvement - "I was lost in the middle of this storm." But maybe she just reads too many Jane Austen novels.

by Anonymousreply 23205/05/2013

A lot of witch burners here!!

by Anonymousreply 23305/05/2013

We found a witch! May we burn her?

How do you know she's a witch?

by Anonymousreply 23405/05/2013

R235, if she survives being burned at the stake, she's a witch.

If she dies, she is innocent.

Or rather, "she was innocent."

by Anonymousreply 23505/05/2013

[quote]but she certainly gives the impression that she's avoiding telling the truth

she sure does

by Anonymousreply 23605/05/2013

Impression is in the eye of the beholder.

Condemning someone because of an impression is insane.

by Anonymousreply 23705/05/2013

What about Meredith's ex-boyfriend who was conveniently not there. If he knew Rudy could he have hired him to do it?

by Anonymousreply 23805/05/2013

DNA DNA they keep chanting. In Italy DNA testing was not routine. They didn't find much DNA from R.G. either so it's not probable they went over that room with a fine tooth comb.

by Anonymousreply 23905/05/2013

DNA they keep chanting?

Um, no. We simple rquest you to provide indisputable physical evidence that AK had anything to do with it.

The only chanting here is from the witch burners.

by Anonymousreply 24005/05/2013

Here's the full new Diane Sawyer interview from last week.

by Anonymousreply 24105/06/2013

[quote]Ron Hendry's full of shit. Amanda is bigger than Rudy and stronger.

Bwah! I really hope the person who wrote this meant it as a joke. You witch burners really don't give one single shit about reality, do you?

by Anonymousreply 24205/06/2013

Where can I view this online?

by Anonymousreply 24305/06/2013

So I watched the interview, thanks r242, and I'm not sure I understand all the suspicion. She seems to try to control herself, but I see no obvious signs of lying. Her story makes sense. I can even easily imagine that she thought she was friendly enough with Meredith, while the latter was annoyed by her and told people so behind her back. Her not wanting to refer to herself as "good people", likely afraid it wouldn't seem humble and enrage her haters, hardly makes her look like a psycho killer. People are really reaching to find signs of her guilt.

Another thing confusing me about this thread: Why are people saying she is clearly more attractive than the victim? Meredith apparently was beautiful. Is this racism, because I don't get why someone seeing the pictures in that clip would come to the conclusion she was not attractive.

by Anonymousreply 24405/07/2013

R242 provided a link, R244

by Anonymousreply 24505/07/2013

I think she was/is just immature, clueless, lacking in empathy, emotionally tone deaf. This can make one look like a suspicious character.

by Anonymousreply 24605/07/2013

Notice no court trial transcripts have been produced.

by Anonymousreply 24705/07/2013

Repetition doesn't change the facts....Amanda

by Anonymousreply 24805/07/2013

So, the defense teams Conti-Vechotti report provided in the link up thread did concur with the prosecutions forensics report that the DNA profile on a large knife with a black handle taken from Rafealle's house(item 36) belonged to Amanda Marie Knox.

So I guess they are they saying the knife doesn't match to any of Meredith's wounds? Merediths DNA was on the blade, despite never being present in Raffealle's house. Rafealle said he pricked her while cooking when questioned about it. Why not say "I don't know she was never in my house??"

What about the mixed blood with both meredith and Amamandas DNA in the bathroom?

Whats weird is that Amanda said she took a shower (after seeing blood drops on the faucet (she assumed it was her infected ear bleeding) when she came home (meredith is dead in her room) and then forgetting her towel she scooted around the house on the bloody bath mat (she assumed it was menstrual blood um, ok)and that is why her footprint is on the bathmat.

Also, when the first batch of police arrived, Amanda and Raffealle said they came over to get a mop to go back to Raffaelle's to clean up up after a leaky pipe in his house. I guess they had the mop out with a bucket.

Raffaelle told the police Amanda was NOT with him all night, she left. Amanda said she couldn't remember and she felt she couldn't discern between a dream and reality. ( A lot of killers say this about their crime i.e.it was dream like, they can't remember, it was someone else taking over their body)

by Anonymousreply 24905/07/2013

"So, the defense teams Conti-Vechotti report provided in the link up thread did concur with the prosecutions forensics report that the DNA profile on a large knife with a black handle taken from Rafealle's house(item 36) belonged to Amanda Marie Knox."

Yes, Amanda's DNA was reported to be on the handle of the knife. She and Raffaelle had been dating for 7 days and had been spending almost all their time together, including cooking meals.

"So I guess they are they saying the knife doesn't match to any of Meredith's wounds? Merediths DNA was on the blade, despite never being present in Raffealle's house. Rafealle said he pricked her while cooking when questioned about it. Why not say "I don't know she was never in my house??""

You are right, the knife doesn't match any of Meredith's wounds, so any DNA found on it is irrelevant. Nevertheless, during interrogation Raffaelle was pressured to account for how Meredith's DNA might have come to be on the blade. In fact, either Amanda or Raffaele could have picked up Meredith's DNA on their hands from a doorknob or similar surface in the girls' apartment. Amanda washed up after meals, handling dirty cutlery and dishes and touching other things that would have Meredith's DNA, like kitchen taps or bathroom taps. Anyone who spent time in the girls' cottage and then handled the knife in Raffaele's apartment could have transferred Meredith's DNA to the blade.

"What about the mixed blood with both meredith and Amamandas DNA in the bathroom?"

There was no evidence of mixed blood. There was evidence of mixed DNA, about half of which came from the bathroom, where you would expect plenty of DNA from both roommates who shared the bathroom.

"Whats weird is that Amanda said she took a shower (after seeing blood drops on the faucet (she assumed it was her infected ear bleeding) when she came home (meredith is dead in her room) and then forgetting her towel she scooted around the house on the bloody bath mat (she assumed it was menstrual blood um, ok)and that is why her footprint is on the bathmat."

She came home to take a shower and put on clean clothes for her trip to Gubbio, so that's what she did. As for the pink (bloody water) marks on the bathmat, it's not particularly unusual to see traces of blood in a bathroom shared by young, fertile women.

"Also, when the first batch of police arrived, Amanda and Raffealle said they came over to get a mop to go back to Raffaelle's to clean up up after a leaky pipe in his house. I guess they had the mop out with a bucket."

They were returning the mop after using it to clean up the water from the broken pipe under Raffaelle's kitchen sink. There was no evidence found on the mop of anything but water. The prosecution presented no evidence about the mop at all. See link below.

"Raffaelle told the police Amanda was NOT with him all night, she left. Amanda said she couldn't remember and she felt she couldn't discern between a dream and reality. ( A lot of killers say this about their crime i.e.it was dream like, they can't remember, it was someone else taking over their body)"

Then Raffaelle took this back, saying he realized there was no way Amanda could have let herself out without his using his key. Amanda's statement was the result of her interrogators saying that her memories couldn't possibly be true--that she was wrong and had blocked out what they KNEW had happened. This a common device in interrogations to get a confession: we know what happened, you better tell us what we know happened or it will be worse for you. For example, see the techniques used to coerce false confessions from the Central Park Five.

by Anonymousreply 25005/07/2013

I meant to say: "without using his key"

by Anonymousreply 25105/07/2013

Both of them have told more than a pack of lies, nothing they say has an ounce of credibility.

by Anonymousreply 25205/07/2013

OK, if that's the way you feel, then set aside their statements and look at the evidence alone.

There was no evidence of their DNA in the room where Meredith was killed, nor any other physical traces of their presence such as footprints or fingerprints. Nor is there any evidence of a clean-up.

On the other hand, Rudy Guede's DNA is on Meredith, inside Meredith, on Meredith's purse, and his handprints/footprints are there in Meredith's blood; for example, on the pillow placed under her hips. All evidence points to a lone killer in this case.

by Anonymousreply 25305/07/2013

Knox's favorite books -

by Anonymousreply 25405/07/2013

R254, you're assuming Italian police are as experienced at DNA collection as American. They are not. YOu can't have it both ways. Rudy can't be the "only killer" if other DNA samples implicating Amanda (such as on the Raffaele's knife) are "suspect."

If we just assume that they didn't know how to do a proper DNA screen, then it all looks a lot different, doesn't it? Amanda's lies take on more weight.

by Anonymousreply 25505/07/2013

kind of bizarre that her DNA was on the BLade, wasn't it, while other DNA from the suspects was on the handle...

by Anonymousreply 25605/07/2013

who "touches" blood in a sink in this day and age? no one.

by Anonymousreply 25705/07/2013

Amanda said touched the blood on the bathroom faucet. You can read her affidavits she wrote to her attorneys at link:

This is letter #1

Letter # 2 is when she mentions touching the blood I'll post in next

by Anonymousreply 25805/07/2013

Letter # 2

by Anonymousreply 25905/07/2013

[quote]kind of bizarre that her DNA was on the BLade, wasn't it, while other DNA from the suspects was on the handle...

It wasn't. That was debunked.

by Anonymousreply 26005/07/2013

Did he really say he pricked Meredith with the knife? was that true or not?

by Anonymousreply 26105/07/2013

it's not particularly unusual to see traces of blood in a bathroom shared by young, fertile women. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

r251, you must be an ignorant male. I lived 4 years in a 4-story dorm full of "young, fertile women," and never saw menstrual blood dripped anywhere.

by Anonymousreply 26205/07/2013

Yes,R262 he said that. but of course the police put the words in his mouth.

by Anonymousreply 26305/07/2013

It wasn't "debunked"; the Knox defenders insist the lab sample was contaminated.

by Anonymousreply 26405/08/2013

Italians express grief a lot differently than Americans.

by Anonymousreply 26505/08/2013

I thought she was innocent until I read about her reading habits at R255. Two reading chairs? Who needs two? And how dare she be reading books and sitting in chairs? Meredith can't sit in a chair, can she? Well? Now I am convinced Amanda is guilty as sin!!!! Burn her!!!!

by Anonymousreply 26605/09/2013
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.