Amanda Knox

[BendydickCuminsnatch]

Anyone watched this on Netflix? I'm only on the intro and already she creeps me out! I feel incredibly bad for her if she is innocent but my god she doesn't really do herself any favours - appears to be acting the whole time and completely not genuine!

I read an report in Marie Claire years ago about the case - I think it was while she was in prison, I was convinced she was innocent then. There was so many issues with evidence.
I watched most of this and my opinion hasn't changed.
She's definitely odd, she definitely behaved atypically straight after the murder and her subsequent arrest, but that doesn't make her a murderer - in my opinion anyway.
The British reporter was HIDEOUS. What an awful gutter press arse.

Also, don't you think it is really weird that someone would break in and use the toilet and then not flush it leaving the evidence there?

The whole things so confusing and because both sides seem to have evidence that indicates they were or weren't involved it's very confusing.

I read these last night -

m.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/499ex9/did_amanda_knox_kill_meredith_kercher/

themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

Yeah Nick pisa was it the reporter. I thought he was bloody awful. A total vulture..Laughing and smiling throughout that documentary. Disgusting human. Showed absolutely no empathy for anyone.

Oh and another thing, what the hell were they playing at telling her she was hiv positive. That was shocking.

What was the theory behind the murder if she was guilty? They glossed over that a bit in the doc and I haven't seen/read anything else.

Remember Christopher Jefferies? A bit weird, so loads of people utterly convinced he was guilty. He was weird though not particularly unlikeable. Whereas Amanda Knox just really isn't that likeable is she, so that, along with mistrust of the Italian justice system has probably meant it's been easy for observers to imagine she must be guilty.

I haven't watched the programme but have always believed they were guilty - those articles posted above give pretty strong reasons to suspect them. The courts still insist it couldn't have been rudy alone.

I always thought she was innocent. Then my sister, (who is a barrister) told me that her class studied the case during her degree and she showed me this website

themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence

It's a very interesting read and it certainly made me doubt her innocence.

Bloody I work with many solicitors now mostly litigation, PI etc... The vast majority on a night out when this came up (don't ask me why we mentioned her case!) said they thought she was guilty in some way but it was bodged with evidence being contaminated.

I suppose the Kercher family must take some small consolation that both she Solliciete served some small time in jail.

Dame they basically believe she was an accomplice along with the other 2 - she held her down or something.

There's quite a bit of evidence to suggest/hint at that even in a short period of their "friendship" that Meredith considered Amanda to have low morals and that this was the ultimate reason why there was a sex attack and then murder with Amanda's assistance.

So much missing time etc too the computer stuff etc.

It looks as if now, she gives a compelling victim stance but really looking at her I've always thought she was guilty in some way.

But what do they think happened? The men attacked her while Amanda held her down?

I really do need to read up on this a bit more,I don't even know the basics!

BB- that link is really interesting, thank you. Throws a whole new light on things!

isnt the point of the overturned conviction that websites such as linked to above are full of a load of old crap non evidence eg the luminol 'blood' results?

I'm struggling to understand what the actual FACTS of the case are.

The website above lists all this damning forensic evidence and says she was only interviewed for 2 hours with an interpreter and said suspicious things.

But I've read other articles saying the forensics are poorly done/ contaminated/ inconclusive, she was interviewed for 12 hours straight with no interpreter and didn't know what she was saying.

Which sources are factual and unbiased?

I always thought she was innocent.

I don't find her odd or unlikable but people find me odd and unlikable so that's probably why -- and also why I feel bad for her because people take what they perceive to be weird and use it to justify thinking a person is capable of violence. Being strange doesn't mean you're a bad/dangerous person.

I always thought she was innocent.

I don't find her odd or unlikable but people find me odd and unlikable so that's probably why -- and also why I feel bad for her because people take what they perceive to be weird and use it to justify thinking a person is capable of violence. Being strange doesn't mean you're a bad/dangerous person.

I thought she was innocent and was being blamed for being young and liking sex.
I then read the evidence documentation over a series of fevered days whilst holed up in hospital - at a barrister friend's exhortation

I came away from those documents convinced of her guilt.
From there on in I felt there was a very definite change in trying to make the case about corruption in Italy and poor "foxy" Knoxy. I felt what an utter shame Meredith was lost in this bumbling bluffing sideshow

Interesting thread. And thanks for the links.

I don't have Netflix so won't be watching.

But perusing the links I clicked on another link on one of them and came up with this very interesting one. Seems the film is made by Amanda Knox's PR team.

truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Also, going through all these links and those already posted on this thread it seems Amanda Knox is anything but innocent.

Poor Meredith. Rest in Peace.

iflyaway it's a Knox team campaign to prove what exactly? Methinks she doth protest too much.

Interesting that Guede set to appeal and also Garden yes that cupboard?! Didn't know all that until I read last night

I doubt they'll be convicted again but I hope future employers etc of Knox see through her pathetic innocent claim.

I think a couple of things could be possible.

It could of just been Guede alone.

Although soliciete then came out saying he'd lied for knox and she wasn't there at his. (Internet useage proves he hadn't used it either though so where was he...With her?) So did she meet Guede at hers for sex and then merideth (who had already shown disapproval for knox' lack of morals regarding sex) caught them, and they then assaulted and murdered her to stop her telling soliciete. or was he there too and she caught all three of them and it just went from there?

Or did Guede do it then go do the toilet and the other two cane home discovered the scene and fled and then he fled without flushing the toilet.

Regardless of whether they were or werent a part of what happened that night. They are lying about something.

It could of just been Guede alone.

If you read the - frankly gruesome - details there's no way he would have been the sole perpetrator. She had barely no signs of inflicted self-defence wounds (to her arms for instance).

Judge Massei described Meredith's defensive wounds as "almost non-existent," referring to three small nicks to her palm and finger, and noted this was a "serious and inexplicable disproportion" compared against the "impressive number, distribution, and diversity of the injuries to the face and neck of Meredith."[11] The lack of defensive wounds strongly indicates that Meredith was restrained throughout the attack until she was unable to respond. The attack was drawn out and in scenarios like this the victim always has multiple major wounds to their hands from attempting to block the weapon; it is an instinct she was unable to express even while multiple, careful cuts were being made to her neck, which she couldn't flinch from (supported by the bruises to her face and head). Combining the restraint bruises to her arms and elbows, and a cutting pattern indicating a gradual escalation of violence with two knife profiles, the evidence is very strong if not conclusive that the attack was the work of two or more people.

themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Multiple_Attackers

Not saying it's necessarily them though. Rudy Guede already had a criminal career going..

There was a very interesting scratch on Knox's neck...

so many things don't add up, the cupboard, and yes it's taken that Guede was already a criminal but why the lies in Knox/Solliciete's case especially re them framing the bar man. they were both quite happy for him to go to jail as an innocent man instead of them!

The murderofmeredithkercher website is, unsurprisingly, a pro-guilty website as far as AK/RS are concerned. For each one of them, you'll find a pro-innocent one run by AK's team.

If anyone is interested (and prepared to check very carefully the sources (for the reasons above) have a read about Mignini (prosecutor) and Mario Spezi (pro-AK journalist) The old saying 6 of one and half a dozen of the other springs to mind.

RG went to jail on a so-called "rito abbreviato", basically coughing for the crime in order to get a shorter sentence. So a lot of evidence was not brought to the trial. He is now appealing (not sure if officially or just through his lawyers saying stuff on TV) on the basis of his conviction being for "murder together with person or persons unknown". His argument is that if those people are not Ak/RS, then the investigators either need to get looking for them, or overturn his conviction as well.

The buying cleaning fluids apparently never happened btw, the shop owner only came forward a year later and when their apartments were seized, no receipts were found.

It's interesting, IMO, that RS had the most famous and notorious defence lawyer in the land, the same woman who defended Berlusconi himself. Also interesting is that on the day of the final verdict, RS was apprehended crossing the border into Switerland (IIRC) with his new girlfriend. They were going on a "day trip" and of course he intended to come back into Italy the same day. This, despite him being present at almost every sitting of the trial prior to the verdict day.

I went from thinking they were definitely guilty, to definitely innocent, but very badly advised. And, I repeat, despite him having the most expensive lawyer in the land. It's still a case which is discussed over and over, on the web, and on Italian TV.

If anyone wants to do any proper reading though, a quick look through google pages shows the first 3 pages of hits are universally either guilty or innocent blogs from the respective camps. Dressed up as hard evidence and stating their own points of view as scientific fact. Pile'o'shite the lot of it I reckon.

If you do a search on MN for past threads on the case, there are some very detailed ones, some MNers (frankly) went a bit batshit in their pro-AK defence. Lots of useful documents were linked to though. It was all quite fascinating.