8.5 million viewers tuned in to watch Diane Sawyer’s interview with Amanda Knox. Knox was accused of murdering her roommate, Meredith Kercher in Umbria, Italy in 2007. She spent 1400 days in jail before her case was overturned.

Her case and behavior have been shrouded in mystery. Followers of the trial have wondered:

Did she really kill Meredith Kercher?

Is she hiding information about the murder?

Does she know more than she is willing to reveal?

Her interview with Diane Sawyer brought to light some new issues and her body language and nonverbal cues might have given us more information than what she actually said.

Since I was only able to watch Knox’s interview and was not able to baseline her, below I will point out a few of the red flags from the interview where I believe Sawyer could have dug a little deeper as her body language did not match her verbal answers.

Here are a few interesting body language clues from Knox’s interview with Diane Sawyer:

1. MATCH: Slow Blink Rate

Throughout the interview Amanda Knox had a noticeably slow blink rate, which is a good sign that she was not lying. Deception and high nerves can both cause a faster blink rate, so her slow blink rate was a good sign that her body language matched her statement of innocence.

2. MATCH: Contempt

Amanda Knox Contempt

Another positive sign that Knox’s words matched her body language was when Diane Sawyer read out the nicknames the media had given to Knox, such as “she-devil with an angel face.” Knox listened to the names and then said, “I haven’t heard those,” while showing a microexpression of contempt–a one-sided mouth raise. This facial expression of hatred is in congruence with her verbal statement of being wrongly accused. See a full guide to microexpressions here.

3. MISMATCH: Nods

A big red flag and mismatched body language was during one of Diane Sawyer’s most important series of questions. Here is how they went:

First, Sawyer asked Knox, “Did you kill Meredith Kercher?” Knox says “No,” very directly, with eye contact, no odd facial tics and, most importantly, a side to side head shake–the nonverbal sign of “no.” This negative head shake matches her negative statement and the absence of facial leaks is also devoid of deception.

Second, Sawyer asks, “Were you there that night?” Knox’s verbal answer is the same, “No.” Yet, her nonverbal behavior at this question is different. She says “No” then flashes a microexpression of surprise and nods her head up and down–the position of “yes.” Here her nonverbal does not match her words. There are a number of reasons why she could have shown that surprise and head nod. Occasionally people raise their eyebrows as a verbal punctuator or exclamation point. Again, not a sure sign of lying, but a definite red flag in my book.

Amanda Knox Surprised

4. MISMATCH: Swallow

Another red flag came directly following Sawyer’s question about Knox’s whereabouts that evening. Sawyer asked, “Do you know anything else you have not told police, that you have not said in this book?” First, it takes Knox a beat longer to answer this question than previous questions–never a good sign. Then she deeply swallows showing intense nerves. This question would not make an honest person nervous. So, why was this question so hard for her to answer? Another red flag.

5. MATCH: Posture

For most of the interview Knox’s posture and the way she held her hands was quite relaxed. This matches her stance of innocence and that she has nothing to hide. The only time she showed extreme nerves was during the intense swallow following Sawyer’s question about withholding information.

6. MISMATCH: Lack of Indignation and Sadness

Several times during the interview Knox verbally expressed sadness and outrage, but did not show these microexpressions. For example, Knox says that “it could very well have been me,” when referring to what could have happened had she had been home. Yet during her comments she shows absolutely no sadness or anger. When she makes the strong statement: “My friend had been murdered and it could just have easily been me,” Her face is completely devoid of emotion. She goes on and sighs, but still no facial emotion of this traumatic event. This lack of emotion does not match her strong words. Again, we don’t know if this is because she is numb from the events or because she has rehearsed these lines so she no longer shows emotion, but it is still a red flag.

7. Spot the Lie

Knox’s behavior over the past 4 years has been radically different. After all, we have watched her grow from a college girl into a woman all on the news and in court. She notes in the interview that she wishes she could have handled it all in a more mature way. Our biggest challenge is to differentiate immaturity from guilt.

Learn how to spot more lies with our ultimate guide:

How to Spot a Lie

About Vanessa Van Edwards

Vanessa Van Edwards is a national best selling author & founder at Science of People. Her groundbreaking book, Captivate: The Science of Succeeding with People has been translated into more than 16 languages. As a recovering awkward person, Vanessa helps millions find their inner charisma. She regularly leads innovative corporate workshops and helps thousands of individual professionals in her online program People School. Vanessa works with entrepreneurs, growing businesses, and trillion dollar companies; and has been featured on CNN, BBC, CBS, Fast Company, Inc., Entrepreneur Magazine, USA Today, the Today Show and many more.

358 replies on “Do you think Amanda Knox was lying?”

  1. Karla

    Cases like these make me really sad. I can’t imagine her nerves while the whole world watches you. Very Sad.

  2. Marc

    The mismatch on the nod also stood out to me in this interview. I definitely think she isn’t sharing everything she knows. I think she was there.

    If anything, I find Sollecito’s interviews to be even more disturbing than hers. His general countenance reminds me a bit of Ted Bundy’s interviews before he was found guity. There’s a kind of nonchalance and “poor me” demeanor, without the accompanying consideration for the victim. It’s all about how this has affected him and his studies and projects. I find it unnerving.

  3. thebigM

    Absolute nonsense. It depresses me that people still ”use their instinct” to condemn someone as guilty because they don’t act/respond in a certain way.
    The complete lack of any DNA evidence implicating Knox at the murder scene and the lack of any convincing motive should be enough for anyone with an ounce of intelligence to realise she is innocent!

  4. Amelia1981Jones

    The most obvious thing about your analysis of Amanda Knox is that you are a fraud. You don’t have any formal qualifications that warrant your opinion being of any greater value than the average person in the street, and yet you proclaim to be some kind of “behavioural expert”. Your promotion (of yourself) might be okay if you were honest enough to state that all your fluff (because that’s all it is) is purely based on your opinion, but you use words such as “scientific” etc…, which is complete garbage. If there was anything remotely scientific in your insights, then the court system would have used you by now as an expert witness, and you have never worked in this area.

    You are not taking into account any of the things that Amanda Knox has been through. She might swallow after a statement, because she is aware of the number of people watching who already believe she is a killer. It may have nothing to do with her guilt or innocence. There are many outside factors (other than guilt or innocence) in the interview with Sawyer that caused Amanda’s face to move the way it did. This is a young woman who has been through a kind of hell that very few of us can even begin to imagine, and you don’t have any expertise to state how this might effect someone’s “facial gestures”.

    On the subject of facial movement and gestures, your own face comes across as one that is designed for nothing other than shameless self promotion. As it barely moves, I would wager that it is also full of way too much botox. I don’t trust anything about you, and would not rely on your “expertise” or value your insights on anything. It’s obvious that you are too lazy (or not smart enough) to do the real hard yards – the actual years and years of undergraduate and post graduate study – that it takes to really be any kind of expert in areas such as these.

  5. Drishti Narang

    Holy crap- people are really riddled by this. It is sad that this sort of occurrence is what triggers such social discourse but surprising to see the extent to which people want to analyze and understand.

  6. Lauren Freeman

    This is so hard for me to determine. I hate that with lie detection, you really can’t always have an answer because there are so many factors that influence their words and body language. Especially with the body language matches and mismatches in this case.. it’s impossible for me. I think once I get more experience and if I were to watch everything about this case I could easily come to my own conclusion but for now I don’t want to make a judgement call

  7. Jacob E Mack

    Amanda Knox is 100% innocent and in my research on no verbal gestures, micro expressions and all para linguistics, Knox seems consistent with the range of behaviors when people are telling the truth and stressed.

  8. Emiel de Jonge

    if people could actually put aside their prejudice and naive believes that have been planted by the media. There is so little true physical evidence that points to AK it is highly unlikely that she killed MK. Because besides the little evidence there is people only fixate on the human bias of the evidence which is proven to be the least reliable evidence. Because it is scientifically proven that memories change over time due to overlapping other memories and the changing surroundings. So taking out all the human bias in the evidence. Only the DNA evidence, blood spatter analyses and the footprints(which was proven to not blood, because it is almost impossible to clean blood out of stone or wood) all of this points in really small amounts towards AK. Her behavior can change easily over time. PTSD is shown to blunt emotions to the point that it seems psychotic. AK shows sadness micro expressions when she talks about her involvement and she does seem like she is holding back a lot of emotion, when she is talking about the death of MK. she seems to tell the truth about not killing her. And yes the moment she talks answers the question if she was there in the house, she seems to be lying. But this also says nothing because the question did not specifically point towards the moment of the murder. Also the moment she answers the question “Do you know anything else you have not told police, that you have not said in this book?” with the pause and the swallowing means extreme nervousness, which is logically because when she answers that with anything other than no would imply a lie which is really damaging to her goal. So again nothing substantial that points to her being a sociopathic/psychotic manipulator or a murderer, which are all names given by the most unreliable source in the world, the media. She shows no signs of being a genius, or extreme intelligence, which are requirements for a sociopathic/psychotic manipulator. I am in no way emotionally involved in this matter and i don’t pick any side. I must say AK shows some suspicious behavior but definitely not enough for someone who committed such a grueling crime. For all the prejudice and naive finger pointing done by most of the people makes me lose confidence in humanity. It is truly sad that so many people judge AK as if they knew her or anything substantial about her situation. It proves the prejudice nature of humanity.

  9. victor v

    The Kershners need to just accept that Guidi murdered their daughter and that the rest of the concoction was concocted by the Italian police and the MSM. Then picked up by a bunch of truly nasty people.

  10. Mimi

    Dna also disappears on dead body very quickly. If Amandas and Raffaele’s dna was on it, decomposion, heat, moist in air, etc destroys it in hours. Also dna to STAY on victim is not even very likely. Dna isn’t some kind of miraculous thing that you would leave it on everything you have ever touched. Remember why in Amanda’s bed room wasn’t her dna more than in very few spots. That’s the reason why.We don’t constantly spread our dna in everywhere we go or touch.

  11. Mimi

    you have a mistaken idea of what crime scene investigation actually is. They don’t search every single inch of entire room/body/clothes/furniture of a murder victim for dna, they don’t take 20 000 000 samples from her, inch by inch, untill there is no one single spot left in a room or house where that killer’s dna could be.Get it? they took about 80 samples, only from visible blood, or semen, or sweat, or on her body, a few samples really, Everywhere around those little spots are BILLION little spots they did NOT take any samples. WHY? Because it would be impossible! And in those BILLION little spots I’M SURE ARE A LOT MORE A DNA SCATTERED AROUND. fROM PEOPLE WHO HAVE EVER LIVED IN THAT HOUSE since it was built-not to mention Amanda Knox.DNA from 60 years time, probably. Lack of evidence isn’t PROVE of anything/guilt.

  12. Thomas Jones

    She seems to talk as if she has schizoaffectve disorder. I see guilt and regret written all over her face, she show no true emotion, no empathy.She enjoys the limelight and is a terrible liar, because I can see her shifty eyes.But was it her boyfriend or her that killed Meredith? There is a pact between them…..and she knows exactly who killed Meredith! All 3 killed her! How is she not in prison for at least 30 years?

    1. thebigM

      She is not in prison because there is absolutely no evidence or motive for her to commit the murder.

    1. Danielle McRae

      Ahh, thank you for the catch! I’ve updated the article to reflect the change.

      Danielle | Science of People Team

  13. Based on the few comments I’ve scanned here, this is about desperate hate. None of it is based on anything remotely having to do with any sort of fact. Carry on haters. Defamation much???

    1. jack

      I agree. This case literally seems unprecedented in the amount of international attention it received and the amount of animosity it generated. I don’t think it was true for all, but I think that anti-Americanism and in particular a general dislike for Bush at the time (2007) was the root cause of it.
      Coupled with the image of the “wild American girl” who was sexually promiscuous at least in their minds and you just got a tsunami of negative intense interest in Europe.
      Its mostly over. The current lawsuits are a side-show, most likely with the purpose of preventing Amanda from returning to Italy. But amazingly after all that nonsense, the haters failed.

      1. Jannie

        Agreed, in the sense that this is over for Knox and Sollecito given the final verdict by Cassation. Even if the motivations report turns out to be inadequate in its reasoning, I can’t see the courts overturning this.

        I don’t however agree that this is about “hate” so much as finding the truth.

        In regards to the article, it makes some interesting observations, if argumentative points which I would hesitate to say proves anything.

        And while it’s possible that anti-Americanism and anti-Bush sentiments were cause for the Italian people (the police and jurors) to view Knox in a biased manner, it doesn’t exactly explain why they’ve dragged in Sollecito as well. You also have the fact they imprisoned Rudy Guede as well, another Italian as well.

        My question to you would be, is there a provable way in which the negative coverage affected the case adversely against Knox?

      2. jack

        The biasness against Amanda was a central point of the case, the proof of it was the tremendous amount of attention given to her compared to Raffaele and the actual murderer Guede by the Italian and British media.

        Raffaele had to be “dragged in” because they were using each other as an alibi. It would have been impossible to construct a case against Amanda without also constructing one against Raffaele even if it was just to be an accessory. The fact that one did not accuse the other throughout the entire process, that neither “broke” speaks to their character and their innocence.

        Guede was arrested because the evidence returned (when they finally got around to testing the evidence) overwhelmingly led to him! They would have had a murderer on the loose. The key difference between Guede and the other two was that they allowed the evidence to lead them to Guede. With Amanda and Raf, they first formed a theory of guilt and then tried to make the evidence fit their theory. It didn’t.

        The forging together of these three people two of whom knew each other not at all, and the other two only acquaintances, into some sort of wild sex game gone wrong, showed what a farce of a case it was. It was the most absurd of theories that belonged in a bad fictional novel, not a prosecutor’s mouth.

      3. Jannie

        Granted, there was much more coverage of Knox than Sollecito and Guede, but it doesn’t automatically follow that the media coverage itself is proof of biasness against Knox. Just so you don’t think I’m being unreasonable, I think it’s extremely difficult to say definitively whether the media coverage has an effect on the case one way or the other because you could have both sides claim the same thing – that the media coverage adversely affected their case. So rather than actual proof of biasness for or against her, I personally think it’s fairer to say that the media coverage could be construed as either a positive or negative, and hence seems to be argumentative and doesn’t help either case.

        Although it’s completely possible that Knox & Sollecito not accusing each other directly is a signal of their innocence, again I would have to say it doesn’t automatically follow that this is the certain behavior of someone innocent as you could also say that their cases are so entwined with each other that accusing the other could also have resulted in indirectly admitting their own guilt.

        We also have to consider that, strangely, Sollecito withdrew his alibi for Knox late last year saying he couldn’t account for Knox’s whereabouts.

        Guede’s guilt appears certain. The police let the evidence lead them to Guede as you say, but why wouldn’t they afford the same treatment to Knox & Sollecito. What specific, provable actions have the police committed that shows that they tried to make the evidence fit their pre-determined theory?

        One last point. The court documents say that Rude Guede was known to the flat that Knox was staying in, as well as Knox herself, so it doesn’t seem correct to say that two of the three didn’t know each other at all. Were the court documents wrong on this point?

      4. jack

        Guede had never met Raffaele. Guede had only been introduced to Amanda. He had stayed at the downstairs flat with the boys not the girls. There is not a single court testimony that Amanda and Guede had ever had a conversation. No-one ever testified that they saw Amanda and Guede “together” in any capacity other than being introduced. There is no evidence or testimony that they were friends or lovers or even associates. There is not a single cell-phone record of any call between the two. And just for grins, there is a basketball court full of teens that play near my house. I have no idea who they are and couldn’t name a one of them.

        It is beyond reasonable to say that the tabloid coverage in Italy would adversely affect the prosecution’s case. The coverage in Italy was demonstrably anti-Amanda. And that is where the case was covered. Juries in Italy are not sequestered so it does matter.

        The evidence of the bias by the police is very evident. However, there is nothing “automatic” or absolute. That doesn’t exist in the real world, only movies. I would be happy to list it for you, but if you are going to claim that it has to be absolute proof, then all I can say was that there was more proof of that than there was of Amandas guilt.

      5. Jannie

        I see your point regarding the Guede and the other two defendants and you have correctly pointed out there is very little linking the two (Guede and Knox) together and on the face of it seems unlikely that these people came together to murder Meredith an unlikely event in itself. But it has been established that Knox & Guede did in fact know each other. You can argue all you want that it’s unlikely these people committed this crime together (and I would have to agree with you on this point), but it can’t be completely ruled out either especially in the face of all the physical evidence showing Knox and Sollecito’s presence in the house at the time of the murder and Knox’s self damning testimonies.

        Quoting Sollecito directly, he says “She gave me an alibi. I had nothing to do with it”.

        Also speaking through his lawyer, a statement that furthers this view:

        “The defense intends to emphasize that Sollecito has always shown himself to be extraneous to the crime, and has always said that that night he did not move from his own home,” reads the document. “However, he did not rule out that Knox could have gone out.” In a sense, I agree with you entirely in that there’s no question that this tactic is designed to help HIMSELF only. However, it is a question of how his alibi change from “Knox was with me” to “I can’t rule out that Knox could have gone out” doesn’t hurt Knox. How doesn’t this hurt Knox’s case? She goes from having an alibi in Rafaelle to not. He may not have accused her directly, but it
        certainly hasn’t helped her either.

        And yes, there is a quote from Sollecito saying he “always believed, and still believe, that Amanda Marie Knox is innocent.”, but these are just words.

        It’s a bit like Vladmir Putin continually saying that all Russia wants is peace with the annexed region of the Ukraine, and yet continually funding the rebels in that region with resources. His words say one thing, but his actions say another.

        Which is why some people say actions speak louder than words, which Sollecito’s definitely do in this case.

        As I said before, it’s extremely difficult to say whether a jury has or hasn’t been affected by media coverage or not and it’s my understanding that Italian juries don’t normally get sequestered. The only way I can think of that could determine if jurors have been affected by the media coverage is if tabloid “facts” show up in court documents when they were never mentioned during court proceedings, but this doesn’t appear to have happened here.

        If the evidence of bias by the police is as evident as you say it is, then there should be at least a degree of certainty around their actions. Just as there needs to be a degree of certainty when making accusations against Knox & Sollecito, the same needs to be afforded to the Italian Police as well. If they’ve railroaded them by lying or manufacturing evidence against them, then this of course is a crime for which there needs to be the same benefit of the doubt applied.

        By the way, you mentioned the other day that John Peddubriwny has been “trashing Amanda” and “talking directly to some of her friends and family. Not shills. Not groupies. But people that know and love her”. I assume that means you know her, because how else could you assert this if you didn’t know her. It doesn’t matter to me whether you’re Knox or one of her sisters or her mother, or anyone else close to her because I don’t think it would undermine your view on her innocence, I just think it would be cool if you were honest enough to admit that you do know Knox personally (or not).

      6. jack

        Amanda and Guede “knew” each other but more in the sense that we “know” each other online. We have a documented conversation. That is more than they have. Nothing can be ruled out but that is not how trials are done.
        I know of no physical evidence that places Amanda in the house at the time of the murder. It was her house. Her DNA is all over her house and DNA cannot be dated. More importantly there is no DNA of her in the room of the murder. The physical evidence against Raffaele is highly disputed by multiple independent experts.

        The evidence against the police of a bias or coercion against Amanda is circumstantial. It was never raised so as to bring the police to jail which requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It was raised because its existence causes more than reasonable doubt on the words attributed to Amanda. The existence of coercion is summarized as follows.
        1. The police broke the Italian law by not providing a lawyer. That was a ruling by the ISC. The police know their own law. They knew that they broke it. We have to ask why.
        2. Patrick had alleged in an interview that he was coerced by hits and kicks from the same police on the same morning. He later claimed that he was treated well. However, his lawyer never made the claim of “I was there, he was treated well”. Its because he had no lawyer at the initial interview. And once again that is a violation of Italian law.
        3. Amanda and her Italian room-mates were interviewed earlier than Nov 5th at the station. Amandas earlier interview was recorded. On Nov 5th, no interrogation was recorded. Mignini claimed “budget cuts”. This excuse sounds very suspicious seeing the following.
        4. Patrick Lumumba, Amanda and Raffaels phone were recorded (bugged) from Nov 1 to Nov 5. Their phones were recorded but not the “final interview”. Everything was seemingly recorded except for the critical interview.
        5. The police closed Patrick’s bar for several months after he was cleared of the murder. Patrick was no longer a suspect. His bar was not the scene of the murder. There is no legitimate reason for his bar to be closed for weeks. Unless you refer to #2.
        6. The police testified that Amanda was suspected from the beginning due to the theory of the “staged break-in”. This ties in with #1. A suspect is supposed to have a lawyer when interrogated.
        Raffaeles statement doesn’t “hurt” Amanda because the judges (Nencini and Massei) theory was that they did it together. If he claims “he was with her” that just means that both are convicted. If he claims “she could have gone out” that just means that maybe only her would be convicted. Either way, whether he provided such an alibi or not, the logic used by Massei or Nencini results in her conviction. That’s why it is not ‘throwing her under the bus”.
        The non-sequestration of juries in high-profile cases is a systematic flaw and needs to be addressed by Italy.
        The last statement is that some of the posters know Amanda. And I’ll leave it at that.

    2. guest

      Why do you hate the ever dignified Kercher family? Your comments regarding them and their supporters are far beyond the “faith” you like to make use of when in need. You are the least religious person so many have had the misfortune to come across. Pennies not rolling in yet gutter snipe? Who keeps “threatening” posters for “defamation” for stating their own views? Check on your own reprehensible posts before condemning others. The majority of your own posts include abuse, reviling and sacrilege.

      God Bless You.

  14. CaireannMcGregor

    guede was expecting them to back him up. amandas dna should be all over merediths room, shed been in her room numerous occasions – think about it. they were witnessed purchasing cleaning materials too.

    1. jack

      Are you saying that the lack of Amandas DNA in Meredith’s room is a sign of her guilt? And if she had DNA in Meredith’s room, would you have taken that as a sign of innocence?
      Or is either just mean “guilt”?

  15. Tanley

    She got cleaning supplies and was in the middle of cleaning the crime scene when the first police got there! She took that shower and when they asked how her DNA got I tangled with Merideth she said that there was no towels so she took the bloody rug and was sliding it back and forth till she got to her room! That sounds crazy who would do that naked?

    1. Laramie F.

      Show me a source that makes such claims after 2008. You took bad reporting and mixed it with your own imagination.

      Her DNA was found in her own bathroom as it should have been – but not in the victim’s room where Guede left DNA everywhere. Case closed.

      1. Tanley

        The bottom line is something doesn’t add up! If it wasn’t premeditated why did they turn their phones off? Why the changing stories and how did Merideth DNA get in RS apartment when she was never there? How did his DNA get on her bra strap,and it could not be contamination ,his only other DNA was found on a cigarette ,the room was sealed so it does not matter how many days later they found the bra strap! Also they said they slept in till 10 but at 6 in the morning someone downloaded music for half an hour ? I just have a lot a questions,I always thought she was innocent until I started to read all the details of the case,u have a lot of great points ,but again ,something is off?

      2. Laramie F.

        Everything above is either incorrect or has an easy explanation. For example, the rom wasn’t sealed well and there is video of investigators not changing gloves when handling evidence. How did Sollecito’s DNA end up on the clasp but not the bra itself?

        It’s the prosecution’s stories that don’t add up. 10,000 pages of evidence and they could not link the couple to Rudy Guede with a credible witness. Without that everything else is irrelevant.

      3. CaireannMcGregor

        defence forensics claim transfer from door knob to bra strap by the SOCO but if thats the case – how many people in flat touched door knob – SOCO would have transferred all their dna to Meredith’s bra strap too -.

      4. JustJenna

        Actually five other people’s dna was found on the bra clasp, including investigators.

      5. JustJenna

        The homeless man with the drug problem is not credible because he couldn’t keep straight the night he supposedly saw Amanda and Rafaelle hanging around the crime scene. He’s not credible because the prosecution loves to use him as a witness in trials… And had. Three times. And his drug problem makes his memory untrustworthy. So yeah. He’s not credible. But guess what? Even HE never claimed to see them with Guede. The only person who did that claimed to remember Amanda because she had a gap in her teeth (she doesn’t have one) and to have met her with her uncle in August… Before she ever came to Perugia. So yeah he’s not credible either.
        I ask again… Do you actually know much about this case?

      6. CaireannMcGregor

        Why are you being so defensive? I’m reading stuff and replying, like others, stop being such a pompous condescending arse about it. I read most the police evidence and a couple books a while back..I havent read every single court transcript word for word because I’m not that obsessed with the case.

      7. CaireannMcGregor

        yep exactly defence forensics claim transfer from door knob to bra strap by the SOCO but if thats the case – how many people in flat touched door knob – SOCO would have transferred all their dna to Meredith’s bra strap too -.

      8. CaireannMcGregor

        her dna should be all over Meredith’s room…thered be transference all over that flat. its more suspicious that its none at all in Meredith’s room.

      9. JustJenna

        No it’s not. DNA disappears over a brief period of time, and Amanda had been spending most of her time at her boyfriend house. You can’t selectively clean DNA, it’s impossible. Not saying she wasn’t involved but it’s obvious, she didn’t wield the murder weapon.

      10. CaireannMcGregor

        Hmm dunno bout that.. DNA transfer would be everywhere…hence why cops/socos have to suit up before they start touching things.

        “Last year, researchers estimated that the half-life of DNA — the point at which half the bonds in a DNA molecule backbone would be broken — is 521 years. That means that, under ideal conditions, DNA would last about 6.8 million years, after which all the bonds would be broken. But DNA would not be readable after about 1.5 million years, the researchers said.

        The oldest DNA recorded was found in Greenland ice, and estimated to be between 450,000 and 800,000 years old.”

      11. JustJenna

        Thanks, I learned something. Again, I’m sorry for how I talked to you, it was out of character and it won’t happen again.

      12. Tanley

        I did a lot of research ,and I am 100% sure know she is innocent and the prosecutor is a crazy mofo! By the way he is getting sued now for u truth in the Butcher of Florence case ! He is a sick man!

    2. JustJenna

      I have to admit, I’ve shimmied naked, on a bath mat down the hall to my room, when I forgot a towel. But I’m pretty sure I’d notice a bloody footprint as large as the one left on the mat she used. It’s hard to believe she didn’t see that!

  16. pditty

    danny boy, i think you are right on!! i always believed she had a part in this, maybe not the person who slit her throat but she was there. remember how many times she changed her story, also when she blamed the resteraunt owner for the murder because the cops kept questioning her? how many lies did she tell? many many!!! why would someone who is completely innocent lie so much ? look at the news reports in the first 2 years of the investigation about this. italian courts suck but it just means that she is innocent. why all the lies and changes to her story? that is the question i want to ask her supporters. if you are innocent, you tell the truth right away and your story doesnt keep changing. this reminds me of OJ simpson, or how about that florida mother who was found innocent even though it had been a month since her daughter was missing and she never reported it. she is innocent ? really? amanda was there whether people want to believe it or not and her fiance was also present. what goes around comes around, and one day we will see her true colors. may meredith rest in peace.

  17. hkzombie1

    I’ve been praying for Knox’s true freedom. Yet again in this last interview- particularly when asked about the victim, Meredith- she seemed stunned and struggled for words in a manner that makes me sense she is has something to hide.

  18. Marcus

    Well I guess all you AK haters can finally shut the f up. The high court of Italy overturned the bogus convictions today!

    Amanda Knox will NOT rot in prison as many of you have suggested, she will not be extradited as many of you have suggested. She can, however, finally get on with her life after 8 years of hell. Finally the proper court decision was made for both RS and AK who have been through a nightmare. I’m just sorry the family of MK doesn’t realize the real crime is that the man Rudy Guede who did kill their lovely daughter only got 16 years in prison and could walk the streets in the a few years as he’s up for parole soon. That is the real miscarriage of justice that RG is not in prison for life.

    1. thebigM

      She didn’t clean up the crime scene.
      If she did, how would she be able to clean away all her and Sollicito’s DNA while leaving Guede’s dna, semen and footprints at the murder scene?

  19. FreeAmanda

    I have reviewed the evidence, expert analysis, read the book about the prosecutor, have knowledge of the DNA process and the luminal tests and knowledge as to what should have been at the crime scene if she had been there and it is my firm belief that she is innocent. There is too much circumstantial evidence, too much misconduct by those involved in the interrogation , and the only hard evidence is tied to Rudy Guede.

  20. DoosanBear

    This is very interesting. I’ve read a lot about the Kercher case, and I am convinced Amanda truly is innocent. Being Italian I know how deeply the Italian justice system is messed up, and it wouldn’t surprise me if Amanda went back to jail for a crime she didn’t commit.

  21. vince bingham

    As much crime in The US. And I admit I was in prison 25 years ago. But I have NEVER and it does not even make sense, that a couple was there? What? watching Rudy Guede rape and kill the girl. Just common sense, which most European courts don’t have. I went to court in Denmark and Germany No jury, you must prove your innocence. Most don’t even have bail system.They isolate you from everyone while going to court.

  22. james rae

    Quote. Rudy Guede. ” Amanda wasn’t there “. Then in came the lawyers. Top notch ones – the best in Perugia. Haha.

    1. JustJenna

      I’m not sure what your point is? Forgive me for being obtuse, but are you suggesting that an innocent person wouldn’t hire a top notch lawyer? I don’t know about you, but if I was accused of murder, guilty or not, I’d surely hire the best lawyer I could afford.

      1. james rae

        The question should be who hired these lawyers and how did Rudy contact these lawyers. He didn’t. They were sent. Why? Who sent them?

      2. JustJenna

        Maybe his rich, adoptive family? Also did he really have top notch attorneys? I thought they were court appointed. I could be wrong though as admittedly I know far less about Rudy’s trial than I do Amanda and Rafaelle’s.

      3. james rae

        You are right that it may have been the uber rich patriarch who fostered him. His main lawyer was notable around Perugia. I believe it was a team of 3 lawyers who went to Germany. Rudy got immediate protection of the law. Review how Amanda and Raffaele were treated and you can sense shit in the system. Raffaele was held in solitary confinement for almost 6 months for a reason. They were both denied lawyers for a critical lenth of time.

  23. ‘Aaron Johnson

    That biotch is guilty of murder. Italians prosecutors were really dumb for not making a solid case the first time around.

    1. JustJenna

      Ms. Moore, with all due respect, how can you possibly know for certain that she’s wrong? I know you are friends with Amanda, but you weren’t there that night. The only person who knows for sure that she is innocent, is Amanda. Why won’t she take a lie detector test?

      1. There was nothing respectful about what you said. I am certain and I base my knowledge off of experts much more credible. And sorry, you don’t know Amanda and obviously you also don’t know that she said she would take a lie detector test. Not that this would change biased ppl like yourself.

      2. JustJenna

        I’m not biased. Why would I be? As you said, I don’t know her. I was truly trying to be respectful and not nasty like some others can be. I’m just to find the truth in this… For my self. I know Amanda said she would take one… But she’s hasn’t. And yes if she did it would change my mind.

        I have all the respect in the world for people who fight for justice, as you and your husband have tried to do. Just because I think you are wrong doesnt mean I don’t respect that you believe you are doing the right thing and fighting for it. That’s commendable.

        Please don’t assume all people are the same. I certainly don’t assume that about you.

      3. Jannie

        It is interesting that Knox has stated in the past that she would take a lie detector test, but then hasn’t gone through with it. But I wouldn’t put too much store in the results of a lie detector anyway.

        What I find even more interesting however is that your completely neutral stance is met with such vitriol. Possibly this happens from both sides, but like Michelle above, they seem all too willing to resort to this type of behavior, and these are not, unfortunately, isolated incidences.

        I think the ironic thing is that the more people meet such innocent posts with vitriol, the more it hurts their credibility when claiming that people are wrong to question Knox’s innocence.

      4. guest

        Jenna is one of the most respectful posters regarding this case, miles ahead of you. If her post had been agreeing with you, you would have been fawning all over her. You know how few Knox supporters (hmmm infatuated killer stalkers) are left. Now, trot along and help chubby, oh sorry, hubby, find another security guard job.

  24. Bill Cramden

    Knox is innocent. If you believe this girl is guilty, you will be spoon-fed crap and love it for the rest of your life. I would love to interview Vanessa Van Edwards on camera and prove she is lying about everything she never did by breaking up the video. Shame on you, Vanessa!

  25. MedullaPancreas

    “This facial expression of hatred…” I don’t believe Ekman would agree. Contempt does not mean “hatred” it means simply contempt. We need to refrain from adding meaning where there isn’t otherwise a science can easily drift into pseudoscience very quickly.

  26. Heather

    Gram thanks for the generalisations regarding all Americans. But you absolutely do not capture my sentiment. I’m not xenophobic, I would never victimize a victim’s family, and I’m not clinging to pretense nor do I think she’s innocent. Thanks again for lumping my country of 250 million into some idiot category that you deduced from watching export TV. *do the same for you one day, brah* It’s a good thing I don’t get all MY information about foreigners from TV, I’d be an ignorant f**k indeed.

  27. Hey Vanessa, Doing your brilliant body language course on Udemy. Watched the video to practice!

    Quick question. At 2:39 in the video just before she says ““I haven’t heard those”, she nods. I picked that up as a mismatch. Could that mean she has heard the names before and she’s lying?

    1. Danielle McRae

      Hi Kimeshan, it could mean she’s lying. Sometimes during interviews, the interviewee will nod after a question as a way of saying “yes, I understand the question” before giving their answer. If it is a mismatch, however, great catch! -Danielle and the Science of People Team

    2. JustJenna

      Hi. I’m obviously not Vanessa but in my experience studying this, that head nod is an acknowledgement that Amanda is aware of the names she’s being called, but not perhaps those ones in particular. It’s a disdainful nod, full of anger. In my opinion it’s not a mismatch but a recognition that people are saying these things and it pisses her off.

  28. When Amanda’s and Raffaele’s convictions are written in stone, Raffaele will present a serious problem for the Italian government. If they decline to seek extradition of Amanda, they either must (1) let a convicted Italian murderer go free because they’ve let his convicted American co-defendant go free, or (2) imprison a convicted Italian murderer for 20+ years even though they’ve let his convicted American co-defendant go free. The first choice will annoy the Italian public greatly since it will allow a convicted murderer to go free in Italy. Yet the second choice would be unfair. Either choice would make the Italian government look weak, as if it had caved in to pressure from the US — which, of course, it will have.

    How can the Italian government avoid this dilemma?

    There is only one answer: request for the extradition of Amanda.

    And remember, the United States extradites more people than any other country in the world. If we want to retain that right with Italy, just consider the implications with organized crime and the ongoing war on drugs. The Cosa Nostra, Camorra and the ‘Ndrangheta are some of the world’s largest cocaine and heroine manufacturers and suppliers and all are active in the US, Canada, South America, Australia and Europe. They collaborate with other organized crime syndicates from all over the world including Al-Qaeda associates and are also involved in illegal gambling, political corruption, extortion, kidnapping, fraud, counterfeiting, infiltration of legitimate businesses, murders, bombings, and weapons trafficking. Industry experts in Italy estimate that their worldwide criminal activity is worth more than $100 billion annually. Indeed, these Italian organizations are at the center of the ongoing war on drugs, the war against organized crime syndicates and overall crime itself.

    For anyone to think, even for a moment, that a one “Amanda Marie Knox” is worth giving up the fight against all of that is ludicrous and downright laughable. Indeed, we’re not about to give up that fight solely based on one single individual. That’s the leverage against Knox, and it’s quite substantial. Italy will make the extradition request and America will extradite Amanda Knox.

  29. This is how I think it all happened:

    I doubt that Rudy stole Meredith’s rent money. During his Skype call from Germany, he said Meredith had told him her rent money had been stolen — at a time when, I believe, this hadn’t been reported. When no one else yet knows a theft has occurred, rarely is it the thief who reports it — especially when the victim has since been found dead. Nor can I imagine that Meredith kept such a large amount of cash (300 Euros) in her purse, or that, if she did, she would have left her purse out where Rudy could see it and steal her money when she wasn’t looking.

    Just as Meredith apparently suspected, I believe Amanda had already stolen Meredith’s rent money, probably that afternoon after Meredith had left the cottage and Amanda remained there for another two hours — or at least that’s what Meredith believed. Probably that’s why Meredith’s fingerprints were found on Amanda’s wardrobe door: She thought Amanda might have stashed the stolen rent money in her (Amanda’s) wardrobe, and Meredith checked there in the hope of finding it.

    My hunch is that Amanda — not Meredith — invited Rudy in to the cottage, to buy dope from him. Her usual suppliers, the boys downstairs, were gone for the long holiday weekend. She probably knew that Rudy, in turn, was their supplier, and that he wasn’t hard to find. According to Rudy during the Skype call, though he didn’t know Amanda well, they’d exchanged greetings on the street several times. He had no incentive to exaggerate the frequency of their contacts.

    I suspect Amanda arrived home (with Rudy) shortly after Meredith had returned from dinner with her friends and discovered her rent money was missing. It probably angered Meredith even more to suspect that Amanda was planning to use her rent money to buy dope from Rudy. Meredith confronted Amanda, who denied the accusation, left in a huff and returned to Raffaele’s apartment, where she told Raffaele about Meredith’s “unjust” accusation. Raffaele agreed to return to the cottage with Amanda — perhaps to defend her, perhaps to try to calm the waters, perhaps both. Amanda was so upset that she decided to bring along a knife from Raffaele’s kitchen drawer, though I doubt Raffaele was aware of this.

    Raffaele and Amanda arrived back at the cottage, not knowing that Rudy was still there (now in Laura’s and Filomena’s bathroom, presumably with the door closed). While Meredith had not invited Rudy in (contrary to his claim), Rudy had witnessed her earlier argument with Amanda and had comforted Meredith after Amanda left — perhaps hoping his tenderness would make Meredith receptive to his sexual advances. While Amanda had been gone, Rudy and Meredith had become intimate but had stopped short of having sex, as Rudy claimed, because neither of them had a condom. Rudy then went to the bathroom and closed the door, just as he claimed, possibly planning to make another try when he’d finished. But when he heard Amanda and Raffaele come back in, he decided he would be wisest to remain quietly in the bathroom until things had calmed down.

    Amanda confronted Meredith when she returned with Raffaele. The situation escalated and Amanda and Raffaele ended up killing Meredith. Rudy recognized too late that things had gotten out of hand, came out of the bathroom and discovered Meredith bleeding in her bedroom, as he claimed. He tried to stop the bleeding, but soon realized he couldn’t save Meredith and that he’d probably be blamed if he were found there. So he dashed out the door and never came back. By then, however, he’d left a great deal of evidence that he’d been there. He may or may not have taken things from Meredith’s purse before he left. Frankly, it’s never been clear to me why someone worried about being accused of murder would take the victim’s house keys, credit cards, and cell phones. What if he’d been arrested on the street, or at his apartment, or at the disco where he went after leaving the cottage, and had had those items on him? What if he’d used her credit card, or cell phone, allowing his location to be pinpointed? Why would he want her house keys – did he think he might return to the murder scene some day, hoping the locks hadn’t been changed in the meantime?

    Amanda and Raffaele ran out too, even before Rudy did, but soon realized they’d be suspects unless they went back and cleaned up. They’d become aware of Rudy’s presence just before leaving, and decided the best idea was to clean up evidence of themselves but leave evidence of Rudy. So they returned to the cottage, brought Amanda’s bedside lamp into Meredith’s bedroom for additional light, moved and repositioned Meredith’s body so the police would think she’d been [email protected], and started cleaning up, making sure they left ample evidence of Rudy so that he’d be accused. Since Rudy had remained at the cottage after Amanda had left the first time, they may have believed that Rudy and Meredith had had sex while Amanda was gone.

    Amanda’s and Raffaele’s clean-up effort resulted in the blood-free 10-foot gap between the murder scene in Meredith’s bedroom and the bloody bare-foot print in Meredith’s and Amanda’s bathroom. The hard-surface floors in between were relatively easy to clean. The blood-stained bath mat, made of an absorbent material, was harder to clean. The bloody bare-foot print could only be diluted but not totally removed.

    The standard “selective cleanup impossible” rebuttal would make its appearance here, of course. But that argument assumes a person’s DNA will always be found in a room if she’d been present. Therefore, the argument goes, the absence of Amanda’s DNA in Meredith’s room proves her innocence. Contrary to Knox supporters’ insistence, however, the absence of a person’s DNA in a room does not establish that the person wasn’t there. After all, 95 samples from Raffaele’s car were tested and nobody’s DNA was found. Yet there’s no dispute that Raffaele was in his car at times. And according to Knox-supporter Luca Cheli, 460 samples were tested without finding a single trace of Laura’s or Filomena’s DNA, anywhere in the cottage. Yet Laura and Filomena indisputably lived there. Besides, Amanda herself argued precisely the opposite at times. She insisted that Rudy had burglarized Filomena’s room, for example, even though there was no trace of Rudy in Filomena’s room, on the windowsill, on the outside wall, or on the ground below. Rudy nevertheless had been there, Amanda argued.

    I’ll be the first to confess this is speculation. But so is any other explanation of what happened that night. No one except who killed her (Amanda and Raffaele) and Rudy who all indisputably were there. My speculation, unlike many made by Knox supporters, has the advantage of being consistent with the physical evidence

    1. disqus_loX1O1u6We

      I believe Rudy most likely did not steal Meredith’s rent money or he most likely would have immediately fled the country. Instead, he went to a disco/club which tells me that he needed to go there so he could sell drugs to make the money he was going to need in order to flee which we know he eventually did. It is proven that Meredith did in fact have the rent money in full on her person as her deal with her parents was that they would send her a check every month then she would cash it (as rent had to be paid in cash), and we know she had just recently cashed the latest check sent by her parents.
      I completely agree with you that Amanda — not Meredith — invited Rudy over to the house as well as for the reason of buying drugs from him. I also believe that it could have been at this time that Amanda was stealing Meredith’s money in order to pay for some of her drugs. It has been proven that Amanda, Meredith, and Rudy had all been downstairs at the same time at least once to hang out and smoke so obviously Amanda and Rudy were not perfect strangers. Furthermore, he spent literally every day at those basketball courts which Amanda had to pass by anytime she went to school, work, or Raffaele’s house. This to me would also explain why they had no texts or calls between them, why would you need to call someone you know that you will see everyday just walking home? I also believe it was opportunistically, that Amanda even invited Rudy over; Amanda found out she got the night off of work unexpectedly, ran into Rudy and decided to make a purchase since she no longer had prior commitments.
      We know that Rudy came into the house, had a drink, and used the bathroom without flushing. A couple of people who knew Rudy had complained before that he had left the toilet unflushed, this was a semi-common occurrence for him. We also know that Amanda would have male guests over to the all-female flat as well as rarely ever pick up after herself and her guests so it seems perfectly logical that Meredith would have been upset at the unannounced company.
      I do not believe that Rudy would have been left at the house with Meredith alone as many of Meredith’s friends have stated that Meredith did not like Rudy, even as a friend, and certainly was not interested in ever being alone with him, and even more definitely not interested romantically/sexually. This was actually something that was proven with so many testimonies that it pretty much took away all credence to everything Guede said as anyone who knew Meredith knew he was lying about being invited by her and having consensual relations with her. Furthermore, she was dating Guillermo (I believe was his name) who lived downstairs who I’m sure she and Amanda met Rudy through to begin with. There is no reason to believe Meredith was that promiscuous and we also know she was on her period as there was still a tampon inside of her body at the time of death. Contrary to popular belief in America due to horrible PR motives, Meredith was NOT raped but had been sexually assaulted. It is most likely that Rudy attempted to rape her but upon finding her in her natural state was no longer able to continue along that path, as even most rapists cannot rape women when they are in those states.

      Also even by your scenario, Filomena’s bathroom (with the feces) as well as her bedroom, Laura’s bedroom, the kitchen, and living room are all towards the front entry of the house whereas Amanda’s bedroom, Meredith’s bedroom, their bathroom and the balcony are the rooms that are the farthest from the entry of the house. It does not make any sense to me that Rudy would not use Meredith’s bathroom if he had indeed been invited into her bedroom. Just from a logical standpoint, her bathroom is NEXT to the bedroom and the bathroom he chose is on the other end of the house. This is why I believe he used the bathroom shortly after arriving, definitely before Meredith was assaulted and killed. (NO rapists/murderers use the bathroom after an attempted assault and if they did then Guede would have to have tracked blood to and into the bathroom which we know there was no trail of blood to the bathroom nor any found inside.)
      Something that I believe, based on TONS of reading on the case, reading on psychology and behavior, and watching various documentaries on the case from American and British media (I don’t speak Italian so I cannot watch anything in Italian) along with lots of interview, I believe that Amanda is a sociopath. Like you, I only come to my conclusions based on evidence and logic and reason. If you care to hear, I can give you text book examples that prove Amanda to be a SOCIOPATH, not psychopath. This is something that seems not only evident when you know of or have met sociopaths, but also would explain a lot of aspects of the case that seem inconsistent. For example, Rudy had absolutely NO motive or prior history of sexual violence and it seems very unlikely he would chose to rape the girlfriend of someone he sells to/buys from and occasionally hangs out and smokes with. However, people will always say that Amanda is obviously a female and has less reason for sexually assaulting Meredith, this is false. Amanda is not a typical average girl, not even by American standards. In fact, her friends in SEATTLE (which is known for it’s eccentricity) thought she was unique and eccentric even compared to themselves. Amanda was into creative writing and as a 20yr old girl wrote a story about brothers who liked to rob and rape people. This is a fact, and an eerie line from said story is “That girl you raped, Kyle. Did you know her name?” Amanda and Meredith were not getting along, they were having more than average roommate fights and frankly all of the girls in the house were getting tired of Amanda’s obnoxious and self-centered behavior. It is my belief that Amanda is the one who asked Rudy to rape Meredith or gave him the idea somehow and was the instigator as she was not able to do so herself yet wanted the ultimate humiliation of Meredith. I think that when Rudy found Meredith to be on her period he did not want to continue anymore and so they just killed her.

      It is so surprising to me how many people actually believe that DNA cannot be cleaned even though thousands of people have cleaned their DNA up or worn gloves etc to keep from leaving their DNA. The standard “selective cleanup impossible” rebuttal sounds like an easy go-to but realistically I always explain that you actually can be selective about DNA clean up. If Rudy was the only person who actually stepped INSIDE Meredith’s room and did the killing or most of it, all Amanda has to do is watch from the hallway and she already successfully has only his DNA in the murder room and none of hers in there, even if she is ordering Guede on what to do. Furthermore, Amanda needs only to know what she herself touched and only has to clean up where SHE touched, it’s not likely that she and Guede were touching all the same things.

      1. 8Pence

        Very intersting!
        Do you now that one of Amandas american friends wasn’t surprised when the news came in that she was involved in a murder?

        I mean that says a lot!
        Would be great if you could put those text books in your dropbox & post the link. If you don’t use dropbox there are a lot of other ways to put a file online. I would be very interested to take a look at it!

      2. JustJenna

        Which of her friends said that?! This is something I would very much like to further investigate. Do you have a name?

      3. Bill Morrison

        You forget that forensic evidence shows conclusively that there were at least two attackers in the assault on Meredith Kercher, which means one or both of them were involved in the assault.

      4. FranKnows

        Actually, what you forgot is the expert testimony in court was 6-1 that the evidence was consistent with or compatible with a lone attacker. It was the court which decided (i.e., a subjective opinion) more than one attacker. There was nothing conclusive about it. Just more evidence of how the guilter legend of this case carries on.

        And regardless, even if there had been evidence of more than one attacker, it would still not indicate WHO the other attackers were.

        Guilter (ill)logic: Conclusive evidence of multiple attackers (wrong) proves Amanda and/or Raffaele were involved (wrong). Doh!

    2. John Peddubriwny

      I won’t disagree with you, but I do think that speculating about what may or may not have been in persons mind’s only adds to the confusion. I have often heard people talk about a “motiveless murder”, but in reality, there is no such thing. What people are saying, is “I cannot understand the motive”, and now we have the Appeals Court speculating as to AK’s involvement and motive which I thing has only opened themselves to ridicule.

      And yet, there is nothing in the evidence to say that she did not let the killer(s) into the home and then had a cup of coffee while the attack took place. Of course, in some jurisdictions, that would make her guilty of manslaughter. In case someone should think I am a Knox apologist, the purpose behind that comment was to illustrate that I have no greater idea than anybody else as to what happened that night, but I do think that just as Knox has dealt with every piece of forensic evidence by speculating that “It might have happened like this”, a case can just as easily be made for the “missing forensics”, that appear to show her innocence.

      But why not take a different view of the matter? Instead of having to decide which “expert” is (lying) to be believed, why don’t we look at the things that have not been explained, such as the myriad of lies that Knox has told. And when the lie is exposed, this has been followed by another lie.

      I don’t think there is a cop anywhere on this planet that having read this story, would think it unreasonable that people should suspect AK, based on the persistent lies she has told, and for all your speculation, I have to say, that I don’t think AK will ever tell the truth about that night, or if she does, we will not be able to differentiate from any of the other lies she has told. I have written elsewhere, that if she is returned to Italy to serve her sentence, there will come a time where she goes for a Parole hearing, and in order to get Parole, she will need to admit the crime. I have a lingering doubt about her guilt, but one thing I have no doubt about is that when she faces parole, she will admit to the killing, and when back in the US, will say she she was innocent and lied to get Parole.

  30. John Peddubriwny

    The point is that if Guede had an accomplice, that was the person who let them into the house. So far from it being “anyone in the world”, it had to be someone with a key. Of all the people that are known to have had keys, AK is the only one that we know knew Guede, and is also the only one that doesn’t have an alibi.

    As to Guede changing his story, you might be amazed to discover that criminals change stories all the time.

    I really wish you could ask a question that requires someone to say, “Why didn’t I think of that”?

    1. CaireannMcGregor

      I reckon drug fuelled twosome either guy with either girl, Amanda tries it on with Meredith, meredith snaps calls her all the dirty whores eg sex toys lying around etc, knox loses it.

  31. harryrag

    The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming. They gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis despite three attempts each. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified. Innocent people don’t give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to the police.

    The DNA didn’t miraculously deposit itself in the most incriminating of places.

    An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. Professor Novelli pointed out there’s more likelihood of meteorite striking the courtroom in Perguia than there is of the bra clasp being contaminated by dust.

    According to Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci and Luciano Garofano, Knox’s DNA was also on Meredith’s bra.

    Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian – have all confirmed that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade. Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.

    According to the prosecution’s experts, there were five instances of Knox’s DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. Even Amanda Knox’s lawyers conceded that her blood had mingled with Meredith’s blood. In other words, Meredith and Amanda Knox were both bleeding at the same time.

    Knox tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom, the hallway, her room and Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood was found mixed together in Filomena’s room, in a bare bloody footprint in the hallway and in three places in the bathroom.

    Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. This means that he didn’t stage the break-in in Filomena’s room or go into the blood-spattered bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

    The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints were revealed by Luminol in the hallway.

    It’s not a coincidence that the three people – Knox, Sollecito and Guede – who kept telling the police a pack of lies are all implicated by the DNA and forensic evidence.

    Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. After she was informed that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, she stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.

    Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite the fact she knew he was completely innocent. She didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison. She acknowledged that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007.

    1. michellesings

      everything you’ve said has been disproven. Yet, no matter how much more they’re proved innocent, you keep posting the same ole same ole since 2007. You have intense hate at the wrong person. And it’s ruining you.

      1. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        EVERYTHING has been disproven?
        Like the fact that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito gave conflicting alibis and accounts of the night that the murder took place as well as both giving different versions multiple times? I did not know that had been disproven and that they both in fact only gave one solid and matching alibi. I guess that hasn’t been to flaunted in the media over the last 7 years.
        Also Amanda Knox’s defense changed their stance about the 5 spots of mixed DNA of Meredith and Amanda?!? WOW! Even they admitted before that there were indeed 5 spots of mixed DNA but their excuse was that it was just because they lived together, even though that has never happened in any other case where someone’s DNA was mixed with a victim’s just because they lived in the same place. So what is their new stance or what about it was disproven?
        Rudy Guede recently appealed the burglary charges to Italy’s Supreme Court and WON! The Court even further stated in his acquittal that “he had NOTHING to do with it.” So you’re saying they’ve overturned this even though it was recent and now say he DID do it? I haven’t found that article or news story anywhere either!

        Are you also saying that Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints did NOT lead straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house? I wish I had the privilege of seeing the different photos that you must have seen compared to anyone else, gee you’re so lucky. Every photo and documentation I’ve ever seen shows his footprints DO lead straight out and furthermore they don’t even turn around to lock the door behind him even though Meredith was behind a locked door when her body was found. Perhaps in the photos you saw, his footprints do many things that unlock the mysteries involved in this case?
        You’re also saying that Amanda Knox did NOT actually write a handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007 where she further led the police to believe that Patrick Lumumba was responsible? The one that said she “confusedly remembered” him doing all those things while she was in the next room instead of stating that it was all a lie and blaming her accusations on Italian police? So are you saying the note said something different or are you saying she never actually wrote the note at all and that it was a big lie made up by the Italian media?
        And one last confusion, are you also stating that Knox never accused an innocent man in Lumumba, or that he was proven to have actually been involved in the murder and it just has not yet been released to the rest of us, only you have that valued information?
        I would love to have the sources you have, you must be so privileged to have all this information that NO ONE else does that proves ALL of these things to be untrue. It is truly disgusting to me that you would go as far as to accuse someone of having an intense hate at someone else they have most likely never met when you have absolutely no documentation to back up your claims. It’s ruining you to blanket such things and not be real and honest with yourself. There are many more aspects of the case which have been dismissed and overlooked rather than actually disproven. Most of the claims made in the post you responded to have not been disproven which shows your obvious lack of knowledge about the case.

      2. John Peddubriwny

        Just thought I would throw in my two cents worth regarding Lumumba. Apparently, it is now the claim of the Knox Camp, that the reason she named him was because the police said, “We know it was a black man. Tell us about any black men you know”

        Of course, AK would have trouble identifying the cops who said this as they were wearing white robes with pointed hoods when they interviewed her.

        Of course, the other story I like about her interrogation, was that Rome parachuted in a team of “crack interrogators” in order to break Knox in the interview room, who “tag teamed” her till she broke. Though obviously this would have to have been planned in advance, not one of these “ace sleuths” had the foresight to order up an interpreter that was necessary for the interview.

        As they say, “You couldn’t make it up”, but that doesn’t stop them.

      3. 8Pence

        Exactly, it would take a lot of planning to trap her that way. But she wasn’t even expected to be there!

        I read somewhere that 36 cops interrogated her! 36 cops!

        36 cops, herself & the interpreter, that would be 38 people in a (knox own words) “small room” where she was interrogated.

        That dosn’t look strange to Knox-supporters, but the fact that 4 people couldn’t fit in Mez room does 😉

      4. John Peddubriwny

        There is plenty that doesn’t appear strange to Knoxophytes. For example, the fact that Guede has changed his story several times proves that he cannot be trusted, whereas Knox doing the same is not suspicious.

        The most commonly told story of her interrogation was that she only broke 14 hours after being denied a Lawyer, food, drink, rest and toilet breaks as well as being roughed up. What they fail to mention is that she signs her first confession within 75 mins of the interrogation commencing. That timespan includes the the time it takes to type the confession. I accept that just because she signed a statement, does not make her guilty, but It is indisputable that she confessed so quickly because the statement is a matter of public record, and Knox does not repudiate that she signed it. Yet there are so many who believe the “14 hour” version given by Knox, not in court, but by her publicists years after the event.

        As to the idea that 36 cops interrogated her, I don’t think the Italians would have used that number to interrogate the most hardened mafiosi. If the police had their suspicions about these two, they would have known that they were not dealing with criminal sophisticates, but a couple of kids who would have a great deal of trouble pulling off a watertight conspiracy once they were questioned separately.

        If anyone needs to see evidence of just how “breakable” they were as conspirators, you only need to see that RS, very quickly pulled the rug out from under AK’s alibi, and she in turn, puts herself in the frame very quickly. All told, it wasn’t much more than three hours from the time they entered the Police Station, to the time Knox confesses, and that includes an hour waiting for the interpreter.

        I think most cops will tell you that when you have two suspects, it is a lot easier to break than one, especially when they are inexperienced, because it is almost impossible for them to tell the same story exactly. And that is exactly what we see here.

      5. jack

        You once again sin by omission. The multiple hours that she spent at the police station included all the hours from that week. The exact number is disputed. But it is not a total of “75 minutes”. This was not her first interrogation.

        It was her “final” interrogation and they were determined at that point to get what they wanted. A few “slap slaps” and they did.

      6. jack

        Actually you are making all of that up. No-one ever claimed that anyone was “parachuted” in from Perugia. Also, no-one claimed that the police said “it was a black man. Tell us about any black man”.
        The claim was that when they saw Patricks message on her phone of “C U Later” they became suspicious of a meeting between her and him. They misinterpreted the meaning of that message.
        But overall the concept of them “tag-teaming” her in the middle of the night, off-camera, no lawyer present was essentially true. Slap slap. They got what they wanted.

      7. Bill Morrison

        You know the saying, Michelle, ´´Money talks and bullshit walks.´´ Here´s another one for you: Time to put your money where your mouth is! Please show us how everything he said has been disproven.

  32. allyson

    I’d love to have these so-called deception experts who claim Knox is guilty watch video of Guede claiming that Knox and Solletico were present when he murdered Meredith Kercher – and their confusion when they see he is lying.

  33. Teri Cusano

    well it doesn’t matter about the evidence anymore. There is a LIE about it all and one or all of them are liars. And thats a fact.

  34. RayT

    There is literally guilt written all over her face. If you are good at reading people then it is easy to pick up on it. She is doing her best to control her expressions, but the eyes, the smiles, the tiny little ‘reactions’ give her away.

    1. disqus_loX1O1u6We

      She also has liar written all over her face. It is very clear that she has no real sympathy towards Meredith Kercher or her family. The sad thing is look at how much guilt she cannot hide and put it in perspective that she hired a PR team to teach her how to interview and how to come off more innocent and she still can’t pull it off entirely. Amanda keeps claiming Meredith was her friend and yet 2 things about her interview with Diane Sawyer: 1. When Amanda is asked what she wants the Kercher family to hear that night, Knox responds “I’m thinking about them too.” What a self-centered @$$hole, the Kercher family is thinking about the poor girl they lost, they’re not thinking about Knox other than trying to assess her involvement. And of all the things Knox wants them to hear, THAT’S it? WOW, really sympathetic. 2. When Amanda is pretending she was closer with Meredith than she actually was, all she has to say is “Meredith talked about her mom, how she wanted to be a journalist like here dad. She talked about her sister a lot. That’s all I can give them, is THIS MEMORY I have of her.” That’s ALL you can give Meredith’s family? A simple memory that ANYONE who met Meredith could have also given her family? That makes it all the more convincing of just how close Amanda and Meredith really are. The only thing Amanda Knox was traumatized about was the fact that she almost didn’t totally get away with it.

  35. douglasfurr

    Cool story.
    If knox was doing cartwheels at the police station just after her room mate was brutally stabbed to death….that’s a definite red flag in my book.
    If she falsely accuses someone else of the crime and is convicted of pergury because of it….the same.

    1. michellesings

      she was doing Yoga while waiting for so long. Then a cop asked her to show him what else she could do. However, she never did one cartwheel. PS Yoga is not a sign of guilt.

      1. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        Because ALL of Meredith’s friends who WERE there, as well as all of the police officers (both male and female) who WERE there all say the same exact thing and there is no legitimate, logical reason to believe they all conspired together to make up a little yoga story. What makes more sense, 8 people are lying about what they all saw or 1 person who was telling another defensive lie after the fact, as we know and have court documents proving she’s lied multiple times?

      2. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        No cop ever asked her to show him what he could do and if he had then Amanda’s PR team would have been all over it as that would come off as harassment to someone who just lost their roommate. In fact, the cops along with all of Meredith’s real friends all found it to be very distasteful. Furthermore, why does she need to do Yoga while waiting in a police station? Is she so uncouth that she never learned how to just properly sit down in a public building and remain quiet? Or is she so nervous about getting caught that she forgets her surroundings and starts doing yoga? Or is she so promiscuous and attention-obsessed that she does the yoga just to get some of the attention that she was jealous of all going towards Meredith? PS She DID do a cartwheel and everyone who was there testifies that she did, it’s a hard thing to miss.

      3. Bill Morrison

        It´s not hard to see that Amanda´s a no class piece of white trash, and a narcissistic sociopathic besides, and guilty in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

    2. John Peddubriwny

      I am not convinced that the cartwheels are a sign of guilt, and that includes all the stuff bout her canoodling with her B/f, but what I am convinced of, is that her behaviour in the Police station that night, was not indicative of someone who had just lost a “dear friend”, as she now describes Kercher.

      I don’t think this is any proof of guilt, but is proof that she didn’t care about her “dear friend” being murdered.

      1. jack

        She was doing Yoga out of boredom. It was a sign of “nothing” but only in the imagination of the police

  36. Joe Zoo

    While there’s been much commentary that, because of the alleged “unfair” nature of Knox’s conviction and the way the matter has been handled on appeal, the United States might actually oppose an extradition request by Italy, or that an American Court might turn down the request should, as expected, Knox’s lawyers challenge it if it is made. On the first point, it’s important to note that, based on what I’ve read, it seems to be quite rare for the United States, via either the State or Justice Departments, to refuse an extradition request that is otherwise proper under an applicable treaty unless there’s a clear exception under the terms of the treaty or we’re talking about a nation or a proceeding that clearly violated fundamental standards of justice.

    As a preliminary point, it’s important to note that the United Stateshas an Extradition Treaty with Italy. The current version, which I’ve embedded below, has been in place since it was ratified by the Senate back in the early 1980s. While the ultimate decision on the issue of whether or not Knox should be extradited will likely rest with the Federal Courts, most legal experts seem to agree that the odds of Knox being able to avoid return to Italy are low assuming that the Italians make the proper requests under the treaty:

    The Knox case is special because it raises the question of whether the U.S. government would send one of its own citizens to a foreign country to face a long prison term.

    The answer: It’s been done before, though in less high-profile cases involving the governments of Canada, Mexico and other nations.

    The U.S. has extradition treaties with more than 100 countries, including Italy, providing what would appear to be a strong legal foundation in favor of a request for Knox’s return to Italy.

    “It’s absolutely not the case that an individual will not be extradited just because they are a U.S. citizen,” says Douglas McNabb, an international criminal defense attorney and an expert in international extradition law.

    http://www.outsidethebeltway.COM/amanda-knox-and-extradition-more-likely-than-you-might-think/

    1. John Peddubriwny

      Which fundamental standards of justice have been clearly violated?

      Why should a country which has the highest execution rate in the Western World refuse to extradite one of it’s citizens merely because they faced a long sentence? Bearing in mind that this was a sex crime, it should be pointed out that in the US, this might have been a death penalty case.

      1. jack

        In the US, she would have been thanked for her efforts at solving the case and not been subjected to police abuse and prosecutor misconduct.

  37. Joe Zoo

    PART 1 OF 3:

    On the day after her murder, Meredith Kercher’s blood was found in many places in her bedroom and on a bare right-foot print on the bathroom floor mat. But no footprints were found in the 10-foot-plus stretch between those two bloody locations – all hard-surface floors in the bedroom, hallway and bathroom. In addition, after she died, Meredith’s bra had been cut off, and her body had been moved and repositioned – to make it appear she’d been raped, the police speculated. Finally, her body had been covered with a comforter. No one knew why, though various theories were offered.

    This is undisputed. Although the prosecution’s “staged rape” theory was speculation, the defense, far from challenging it, took it a step further, arguing that Meredith indeed had been raped and then killed by Rudy Guede, acting alone. Guede’s DNA was found in several places in Meredith’s bedroom, including inside her body. Amanda and Raffaele could not have been there, the defense insisted, since none of their DNA was found in Meredith’s bedroom (other than Raffaele’s DNA found on Meredith’s bra clasp – more on that below).

    Granted, Meredith’s bedroom was right next to the bathroom. But it would have required at least a 10-foot leap, with a 90-degree turn near the end, to reach the bloody bath mat from the bloody areas of Meredith’s bedroom without touching down somewhere in between. And whoever made that 10-foot leap-and-turn obviously didn’t mind leaving a bloody footprint on the bath mat when he landed. It doesn’t matter here whose bloody footprint was on the bath mat. The blood in both Meredith’s bedroom and on the bath mat indisputably was Meredith’s. That’s all that matters here. What accounted for the blood-free 10-foot gap?

    A 10-foot leap-and-turn? Or perhaps the person had a blood-free left foot, on which he hopped to the bathroom so his bloody right foot wouldn’t leave any footprint along the way. When he got there, despite his careful effort to avoid leaving a bloody footprint, he stepped on the bath mat with his bloody right foot. One can imagine other possibilities, but only one stands out as plausible: More bloody footprints were made on the hard-surface floors between the two bloody
    locations, but those footprints were cleaned up.

    In other words, there was no 10-foot leap-and-turn, no
    blood-free-left-foot hopper who inexplicably changed his mind upon arrival and left a bloody right footprint. Originally there was blood in Meredith’s bedroom, a bloody footprint on the bath-mat, and bloody footprints on the hard-surface floors in between. Those bloody footprints were cleaned up. The bloody stain on the bath-mat was more stubborn and could
    only be diluted (just as Raffaele later described it).

    Whoever cleaned up the bloody footprints may also have moved and covered Meredith’s body – or at least knows who did. The question is obvious: Who did these things, and why would that person take such a risk?

    If you came home to find a bloody murder had been committed there, would you say: “I don’t think I’ll call the police just yet. First I’ll clean up this bloody mess, reposition the victim’s body and make some other changes so it appears she was raped, and then cover her up. Sure, the police may find out about the murder from someone else, in which case they might show up and be suspicious because I’m destroying and altering evidence of a murder that I’ll claim to know nothing about. But that’s a risk I’m willing to take. I just can’t stand to leave such a mess, or to leave a dead body lying in that particular position – uncovered, no less.”

    Utterly implausible? I think so. Yet it’s all but certain
    that such a clean-up and body-repositioning occurred. So, again, the questions are: Who did these things, and why would that person take such a risk?

    Then there’s the “burglary” in Filomena’s bedroom. Both courts that convicted Amanda concluded she had staged it,
    and Rudy Guede was not even charged. Amanda nevertheless insisted a burglary actually happened and that Guede was the burglar. That is how Guede had gotten into the house, Amanda claimed, though sometimes she speculated instead that Meredith had invited him in (an alternate explanation that naturally makes one wonder who the “burglar” was).

    In any event, the “burglar” was not convincing. He allegedly threw a 10-pound rock through a window 13 feet above the ground (which Meredith apparently didn’t hear), scaled a 13-foot wall in plain view from the street, climbed through the broken window without disturbing any of the broken glass spread across the windowsill, threw clothes out of Filomena’s closet onto her bed but then decided not to take anything
    (including jewelry, a digital camera, and a laptop in plain sight), went to Meredith’s room and raped and killed her, and then ran out the front door, tracking Meredith’s blood along the way. Broken window glass was found on top of items thrown onto Filomena’s bed – on top – suggesting her window had been broken after her room was ransacked, not before. The “burglar” left no DNA, fingerprint, footprint, mud, grass stain, or any other trace in Filomena’s bedroom, on the windowsill, on the outside wall, or on the ground below. No one’s DNA was found in Filomena’s bedroom – not even Filomena’s – except for Amanda’s DNA, mixed with Meredith’s blood.

    Once again: Who carried out this real or staged burglary, and why?

    END OF PART 1 OF 3

    PART 2 OF 3:

    There is evidence of a great deal more than just a clean-up and body-repositioning. Just a few examples:

    1. Despite the clean-up, Amanda’s DNA, mixed with Meredith’s blood, was found in five different spots in three different locations (bathroom, hallway, Filomena’s bedroom). Some was visible to the [email protected] eye; some was revealed by Luminol.

    2. Raffaele’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Although this is undisputed, defense lawyers blamed it on “contamination” (the bra clasp had lain on the floor of Meredith’s sealed-off bedroom until six weeks after the murder). But even if the evidence-collectors had sneezed on the bra clasp, and 47 different men had touched it that night, and it had been trampled by 1,000 wild horses and chewed by 98 rabid dogs in the six weeks before it was collected, no amount of contamination could have caused Raffaele’s DNA to materialize on Meredith’s bra clasp. Most Knox supporters nevertheless rely on this “contamination” argument to insist that no DNA of Amanda or Raffaele was found in Meredith’s bedroom.

    3. The prosecution also argued (and the courts that convicted Amanda and Raffaele agreed) that the bloody bath-mat footprint was “consistent” with Raffaele’s footprint (though it may not have been his), and could not have been Guede’s or Amanda’s. The defense disagreed: it was Guede’s, they said. It seems that Guede’s right shoe (but not his left shoe) had come off during his scuffle with Meredith. Guede postponed his escape to wash off his right foot, which was covered with blood even though it managed to leave no footprint until Guede reached the bath mat.

    For one reason or another, Guede chose not to wash off his bloody left shoe, which seems to have had a mind of its own. It left no shoeprints in the bathroom while Guede was washing his right foot, choosing instead to leave an unbroken string of bloody shoeprints in a direct line from Meredith’s bedroom to the front door. Guede’s bloody left shoe did pause once, however – just after leaving Meredith’s room, so that Guede could lock Meredith’s door from the outside. He must have done this by reaching behind his back with Meredith’s stolen room key, since Guede’s bloody shoeprints all point toward the front door, indicating he never turned around to face Meredith’s door after he’d left her room. The prosecution argued, more plausibly, that it wasn’t Guede who locked Meredith’s door – after all, he was careless enough to leave the front door wide open. Instead, Amanda or Raffaele had locked Meredith’s door after the murder, enabling them later to explain why they hadn’t discovered Meredith’s body sooner.

    4. Amanda’s fingerprint-free bedside lamp was found on the floor at the foot of Meredith’s bed. Knox supporters say Meredith must have borrowed it without asking (Amanda said that Meredith had never asked to borrow it). Skeptics suggest the lamp was brought in to help illuminate spots to be cleaned, and was inadvertently left there when the clean-up was finished. All we know for sure is that Meredith’s room ended up with extra lighting that November evening, while Amanda’s bedroom was left with no light at all (Amanda’s room had no ceiling light – only her bedside lamp).

    5. Amanda’s “morning after” story raises eyebrows. She testified that she came home that morning (November 2) to find her front door wide open and blood in the bathroom that hadn’t been there before. She called out to her roommates, but no one answered. She thereupon closed the front door but knowingly left it unlocked, and took a shower. When she finished, she realized she’d left her towel in her bedroom. She used the bath mat – on which she’d just noticed a bloody footprint – to “hop,” dripping wet and naked, back to her room to get her towel. Rather than dry off in her room, she “hopped” back to the bathroom, still wet and [email protected], on the same blood-stained bath mat, and dried off there. After returning to her bedroom, now dry but still naked, Amanda dressed, and then blow-dried her hair in the other bathroom. There she noticed an unflushed toilet (which she left unflushed) containing what turned out to be Rudy Guede’s f3ces. Though Amanda said all of this puzzled and worried her, she didn’t notice that Meredith’s door was locked, and she walked right past Filomena’s bedroom – at least four times – without looking in and discovering the “burglary.” Filomena’s door was closed, Amanda said, and she didn’t try to open it. Yet Raffaele said that when he and Amanda returned to the cottage about an hour and a half later, after breakfast, Filomena’s door was “wide open” when they walked in, and he immediately noticed the “burglary.” Neither Raffaele nor Amanda claimed to have wondered who had opened Filomena’s door in the meantime.

    Even worse, recently Amanda made yet another change to her story:

    Court testimony – June 12 2009
    Amanda: “I used the mat to kind of hop over to my room and into my room, I took my towel, and I used the mat to get back to the bathroom.”

    Amanda Knox Blog:

    Amanda says:
    FEBRUARY 28, 2014 AT 15:15
    2) “I took a shower and used the bathmat to shuffle a bit into the hall, only to abandon that procedure part-way through because it wasn’t accomplishing much.”

    END OF PART 2 OF 3

    PART 3 OF 3:

    6. Amanda’s other stories were no less suspicious. The day after the murder, she told the police she’d spent the entire evening and night at Raffaele’s apartment and had no idea who had killed Meredith. A few days later (under severe pressure, she insists), she told the police she’d been home after all, had invited Patrick Lumumba in, and that Lumumba had killed Meredith. The next day, in an entirely voluntary statement she wrote with no one else present, Amanda said she was pretty sure she’d been at Raffaele’s after all but nonetheless stood by her recollection that Lumumba had killed Meredith. A few days later, Amanda still remembered having been at Raffaele’s apartment, but now she was certain that Lumumba had nothing to do with the murder. (How Amanda could know anything about Lumumba’s guilt or innocence was unclear, of course, once she’d returned to her claim that she’d been at Raffaele’s apartment the whole time.) Unfortunately for
    Lumumba, Amanda only told her mother this. Both Amanda and her mother neglected to mention it to the authorities, even though Amanda said they knew there was no evidence against Lumumba except Amanda’s accusation. Lumumba languished in jail for over two weeks until he came up with an airtight alibi. After Lumumba was released, Amanda said she felt terrible that the police had wrongly arrested him.

    ********************************

    The clean-up and body-move were proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and the judges and juries that convicted Amanda also determined that she had staged the “burglary.” Though it’s possible Amanda was not the person who did those things (and also possible she was not the person who locked Meredith’s door after the murderer left Meredith’s room), inferences reasonably drawn from the clean-up and cover-up evidence, together with the ample evidence summarized above (and other physical evidence and testimony not mentioned here), solidly support the murder conviction. The burden shifted to Amanda long ago to answer the tough questions posed in this imaginary monologue:

    Amanda, it’s clear that someone cleaned up after Meredith was murdered. Someone also cut off her bra and repositioned her body – to make it appear, we think, that she’d been raped. We think that person also staged a burglary so it would appear the murderer hadn’t been let in by someone who lived there. Even if a burglary actually happened, as you insist, who in his right mind would risk drawing suspicion on himself by cleaning up after the murder, or by moving and covering Meredith’s body? And if he did bother to clean up, why would he ignore his own bloody footprints? Why would he pause to lock Meredith’s door with a key, and yet leave the front door wide open? It’s difficult to believe you weren’t involved in the clean-up and body-moving, or why you might have done those things for an innocent reason. The killer would have no reason to have done them. Obviously Meredith didn’t. No one suggests your two out-of-town roommates came back and did all this, or that a stranger wandered in off the street and did it. Who does that leave?

    You, with or without Raffaele’s help. We found your DNA, mixed with Meredith’s DNA, in five different places around the cottage – including even Filomena’s bedroom, where you insist a burglary occurred. We didn’t even find Filomena’s own DNA in her bedroom, much less any trace of a burglar or anyone else – just your DNA, mixed with Meredith’s. You’ve also told several different stories about where you were that night. Sometimes you were home, sometimes you weren’t; sometimes you’re not sure. Sometimes you invited Patrick Lumumba into your cottage and he killed Meredith, sometimes you didn’t and Patrick had nothing to do with the murder; sometimes you’re not sure. Sometimes you insist Guede broke Filomena’s window and climbed in; sometimes you say Meredith must have let him in; sometimes you’re not sure. And so on. Maybe you had nothing to do with this gruesome murder, Amanda, but, frankly, we doubt seriously that you’ve told us all you know about what happened that night. Maybe it’s time you did. Better late than never.

    END OF PART 3 OF 3

  38. Julie Kaye Jorgensen

    There are some factors about this form of evaluation that need to be taken into consideration. The interview as we saw it was not in the same order as it was filmed. Many scenes were cut and altered and that gives a whole different bend to Amanda’s replies. I have noticed that when you have a chance to watch an interview with Amanda that has no editing or cuts, you see her in a totally different and much more authentic way.

    Another thing you need to take into consideration is Amanda’s personal mannerisms. I have to admit, this interview was my first time ever seeing Amanda Knox. I have since come to know much more about her. After months of careful study and video watching of Amanda, I have learned that Amanda often nods her head yes when she is trying to emphasize what she is saying. My own brother has this unique mannerism so I am used to how it can be used when someone is speaking.

    The last thing that really needs to be taken into consideration is PTSD. Amanda obviously has been severely traumatized not only from her 4 years of unjust imprisonment, but from the psychological torment of being hated and accused for a crime she did not commit. Amanda’s replies are flat because she is trying so hard not to get emotional because she know if she starts crying she might not be able to stop. Those moments still sneak out but you can tell she is trying with all her might to keep it together for the interview.

    I hope these 3 things will be taken into consideration. I would sure hate to be judged the way Amanda has for every eye blink, swallow, head nod, cry and non crying moment.

  39. james rae

    Try sitting in front of a camera for a worldwide audience and be relaxed and yourself and see what happens.

      1. John Peddubriwny

        Add to that, these were “kid glove” interviews. Am I the only person who thinks it strange that she will go in front of the camera to a “friendly” journalist to “explain” things, but when she has a chance to give evidence on her own behalf in a court, she keeps “Schtuum”

      2. jack

        Its because you are dumb. Lawyers commonly advise clients not to testify in court. The ability of prosecutors to trip up the innocent as well as guilty is common knowledge.

  40. Clearly

    I think Knox and Sollecito stepped in you-know-what. I think they were at the crime scene and were scared and may have tampered with evidence in panic. But I don’t think either of them murdered her. No one has answered the “why” question. Everyone is discussing evidence but no one is discussing motive. For that matter, why was Guede involved? Did he have a prior record of sexual assault and/or murder?

    Something just isn’t right about this whole case. I think Knox, Sollecito and Guede know more than they are telling.

    Knox is good media fodder because she’s pretty (not beautiful, as some have claimed) and a party girl. I see that she cut her hair; she seems to be moving away from her former sexualized image. This woman will never be able to live a normal life. As bartender Lumumba said, she will be in “the prison of her mind,” whether or not she is guilty.

    Notice how Sollecito doesn’t have any media nicknames – at least none that I am aware of. He’s not as marketable as Knox is.

    While I’m all for a college girl making her own choices, had Knox lived a more respectable life, she would have seemed a lot more innocent. It would have made prosecutors’ theory of the “sex party gone awry” look even more ridiculous than it already does. We all pay for our bad choices, Amanda. And yes I’m aware of all the feminists that will attack my statements and argue that a woman can sleep around, do drugs and party and she should still be treated respectfully. That’s highly illogical though, as we do judge people by their actions. Actions are the best indicators of character, and Knox’s at the time of the murder was nonexistent. She was grotesquely immature for her age, a veritable spoiled brat.

    But I do not believe she or Sollecito were murderers. I need more evidence than the scant amount that the authorities have offered.

      1. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        She is a party girl, she went to Italy to party. She was enrolled in school while in Italy that was just a language school that gave her absolutely ZERO credits towards any education/future. Just before she left to Perugia, she had the cops called on her HOUSE PARTY because of a noise disturbance. Believe it or not, it’s not only dumb people who can party. Though obsessive partying can definitely be linked with low IQ’s it’s also linked with priorities, maturity, and values. She was a young college girl who had many one night stands and liked to party. That’s a fact. Her GPA has nothing to do with any of that.

      2. Fredly

        The point is she was holding her GPA. Some partying is normal in college. I’ve been at parties before where the cops came out came out to shut them down.

      3. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        It sounded like your point was that she’s not a party girl which she is. The GPA sounded like the evidence to back up your point which it’s not. She was also holding her GPA while under 20 when she was living at home and being held accountable for her school work/success. In Perugia, however she was independent of parental rule and did not have to keep up any GPA as she was only taking a language class that did not even count towards her college credits so she could have failed and it would not have hurt her future in any way, shape, or form. Amanda Knox went to Perugia to let loose and party like she could not in America.

      4. Fredly

        There’s got to be something between virgin girls who never go out and Lindsay Lohan. Do you think Lohan could hold a 3.9? I believe Knox is now very near graduation. There is no proof that Knox was anything other than a normal 20 year old college kid.

      5. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        Are you joking? Of course there’s a difference between VIRGIN girls who NEVER go out and Lindsay Lohan, but that’s not found in their GPA and Amanda Knox is the Lindsay Lohan. Amanda Knox was FAR from a virgin, she had 3 one-night stands and had slept with 6 guys by the time she was sleeping with Raffaele making him her 7th sexual partner by the age of 20 yrs old; What about that says Virgin to you? And this was from her own handwriting when the police told her she had AIDS or something and she was told to write the list of all of her partners.
        Secondly, NEVER go out? First of all, the whole point of Amanda Knox going to Perugia, Italy was to GO OUT 24/7. She wasn’t going for an education, she was going for a parent/guardian-free fun time to party. To back that up, she had the POLICE called to her house when she was throwing a HOUSE PARTY for noise disturbance.
        There is PLENTY of proof that Amanda Knox was not only not an average 20 year old kid but that she was furthermore a text-book example of a sociopath. The average 20 year old girl is not a partying whore with a great GPA to cover it up, sorry.

      6. Fredly

        7 partners by 20, oh my God, what a whore. It is sad that the police lied to get the list to begin with so morons like you could attack her character instead of focusing on the lack of evidence. I can assure you that Knox was no wilder in her history than any girl in that flat including Kercher.

      7. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        I guess you’re the only boy still living in the 1990’s because having 7 sexual partners by the young age of 20 is beyond the line of whore. Statistically, most men from ages 25+ believe a woman is a whore if she’s had 5 sexual partners in her LIFE, let alone 7 within just a couple of years and that’s her STARTING point. Of course it was not right that the police manipulated her to get this list but the fact of the matter is now we DO have that list and only a moron would believe that the method of obtaining the list somehow changes the facts. Amanda Knox wrote the list in her own handwriting and if you knew ANYTHING about truth and logic then you’d know that the police only did that because Amanda and her family were LYING and saying that Knox was NOT a whore even though she was, and now we all have the proof that she is. The rule of DECENCY to live by is to never make fun of someone for the things that they can’t change like being born with a genetic mutation etc; but you judge a person’s character based on THEIR CHOICES. Knox CHOSE to have sex with multiple men at a young age, 3 of which she’d met hours or minutes before engaging in such activity with them. Furthermore, if Knox had not chosen to be a whore then NO ONE (not the police, not the media, and not the prosecutors) would be able to MAGICALLY produce evidence out of thin air to support such claims. You cannot prove something that isn’t true and it’s disgusting that you would choose to stick up for a murdering whore, I don’t understand how you sleep with yourself at night.
        You are a most callous and disgusting human being to call Meredith Kercher a whore when there is absolutely ZERO evidence to suggest anything CLOSE to that and we have tons of court testimonies that all confirm Meredith and Amanda were OPPOSITES with Amanda being the lazy, dirty, sexually loose, self-centered girl and Meredith being the proper, clean, caring, pleasant future housewife type.

      8. Fredly

        I didn’t call her a whore, but I can assure you she had as much pre-marital sex as Knox. You don’t know this because she is treated like the Virgin Mary in the press, while Knox is treated like a whore. You clearly have women issues that you are projecting on to Knox. Anyone who thinks a women is a whore if she’s slept with more than 5 men needs to seek out therapy.

    1. John Peddubriwny

      Not sure if your question about Guede was rhetorical, but he was the only one of the trio that had no record whatsoever.

      Regarding motive, the problem that you might have with that, is that there are often so-called “motiveless murders”, which usually means that people don’t understand the motive because it may not necessarily make sense to them.

      But try this anyway. She comes across as a little bit of a spoiled brat. Kercher upsets her because of a personality clash. She decides to teach Kercher a lesson by introducing her to her “big black drug dealer friend” the idea being, “Show me more respect or he will visit you again”. Kercher is not intimidated. Guede feels like a fool, and starts to get rough to show his “credentials” as someone to be feared, and matters escalate.

      Before you dismiss this as being implausible, it relies on the judgement of Knox. Would she be intimidated by a character like Guede if he were a complete stranger. Certainly, she has no problem in framing another black man, and one of the reasons why “strange” black men are so often falsely implicated in crimes, is because they represent the “bogey man”. So it is not impossible to think that Lumumba was framed because he fitted the profile in her mindset. So if Knox thinks that black men, especially drug dealers are someone to fear, is it unreasonable for her to think that Kercher will have similar fears.

      Of course, if you are thinking ahead, you will anticipate that Kercher can go to the police later on, except, as we all know, Black drug dealers are all members of big gangs, who all have guns.

      It is one of those ironies, that the people who are least likely to go to the police in these circumstances, are people who are criminals or involved in the periphery of crime, such as drug taking, because they “know the score”. Kercher on the other hand, led a very typical middle class existence, and would have been lacking the apparent “street smarts” not to threaten to call the police. That would explain why there was a sustained attack with many superficial wounds, as she might have been expected to conform, and do what Knox would do in the circumstances, and not threaten to go to the police.

  41. Rodney Davis

    Vanessa, you missed a micro. Amanda flashed a quick pride smile when asked did she kill Meredith. The left side of her mouth gave a very quick upturn smile as though she was proud of it. Watch again and you’ll see.

  42. Doug

    I noticed the nodding too Vanessa but surely in making a consideration you need to consider the clarity of the question. For example, the question ‘were you there that night?’. Where, exactly is ‘there’? We know that Sawyer is referring to the murder scene but surely, even if it is momentarily the brain will be processing something like ‘does she mean the cottage where the murder happened?’ or ‘does she mean Rafaelle’s house?’, or ‘does she mean something else?’ before figuring it out and answering the question. This must confuse the non-verbal response. Also, your assessment of the time taken to answer the question ‘do you know anything else you have not told police, that you have not said in this book?’ is not correct. She took about 1 second to answer this question, about the same as the preceding questions. What you didn’t mention is that Diane Sawyer’s ‘Do you know anything else you have not told police, that you have not said in this book?’ was not the end of the question. Sawyer goes on to add ‘do you know anything?’ after a pause. We can’t see Sawyer’s face, the shot is fixed onto Knox so we don’t know whether the ‘do you know anything?’ was added because Knox wasn’t answering quick enough, or if Knox anticipated the extra bit of the question before answering. After Sawyer does say ‘do you know anything?’ Knox answers within about 1 second as mentioned above. I think that this is an example, that can be applied to be much of your analysis, that your approach is a little too simplistic.

  43. Sel-Nel

    In order to believe Amanda Knox, you have to overlook the following:

    The false accusation against her employer, a claim she made after less than TWO HOURS of being interviewed (not 40!!) and stuck to for 3 weeks, letting her innocent boss rot in jail all the while.

    The fact that Meredith Kercher’s blood was found mixed inside Knox’s fresh DNA in 5 different spots in the bathroom.

    The fact the Knox was bleeding on the day of the murder, and left blood smeared in the bathroom, blood which she herself admits was not there the day before.

    Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp – with a 16 loci match, the probability that the DNA belongs to someone else is one in a trillion, and with only ONE other DNA trace of him in the cottage (cigarette butt) the idea of contamination is near impossible.

    Knox’s DNA on the handle of the murder weapon and Meredith’s on the blade. Sollectio tried to explain this by saying he had accidentally pricked Meredith with his knife while she had been at his house. She had never been there.

    The THREE sets of bloody footprints, one a match for Guede, one a match for Sollecito, and one in Knox’s size, in her own DNA, mixed with Meredith’s.

    The single bloody footprint on the bathmat, which is a perfect match for Sollecito, and also, being the only bloody footprint with no others around it, is undisputed proof a clean up happened.

    The blatantly staged crime scene, with glass on TOP of the clothes strewn around, a near impossible window entry point, and not a single trace of Guede anywhere in that room, not to mention the fact Knox and Sollecito ‘knew’ nothing had been taken before anyone had even looked.

    The fact that Guede’s footprints lead right out Meredith’s room out the front door and he has an alibi for the rest of the night, meaning we KNOW it wasn’t Guede who returned to the scene hours later, staged a burglary, cleaned up and moved the body.

    The fact that Knox’s lamp was found in Meredith’s room with no fingerprints whatsoever – more proof of a clean up.

    The incredible amount of changes in her account before, during, and after she was arrested. Lies, lies and more lies.

    Total lack of alibi after multiple attempts, and then Sollecito withdrawing his alibi for her.

    Her dubious account of her activity the morning after the murder, including her lies about Meredith’s locked door, her reaction to the blood, and the contradictions to this she makes in her testimony, email home, and in her book.

    The fact Knox knew several details about her murder she could not possibly have known: cause of death, position of body, that there had been more than one attacker, that Meredith had been assaulted etc.

    The frantic call she made to her mother in the middle of the night that she ‘forgets’ making.

    The witness who saw her and Sollecito by the cottage on the murder night.

    The shopkeeper who saw her when she claimed to be in her bed sleeping.

    Her overall behaviour after the murder.

    “No evidence?” Yeah right.

    1. Laramie Flick

      Virtually everything you stated is easily disputed, is irrelevant, or adds up to her being a suspect not a convict. The “witness who saw her and Sollecito by the cottage”…also claimed she had a gap between her teeth. He was clearly crazy. Sollecito never withdrew his alibi. He merely admitted it was possible she left while he was asleep. But he never wavered from the fact that she was there when he went to sleep and when he woke up.

      To believe she’s guilty you have to overlook the fact that Rudy Guede’s DNA was found inside and around the victim but none of Knox’s DNA was found in the victim’s bedroom. You have to pretend there is some intimate connection between Knox and Guede though not a single text, email or phone call has ever emerged.

      You have to forget that Guede went partying after the murder and then fled the country but Knox voluntarily stuck around until she was arrested.

      You have to ignore comical police incompetence – not finding the victim’s bra clasp for six weeks, destroying all of the main suspect’s hard drives, failing to follow international protocols in evidence gathering, leaking clues to the press before verifying them – like your ‘shopkeeper’ above. You have to believe a prosecutor under investigation for abuse of office acted with total fairness and legality at all times. Police and prosecutorial missteps alone should be enough to stop anyone from being 100% certain of Knox’s guilt and commenting at length on message boards.

      You have to subscribe to an insane theory that this was a sex-game gone wrong. Oh wait, it was an argument over cleanliness where Guede had sex with the victim and then helped Knox murder the victim. What?

      You have to believe that a girl with a job, going to college, with a new boyfriend, had time to build up a murderous grudge against her roommate and then convince a virtual stranger and a boyfriend of a week to murder for her. That boyfriend of a week then is so in love with her that he maintains their innocence for the next seven years despite going to jail and facing decades more incarcerated?

      Essentially, to believe she’s guilty, you have to believe in witchcraft
      and that she could cast a ‘DNA clean spell’ and a ‘stranger bewitch
      spell’.

      But keep throwing circumstantial nonsense in the toilet and see what get blown back into the bathroom air when it’s flushed.

      1. Slappy Duck

        Knox sticking around does not imply innocence, not every criminal makes for the border after committing a crime.

        It is extremely difficult to leave any usable DNA at a crime scene, somewhere between 1-10% of crimes scenes have any usable DNA.

        Circumstantial evidence is still evidence and in this case there was enough of it to make a conviction. There are many cases of criminals being convicted on less circumstantial evidence. As for there being no motive, there isn’t always a clear motive in a crime regardless of what television might have you believe.

      2. Laramie F.

        Not every crime scene is a violent knifing in a narrow space. Find me the statistic on that. How do you collect DNA on a public street. How do you collect DNA when a gun was fired from a distance? Many crimes don’t need expensive and difficult DNA analysis because the perpetrator is obvious.

      3. John Peddubriwny

        You keep making the same vacuous points. There is research that shows that because a culprit was at the scene of a crime, does not mean they must have left DNA.

        Guede was in a position to flee the country because there was no evidence to suggest that he and MK knew each other. However, had Knox suddenly fled, it would have raised more red flags than at a Communist party meeting.

        As for the “International Protocols” whenever someone asks where they can find these they never receive an answer. The paid hacks who came up with that little lie, took extracts from various CSI manuals such as the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the Wisconsin Highway Patrol but when you compare them to each other you will find that in some cases, the GBI and WHP do things differently. It follows from that that a person arrested in Georgia can argue that the DNA cannot be admitted because they do it differently in Wisconsin. By definition, if they are citing publications that contradict each other, then at least one (if not both) fail to reach “Internationally Accepted Protocols”

        Why do you “have to pretend there is some intimate connection between Knox and Guede” Why couldn’t it have been a case that AK wanted to frighten MK, and perhaps spicing it up with a comment like, “She calls all black men n*g*e*rs”, and then it gets out of hand. I cannot see any evidence that this was a premeditated act. And if you don’t think it was was premeditated, there is no reason to consider a murderous grudge.

        As to RS maintaining her innocence, there is clear evidence that at one stage, he says she was missing for several hours, and that she asked him to provide a false alibi for this time. Of course that might also be a case of him throwing her under the bus, in order to deflect attention from himself, as may also be the case in her attempting to frame Lumumba.

        You would be amazed at the number of times the most obvious answer is in fact the correct answer.

      4. Tanley

        I totally agree with everything u say,I just have a question ,why would they both turn their phones off early on in the evening ,I am truly puzzled by that ,if it wasn’t premeditated then why take that step?

      5. jack

        The most obvious answer is that Guede broke in as he had done at a law office two weeks before and attacked Meredith. You’d be amazed that the most obvious answer is in fact the correct answer.

      6. John Peddubriwny

        i know who you are. You are Aerosol (aka Wayn(k)er)

        You gave it away the other day when you mentioned the treatment by Poxy in the Police station. Normally, people have a conversation here and they start out as a difference of opinion, and they deteriorate. In your case, you jumped in feet first trying to trash my posts, even to the extent that you distort them so that you have something to complain about.

        In case any of you are unaware, Aerosol used to go under the name Wayne and was a Knox shill who would frequently spend 15 hours a day spreading lies on behalf of Poxy. Waynker was a self confessed torturer who who went ballistic one night and threatened several of us with violence. As a result, he was no longer useful as a shill and so he had to seek more honest employment. After all, how embarrassing is it to have a psycho defending the psycho bitch?

        And of course anybody now reading this, you might think to yourself “Why is Waynker still pursuing this? Nothing that anybody says matters anymore and will not change a thing”. Yet Aerosol Waynker always displayed a nasty mean streak even before we showed him in his true colours. The war is over. Waynker is not defending Knox because she no longer needs to be defended. This is about getting revenge on the main person who exposed his psycho personality.

        Take a look at his most recent posts. They are all addressed to me. Do I care? I once suggested that Waynker was interested in sadism, bestiality and necrophilia, because he loved to flog a dead horse. And what is he doing now. He is flogging the deadest of horses after the race has finished and the war has ended and nothing that any of us say is going to make any difference. What does that say about him? I’ll tell you. It shows that he is a small minded Aerosol. He is so desperate to attack me, that when I didn’t respond to his mutltitude of recent posts to me, he looks at posts that are over a year old to try to start a new row with me alone.

        Well Waynker, nobody cares anymore. If they did, they would be joining in If there is anything worse that being exposed as a failed shill. It’s being exposed as a SAD VINDICTIVE failed shill in a cause that nobody cares about anymore.

        So when you get into your sodding wet bed tonight ( and lets face it, with your personality, you mist be a bed wetter), remember, I am the man who busted you. In the same way that I am unable to change the outcome of the ISC, you are unable to change that fact I am the man who busted you. Anyway, before you change your ID yet again, I will leave you with the words of one of Fred Astaire’s best songs when you get back to your rubber room with the mouthful of crayons, propeller beanie and pork chop strung to your neck: Every time you recall how I gave you a cyberkicking, you can visualise me singing, “They can’t take that away from me”. ROFLMAO.

      7. jack

        That’s quite the imagination you have there. I find that particularly interesting as it might explain things. You were still debating the case just a few days ago. I decided to give some counterpoints. Care to debate them?

      8. jack

        I’m curious how many of my posts when I signed “We’re old friends” did you notice? Or did you take the hint?
        Thinking on your post more, I can see a clear correlation between the Amanda Knox case and your post. They are both complete fantasy. And yet, some people have the ability to spin a good fantasy reaching incredible conclusions that make no sense. Unfortunately, when those in power do it, much harm can occur. As there are many people out there that are gullible.
        I have no ill will to you. I was merely debating you. Strongly. I’m still unsure of the reason for the hostility, that doesn’t seem warranted. Oh well. Things occur.
        I sincerely hope for many people’s sake that some day that Guede will just come clean and tell the whole story. How he killed Meredith. I know that even that would not be enough for many as they would simply dismiss it, but maybe for the family of Meredith that would give them peace.

        Because what the prosecutor did, the creation of the fairy tale of the 3-way murder, took away any sense of closure or justice. And that tragedy simply compounded the one that Guede did.

    2. Guest-Mamalou

      Exactly, to not forget; we have never yet seen Amanda crying or emotionally destroyed because of her friends (?) death…she is too cold, too calculated. If my friend was killed and found dead, I would scream out loud!!!!!!

      1. John Peddubriwny

        I am not disputing your opinion of her guilt. I think you are probably right, but when I see the stories about her lack of emotion, canoodling with RS, doing cartwheels and buying sexy underwear, I give them no credence whatsoever. Different people react in different ways. If you look at many of the “true crime” docs, you will hear cops say, “I was suspicious because of their reaction (or lack of), but they later convict someone else after clearing the first suspect.

        Personally, I don’t see why she should have been grief struck by MK’s death as they had only known each other for a short while.

        I am pleased to say that when you look at most of the posts on this thread, nobody has held this as reason to think that she is guilty.

      2. hkzombie1

        I do agree. I took into consideration her mental and emotional state at that time. Remember that she and her then, handsome Italian boyfriend had been dating for only A week. She was a young, somewhat lonely/homesick adolescent who was highly infatuated (now you understand why I had to add “handsome” previous sentence) She seemed to be still “elated” over the new phase in her life. Some teenagers or adolescents tend to be oblivious or less sensitive to other stuff going around them when they are experiencing a “romantic high”. That was what I thought THEN. However, reading about Rafaelle Sollecito’s most recent recollection of events is again making me re-analyze….

      3. John Peddubriwny

        By definition, those who think she is guilty based on her “emotional response” (or lack of) are making a judgement based on how they think they would react. The smarter people understand that jails are full of murderers who when interviewed, gave Oscar winning performances to allay suspicions.

        Can you give a link to your last sentence please. I have to admit I have paid less attention to his possible guilt, simply because he has he has tended to keep his own Counsel. I have a certain amount of sympathy for his plight,purely because every time she opens her mouth and gets caught in a lie, she drags him down with her.But if he says they were together, and you think Knox is guilty, it is difficult not to convict him also.

      4. John Peddubriwny

        I assume in view of your previous post to me. that you are on some sort of trolling exercise, or that you lack the capability to do anything other than disparage posts, as you have yet to put forward an alternative to what I have written.

        So perhaps if you are going to dispute what I say, it would help us all if you explained why you believe I might be wrong.

      5. RogerGT

        She did the splits once. No cartwheels WHATSOEVER. Through boredom? Asked by a leery police officer? Not important. The sexy underwear? Degustibus! Each to his own! Sexy for you? Not sexy for me. That’s a matter of opinion and is a sensationalistic adgective to use. A cordonned-off house? No change of underwear? Just go to the shop and buy some! People like you will continue to make a big thing of it. Not important.

      6. John Peddubriwny

        You obviously didn’t read my post properly. In reply to “Guest Mamalou” I wrote: “I see the stories about her lack of emotion, canoodling with RS, doing cartwheels and buying sexy underwear, I give them no credence whatsoever”.

        I am commenting on what has been reported elsewhere, and that I do not judge her on these stories. I deliberately used the word “stories” so that people would understand that I was not assuming that these reports were true, and that even if they were true, they were no basis for assuming her guilt or innocence.

        And yes, your apology is graciously accepted.

      7. RogerGT

        Yep! You are so graciously kind, but might I add that just writing the word ‘stories’ was not enough! You should have written ‘fictitious stories’, as stories in general can also be true.

      8. John Peddubriwny

        I don’t know whether they were fictitious or not. Neither you nor I were there.

        My point was that regardless of whether they were true or not, they could not be used as a basis for concluding guilt or innocence, which I made clear in my post. You seem to be the only person who thinks I am giving legs to some myth. Everyone else seems to have understood that “stories” was code for “not necessarily true”.

      9. 0(o_o)0(-_-)(o…o)

        “If my friend was killed and found dead, I would scream out loud!!!!!!”

        I didn’t. Not all people grieve or deal with loss the same way. And it’s preposterous to demand everyone behave as we think they should or how we think we would.

        People can behave strangely when faced with such emotional extremes, including outright denial of what has happened. Amanda was clearly exhibiting these traits going in and out of emotions dealing with the loss of her roomate. Was Kercher’s father not grieving when he was snapped smiling at an Italian female in court? You people draw absurd conclusions where there are none to be drawn. For example, when other people see the “infamous kiss” video they don’t see “infamy” but a boyfriend comforting and consoling someone who lost their roommate to a violent crime.

  44. Donatas S.

    Lie detector theory is just a big nonsense. If she has psychopatic/narcicistic tendencies (and it appears so from the whole store, her identity changes, lack of empathy, lies, being detached from reality, grandiose sense of self – from the guard observations) she would believe her own story, her own reality inside her head that she has created for herself. For her, its like a game, and she is creating the rules. Plus after writing a book the whole fictional story, she already imprinted deeply into her brain her own reality. Furthermore, lets face it, although her parents give her unconditional love, I believe deep down they know its a bit too good to be true, thats why they took this case so seriously, and even after the reverse of the sentence, they invested so much money into PR. Thats why Solecitto also did it. They have been coordinating all the story through the skype and wrote nice coherent peace of books. Also, don’t be fooled. These kids just do what their rich parents tell them. In the Knox case she was reinvented. She was preparing for this “show” long time, she lost weight, have perfect appearance, and it looks like she was prapared for every possible question. Now the public will emphasize with her and if US will try to extradite her, they will support her. If honestly, this case, really shows the power of media, the power of mind control. You have to understand that behind this PR campaign are the biggest professionals in the industry, who know all the details about human psychology and tools of the mind control, and work with top people in the political “show bizz”. Personally the only good objective view of this case was when on CNN invited professor from Harvard who clearly saw the big nonsense on the media and told the truth – based on the evidence, which is very substantial, also based on various other details – Amanda’s behavior, lies, etc. – She is guilty. However another interesting point here is that Solecitto is now in the hands of authorities in Italy, which means that his lawyer or parents etc. could potentially try to speak up and maybe put forward knox as the one who brutally murdered and planned the whole thing. Which would make life for Solecitto easier, but for Amanda there would be two convicts confirming her death. I trust the court of the Italy, except that it could be gaps in relation to corruption (thats why probably court decision was reversed before). But since Knox parents/lawyers filled appeal to Human Rights, I would expect them to be truly objective and without any possibilities of corruption. Although I can not ignore the fact that media is full of biased influences.

  45. nathalie

    This is complete rubbish, if you look at the last five decades of deception detection research thousands of studies has shown the same result , there are no sure signs (verbal and non -verbal )of deception and this includes so-called micro expressions.Results has been no better then flipping a coin.There are no thing as an human lie detector as the results of the studies shown this is impossible.

  46. Bridgettedove

    I think she is innocent: There would be traces of dna on the knives and on some clothing as they all lived in close proximity. I asked a psychic who belongs to the school of psychic studies and has always been accurate. I have known for 20 years and she said the person who killed her was a man who shared her bed. He had sex with her then killed her in a drug fuelled frenzy.

      1. Bridgettedove

        Each to their own. I feel a man was more likely to have killed her and it was in a drug motivated violent frenzy. Much more likely to be aggressive male behaviour.

  47. Billoyd Garrison

    Good thing she didn’t poot out a fart during the interview, then we’d know she did it–fo sho g money.

  48. Kyle

    Hey Vanessa Van Edwards. Hours ago I heard the recent news on Amanda Knox and was eager to take a crack at plying my knowledge of and interest in human behavior. Even before I studied the science or followed this rabbit hole of deception detection, I’ve always been a bit of the stranger or friend whom people could confide their hidden truths in; a social student. And so that’s me…and yours was the first posting I came across after watching her interview. I’m interested in exploring this website as I really don’t know specifically what path of psychology to follow (31yro undergrad), but there aren’t that many people out there to discuss these issues with, so here’s what I saw based on what you’ve mentioned:
    1. Blink Rate – I was under the impression that a normal blink rate is at about every 2.5 seconds, and Amanda blinked at a much slower rate of 5 plus seconds, which very well could be her normal. Regardless of the changes in rate, or times when she answered questions with closed eyes, there were several points in the interview where Amanda made responses without blinking for abnormally long periods of time while making direct eye-contact, and these were when faced with the big meat balls of her questionable story.
    2. Contempt – I saw that too during the listing of nicknames, and frankly, felt a bit relieved by her response. I don’t want my judgement of this girl’s guilt, based upon a single photo seen so many years ago, to be in fact correct. . However, her flash of contempt was at a particularly offensive name “conciertante of sex,” but when Diane Sawyer said “Sphynx of Perusia,” she reacted differently…without contempt. I genuinely believe I saw a hidden smile in this moment. It kept me on guard throughout the rest of the interview as to when she showed genuine smiles and or possibly tried to hide them. Suffice it to say that narcissistic tendencies are something we all deal with in this digital realm.
    3. Nods – I’m not confident in my knowledge of people shaking their heads in response to questions…like are they saying “no” or does the idea based in the question represent something that goes against their ethics or morals as an individual?… But I most definitely took notice to the times in which Amanda nodded, however slightly, as they were few and far between. This was the Sherlock Holmes moment for me. She truthfully stated that she didn’t physically murder her roommate, but she was there. Was she in the room? How involved was she during the act?? These questions had me going back to other incongruities in her responses like when claiming that she stayed-in with her boyfriend during the night in question and the very, very few times that I saw glimpses of true remorse.
    4. Swallow – Hearing these in the beginning of the interview, and matching them with other deceptive behaviors while answering the specific stimulus said swallows were in response to, definitely put set my alarm bells ringing. This was also at the point where I had to ignore the fact that the producers of this show were subtly setting a narrative for us as viewers to follow. During key questions later in the piece I noted her swallows within a grouping of other deceptive behaviors, yet the sound of this action wasn’t so…magnified. Earlier I noted a cut to Amanda’s clenched hands/rubbing thumbs. Certainly there’s layers of bullshit to the medium in itself, let alone what comes along with a worldwide airing interview.
    5. Posture – Aside from one or two left-shoulder shrugs and one memorable two-shoulder shrug along with deep sigh, as viewers we can’t really gather much from Amanda’s neck-down reactions to Diane’s line of questioning. There were moments, however, where the production team felt it necessary to pan outward to demonstrate the interviewee’s crossed right leg kicking, and the second time it appeared as if her toe muscles were contracting and relaxing. I’ve no idea if her baseline body language was similar to this or demonstrated to us as the viewer to fit along with the narrative of the production staff, but it was shown during specific times in which I was noting some red flags.
    6. Lack of Indignation or Sadness – It seemed clear to me that Amanda was lying while stating how her thoughts were with the family of the victim. It’s also clear to me that this once-girl-in-over-her-head is now a woman living within world-wide stigma, so what’s true cannot be ascertained merely through investigative media. However, beyond the myriad shame-expressions she exhibited throughout the interview, I clearly noted two instances of actual sadness; almost micro-within-micro expressions. They weren’t related with stimulus to the plight of her former school chum but to her involvement in this whole mess. The most interesting behavior to me was how Amanda would sometimes tilt her head downwards and to the right while maintaining eye-contact in responding to a question. Inappropriate coyness or societally trained tick???
    Anyway, Ms. Van Edwards, I could use some feedback on my thoughts and perceptions if you care to reply. When I first saw your profile picture I immediately considered how my reaction to your striking features could potentially affect nervous behavior in an interview…but then I recalled that often my kind and pleasant face or demeanor has unwittingly opened windows to worlds for me. I’m curious to know if your story could perhaps provide much needed perspective upon mine. Thanks to any body who’s read this far.
    -Kyle

    1. John Peddubriwny

      You can be fairly sure that before her legal team let her put her neck on the block like that, they would have insisted on an advance copy of the questions. If that was the case, it might nullify any value that the interview might have for your purposes.

      As far as I know, she has yet to face the sort of interview someone such as David Frost might have given her.

      1. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        Amanda Knox’s PR Team is a pretty expensive cost and I have no reason to believe that they don’t get an advance copy of the questions. As a matter of fact, I don’t think she’ll do an interview unless she gets the questions in advance so she can work on the answers with her PR Team (that I personally don’t believe a truly innocent person would even need to hire.)

      2. John Peddubriwny

        I agree with you about the questions being vetted, but I would take issue with the comment in parentheses. Nowadays, with so many cases being tried in the media, I am being led to think that not only should defendants have the right to a lawyer, but a publicist as well.

        I frequently find myself dismayed with some of the tactics of the prosecution in the US, such as the “perp-walk”. I know that the Knox case is different and is in Italy, but you have to wonder how people can get a fair trial in a high-profile case With the vampires (lawyers) drip feeding the vultures (media) with selectively prejudicial comments.

      3. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        Fair enough, the public should not be part of a trial so there should not even be *need* for a publicist, wouldn’t you agree?
        Personally, I don’t understand how the public can’t see that just as the prosecution is hired with the purpose of trying to prosecute to the best of their ability, so is the defense hired with the purpose of trying to defend to the best of their ability. It is not uncommon for lawyers to pick and choose their evidence and present it in the way that benefits their stance the most yet I see that the American public in this case only have convinced themselves that it is only the prosecution who can ever be corrupt, incorrect, or bias. My problem with AK’s PR Team is the simple fact that there have been many other murderers in America who have had defense lawyers and were in the media but were not presented as 100% innocent as AK is. It is incredibly tasteless to me that when I see American-based documentaries and such on the AK case, they will actually leave out important facts about the case that don’t even convict AK at all, just because they raise the slightest suspicions about her. Then the Americans get indignant about their belief that there is absolutely ZERO reason to suspect AK AT ALL and that she is 100% innocent and “rail-roaded” and “abused” and other blasphemous accusations.

      4. John Peddubriwny

        We are perhaps going a bit off-topic here, but I think that the US has a lot to be ashamed of when it comes to their judicial system, which is brought about by the polticisation of the prosecutors with elections for DA, State AG etc.

        The problem with that system is that these people are elected by being tough on crime, so consequently, it is possible to sentence an 11 year old child to life with out parole. The reality is that for the lawyers on both sides, it’s not about justice, but about winning. And as we have seen on several occasions, even when the whole world knows that the wrong person has been convicted, the prosecution will do it’s best to ensure that the innocent stay in jail. And when the appeals court finally exonerate the victims, the prosecution will suggest that the courts got it wrong, relying on the principle of sovereign immunity.

        But the Knox case is a bit different, because this time, the prosecutors are foreign, and “we all know just how corrupt those dagos are”. And we all know that she is innocent because the newspapers say there is no evidence against her. What they fail to understand is that if you ask the local bureau staffers for their opinion, most think Knox has some explaining to do, but when you look at the reporters who were parachuted in, most of them think she is innocent.

        So why the divergence? It might have something to do with the fact that the bureau staffers speak Italian, whereas the parachutists relied on interpreters that were provided free by the Knox publicists. If you want to lie to an American, the best way to do it is to pander to his prejudices and tell him what he wants to hear, which is exactly what happened with Gulf War 2. Hence Knox must be innocent, because we all know how corrupt those dagos are and that the whole world hates Americans.

  49. gram parsons

    whats interesting for me is watching a lot of the american news coverage,its so unquestioning to be unreal.she’s american so this means she is innocent and thats all that matterss is the vibe they give off.

    another ugly trait in this case is for american commentators to somehow blame the kercher family and make xenophobic remarks about italy and its justice system,,as thought they’ll cling to any flimsy pretence that knox is innocent.

    she’s clearly guilty as sin and deserves a life time of jail.

    which aint to bad really cos mind if she did the same in ‘murica they’d have strapped her in the lecky chair and cooked her alive

    1. Laramie Flick

      Funny how all of those convinced of her guilt often make blanket statements without supporting links such as: “she’s clearly guilty as sin and deserves a life time of jail”.

      However, I have never had anyone explain a remotely plausible motive for her involvement in this murder or a connection between Guede, Solecitto, and Knox beyond a possible handshake. There’s also the utter lack of DNA inside the victim’s bedroom though Guede’s DNA is inside the victim. And why pray tell did a guilty Knox hang around in Italy without a lawyer rather than fleeing home once the police began to question her?

      And if you google ‘Guede’s accomplice’ you’ll find that he told other prisoners Knox and Solecitto weren’t involved. He changed his story so that he can be out shortly. See he had a motivation.

      There’s a reason England is America’s second rate lap dog.

      1. JoeLorenzo

        Funny you say that. Half of America still thinks we are ruled by the royal family through a centuries-old bank cartel.

      2. gram parsons

        yes well you can say what you like about the uk but by most estimations the mark of a civilised society is health care for all,we also tend not to strap people in electric chairs or finish them off in gas chambers,how very nazi like!

        and as for being americas lap dog,do think back a few months to obamas failed attempt at war with syria,britain refused to pony up and obama had to cancel his war to much of the worlds amusment.

        now who’s the lap dog?pretty little doggy obama

      3. Laramie Flick

        If Obama really wanted to attack Syria he would have. He’s not W.

        If England was not America’s lap dog, the English wouldn’t haven’t given Bush the diplomatic cover to go and attack Iraq. It’s only a matter of time before the rest of Ireland, Scotland and Wales become separate countries and England has the international clout of Malaysia.

        The US would have health care and wouldn’t have the death penalty if we didn’t have so many people possibly like yourself – who just automatically accept what they are told by those in power and form their opinions based on gut reactions rather than sifting through all the complexities and contradictions and arriving at an opinion afterwards. They’re called Republicans.

        Not surprisingly, Ann Coulter is convinced Amanda Knox is guilty.

      4. gram parsons

        excuses excuses excuses

        thats one hell of a lot of assumptions your making about me and my politics.

        northern ireland,wales and my beloved scotland want to remain part of the uk,maybe you should check some opinion polls on the matter.

        look the rest of the world has right wing nuts and had health care and stopped cooking people alive like a hundred years ago,so the republican excuse tends to wear thin.

        maybe your founding fathers founded a system that just dont work in the modern world.

      5. notabagelmeister

        Wrong. Guede got no deal for having implicated Knox and Solly. No such deal is available in Italy. He got the shorter sentence he got as a result of a combination of two things–his age (even younger than Solly) and the fact that he faced the music at a fast-track trial. So you are wrong on that. He got the maximum sentence under those conditions. You are also wrong about no DNA evidence. Solly’s DNA was on Kercher’s bra clasp. The defense claimed that this was as a result of cross contamination but no plausible explanation has been offered as to how this could have happened and the respective defense attorneys’ explanations for how this could have happened were far fetched, contradictory, and ultimately rejected by the court. The break in was clearly staged. Who staged it? Not Guede. How’s about this for her involvement in the murder? She hated her roommate and had nothing but enmity for her, even after she was tragically murdered. Never showed an ounce of compassion for her and turned cartwheels across the floor even before she was supposedly so brutally interrogated. As for your statement that England is America’s second rate lap dog, you are all that’s wrong with our country and why we get an undeserved negative reputation in the world, and, as an American, I am disgusted by such comments.

      6. Laramie Flick

        Are you so naive as to think that his testimony against Knox and Solecitto wasn’t a factor in the Supreme Court’s Decision to cut his sentence?

        Do you really believe Mr. Guede’s story that he was pooping, ran out of the bathroom after hearing a scream, saw the ‘murderers’ and then ran to help Ms. Kercher before going to party a disco, perhaps using money he stolen from Ms. Kercher (his fingerprints were on her purse and her cell phones went missing so there was technically a burglary) and then fleeing the country? Ms. Kercher was stabbed over 40 times in the time it takes for someone to put their pants back on?

        Are you also naive as to think that Solecitto and Knox could have been involved in a violent murder and the only DNA tying them to the crime scene is a little speck of Mr. Solecitto’s DNA on the bra clasp? Most likely the DNA was the result of contamination by a bunch of small town cops who did not follow international procedure. The bra was founded nearly six weeks later. I’ve also seen many shirt’s that are not revealing themselves but the bra clasp is visible from behind. A simple ‘hug hello’ and the hugger’s DNA is the clasp. Maybe Solecitto was being a little creepy and seeing Ms. Kercher’s bra hanging in the bathroom, he touched it to see what cup size she was. I’m not seriously presenting these options – but he was not a total stranger so there are countless scenarios as to why there might be the tiniest bit of his DNA on the bra. Show me the source where his DNA was inside the victim as was the case with Guede?

        Oh this staged break-in nonsense and whether Ms. Kercher locked her door all the time. First of all, money and cell phones were stolen (which is why the Postal Police showed up while Amanda Knox and Solecitto were trying to figure out if Ms. Kercher had a hard night on the town or something worse had happened). Secondly, don’t you think Knox and Solecitto would have worked a lot harder to make this ‘break-in’ part of their narrative?

        In your version, she is psychopathic master manipulator who makes her boyfriend of a week and a stranger kill for her but she’s not smart enough to leave the country or get a lawyer and she’s got the street ethics to rat out her accomplices? Just find me one case where a woman helps a complete stranger rape and violently murder another woman. I can find you millions of cases of a young, perhaps mentally ill young man who rapes and kills a woman.

        The problem with this country, and Italy, is too many people accept at face value the declarations of the authorities. They also form their opinions and add facts, logic and justifications later, ignoring anything that doesn’t fit. That’s how we have a Republican Party. That’s how Berlusconi got elected. That’s how anyone ever took seriously the original prosecutor who is now facing jail time.

      7. gram parsons

        yeah keep calling anyone who disagrees with you a republican.

        your aware most the people your calling republicans are from the uk?even our right wingers are more liberal than your democrats you retard

        hahahah what a fool you are

      8. vince bingham

        He’s probably a college kid. He’ll grow up and see who the bad guys are. What’s funny is you read about the economy. Lowest gas price since 2008,steepest decline in inflation since 2009. It coincides with when he took office.After 7 years were almost where we were before.Unemployment during Bush term was usually in the 5.7 % range.But the US standing in the world as this college kid talks about is terrible because of a weak Obama. I lived in Europe for 7 years in the 1990’s. I heard and know how Euro trash thinks, Envy big time. Before the Internet got International popularity Americans had no idea about Euros feelings.I had never heard an American even mention a European back then, much less dis them. Now you see hate online. Americans assumed they were ally’s, friends. Thanks Euro trash. Soon you’ll get what you’ve wished for Islamic law.

      9. notabagelmeister

        Fully replied but apparently wasn’t posted, so I’ll reply again, if less completely. Sentence reduced by 6 years just like Solly and Knox for age. Then 2/3 sentence because he agreed to fast track. Never said that I accept Guede’s story. Of course he tried to exculpate himself. That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t some truth in it, especially as to how he didn’t break in but was a guest and that the murder involved Knox and Solly. Only someone truly naive would believe that a break in had occurred. And the evidence is overwhelming that multiple attackers were involved. Many crime scenes do not have DNA of any or all participants, so you are wrong about that. And there was Solly’s DNA, which isn’t as easily explained as you imply, you just refuse to accept it. And if you believe that DNA will be wherever someone went, why then were there absolutely no traces of Guede in Filomena’s room (where the so-called break-in occurred) even though her things were scattered, glass was broken with a 10-lb rock, no signs of scaling whatsoever on the wall to get to the window 12 feet up, no disturbance on ground or vegetation under window, no glass under window, even though he would have had to scale the window twice in order to open the shutters which were closed. Just look up the website called Murder of Meredith Kercher and read the mountain of evidence of all kinds and all the myths created by the Knox PR machine. I don’t have a clue what you are talking about as far as Republican goes. I’m a Democrat. You sound silly when you say “worked harder to make the break in part of their narrative.” Have you listened to Solly’s phone call to the police? No, you haven’t. Right away he told about the break in and when asked about the broken window, he abruptly hangs up. All the evidence points to the window being broken from the inside with the shutters closed, as they were at the time of the crime.

      10. Laramie Flick

        I’ve looked through the website and it’s poorly written, poorly organized, clearly interested in anything that might be construed as proof of Amanda Knox’s guilt. Basically, it always works with two suppositions:

        1. Rudy Guede couldn’t have acted alone.

        2. Knox acted weird.

        The first I agree with. Guede may have had an accomplice. I keep challenging people to show me where a woman and a stranger get together and decide to violently murder and rape another woman. I also challenge people to show a definite link between the three of them. Guede had met Knox in passing but not enough to make much of an impression. He was a strange guy. He apparently broke into another place and just hung out there for a while and then left without really stealing much of anything. Another place he broke into, he also left unflushed feces. It was his calling card.

        The second, I partly agree with two which is why she was suspect. But it’s all worthless conjecture about what an innocent person would have done. All this conjecture is done with the benefit of hindsight and none of the trauma of being involved in the situation. This is why I use the same technique and I ask what would a guilty person have done and I use a lot of the same evidence as proof she’s innocent. Knock yourself out.

        1. Why didn’t she immediately return to the US?

        2. Why didn’t she immediately get a lawyer like her other
        two roommates did?

        3. Why did she immediately recant her ‘confession’ and
        accusation against Mr. Lumbatta?

        4. If she was a sociopath or psychopath, why didn’t she turn on Mr. Guede immediately or Mr. Solecitto at any time? Not being sure whether he left while she slept, doesn’t count. A sociopath could have easily played the traumatized female victim who just happened to be there and was terrified into silence.

        5. Why didn’t she throw away the ‘murder weapon’ along with her ‘bloody rag and mop’ and her ‘blood-splattered clothes?’ Why didn’t she ditch Ms. Kercher’s two cell phones rather than leaving them to be found resulting in the Postal Police showing up at the house before they were done cleaning?

        6. Why did she return to the apartment that morning at all? It was only a matter of time before one of the other roommates discovered what had happened and then she could return and enjoy the fruits of her psychopathic rage. And why didn’t she shower at Mr. Solecitto’s house just in case she got some blood on her she didn’t notice?

        7. Why did she bother lying about the locked door to Meredith’s bedroom when within a short time the door was going to be broken down and she knew what was behind it? How was that integral to her evil narrative if she did need a few extra minutes to flee the country?

        8. Why did she magically clean every hair follicle, or drop of sweat, or spittle and any other specks of her DNA in the victim’s bedroom but didn’t bother cleaning up the bathroom?

        9. Since she spent so much time cleaning up her DNA, why did she halfheartedly stage a burglary? Why didn’t she steal more things? How come Rudy Guede’s fingerprints were on the victim’s purse and apparently 300 pounds were missing – good for going out to party like Guede did before he fled the country.

        10. Why did she not retrieve her lamp in the process of removing all of her DNA from Ms. Kercher’s bedroom? She was magically thorough at
        that task and could have used that lamp all over the apartment.

        11. Why did she spend so little time with Rudy Guede if he was going to do her bidding and violently murder and rape her hateful roommate? You’d think they would have developed quite a bond beforehand and people would have seen them together all the time. There should also be a lot of angry and threatening texts between the victim and the murderess.

        12. Why didn’t she and her boyfriend memorize exactly what they
        did the night before? It was a pretty simple story and they had all that time while they were thoroughly expunging every bit of their DNA.

        13. Why didn’t she leave her phone on and at Raphael’s house so that it would look like they were at home? They could have left the computer on as well.

      11. notabagelmeister

        You spent a few minutes and “looked through” the website but didn’t read it and certainly not with an open mind. You dismiss it as poorly written but for a website with that much information and facts, it uses quite accurate language in conveying the points at issue. And BTW, you yourself misspell Sollecito as Solecitto, and completely botch Lumumba’s name as Lumbatta, so I guess your post can also be dismissed as careless. I won’t waste time answering all the points you have taken time to make when you didn’t take the time to read the site I pointed you to, which in fact answers many of the questions you pose. But just a couple: 3. She didn’t immediately recant as to Lumumba. If you had read the the myths debunked, you would have seen that she not only implicated him the night of the interrogations but the next day in her written statement unprompted. While she confided to her mother that the charge was false against Lumumba, neither she nor her mother alerted her lawyers or the authorities of that fact during the THREE WEEKS the man was held. 4. Not being sure whether he left while she slept DOES count. She also put it out there that she noticed blood on his hand–“After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele’s hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish.” That was in her written statement to police. 13. The computer was on and a movie played, but nobody used the computer in direct contradiction to the statements of both Solly and Knox. Pretty much all of your points and questions are answered on the site I directed you to, which is heavily cited and has the actual statements, the recordings of the 112 calls, and much more.

      12. Laramie Flick

        I’ve spent more than a few minutes on that website and my original complaints are repeatedly confirmed. Its sheer volume means nothing. People can write a 200 page dissertation about one poem and it’s mostly just fluff. One thing I’ve noticed is that the footnotes sometimes goes to irrelevant sources suggesting that either they are trying to give the appearance of backing up their claims but can’t or they’re just sloppy. Mainly it just seems to parrot the prosecutions tortured attempts to twist every little detail into proof of Amanda Knox’s guilt. The 112 calls are perfect examples.

        The Massei reports, hardly a source sympathetic to Amanda Knox, concludes that the Postal Police did arrive before Amanda Knox. The website goes to extensive and unreadable lengths to contradict a source it usually quotes as proof. And what does all this work prove? Nothing. How many times do you see five people simultaneously calling an ambulance when something happens? These were the postal police – the rough equivalent of traffic cops in New York. They weren’t real police and it was still necessary to call the Carabinieri in to investigate the crime scene. Judging by the way these postal police went
        stomping through the scene and couldn’t break the victim’s door down, even if
        Massei is wrong on the timeline, Sollecito may have recognized they were idiots
        and decided to call the real police when they were busy contaminating the crime scene.

        One interesting note is that Marco, Luca and Marsi all give varying accounts about how long they were there. One says 15. Another says 35. That is exactly the sort of minute detail that would be used against Amanda Knox by those already convinced of her guilt. Why did Knox say it was 15 minutes but Sollecito said it was 35 minutes? They’re murderers! In fact, different people remember things differently. Throw in a discovery of this nature and people’s reactions really begin to vary.

        At least point me to the long and tortured explanation for my first two questions: Why did Amanda Knox not quietly leave the country and get a lawyer like her two roommates did? That’s what a guilty person would do – it’s
        what Rudy Guede did wasn’t it? (After he went out partying for the night).

        And you’re right. I misspelled the names and that was careless. What’s also careless is quoting one document to support one argument but ignoring it when it contradicts the other. Or that’s intentional.

        “You state “she noticed blood on his Raffaele’s hand but I was
        under the impression that it was blood from the fish.”

        That is an excerpt from the handwritten letter to the police she wrote on November 6, 2007 where in regards to her statement about Lumumba
        she writes, “I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me than what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house.”

        Source: your website/ the confessions

        Writing such a thing no longer makes her a reliable witness for the prosecution.

        Some notes on the interrogation: If you read her signed confession by the way, Lumumba is described as ‘colored’ and no American thinking clearly would ever sign a translation using this description for black people. The Murder of Meredith Kercher goes at lengths to argue further down that her interrogation was “at most” 2 hours long yet the first signed confession came at 1:45 but hardly says anything and the second at 5:45 was enough for the police to arrest her. Just one of countless internal contradictions in this website and in the whole case against Amanda Knox.

        That note to the police is followed by her second letter to her lawyers where again she states that she is highly confused and doubts her accusations. It also gives (to me) a very convincing account of how she came to accuse Lumumba under extreme pressure and under police direction. Unfortunately,
        the interrogation was not recorded because of ‘budget problems.’ So the police don’t follow Italian procedure and record the interrogation and they don’t allow her to have a lawyer making the interrogation inadmissible according to the Supreme Court but the Police and Lumumba win a libel suit against her?
        That should tell you all you need to know about how the Italian system
        works.

        4. The police lied to her and told Sollecito had turned on her and the most she does is note that there’s blood on his hand but that might have come from a broken pipe? Does she maintain that position throughout the trial? No. You still have nothing here. Both of them behave with admirable restraint against each other whether guilty or innocent. Again, why didn’t Amanda Knox
        play the victim and testify against Sollecito if she was a psychopathic killer?

        13. “The movie was on but it played.”

        1. Wasn’t one of the countless mistakes the police made to erase Sollecito’s computer drive so none of this can be known for sure?

        2. Only people with very dull minds can remember exactly what they did at every moment the previous night – particularly under extreme emotional strain. If you’ve ever been in a car accident, even a minor one, you know that your mind is not going to be as clear as when you’re just sitting at a computer. But again – why didn’t two guilty people capable of magically cleaning their DNA from a violent crime scene not spend a little more effort creating a fake alibi?

        And all of this again is an endless discussion on minutiae. Where is the connection to Guede? Where is the CCTV footage showing Knox and Sollecito leaving his house and returning to Knox’s apartment? That footage showed the Postal Police arriving? Where is the motive? Where is the DNA evidence in the bedroom?

        Your version of the story requires that Amanda Knox is simultaneously a brilliant psychopathic manipulator but also an absurdly stupid naïf who also happens to be incredibly loyal to her boyfriend of a week and a virtual
        stranger. My version is a crazy dude raped and killed a woman, stole some cash, did some weird stuff in the apartment because he was mentally ill, before he went out to party and then fled the country. Pretty simple eh?

        You should probably read a story in Time called
        the Amanda Knox haters society how they learned to hate me too.

        It’s helped me realize who I’ve been arguing with the last few days when I started to pay closer attention to this case.

      13. notabagelmeister

        Let’s just leave it that there is so much to process this case that one can form many theories. I would just note that your theory–that “a crazy dude raped and killed a woman, stole some cash, did some weird stuff in the apartment because he was mentally ill, before he went out to party and then fled the country. Pretty simple eh?” does not explain the mountain of evidence showing a staged break-in as well as the overwhelming physical evidence (that Knox supporters like to ignore) of multiple attackers, which evidence you did not address at all despite the length of your post. Not to mention no presence of Guede in the supposed break in room, though he’s everywhere else. (Do you really believe Guede chose the most difficult point of entry, TWICE scaled up a wall to a window 12 feet above the ground leaving no traces, used a 10-lb rock, etc., etc.?) Suppose the difference is that I look at that hard evidence and, coming to the same conclusion that the court did, believe that there was a staged break in and multiple attackers, I then move on to the myriad contradictions in both Knox’s and Solly’s story, the inexplicable behavior around the discovery, et al. and I don’t believe them. No, I don’t think Knox is brilliant, though I agree she seems manipulative and most likely is highly intelligent. I’m not qualified to even speculate whether she is a sociopath, though just as an armchair observer I do see a very cold, compassionless, and somewhat narcissistic personality. I think she miscalculated on a number of things. One is that she made a mistake to be in the police station that night, but she may well have been worried about what Solly would say. So she tried to cover both possibilities–that maybe just maybe she had been there or maybe not, it was all a haze, etc. You call her loyal for not turning on Solly but her alibi depended on Solly, so that doesn’t necessarily mean loyalty, right? Without Solly, she has nothing. If she turns on him and tries to say somehow he did it alone with Guede, where does that leave her? I do think she was smart enough to know that her fortunes were tied to his. This just revolves around the simple logic that her home was where the murder happened and his was not, so he can turn on her and suggest that she wasn’t there, but she doesn’t have the luxury of doing the same. Not sure about the car accident reference. Was in a near fatal myself and it seemed to clarify everything–I can remember it in vivid detail. In any event, got to move on. Glad that we could have a discussion beyond the heated and irrelevant rhetoric involving Republicans, Ann Coulter, lap dogs, etc.

      14. Laramie Flick

        You are perhaps the most articulate of the ‘guilters’ that I’ve encountered and your theories work fine were we dissecting a Victorian novel that’s ambiguous.

        This is a real story however and no one has yet to explain a remotely plausible motive, connect the couple to Guede, or explain the lack of direct DNA evidence in the victim’s bedroom, all of which easily add up to reasonable doubt. The Murder of Meredith Kercher website spends thousands of words exploring her every move and expression, but all of this adds up to her being a suspect. That website became outdated when Guede was caught. There is case after case where someone had a motive, had proximity, is identified by faulty witnesses, confessed, and acted strangely afterwards but they weren’t involved in the crime. They go to jail and for the lucky ones the real perpetrator is caught and they’re freed. If Guede had been caught three years later, maybe this is what would have happened. This is the only case I’ve ever heard of where the DNA evidence implicates an unconnected stranger or acquaintance but the accusations persisted. This happened only because the prosecutor is a true villain who hopefully will be in jail before Amanda Knox. Read the Monster of Florence.

        But the multiple attackers? If there was one, it was more likely one of Guede’s buddies from the basketball court. Men are infinitely more violent than women.

        But the break-in?
        I find the website ‘injustice in peruglia’ to be equally comprehensive but far better written. It deals with the break-in and contradicts much of ‘staged break-in theory.’

        1. There was a burglary (Cut and pasted).
        Items of substantial value were stolen from the upstairs flat –
        Meredith Kercher’s rent and pocket money were missing and never
        recovered, her cell phones were missing and recovered elsewhere, and her
        credit cards were also missing but never recovered. The rent money was
        $300 Euros while she would be expected to have another $50 Euros or so
        in pocket money.

        Guede had a history of similar break-ins. This is well documented in other sights but here is the websites description. Again cut and pasted from the same website.

        Rudy Guede’s known method of burglary operation
        – Rudy was known to act alone at night in a search for cash and
        valuables, and to carry a knife and a glass breaking tool among his
        burglary tools. In addition, Rudy was known to throw a large rock to
        break a window. (A large rock would facilitate access and also waken
        anyone inside and alert Rudy to call off the burglary.) Rudy was also
        known to climb a wall to enter an upstairs window.

        If you google “Filomena DNA”, you’ll find a a link to a book called Injustice In Peruglia where it states that only five samples of DNA were taken from Filomena’s room and even her own DNA wasn’t found. The pictures of the room on the website above do not suggest a room that has been ransacked – just a messy woman.

        If you’re really interested I can find one story about Guede where he broke into someone’s office and just hung out there for the night, even sleeping there. He is likely mentally ill which is why the crime scene was so strange.

        Amanda Knox is in jail because she was beautiful but looks a little evil, the tabloids were obsessed with her and reported every single leaked clue given by the police. When these clues turned out to be wrong or more often
        ambiguous, the tabloids never corrected the public. So many believe
        that Amanda Knox was standing outside with a bloody mop when the police
        arrived.

        The original discussion was with an Englishman who just declared her guilty and proceeded to make generalizations about America. I went to college In England where I learned that any supposition I made had to be elaborated on and sourced. Since the entire world outside the US despises Republicans…

      15. mike

        Ever hear of a psychopath? It’s funny coming from you because if I remember correctly you used to live and pedicab with one!

      16. John Peddubriwny

        The story that “Guede had a history of similar break-ins. This is well documented in other sights but here is the websites description. Again cut and pasted from the same website.

        Rudy Guede’s known method of burglary operation
        – Rudy was known to act alone at night in a search for cash and
        valuables, and to carry a knife and a glass breaking tool among his
        burglary tools. In addition, Rudy was known to throw a large rock to
        break a window. (A large rock would facilitate access and also waken
        anyone inside and alert Rudy to call off the burglary.) Rudy was also
        known to climb a wall to enter an upstairs window”.

        Is a complete fabrication. Guede was the only one of the three that had absolutely no criminal record.

      17. John Peddubriwny

        Your failure to identify my alleged lie adds nothing to the debate. If you would care to be a bit more specific, we might be able to establish which of us is telling the truth, and which of us is misinformed.

      18. Peter

        Thanks for your post.

        I don’t think we need a version depicting her as a ‘brilliant psychopathic manipulator’, or an ‘absurdly stupid naïf’. What if we were to say they all had a vested interest in lying, as all 3 were involved. The evidence of all 3 of them not being particularly accomplished criminals, can be seen by the hashed clean up attempt, the hashed staged break in attempt, and the hashed false alibi’s with all 3 breaking at the first hurdle.

        Where is the connection to Guede? Id suggest she had an equally weak connection to Sollecito, after only knowing him for a week, yet we saw their attempts to cover each others alibi’s.

        Where is the motive? This is a question I do hear repeated a lot. One could ask where was the motive for Guede, he also had no history of violence, and an equally lacking criminal record. It could be argued that she perhaps had more of a motive than Guede. She knew her, they shared a house together, and none of us will likely ever know what their true relationship was, other than the testimonies of many friends. Is this motive for murder, most definitely not, but then again I never really understood the motives behind murders of innocent people. Jodi Alias and Aileen Wuornos to name a few, who incidentally also suffered with fogged memories when caught.

        The DNA evidence is another question asked frequently. The for Amanda camp will tell us there is none, whilst as you know the against camp will tell you theres plenty. Its an argument that won’t be answered on forums when people are deeply seated in their beliefs and won’t be budged on logic, evidence or lack there of.

        Lets not forget she didn’t break in the interview when told of Sollecito rubbishing her alibi. She broke before that and when shown a text message reply to her boss. The same can be said of Sollecito when presented with phone records. So they did attempt to fake an alibi, they just didn’t keep to it when put under any type of pressure. Which would suggest they had discussed an ‘alibi’ beforehand, why would innocent people feel a need to discuss faking an alibi?

        The Police didn’t lie to her at all, they told her the truth and informed her that Sollecito had informed them she had asked him to lie, and it was all rubbish. He then went on to say she had left at 21.00 and returned at 01.00am on the night of Meredith’s murder. Coincidently he maintained this position for 3 years, so id disagree with your point that they behaved with admirable restraint, there testimonies, statements and otherwise contradicted each others. The mentioning of blood on his hand when taken in the context she said it, could also lead us to believe she was chucking out red herrings? “He had blood on his hand, but I thought it was from cutting fish”. The use of the word ‘but’ could be seen as trying to lead the Police? Her timings of the evening dinner being around 23.00pm and rubbished by Sollecito’s father could be seen by some as trying to cover something up?

        “The Massei reports, hardly a source sympathetic to Amanda Knox”. Why would they be, she had be found guilty of the murder of an innocent girl, along with accusing an innocent man of this murder. Im not sure sentencing reports from the judge who sentenced you would be the best place to look for sympathetic support notes??

        Her 2 roommates didn’t leave the country. She attended the Police Station voluntarily @ 22.30 with Sollecito, she had no reason to be there and was not asked to attend. Her explanation for being there was, she didn’t want to be alone. The yoga in the Police Station although odd also didn’t give rise to them arresting her, it was Sollecito’s statement, followed by her admission of being in the cottage when Meredith died. She had asked to leave for Germany and was told no.

        It is a little misleading to disregard the Postal Police as not being the ‘real’ Police. You are of course aware the Postal Police is a department of the State Police, who in turn are charged with providing the main Police duties of Italy. It has 32 departments in total, comprising a strength of 110,000 people. They most certainly are not similar to traffic cops in anyway, that isn’t there function. They are charged with investigating all crimes that use communications as part of its modus operandi such as computer hacking, online child pornography, credit card fraud, spreading computer viruses or software copyright violations. So I’m guessing they know quite a lot about forensics?

        The Carabinieri are the Military Police of the Italian Army, and have been since 2000.

      19. John Peddubriwny

        You win the prize for the best post on this thread. Without accusing Knox, you make it very clear why people are right to suspect her.

        I am not convinced she is guilty, but I do strongly suspect her because of all the lies she has told. And I cannot understand for the life of me, why people think that we are irrational because of our suspicions based on these lies.

        If you take the US, it;s a common everyday occurrence that police interrogate a suspect and catch them out in a lie, and instead of letting it go at that, the police ramp up their suspicions.

        How many times have the police interrogated a suspect only to find that he has provided a false alibi? And then when they get to the bottom of it, it turns out that man was married and having an affair with another woman, and was terrified his wife would find out.

        For all we know, Knox might well have been supplementing her income selling sexual favours and it is understandable that she might not be able to live with her parents finding out about this, but from my point of view, I just wish that she would stop lying. And more importantly, I wish her publicist would see the risk they are taking every time she gets caught in a lie.

        At the moment, the polls are running 41 to 36 in favour of her innocence with 23% undecided. I don’t think they are going to change the minds of those who think she is guilty, but every time they get caught in a lie, which is all the time, they run the risk that there own supporters or the undecided will do a bit of investigating and decide that maybe she is not the innocent victim of circumstances that have portrayed her to be..

      20. John Peddubriwny

        I’ve just re-read your post, and I recall how impressed I was when I saw it the first time.

        In a most restrained and controlled manner, it puts many of the more fatuous points into perspective. I particularly admired the comment about Massei. It seems almost stupid to ask this question in hindsight, but what did they expect of the man?

      21. John Peddubriwny

        False confessions are a lot more common than people realise, However, most of these have several factors in common.

        The first is they are usually made after a sustained onslaught of “third degree” tactics by the interrogators. Including the time take to type the statement, it took her just 75 minutes to confess. She made a second confession four hours later.

        The second is that they repudiate the statement at the first possible opportunity. The first time that anyone is aware that she is repudiating the statement is when the Knox camp invented the story that she only confessed after being interrogated for 14 hours, denied food water or sleep, and was assaulted by the police. The fact that she confessed twice in less than six hours, and that’s well documented, it is clear that they have lied about howw the confession was obtained. More importantly, they only announced this many months after the confession was made.

        The third is that this is often the first thing they tell those people who are supposed to be helping them. Her calls to her family were monitored and not once did she tell her family that she had been abused during the interrogation. She also failed to tell her Lawyer, and the first he became aware of the “abuse” was via the Knox family publicists, In addition she was visited on 15 occasions by the US Consul and never told him once.

        This confession lacks any of the classical signs that it was coerced, but it does bear signs of something trying to explain the unexplainable.

        As to her failure to turn on RS, that is usually guaranteed to see both parties convicted.

        Regarding the admissibility of her statement, it could not be used against her in her murder trial because she was not provided with a Lawyer but it could be used in the Callunia trial because it was a witness statement and evidence of a separate crime. Had they proceeded with prosecuting Lumumba, it could have been used against him in a separate trial. In addition your criticism of the system is ridiculous, because there have been similar events in the US where a statement is ruled inadmissible against a defendant in a criminal trial due to breach of the rules, but can be introduced in a subsequent civil trial. The fact is that when she accused Lumumba, there was no obligation to provide a lawyer as she was a witness, but once she implicated herself, she should have been provided with a lawyer.

        As for your suggestion that only people with dull minds can remember every detail, and this is yet another reason why q.12 in your list is a non-runner.

        Then there is the damage done to the computer: This does not undermine the fact that the ISP did log the computer going into sleep mode and that regardless of the damage caused to the computer this was verifiable. In addition it is noteworthy that though they claim they were checking and responding to e-mails, there is no evidence of this according to their e-mail providers. When you open or send an e-mail a record of the action is recorded by your provider. That is why if you lose your computer, you can still access your e-mails because they are held on a different server to your computer. But they cannot show a single person that they e-mailed or received from at that time. This is evidence that remains even after your computer is destroyed.

      22. FreeAmanda

        Thank you for your posts! They are well thought out and more logical than any I have read.

      23. John Peddubriwny

        In reply to your questions:
        1. If she had immediately left the country that could have been construed as a sign of guilt. Added to which, she would not be the first person who remained at the scene because she thought she was smart enough to brazen it out.
        2. Prisons are full of people who didn’t ask for a Lawyer
        3. She did not “immediately recant”. She did tell her mother and her mother being the great humanitarian she is, said nothing.
        4. I don’t know whether she is a sociopath or a psychopath, but one of their traits is to blame others whether they are guilty or not because they lack empathy as to the damage they cause others.
        5. Somebody ditched the phones which seems rather pointless after they have gone to all that trouble to get them, unless it’s to make it look like robbery gone wrong.
        6. Perhaps it was because she needed to finish the clean up.
        7. Maybe she thought she needed a bit more time to finish the clean up.
        8. Apart from the fallacy that she must have left DNA, see 6 and 7.
        9. Whoever staged the burglary was no criminal mastermind. We know this because they ransacked the room first, and then broke the window.
        10 Maybe she forgot the lamp, and only remembered it after she had locked herself out of the room.
        11. Who says that she wanted Guede to kill MK? One of the theories is that AK had an intense dislike of MK and that this was a sex game gone wrong.
        12. It is not that easy for two people to agree to a pack of lies. Eventually under skillful and separate interrogations, they start to deviate and the story falls apart. But here’s one for you, if they were together all that night, why did RS tell the police that AK asked him to provide a false alibi?
        13. Nobody knows where her phone was because it was switched off. If she had left the phone switched on at RS’s home, she ran the risk that someone might call and there would have been a record of that in which case she would have to explain why she didn’t answer the call. And they did leave the computer on, because the ISP produced evidence that it went into sleep mode shortly after 6 am.

        Doesn’t mean that she is guilty, but if you did not know all these apparently obvious explanations, then I think Sherlock Holmes has very little to worry about.

      24. John Peddubriwny

        You forgot to mention that the way the other two “roomies” heard about the burglary was when Knox called them.The call was pinged off a cell tower near near to RS’s home. If she had phoned them from the scene of the crime, it would have oinged off a different tower. So unless it was a lucky guess, it appears that she knew about the burglary before she even arrived home.

        In addition, the first that the cops knew about the (obviously staged) burglary was when they called at the house on an unrelated matter. RS showed them the room that had been ransacked, and told them that nothing had been taken. How could he have known what was in the room in the first place as the apparent victim wasn’t present.

      25. John Peddubriwny

        It is disingenuous of you to suggest that the poster is expressing doubts about the Guede being the killer. He has implied nothing of the sort.

        As to the DNA evidence, it is an unfortunate fallacy perpetuated by the CSI series that DNA is always left. There are some people who are prolific shedders and others that you actually have to find their bodily fluids at the scene to get DNA, It is notable that they found very little of AK’s DNA in her own bedroom, where if you think it should have been present in MK’s room, then it should have been copiously available in AK’s own room according to CSI viewers.

        There is also the lack of AK’s DNA on the bathmat that she claimed to have wrapped herself in.

        To put that into perspective, an experiment was tried where people were asked to strangle dead pigs using their bare hands. The reason for pigs, is that their skin is closest to that of a human. In 43% of the cases, no DNA was found in spite of the fact the participants were involved in sustained and intense pressure of the surface.

        Notwithstanding the DNA arguments, the police Luminol tested and found evidence of an attempt to clean blood stains at the scene of the crime. The blood was revealed to belong to MK. The traces showed that at least three different people walked through the blood, and though the police do not say conclusively that the shoemarks could be matched to both AK and RS, they could not rule them out as the people who left the evidence.

        Regardless of whether the other two are guilty or innocent, that to me, is conclusive evidence that Guede did not act alone!

      26. Fredly

        Do you believe there DNA is present in Kercher’s blood or not? Why is it only Knox’s DNA that shows up a few rooms away? It is easy to explain that it is simply because she lived there. How were they able to remove all traces of their DNA from the blood in the murder room, yet leave Guede’s present? That would take a true criminal mastermind considering that DNA is invisible. If Knox sliced Kercher’s throat then she would be present in the blood in the murder room. The luminol footprints tested negative for blood.

      27. John Peddubriwny

        Stop watching CSI and start reading some of the real experts on DNA trace evidence, such as Scheck and Baden. It is only those fools who believe the myth that DNA is always left at the scene of the crime, who persist in this point.

        Think about this: Kercher had only been living in that room for a short period, so why was there no trace of the previous occupant who would have lived there for months? Are you aware of an experiment that was carried out where subjects were asked to “strangle” dead pigs, and in spite of the fact that the subjects had a sustained contact with the pig flesh, and the scientists knew exactly where to look, they only found DNA in 57% of the cases.

        I have yet to hear a single piece of evidence that says, “She could not have been involved”, and in exactly the same way, as the Knox camp are saying it could have happened like this, the other side are making a counter-argument, “No. This is the way it really happened”.

        For what it’s worth, If I am sitting on the jury, I know that it’s the easiest thing in the world to get two experts to contradict each other. But if you look at the evidence of the bra clasp, they are not saying that it is not Sollecetto’s DNA, but that it “might” have been caused by contamination, and then again, it might be because he was involved.

        As far as I am concerned, none of the biological evidence either convicts or acquits them, but that does not mean that I accept that it “might have happened like this”. Instead, my suspicions, are based on the circumstantial evidence, together with the multitude of lies that have been told by Knox and continue to be told by her.And that has been the problem for me. When she is given the chance to tell what really happened, she tells more lies.

        Any cop will tell you that the most common reason why people lie to them is because they have something to hide, but eventually, the innocent tell the truth.

      28. John Peddubriwny

        As I’ve said numerous times throughout this blog, notwithstanding that every piece of DNA evidence is disputed (though not necessarily wrong), people have become too fixated with DNA, a subject which most of them only know about through CSI progs.

        The DNA neither clears or convicts them. And exactly the same case can be made that because there may be absence of DNA, that clears them. It doesn’t. There are plenty of plausible explanations why a suspects DNA might be absent.

      29. RogerGT

        You seem to fairly well informed on the subject. perhaps you would know whether the two discarded cell phones were tested for DNA. The rock apparently wasn’t.

      30. John Peddubriwny

        Assuming the rock was used purely as a missile, it is unlikely that DNA would have been found on it. If you read Michael Baden or Barry Scheck, they both state that DNA is left in less than 10% of crimes. Another study puts it as low as 1.5%. I don’t know whether the phones were tested.

      31. Mr. Bean

        Psychopathology (and sociopathology) are not that uncommon. Do your research before you call someone naive. You come across as very naive as evidenced in your outlandish (excusing) explanations as to why Soll and Knox did X, Y, and Z. Stick to logic and use some common sense.

      32. vince bingham

        Yeah the Republican party that passed the Civil rights bill. Lincoln was a Republican. Womens right to vote. Do you think Kennedy has any similarity to modern Dem’s? He was for low taxes, he actually started Viet Nam, sending advisers, trainers and weapons to the South. Or the.Bay of pigs? What do you think Obama would have done then? Pissed on himself. But as I’ve said many times. No young girl, in another country mind you, would help in a rape and murder.

      33. John Peddubriwny

        With regard to your final sentence, all I can say is that people like Laramie are the reason why Americans are such failures at “winning heats and minds”.

      34. vince bingham

        Dude your a Naive kid. Period. A young couple are not going to take part in a Rape, Murder. My gosh. The African dude confessed. Period. What was the motive? The guy was talking to someone downstairs, saw young girls lived there. Easy. It happens all the time in the US and South Africa. HE WAS A SEX OFFENDER BEFORE THIS!! And the Italians want a young couple?. While a two time convicted rapist, rapes again and Murders her,yet he seems to be an after thought.

      35. John Peddubriwny

        I don’t know about guest being a “Naive Kid” but you certainly are seriously misinformed. The “African dude” did not confess, and had no criminal record before this event. Of course, you will show me the source for your info that he was a “two time convicted rapist” and no doubt prove me wrong.

      36. RogerGT

        Raffaele’s DNA is on the bra clasp because the forensic clowns didn’t change their gloves after touching the outer door-handle that Raffa had touched.

      37. John Peddubriwny

        The “door knob” claim has been seriously busted. Attempts to transfer DNA from door knobs to other artifacts have not been repeatable. In addition, when the CSI’s searched his apartment, they tested the doorknobs for DNA, and were unable to find his DNA. What are the chances that his DNA is on a doorknob at a place where he is merely a visitor, but absent from the doorknobs where he lives. Then finally there is the problem that the collection of the clasp was filmed. If the gloves were contaminated, why was there no trace of DNA on the items that were collected immediately before and after the clasp?

      38. Tanley

        But u are forgetting the bra clasp was not handled until 47 days later? So how can there be transfer ?

      39. OhioBrian

        It’s been a while with your comment, and if you want to read my explanations as to her innocence, you can go through and do so. I do believe actually there’s a severe legal/human rights/justice problem in her case (whether she’s innocent or guilty) in that you are not quite correct here as Rudy, unlike Knox & Sollecito, chose a “fast track” trial (someone akin to basically admitting guilt or plea bargaining in the US system) of which from his trial, testimony was established that would affect each of those following against Knox and Sollecito, namely that there was a multiple killer/conspiracy scenario. This is unjust as Knox/Sollecito weren’t standing accused then(i.e. on trial) in Guede’s, had chosen to protest their innocence in a full proceeding unlike him, nor has he been on trial in theirs, yet that is not the way this has played out in their court system; Knox and Raff were on trial in a sense in Guede’s case as it was clearly inferred who the multiple attackers were as well then affected the Amanda and Raff proceedings.. Here’s the big issue though, defendants ARE supposed to have the rights to examine and cross-examine witnesses testifying for or against them of which Guede’s trial because of its “fast track” nature basically a “no contest” acquiescing to his guilt, particularly as alluding to outsiders then only benefited him as well prosecution of the others, i.e. that there being “others” aka K&S responsible. What’s just as bad, not only was a full trial not given Guede(because his again basically similar to not contesting) with all the relevant problems therein(who’s testifying then on behalf of Knox/Raff?), Guede himself then being unable to be cross examined, even though his actions then had HUGE bearing on the case against the other two! -In effect he gets to get off light, not necessarily being a direct witness against the Knox/Sollecito(cause doesn’t have to say anything at all), but highly prejudicial. He then never is being able to be fully examined by their defense even though HE WAS THERE AND KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED! Guede, because of how this FUBAR thing is structured, and even now he’s found guilty serving his sentence, is OFF FREAKING LIMITS TO TELL THE TRUTH! AND I HAVE A SERIOUS FREAKING PROBLEM WITH THIS AS MOST EVERYONE SHOULD!!!

        And that’s just him, to say nothing that his trial heavily prejudiced all the others of which Amanda and Raffaele had no representation, yet Italy’s Supreme Court seems to favor the “verdict” of that plea bargain(one could hardly call a real trial when verdict and outcome 99% assumed) for a lying two-timing burglaring murderer(convenient how they also get to ignore all his prior history aka he was there, yet by now assumed invitation either Meredith’s(nobody believes) or Knox’s; the house break-in/burglary then “staged” by Amanda & Raff in multi-ethnic international conspiracy of strangers…over toilet poo or “catty roomie” squabbles or whatever flavor this week) above everything else!

        It’s truly sick and only serves to show just how motivated and political this whole thing has gotten wrapped up to be. All because some initial malfeasant prosecutor/police not doing due diligence but going on wild hunches, then having to trump spin up some witchy b*tchy fish stories; problem is they’ve doubled down now so many times, the system can’t help but throw good money after bad! The justice machinery’s wheels greased and lubed here for INjustice be set in motion; Inspector Javert unable and incapable of seeing the truth about ValJean to the very last. Tragic as international embarrassment now becomes them while Justice weeps through her blindfold!

      40. Sarah

        Hi Laramie – putting aside the lapdog comment, I think their neither helpful nor warranted.

        To start, I’m completely undecided as to whether I think she is guilty or not, both sides have pretty strong arguments for and against.

        I would be interested on your take on the following though?

        The bloodied footprint on the bathroom mat. How would you suppose it got there without leaving footprints leading to it? Plus there was only 2 thirds of the print on the mat, the heal would have left a print on the floor?

        I can’t believe Guede would have cleaned it, it doesn’t make sense to clean the bathroom, but leave the actual murder site or his faeces in the separate bathroom. We know he didn’t return to the cottage, by the testimonies of the neighbours who told us they heard the scream, followed by running footsteps, followed by Guede bumping into someone. We know its unlikely that a Guede accomplice, not known to us, cleaned the room, for the same reasons as Guede didn’t, they wouldn’t have left the murder scene uncleaned.

        Do you agree that:
        1. A clean up of some description had to have been done?
        2. It was unlikely to have been Guede who attempted this clean up?
        3. Diluted blood would suggest a clean up was done?
        4. The lack of footprints leading to the bath mat raises questions?
        5. Someone had attempted to clean his bloodied footsteps from Meredith’s room to the front door. They couldn’t have been visible, as Amanda would have seen them on her return at 10.30am the morning following the murder?
        6. Is it fair to say that a clean up was done, and it was unlikely Guede who did it?
        7. Who would you suggest would have benefited most from a clean up?

        Given as we know that Guede was quite sloppy when it came to leaving his footprints, DNA and other evidence. How do you propose he managed to scale a 3 and a half metre wall, break a window, ransack Filomena’s bedroom, all without leaving any trace of him doing it?

        On many Amanda ‘supporter’ websites, we are told that Guede was a seasoned criminal an habitual drug user and dealer. Although he had no criminal history, it is excepted he had attempted previous burglaries. Why do you think, given his previous criminal past, he made the choice to enter the cottage through a window that looked onto the main road? Would you agree it would have been wiser to use a window at the rear of the property, or better still burgle the house below, with whom he had some relationship with the occupants, and ‘possibly’ knew they were away. When he was in the property, what do you propose he was looking for? He wasn’t interested in items like the laptop, he wasn’t interested in jewellery or money, as the bedside drawers and boxes were left untouched. Do you think on the balance of probability that he broke in just to mess the room up, without taking anything?

      41. John Peddubriwny

        The two people that Guede allegedly told, were convicts that were also low level Mafiosi. One was a convicted baby killer, and the other was jailed for shooting a dog when someone he was trying to extort refused to pay up. Credible witnesses???

        Personally, I wouldn’t convict Hitler on the basis of people like this. The same applies to all jailhouse witnesses.

      42. RogerGT

        Guede could have even told his story to the most violent psychopath. That would make no difference what type of person the listener was. If what he said was said, considering the importance. his cell should have been bugged.

      43. John Peddubriwny

        And that’s the problem “If what he said was said,”.

        But why should Guede’s cell be the only one bugged. Why don’t they bug prison cells in the US permanently. One possible explanation is that they might hear something that they don’t want to hear.

      44. Jez

        Well if we are your second rate lap dog, it’s ironic that American’s speak (well, try your best anyway) our language. To be honest, you ruin what could be a fair comment by just coming across as another typical arrogant “America is the world” wanker mate.

      45. Luigi Bubani

        This is not true.He will be soon out of jail,but not because he changed or not changed his story. It is irrelavent.

      46. Jim Smith

        Good points made here but you ruined it with your unnecessary insult about England…you prejudiced piece of shit.

      47. vince bingham

        Laramie your exactly right. She was American, the other was a Brit. Just like the British Nanny that killed that family’s baby? All you heard from Britain was whining about injustice. Like i’ve always said. Why would they be there while a young girl is getting raped and murdered? I have never heard of anything like it. And the african guy admitted it! No he didn’t get any deal, NOT. He has day release from prison for Murder and Rape.Hmmmm?

      48. CaireannMcGregor

        sod off, our cops are far superior to yours. Most your cops are trigger happy racist murdering morons.

      49. Thegreedygreat

        Heres the deal. In my opinion —
        RG hung around the basketball court. They went there and hooked up with him and bought some drugs — then they went to the house to do them, he tagged along. Thats how they hooked up.. better questions than the one you posed is – why was here lamp found under Merediths bed? At what point did Rudy G clean the entire house top to bottom and leave his finger print on the wall? Why did he run out wearing his sneakers and then come back in and walk around bare foot and then clean up the blood? Why did AK and RS’s stories change so much – including AK admitting to being there at one point? Why was there mixed blood in the roommates room? How did she know the body was moved? How did she know how she died (she told one of Meredith’s friends at the police station) before anyone was told??

    2. Paula Burton

      I am not American but having read the motivation report it is obvious that the woman is not guilty. How on earth do you commit such a savage murder and only have evidence of Guerrero ther?

    3. JustJenna

      Saying ‘Murica is xenophobic. And we don’t use the electric chair anymore. A lot of states don’t even have the death penalty. Please stop attacking America. I believe Knox is guilty but that doesn’t mean I can stand by and listen to others diss my country unfairly.

  50. Danny boy

    I have reviewed all the evidence of the killing of my fellow English person. I have come to the conclusion that Rudy Guede DID NOT KILL ALONE. There were 2 different knives used. Also she had 47 wounds all over her body with minimal defence wounds on hands and arms. Also bruises on arms and body indicating she was held by one person standing up. While the other stabbed and slashed away. And maybe swapped and changed. Also Solecettios footprint was found on bathmat. A bloody bare footprint. Why would Rudy take shoes off. That obviously points to Knox and Solecitto. Because they wouldnt wear shoes around the house. They lived there! She is guilty. She knew about it. Americans are dumb because they think she is innocent. Well you would wouldnt you! Hope she rots

    1. Kristie

      Danny boy not all Americans think she is innocent. I seen in her eyes in an interview she did yesterday that she was there at the time of the murder. I hope she is sent back to prison and all the money she has profited should go to the victims family.

      1. notabagelmeister

        I’m an American and I’m with you Kristie and Danny boy. People have become so focused on DNA evidence, they don’t use basic logic. While there in fact was DNA evidence (Solly’s DNA on Kercher’s bra clasp) just one portion of the evidence against them is OVERWHELMING– i.e., that the break in was staged. (And who else would have staged the break in? Who could have?) If the break in was staged, then Guede was a guest and let in to the apartment. Knox admitted to knowing Guede. Knox and Solly’s behavior following the murder was inexplicable and incompatible with innocence. Altogether in relation to all aspects of the case–false alibis, claims to have been on the computer when not, calls to the police in which Solly right away stated that nothing had been stolen when he had no possible way to know that was true, Knox’s enmity for Kercher, cartwheels at the police station BEFORE the interrogation, buying bleach, impeding the discovery of the body, Solly hanging up on the police when they asked him about the window break in (which was conclusively shown to be staged), Solly going the entire length of the first trial, 4 years, saying that Knox asked him to lie about the alibi and saying she was NOT there with him in his apartment, Knox claiming in an email that Solly tried to break down Meredith’s door and that she went out on a balcony to see if she could see anything b/c she was worried about what was in Meredith’s room, but when the postal police unexpectedly showed up, she panicked and lied to them that Meredith always kept her door locked and that nothing was unusual, which was contradicted by other roommates–Meredith never locked her door. Impossible supposed break in by Guede–least possible entry point, 12 feet up, heavy shutters closed, would have had to have scaled the wall twice, no signs of the wall being scaled though there was wet ground, 10 lb rock supposedly used to break window thrown from 12 foot down?, no glass under the window, no signs of trampled vegetation, no signs corroborating entry whatsoever, no injuries to Guede from glass that clearly would have been on the sill and he would have had to grab on to and kneel on, glass on TOP of items in Filomena’s room (break in room) that Filomena (other roommate) confirmed had been moved and strewn about her room (glass on top of the items means glass broken AFTER items ransacked), and there was NO evidence that Guede was in Filomena’s room whatsoever (though there is plenty of evidence of him in the murder room) compression marks on Kercher’s arms showing multiple attackers, virtually no defensive wounds at all, though stabbed 40+ times and being a vital young woman with karate training and first attacked standing up (how does one person stab and hold a person at the same time on both arms?), Guede implicated both Knox and Solly though he received no deal and was sentenced to the maximum in light of his age and his fast track trial, and on and on it goes . . . Bare foot prints in the blood not Guede’s size, when Guede had shoes on and his prints went right out the door . . .

      2. John Peddubriwny

        If you add my query about her “shower” and add that the trio were seen by two witnesses near the crime scene at the time, as well as the fact the Knox informed the other two flat mates about the “burglary” before she had even got home, that just about summarises the entire case against her.

        It may well be heavily circumstantial but as Prof Dershowitz said, there are people sitting in US prisons that have been convicted on a lot less evidence than there is against AK.

      3. hkzombie1

        And again like I have observed in her interviews, this most recent one, though very brief, made me struggle to believe that she is totally innocent. It’s a shame I feel this way because I really wish for her to be totally free and go on with life peacefully

      4. jack

        The “witness” who identified them as being near the crime scene was a homeless heroin addict who testified that he saw them on Halloween and insisted it was Halloween by stating that he saw kids in costumes getting on disco buses. The murder did not occur on Halloween but on Nov 1st. Further this homeless heroin addict testified that he was high on heroin during the sighting. To say he is an unreliable witness for the prosecution is an understatement. Further there was no other witness who placed them near the crime scene. That is a fabrication.
        Its these details that are important when “summarizing” the entire case against her.

      5. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        I LOVE your statement “People have become so focused on DNA evidence, they don’t use basic logic.” That PERFECTLY sums up the people who say Amanda is 100% innocent. Thank you very much for that.
        Not to mention the fact that Meredith’s bedroom door was locked even though Guede’s footprints don’t turn around to lock the door nor is there ANY of his DNA on the outside of the door. Also the fact that the staged break in room has AK and MK’s mixed DNA yet none of Filomena’s DNA in her own bedroom.
        I knew something was suspicious the minute I heard Amanda came home to an open front door, seemingly empty house, feces in one bathroom, blood in the hallway leading and inside of the other bathroom, and this girl then took a SHOWER like nothing was off. Furthermore, she doesn’t call any of this in to authorities until AFTER said shower, giving her perfect alibi for her DNA being mixed around the crime scene. That was already all suspicious well before she then named an innocent man and purposefully impeded the investigation which we all know is incredibly rare for someone to do who’s not somehow involved in the crime.

      6. hkzombie1

        I have always sensed the same. She might have had no direct hand in the crime but is not letting on more than she knows or had seen. Every interview I’ve seen, there is something in her eyes that seem to reveal something

    2. Ethan Shan

      Kercher’s blood in the bathroom was put there by Rudy Guede – Rudy’s faeces was also found in the toilet. Amanda and Raffaele both used the bathroom after the murder, noticed the small spats of blood but thought there was an innocent explanation. They didn’t know Kercher was killed at that time because Kercher’s bedroom was locked. It was only later that day Amanda raised the alarm and contacted the police. For answers to your other points, google for Justice in Perugia which references the Massei report in the first trial.

      1. John Peddubriwny

        That is blatantly untrue that Knox contacted the police. The Postal Police arrived at the property shortly after Knox arrived investigating what they thought was a totally unrelated matter.

        In fact the evidence is that Knox seemed to obstruct the police who were inquiring into the whereabouts of MK. When the police looked around the home, they inquired about the only locked room in the house (MK’s) and were told that MK was out and that she always locked her room, “even when she used the bathroom”. A few minutes later the other two roommates arrived and AK repeated the “door locking” habits in their presence. They said this was untrue and asked the police to force the door. It was at this stage that the body was discovered.

      2. Fredly

        That is a blatant lie. It has been proven that Sollecito called the police before the postal police arrived and assumed that they were the police when they arrived.

      3. John Peddubriwny

        It has not been proven at all. In fact, it is the claim of the Knox camp, that regarding the time that Solleceto called, five different officers (2+2+1) acting in three different locations, must have all mistakenly entered the wrong times in their notes.

      4. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        It has been proven that Sollecito called his sister who works for the police before the postal police arrived but that was not calling in the break in. It was AFTER the postal police arrived that he finally did call the regular police to report the break in.

    3. cumberbatch morley

      I hear you, brother. I imagine she is a well practiced liar throughout life as well. You can clearly see she is a sociopath. From the onset hearing about her disgusting character traits, leaving unwashed sex toys in the bathroom in full view of Meredith shows her total contempt for others. Meredith in contrast, so mismatched to have been housed with such a foul specimen, comes from a respectful family who obviously brought her up well, as she had manners and respect for others, and went to Italy to get an education,not sleep around like a tramp..You can see from Knox’s family trying pervert the course of justice over in Italy, where she got a lot of her poor character from, as the Jewish faith have a great word that sums up bad people like the Knox’s: NEBBISH. It means one of poor and weak character. The Nebbish’s instead of Knox’s sums them up about right.

      1. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        Sociopaths tend to be self-centered as well which even Amanda’s own friends have admitted about her character. She clearly has no empathy for Meredith’s family and most of her comments to them have all centered around herself rather than anything about Meredith. I personally believe it was her lying and manipulation that got Sollecito as involved in this case as he is which is why now, years away from her, he is starting to see her true colors and realizing she’s not worth keeping any secrets for. I think he will reveal to us more facts about this case in the time leading to this final appeal/verdict as he has already been giving signs.

      2. hkzombie1

        Check out her most recent interview about her acquittal. When her very brief was to be wrapped up, someone out of the blue asked about the victim and she looked so stunned, that is almost saying, Sorry who again, what?? Like she has forgotten that this involved the brutal death Meredith.

      3. CaireannMcGregor

        Tried to find stuff online about what she was like how she was viewed by her peers in child/teen hood..would tell us a lot. Couldnt find anything. Theres something not right about her father too. Shes defo a socio/psychopath, sticks out like a sore thumb.

      4. CaireannMcGregor

        Any one know if she was bisexual? She seems hypersexual in nature, generally ladies dont leave sex toys lying around like that.

    4. Marcus

      It’s so interesting to me that there is no physical evidence in the murder room that links Amanda or Raffaele to the murder. They found NO credible Amanda or Raffaele DNA, fingerprints, hair fibers, clothes fibers, footprints fingerprints, semen, saliva in the room or on the victim. (The Solecito footprint you claim as evidence does not match as Raffaele has a club toe- bath matt print actually matched Guede) Interesting though, the investigators found all of that same forensic evidence from Rudy Guede in the room and Rudy also had knife wounds on his hands that are consistent with someone who was wielding a knife in an attack. How come Amanda had no such wounds on her hands or no Meredith blood or DNA on her clothes or shoes. Neither Amanda nor Raffaele had any physical marks that would indicate they were involved in a fight even though the victim Meredith you claim had some 47 cuts and bruises to indicate she had fought for her life. Since you believe Amanda Knox is guilty… I have to ask… do you think Amanda used an 8 foot long knife and stood in the hall way outside the room and was able to inflict the knife blows from a distance? Or is it possible her and Raffaele (a Harry Potter look a like) used a levitating charm to hover above the bloody floor so as not to leave their shoe prints in the murder room. Or it might be possible that Hermione Knox and Raffaele Potter waved their magic wands and used a “Removioso our DNA” charm so none of their physical evidence was left behind. Funny how the Italian Judge Claudio Hellman who overturned the original conviction claimed there was NO physical evidence to connect Amanda and Raffaele to the crime scene. He too must have been under one of their spells. Being British, I’m sure you will agree, the chances of Amanda or Raffaele going back to college in Italy are slim but I’m sure they can get into Hogwarts.

      I wonder why only Rudy Guede fled the country following the murder, that is a real mystery.

      1. John Peddubriwny

        People are obsessed by the lack of AK’s DNA in the MK’s room, and I have raised several points elsewhere that might explain this. But what if AK merely opened the door and made herself a cup of coffee while the other two did the deed?

        As to MK fighting for her life, though she might have wanted to, there were very few defensive wounds. This is evidence that she was restrained while at least one other person wielded the knife.

        Regarding Judge Hellman, he was castigated and later forced to retire because of his handling of the case. Under Italian law if a suspect challenges the forensics and says “It could have happened like this…”,it is for the suspect to prove that this was indeed what happened. Otherwise the evidence must be put to the jury. Instead a very experienced Judge took the decision upon himself to usurp the role of the jury and throw out all the disputed Forensics. How could such an experienced judge make the same fundamental error so repeatedly in his judgement? I have read many comments about the Italian judiciary being corrupt, but in spite of the extraordinarily inexplicable behaviour of Judge Hellman, it seems that all those who think that Knox is innocent, believe that this is the only honest judge in Italy.

        As to Knox not fleeing the country, that really is a tough question. Maybe it’s because if her roommate is murdered and Knox is 7,000 miles away the following day on an apparently unplanned absence, people might suspect that she had something to hide.

        Excuse the sarcasm, but murderers remain in situ all the time because they know that fleeing the scene tends to make them look very very guilty.

      2. Fredly

        Knox was found in the third trial to have been the one who killed Kercher by slicing her neck. Interesting that she supposedly put her DNA on the knife in the process yet is not present in the murder room. Why does her DNA only show up a few rooms away?

        Italian law calls for independent scientific experts to review the findings of the conviction. all of them found that the knife and clasp were not valid scientifically. The judge usurped nothing. he simply accepted the findings of the independent experts as required by Italian law and found the hand picked prosecution expert from the first trial not credible. What is the point in having an appeal if a judge can’t evaluate the findings? By the way, he was scheduled to retire and no one forced him to.

      3. John Peddubriwny

        For what it’s worth, I see no reason whatsoever to believe that Knox struck the blow, but you have been watching too much CSI. In the real world, eminent pathologists such as Michael Baden, state that the suspects leave DNA in less than 10% of murders.Other experts have said “less than 5%” and “about 1.5%”.

        However, who knows if Knox’s role in this matter wasn’t merely to let the killer(s) into the property, and have a cup of coffee while this was taking place? In which case, the absence of DNA is explained, but Knox is still guilty.

        Notwithstanding that depending on which expert you were listening too, the evidence was or was not explainable. The Knox camp never disproved the evidence, and instead resorted to saying, “It could have happened like this”. And when that occurs, it is for the jury, and not for a single judge alone to decide if the explanation is plausible.

      4. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        Agreed. I believe Amanda Knox is 100% responsible for what happened but did not actually wield the blade herself. It is my belief, through various readings on the case and psychology, that Amanda Knox is a text-book example of a sociopath. I believe that she was very jealous of Meredith Kercher and that she opportunistically was at the house with at least Guede and Kercher when she saw a different kind of opportunity to humiliate Kercher which went badly and resulted in the murder. I believe it was then that Knox had Guede flee while she staged the break in, possibly with or without Sollecito’s help, I can’t figure that part out. I think this is the most likely explanation for the DNA and evidence that has resulted from the crime when looked at from a logical point of view.

      5. John Peddubriwny

        If you want to see one my theories of the crime, it is near the bottom and in response to a post by “CLEARLY”. I mention it because, the reasoning applied to what might have happened to get AK involved could just as easily be applied to RS: A middle class kid on the periphery of crime, who was more likely to have a “respect” for drug dealers.

        As is often the case where you get a couple of young inexperienced kids getting involved in serious crime, it is not unusual when the pressure is on, for one to throw the other under the bus. Hence he points the finger of suspicion at her. On the other hand, he might really have been telling the truth when he said he doesn’t know where she was at the critical time.

        What is interesting to me is that when throwing people under the bus becomes an option, and you are dealing with Kids that are criminally unsophisticated, there is usually repayment in kind. But Knox does not directly implicate RS in this case. Knox implicates herself and Lumumba directly, but only latterly implicates RS indirectly latterly by saying she had a memory that she was with RS all that night,

        It is RS who does the most to implicate himself, by changing his story to having been with her all the relevant time. Once Knox admits to having been at the crime scene, and they both claim they were together, the absence of contradictory evidence means that RS must also be charged.

      6. disqus_loX1O1u6We

        Thank you for referring me to that comment, I did go back to find and read it. Personally, I do not dismiss (as you know) at all the notion of Knox using Guede against Kercher. It would go in line with my theory that she’s a sociopath. In the Diane Sawyer interview, DS mentions a short story Knox wrote in college about brothers who liked to rape people and Knox’s personality fits those rare ones in sociopathic or otherwise disturbed women who like to watch men exert their power and control over women since they themselves cannot exert said control and power.
        You said she comes across a bit like a spoiled brat, I think that we have evidence to support that in that even her close friends describe her as being “carefree and not worrying about what other people think” and her associates described her as “self-centered and obnoxious”.

        About your Guede/Lumumba comment. I know it has been SAID that the investigators asked Knox something about if she knew any black men because witnesses saw a black male fleeing the area. I don’t know how much validity there is to that statement but if you take Amanda Knox’s testimony about Patrick Lumumba, I think it perfectly fits if you simply replace Lumumba’s name with Guede’s. It is my impression that Knox was telling a very close to the truth story when she gave that false confession but that she inserted Lumumba’s name in order to impede the investigation and allow Guede to try to get away. It seems to me that all 3 of the suspects at one point have actually told a 90% correct story that tells everyone else’s parts but their own. It was my collection of these 3 stories, taking out the parts being told about themselves and combining the commonalities that leads me to believe what I do today (as I mentioned in an earlier post).

        It seems to me as though it is more likely that while Amanda was out, thinking she had work and discovering that she did not, ran into Guede and decided to buy some drugs from him since she now had free time. I believe she did not have any money on her and so then escorted Guede back to her cottage so she could give him the money, perhaps by stealing some of Meredith’s freshly cashed rent money assuming Kercher wasn’t home. I think that due to Meredith calling an early night in from hanging with her friends (after eating pizza and watching the Notebook) that Knox and Guede were able to commit the crime that occurred that night. Whether Meredith came home to Amanda stealing from her while Rudy really was in the bathroom and heard them yelling, or as Rudy went to the bathroom and Meredith started voicing her concerns about unannounced guests, the fighting ensued which Guede helping Knox humiliate Kercher and ultimately, killing her.

        The fact that Amanda Knox was a loose girl and had multiple one night stands along with the fact that she liked to party and do drugs like cocaine, shows a lack of impulse control in her behavior. Amanda Knox does not seem like a psychopath to me, or someone who would meticulously plan out the events that occurred over those two dates avoiding leaving any clues to get caught. Instead, like a sociopath Knox reacted in the moment to an opportunity that presented itself, hence the sloppiness of both the crime and aftermath. Furthermore, we all know Kercher had over 40 stab wounds which is incredibly characteristic of someone with a personal hatred toward the victim, something Knox had in terms of jealousy.

        I am just curious because your scenario did not actually include Sollecito being
        at the cottage so what is your most solid theory of what happened that night (I
        know you said you had multiple theories, feel free to tell me more than one)? I
        find that there is quite enough evidence to show AK was at least involved if
        not wielded the weapon that killed MK but I don’t find that there is any evidence of RS being involved until after MK’s death. By the theory that you gave to “CLEARLY”, I can see how it would make even more sense that Knox running to Sollecito after things have happened could tell RS that RG killed MK while they were there/when AK got there and that she did not know what to do so RS agreed to help her stage the break in and clean up afterwards. From what you
        say about the drug dealers’ connections (language and socially) I can see how
        RS would believe AK that RG was guilty but not want to say anything and why
        they both so adamantly claimed to have NO IDEA who RG was. This would also
        explain to me why RS does implicate himself so much, because he does not truly know the exact story and therefore is not sure what stories to go with and what not to. Furthermore, most innocent people implicate themselves 98% of the time over another innocent person they know so that would also go in line with RS being more innocent than AK. Generally people implicate themselves because they could not handle the burden of throwing another person literally under the bus with such a crime as well as the fear of perjury. AK however, being the sociopath she is, feels no remorse about MK’s death or naming innocent PL and just hopes to delay the case long enough to make it go away, claiming amnesia of the night which is another common trait of guilty people who are caught.

      7. John Peddubriwny

        Your theory is every bit as plausible as mine. I have to say, that I have tried to approach this from the POV of looking for evidence that excludes Knox, and apart from them disputing the evidence with an alternate “possible” explanations, I can find nothing.

        In fact it is wealth of circumstantial evidence combined with the multitude of lies told by Knox, that makes it increasingly difficult for me to think that she might be innocent. For me, the most crucial point was the staged burglary. The only person who would need to stage this is someone with a connection to the scene. And what is the AK defence to this? She gets Philomena to say that she “might” have accidentally kicked shards of glass on top of the rifled possessions.

        Regarding RS, I think we all learn that if you are going to tell a lie, you should tell a lie that is as close to the truth as possible, and it is noteworthy that what AK says happened was either a brilliant guess on her part, or puts her at the scene. I really don’t know what to make of RS in this case? If she did disappear from his company, then after all these years, I would have expected him to say something by now to reiterate the point, and yet recently, his Lawyers have been seeking a separate trial for him.

        One thing I can be pretty certain of, is that if he does turn on her, a lot of those people who are saying he is also innocent, will come up with an alternative version which links him and Guede as doing the deed without AK’s knowledge.

        If I had to bet my life on it, I would say that he wasn’t there when the deed took place, because if it were me and I had been there at the time of the crime, I would expect AK to retaliate in kind as soon as I threw her under the bus. But that would not eliminate him from being involved after the fact in the clean up.

        For me, the real issue with RS is not whether I think he was involved, but that he involves himself by eventually saying that they were together at the time of the crime. If that is what they are both saying, then you cannot conclude that AK is probably guilty but not apply this also to RS. I also have to think about the two witnesses who placed the trio near the crime scene at the “right time”.

        I hope I don’t disappoint you when I tell you that though I mentioned about betting my life, I am glad I don’t have to. I suspect that we have very similar thought patterns. I think we might both be singing from the same song sheet, when we are analysing what AK says, and we both might be guided by the fact there is nothing in AK’s statements that ever places him at the scene.

      8. John Peddubriwny

        Were you aware that he gave eight different versions of an alibi, of which two would allow for Knox to have committed the murder without him.

        It’s worth reading the court transcript of the evidence given by Postal Police Officer Battistelli. He describes how he was shown into Filomena’s room by the pair of them showing him the burglary. When he tells them that he doesn’t believe there was a burglary, they say nothing.

        Imagine yourself in their place and someone has just contradicted your assertion that there was a burglary, most people would have asked, “What makes you think there has not been a burglary”? One of the indicators of guilty knowledge is failure to ask questions. The reason for it is that we have a built in defence mechanism that tells us not to “innocently” ask questions that we know the answers to in case the person we are dealing with thinks we are dumb. So why didn’t either of them ask Officer B why he doubted the burglary. If it was language probs on AK’s part, you have to then ask, why RS doesn’t say something like, “The cop doesn’t believe there was a burglary” to AK.

      9. Speculation is not Evidence

        “….most people would have asked, “What makes you think there has not been a burglary”? One of the indicators of guilty knowledge is failure to ask questions. ”

        This type of rampant speculation on what people would say or would not say or what “most people would have asked” is the backbone of the prosecution’s effort to convict Amanda and Raffaele. As opposed to actual evidence.
        Thankfully the ISC finally saw through it.

      10. CaireannMcGregor

        8?! No wasn’t aware of that…if someone starts lying and changing their story like that, that’s defo fishy…esp when he understands the language to a tee..Amanda played the oh I didn’t understand anything routine of course tho..

      11. John Peddubriwny

        I have never totally ruled out the idea that they could be innocent, and they were just victims of unfortunate circumstances. However, it has never ceased to amaze me that so many people who were defending these pair could never give an explanation as to why he gave eight different alibis, but also refused to concede that even when the alibis contradicted each other, that RS must have been lying.

        Then again, if you looked at some of the comments being made, it was clear that there was a shill in operation. For example, when a video was released with the suggestion that it might have been Knox seen in the early hours of the morning after, dozens of people who had never met her all came out with the same line. “No it’s not her. She doesn’t walk like that”. And they knew this because…?

        Similarly, when Prof Dershowitz stated that there was evidence against Knox, almost everybody attacked him by claiming that he was publicity seeking, regardless of the fact that he is probably the most famous legal academic in the US. Later on, when his name was mentioned in connect with an under-age prostitute, the same people who were calling him a publicity seeker, were now calling him a pedo. Of course, they irony was totally lost on them that there they were campaigning for “Justice for Knox”, and they had convicted a man who has not even been charhed with any crime. YCMIU.

        The of course, there were all the stories about Guede, such as his (non-existent) lengthy criminal record, and that he was a drifter (though he lived in his own rented apartment), protected by the police because he was an informant etc. None of which was true.

        But basically, a lot of the posters for Knox were shills, and they way you could identify them was because they were all spreading identical smears.

      12. CaireannMcGregor

        Oh yeah I suspected schills for sure. I wish Scotland Yard had been investigating this instead though…the crime scene and forensics would have been so tight there would have been no room for criticism, which is the crux of the defence. Though I read a book about the Italian Police investigation and they sounded pretty on the ball tbh…the lack of forensic tightness was the nail in the coffin. I know in my gut we didnt get the truth.

      13. John Peddubriwny

        The point about forensics is that if you have enough money, you can buy an expert to contradict the evidence. The Pathologist brought in by the Knox clam was clearly lying when he stated there was only one attacker. All that a pathologist can say is, “I can only find evidence of one attacker”.

        I understand the ISC have upheld the the view that Guede did not act alone. Makes you wonder?

        As far as the shills are concerned, have you noticed their absence on these blogs since the case was decided. I saw several who were on here for 15 hours some days. The only ones that ever argue her case nowadays are the “groupies”.

      14. jack

        The independent DNA scientists from Italy hired by the first appeals court were not hired by the defense. The claims that they were “pro-Amanda” or “pro-Raffaele” are just conspiracy. Dr. Gill in the UK was never hired by anyone.

      15. John Peddubriwny

        Jack be simple. Jack be thick. This is why you are in troll prison. Still trying to put words in my mouth aren’t you.

        Did I mention “DNA scientists”? No. I mentioned a Pathologist.

        You are the weakest link. Goodbye.

      16. jack

        Funny, did I say that you said that the independent scientists were hired by the defense? No. I was pointing out that some of the experts were independent but that they had also been trashed by the guilters as “pro-Knox”. Part of the animosity surrounding the case. You were outraged at the trashing of Dershowitz but I never saw you give concern when guilters trashed Gill, or Hellmann, or Conti or Vechoitti or Moore or others.
        Gill reviewed the data. The actual “evidence” was gone as it was destroyed by the prosecution. The sample on the knife was destroyed in testing and the bra clasp rusted in storage. So your point has no point. Scientists peer-review published papers of other scientists all the time. Its a main part of the job.

      17. John Peddubriwny

        Oh simpleton. I wasn’t outraged by the trashing of Dershowitz. I was pointing out that there were bunch of creeps who were supposed to be all about fighting injustice and they were labelling a man who had not even been charged with an offence, as a paedophile from the safety of an anonymous post.. I think you are too dumb to see the irony in that. I think in terms of nastiness, this was the peak that your mob reached.

        Moore wasn’t a participant in the case other than to spread lies about this. You live by the sword, you die by the sword, and as for Hellman, he was trashed by his brother judges. I think that says it all.

        I mentioned one person in my post, and I made an undeniable point, but rather than talk about that, you try to imply that I am attacking all the witnesses. You referenced “Independent Scientists” in your response to my post. So what did that have to do with my post? Nothing other than another fools errand by yourself.

        I can spend all day discrediting your argument, but if you are dumb enough to make them in the first place, then you are too dumb for me to waste much more time on.

      18. jack

        You made a point about how “you can buy an expert to contradict the evidence”. My post WAS relevant because I was pointing out that it wasn’t just hired experts who contradicted the forensic evidence but independent ones too. Get it yet?

        Seems you can’t see the irony of multiple guilters trashing of Gill repeatedly called “Gill the shill” while you are labeling the FOA as creeps for attacking Dershowitz. Every single expert that defended Amanda was trashed online by someone. Do you see the parallel here or not? I am not blind. Are you?

        The difference here is that you were on the wrong side. The two were innocent based on one he** of an imagination by a prosecutor who was able to spread it to the public and justice system. Thankfully the ISC finally saw it.

      19. CaireannMcGregor

        Yeah sure her dad was doing the rounds for a while. Is there any info on what kind of person she was like prior to this because that would give away a lot about her character/psychology. I was expecting loads of American kids that knew her to come out and say things about her on forums etc but have never seen anything.

      20. John Peddubriwny

        There’s been stuff said about her by people claiming to know her. Whether you believe it or not is up to you. You should treat gossip with a pinch of salt, especially in these days when all bloggers consider themselves to be “ace reporters”.

        One story that did catch my eye, was the one where she told a Jew, “My people killed your people”, (she has German ancestry). The problem with the story is that the writer doesn’t identify the Jew, so there is a lack of corroboration

        She comes across as shallow and narcissistic and lacking in judgement, but FWIW, though I think she is probably guilty, I think this is a prank that went wrong. If I am right, the great tragedy is that she would have probably only served about four years anyway for manslaughter if she had told the truth.

        I’ve seen the stories about her and Beasty Boy are considering suing the Italian Legal System for the time spent in prison. It won’t happen. The reason for that is that they would have to answer questions in court unlike the criminal cases where they were not obliged to speak. It would basically be a re-hearing of the criminal case, but this time, they would have to answer questions, which is something that they are not prepared to do unless it’s to a sympathetic journalist.

      21. jack

        She told the truth. The police weren’t interested in that. After slap, slap, they got what they knew to be correct. Before and after that night, their cameras were working fine in the station. Only on that night did they have “budget issues” according to Mignini.
        Okay John, let her rip. Fool, thick, etc..

      22. jack

        She was given a ticket for a noise complaint at a party.

        That’s it. That’s her “criminal record”. She was a straight-A student who worked several jobs to go to Italy.

      23. jack

        What you might mention is that Guede was convicted of possession of a stolen laptop when he was caught trespassing into a nursery. The circumstances are more than telling. He was found in possession of a knife taken from the nursery kitchen, a stolen laptop, and a hammer. Massei notes this well. The arrest was two weeks before the murder, and of course the conviction was well after. However, the illegal act was before. That constitutes a criminal “history”.
        Further but more interesting than that was that the laptop was taken from a law office. The circumstances noted by Massei are as such. The 2nd floor window was broken with a large rock. Clothes were strewn on the floor. The refrigerator was raided. No DNA of the burglar was found even in the room of the break-in.
        All extremely similar to the so-called “staged” break-in at the cottage two weeks later. You seem to go to great lengths to point out how the pro-Amanda folk would exaggerate or ignore important details. The fact that I’ve seen anti-Amanda folk totally dismiss this break-in with such nonsense as “he wasn’t convicted” or “so what it was a rock” or so on shows very well how impassioned people will argue their own side to extremes.

        But the point is clear. If the break-in at Amandas/Merediths cottage was “real” not a simulation, than the entire theory of the prosecution is nonsense. And this break-in at the law office is extremely strong evidence it was. Guede is the only person linked to both crimes, only two weeks apart. It is beyond coincidental that in both cases he just happened to be a victim of circumstance, that he commits some other crime while in both cases someone else is breaking the windows!

      24. John Peddubriwny

        Jack be simple. Jack be thick. I recall your last dumb comment on my posts where you were to stupid to be able to tell the difference between the number of comments made, and the votes received.

        You might mention that the groupies were talking about Guede’s “lengthy criminal record” for years before he was ever convicted of that crime. Prior to the murder, Guede had never been convicted of a crime. The conviction you refer to was not arrived at until 2011. The murder was 2007. Those were the lies being told about Guede by the shills.

        And isn’t it funny how you talk about it being “beyond coincidental” when Poxy invokes co-incidence whenever the evidence points at her?

        Now you can go back to Troll Prison.

      25. jack

        You need to look up what an internet troll is.
        Your first statement perfectly shows the animosity that abounded in the Amanda Knox discussions. Your open up with a silly personal attack.
        In reality that seemed to be your main interest in the case. To personally attack those who were defending Amanda. I noticed that you were on a roll right up to the verdict. “FOOLS, truckstop, FOAKER foolbox, dumb, thick, etc..” Then silence for weeks. Just no fun when the Italian court no longer wants to play the silly game.
        And I wonder, in all that time, did you ever think “what if I am wrong”? I’m guessing not.

      26. John Peddubriwny

        Yet again you expose yourself as a fool: Instead of trying to re-invent my posts to suit your agenda, try reading them you fool. Look at the fourth post above this which begins: “I have never totally ruled out the idea that they could be innocent, and they were just victims of unfortunate circumstances”.

        And what has that got to do with the fact that contrary to the lies being told that Guede had a lengthy criminal record prior to the murder, when in fact, he was the only member of this unholy trinity who had no record prior to the murder?

        I

      27. jack

        When in fact he was the ONLY member who was a criminal before the murder. You don’t seem to grasp this. What relevance does it have if the record was established before or after the murder? If some of the FOA exaggerated that, shame on them, but you really can’t grasp the point can you? He was a burglar before the murder. Convicted of possession of stolen items while trespassing at a nursery and in possession of a knife, hammer and a laptop.
        Let me state that again. He was a burglar before the murder and was strongly suspected based on his possession of the stolen items of carrying out a burglary on a 2nd floor law office, by throwing a rock through a window, leaving clothes strewn on the floor, and raiding the refrigerator JUST TWO WEEKS before the murder. Not exaggerated printed out by the FOA but as detailed by Massei. And all those details are extremely similar to what was found just two weeks later at Meredith/Amandas cottage.
        You can choose to ignore that and rant on like a ding-a-ling. That is what you do which is sort of weird seeing that you have sane posts on other subjects like football/soccer. But to honest objective readers, that would give them pause when considering that the break-in at Merediths was real or a “simulation”. Because if it was real there is no reasonable scenario of Amanda and Raf being involved.

      28. John Peddubriwny

        I notice you have not commented on my correcting your error that I have not considered that I might be wrong. That’s no surprise really because you have often made similar erroneous attacks on my posts and then when corrected, failed to acknowledge your error

        The key word is “If”. Neither you nor I know for certain whether there was a burglary. And yes, it’s blindingly obvious that the whole case turns on this one point.

        I recall being told “Never argue with a fool, because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with their experience”. Personally, my role in life is not to provide you with troll bait. Consequently, you can find someone else to stalk.

      29. jack

        Yes, “if”. I agree with that. I also point that out because in your carrying on about “no record” you originally ignored the details that are important. Anyone can look at that and make a judgment. But they have to have the relevant facts. If you divert the discussion into how the FOA exaggerated by using the word “record” and ignore the point that he was in fact a burglar who was in possession of an item taken from a 2nd floor with a broken window (and other similar details), then I’m going to point out that little detail and let the readers decide if it is relevant or not.

        By the way John as far as “stalking”, let me note. You drew first blood.

      30. jack

        By the way I did not make an error. I had seen your earlier comment. You had stated that “I have never totally ruled out the idea that they could be innocent, and they were just victims of unfortunate circumstances”.
        But I don’t think that you really considered it. You have been trashing Amanda “Poxy” and Raf “Beastie Boy” (and together Bonnie and Clyde) and many of her supporters on-line, some of whom are friends and relatives of the family. I’ll state it again. You have been talking directly to some of her friends and family. Not shills. Not groupies. But people that know and love her.
        Did you consider that if you are wrong, what a total and complete jerk you have been? That was what I was trying to say although I didn’t state it fully. Now I have.
        BTW. You were wrong. The two were innocent and the entire episode was born of a too-zealous prosecutor with an over-active imagination and a police force willing to “bend the rules” in order to make the evidence fit the theory, not the theory fit the evidence. The ISC finally saw it.

      31. Jannie

        I just stumbled upon this old thread and see there’s been recent activity. The only thing of interest to me is the below:
        “You have been talking directly to some of her friends and family. Not shills. Not groupies. But people that know and love her”
        Like… how do you know this? Does that mean you’re close to Amanda?

      32. jack

        What is also never discussed is the failure of the police to actually determine if it was a “simulation” as they claimed. The police looked at the scene and stated it was a simulation and that was that. Migini claimed that the window was too difficult to climb and that was that. They claimed that glass would fall back on the ground and that was that.
        Of course in police departments around the world, that actually want the truth they test out these ideas not only for the sake of the trial but for their sake. They would put a pane of glass in the window and throw the same rock at it several times, seeing if they can reproduce the results. Further they would get some young guys and say “climb to the window” and see if any could do it and how.
        No need to bother with that when you are Mignini. Of COURSE it wasn’t the guy that was a burglar and had taken a laptop from a 2nd floor law office that had been broken into with a rock with clothes strewn about. He just KNOWS that it was a simulation.
        This is one of the many examples on how the case was built on theories and hyperbole. Not evidence.

      33. Mimi

        you bring as an evidence against Guede a knife he had carried. But yet you FAIL to bring Sollecito’s known fasination of knives as an evidence against him. He carried always knife with him. he collected murdering weapons. He even had one hanging on his wall, and Amanda and he had sex on that bed next to it. What do collectors do? They want to use their collection in actions. It would be a shame he paid so much for his collection, but never really got a chance to use on! (he might think that). Raffaele was also obsessed with hard core rape porn-manga comics. He was fired from univerity because of addiction on animaö porn.Very violent and psychopath personality. Not to even mention his long battle with cocain and heroin addiction, that’s why his dear father called him every single day to monitor him.AManda’s dna by the was was found IN TWO of Sollecit’s knives in his home. Why would a nice honor student want to play and touch murder weapons? I wouldn’t.

      34. CaireannMcGregor

        psychopaths can be your everyday types not just serial killers that meticulously plan murders. if knox was shagging guede, perhaps solly was genuinely at home – she wouldnt want him finding out…I think shes a class 1 manipulator…shed use men to get what she wants…by using sex as her MO. Whose to say neither knife may have been used. what idiot would leave a knife at a crime scene or their bfs place, shes not a stupid lass shell know about dna – most murderers would discard a knife conceal well away from anywhere that could implicate them

      35. John Peddubriwny

        I am sorry, but unless I am misunderstanding you, I don’t see what that call has to do with my post.

        I can say that I think the phone call was a sign of panic. Knox was realising that the body was going to be discovered soon, and she was hoping for some form of inspiration or advice that might allow her to delay this. I don’t mean she told her mother about the murder, but if it remained undetected for several days and the cops ask why she didn’t report her absence, she was hoping that she might be able to say something to the effect of, “I told my mum about it, and she said not to worry”

        It is noteworthy that she tells her mother that she is worried by MK’s absence, and in almost the same breath, she is telling the Postal Police that she is not worried by this. “Strangely” she “forgets” that she has made this call, and why would she want to remember it. She is so concerned, she calls her mother at 4 am PST, and her mother tells her to call the police. Almost immediately the police are on the scene, and MK is then contradicting what she has just told her mother. If you add to that, she tells the police about her “mat surfing” ( why would she think they are interested in this) and then consider that the police said she had BO, it’s not too difficult to conclude that Knox knew that MK was dead and that she did not shower, but needed to explain why her DNA might be found mixed with MK’s blood on the bathmat.

        I assume you are also aware of the e-mail Knox sent to her friends in which she claimed to have been so worried, that she ask RS to break into MK’s room, but he wasn’t strong enough. This was about a day after the discovery of the murder. She has by now contradicted herself twice at this stage, and I think the purpose was that because she told her mother that she was worried, everybody on the US had to be told the same story.

        For me, my suspicions are not only because Knox lied, but that she was lying before the body was ever discovered, and it does not appear to me to be unreasonable that the lies were told in order to forestall this.

      36. CaireannMcGregor

        she knows what she did or covered up and phoned mummy because she was scared and wanted to hear her voice…

      37. jack

        Interesting that Guede left not just one but multiple DNA by the victim. Lets take your middle value. 5%. For just two samples that’s a 0.25% chance of occurring.

        He also left forensic evidence by the victim. Shoeprints and handprints. Amanda and Raf left none.

      38. Doobie

        Doobie – actually there is evidence that the floor was cleaned by someone standing on a towel and shimmying along to clean the floor; there are no footprint inside the room, aside from 1 that was found on the pillow case under the body and not visible during cleanup. This print is size 36-38 / Amanda is a 37. Rudy’s prints were found in the hall.

      39. Marcus

        I suggest you do more reading as this article below explains the prosecutions claim of footprints was proven wrong in appeal trial.

        Luminol can detect blood or hidden traces of blood but also can be false if it detects certain chemicals found in everyday cleaning products. Detection of possible blood by luminol has to be confirmed by more accurate blood test using Tetramethylbenzidine. The luminol footprints you mention were also tested for blood and came back negative which the prosecution conveniently kept secret in the trial. The footprints you claimed to be cleanup were not made from blood. They were footprints of Knox and Solecito and others who lived in the flat and were probably made from dirt tracked in from coming and going. The dirty footprints were cleaned up with household cleaner which the luminol detected. I’ve cleaned dirty floors by spraying cleaner then shimming on a towel to wipe up – that is no smoking gun. This excerpt from an article explains how the prosecution tried to trick jury by withholding evidence that negated the so called Knox and Sollecito bloody footprints.

        Article: Until recently, even Wikipedia insisted that police had found bloody, luminol-revealed footprints in the “house of horrors.” Prosecutors claimed the prints were “compatible” with the feet of U.S. college student Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the ex-lovers convicted of the murder of Meredith Kercher. Their alleged co-conspirator, petty burglar Rudy Guede, left bloody shoeprints from the victim’s bedroom to the front door. Yet investigators had tested the luminol footprints for blood and found them lacking, a truth carefully hidden from December 17, 2007 (when they were collected) until September 2009, when defense expert Sarah Gino outed the negative test during the trial that led to Knox and Sollecito’s conviction. Even now “bloody footprints” are the Knox case’s most persistent urban legend.

        “Luminol identified nine prints in the cottage, but none were derived from blood,” notes Oggi investigative reporter Maria D’Alia in The Crime of Perugia: The Other Truth, a refreshingly fact-based book on the Knox case.

        “Tetramethylbenzidine, the test that reveals blood, gave negative results,” she continues. “Also, in this case, the court has affirmed that this outcome arrived from the prints in question. Tetramethylbenzidine(TMB) is considered a sensitive and reliable test that excludes the presence of blood.”

        December 17, 2007. Police learn that a bloody Nike shoeprint found by the victim’s bed is the wrong size and style to pin on Raffaele Sollecito–and belongs instead to Rudy Guede (a fact they’ll conceal until May 15, 2008, when Rudy finally admits it). End Article

        You do realize it’s not possible to clean up two persons DNA at a crime scene and leave only one persons DNA? In this type of up close knife attack DNA mixes together and the only way to identify it is in lab test that can detect what persons DNA exists. The only DNA, besides Merediths, found in the murder room was Guede the actual murderer. In a close proximity knife attack where blood sprays on anyone within 2-5 feet of victim being killed. Knox and Sollecito’s clothes were tested and showed no blood or Meredith DNA on them. Why? Because they were not in the murder room or involved in actual killing of Kercher. Despite NO physical evidence of Knox or Sollecito in the bloody murder room the prosecution contends Knox delivers the final blow. Impossible!

      40. Chad Taylor

        “They found NO credible Amanda or Raffaele DNA, fingerprints, hair
        fibers, clothes fibers, footprints fingerprints, semen, saliva in the
        room or on the victim” IN THE ROOM or ON THE VICTIM, Did you forget what you wrote? It’s been a year since you posted. I don’t know if I should feel privileged that you responded to my comment on a one year old post or just sad. You leave DNA everywhere, Meredith should have picked up Amanda’s DNA and vice versa just from using the same bathroom, washer, sink, etc. But here’s the reality, she lied about Kercher locking her door, she changed her story, she fingered an innocent man. Innocent people don’t do that. The behaviorial investigator above in reviewing the Diane Sawyer video of Knox’s interview said that Amanda’s body language did not match her responses to Sawyer’s question, Granted Edwards admits she had no baseline gauge, but she stated it still raised red flags for her that Knox was not telling the truth. There’s something no quite right here and that’s no lie.

      41. Marcus

        I’m not sure what your point is really. Are you making a point about DNA evidence?
        If their DNA was not in the murder room or on the victim there is not much else to say.

        I think it’s funny that your best shot at Amanda is a behavioral investigator who was paid by TV show to analyze AK demeanor in an interview. Really?

        I stand by what I said No credible AK or RS DNA evidence in murder room or on victim. Saying that Meredith should have picked up Amanda’s DNA is really nonsense and only your attempt to somehow pin guilt on AK or RS. If you are going to be an armchair detective look at the physical evidence that actually exists in the murder room. Rather than picking two people who you think are guilty and then looking for bogus evidence or circumstantial evidence to make them fit the crime. That’s what the Italian prosecutor did and it ultimately failed. All the physical evidence points toward one man RG – end of story. Even Rudy G. admitted in an early skype interview with a friend that Amanda and RS had nothing to do with the crime. Only later when he was extradited back to Italy did he changed his tune when it benefited him to have not acted alone.

        Amanda implicating PL was a mistake she made and spent 4 years in prison for… and by the way she never would have mentioned Patrick if the police had not questioned her about her text message to him that same night. You see the Italian investigator found early evidence of hair fiber consistent with a black male on the victims body. So when they interrogated AK they asked her repeatedly about her boss Patrick Lumumba was of congolese descent. The investigator fixated on a text she sent PL that night saying “OK, see you later”. Amanda worked at Patricks bar and when she texted him about coming to work that night he told her not to come in because it was slow. So she texted like any American might saying “OK, see you later” Italian Investigators took this statement literally that she was meeting Patrick later… to do what? Kill someone? So the police suspected PL already and just needed her to implicate him so he could be arrested. As it happened AK was the victim of a coerced confession which led to the false implication of PL. She was interrogated over several days by approximately 18 different interrogators for many hours without an attorney present and without the customary videotaping of that interrogation or a translator to help her understand and communicate Italian. It was illegal to say the least and this type of interrogation happens in every legal system in the world. Look up the Central Park 5 case in NYC which is a perfect example of coerced confessions of 5 innocent young men. Amanda was young and a very naive college student and the only way the interrogation was going to end was when she gave the interrogators what they wanted – a confession or point the finger at someone.

        The only thing not quite right here was the entire prosecution of AK and RS from the start.

      42. CaireannMcGregor

        well that doesnt make sense then- there should be bloody footprints in there from someone shouldnt there? – not none at all? unless they were hovering? bleach is a cleaner that can automatically discount luminol results hence why its so popular with killers.

      43. Tatiana Marie

        I have always believed Amanda Knox was innocent – and I highly doubt the Kercher’s precious little girl was all that “squeaky-clean” The parents are on a witch hunt, and they won’t be satisfied until Knox is beaten stripped of any humanity, and locked up until she’s an old woman. The Kercher’s need to stop their revenge on Knox and get over it. Rudy Guede is your killer.

      44. CaireannMcGregor

        the fact she was disgusted by the sex toys in bathrm proves she was a lady and not a ho. yes she smoked weed (i think) but who hasnt these days.

      45. Angela

        The Kercher family have handled themselves with incredible self-composure and dignity throughout this terrible ordeal. Their “precious little girl”‘s name was Meredith. And Meredith IS the victim. That is the one fact I believe no one can deny. I’d like to think you are a better person than your post seems to suggest, but somehow I’m finding it very hard to do so.

      46. Chad Taylor

        Marcus, what I find even more puzzling is that roommates who lived in rooms which were side by side who shared a bath with a shower, basin and toilet who shared a terrace and a kitchen, who trudged up and down from the front entrance to and from their rooms, their kitchen, their bath and probably spent some time in each other’s rooms that NO “credible” DNA from Knox would have ended up in Kercher’s room.

      47. Marcus

        If you read a little more closely I pointed out that no credible evidence of AK and RS DNA was found ON the victims body nor was any of MK DNA (blood, hair fibers) on AK or RS clothes. And neither AK or RS showed physical signs they’d been in a violent knife fight. Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on the victims body and inside her body (semen) his bloody hand print on pillow case under body, bloody foot prints in the room and his hands had cuts which are commonly found on a knife of wielding assailant. The physical evidence was overwhelmingly pointing to RG because he did it! Clearly the Italian high court finally made the right decision as it was impossible for AK or RS to be involved with no physical evidence in the murder room or on the victims body and no motive. I had roommates in college and I never went in their rooms. So I don’t find it odd that AK’s DNA was only in common rooms of the house as were other house mates and not in MK room.

      48. CaireannMcGregor

        knox’s dna should be all over Meredith’s room…thered be transference all over that flat. its more suspicious that its none at all in Meredith’s room.

      49. CaireannMcGregor

        it may not have just been guede who was involved, he may have panicked and thought its all going to come down on me cos Ive got previous and im black..most people think all 3 were involved not just knox…

    5. nterrigno

      Yes…I believe you are correct and that Amanda Knox and Sollecito are guilty along with Guede. Something is desperately wrong when they changed their original stories so many times! This girl showed no emotion and I think this crime was committed while under the influence of drugs and booze which erased inhibitions while causing extreme violence. The prosecutor Mignini has done one thing that can never be reversed. Amanda may be free to study, live with her new man, and take part in family celebrations unlike Meredith K. However, her entire family has gone bankrupt with the costs of the defense. Whether she remains free, a fugitive, or is extradited will never bring back this clan to normalcy. They are ALL destroyed. Mignini and the Italian justice system won!

      1. John Peddubriwny

        Regarding the costs incurred by by her family, I sincerely hope that they end up on welfare, not because i think that Knox is guilty, but because they left a man they knew to be innocent to sit in jail.

        If they can do something so inherently wicked, you might ask yourself what other “values” she has inherited from her parents. This is not the first time a white woman has blamed a black man in order to deflect attention from herself, and I doubt it will be the last time.

      2. CaireannMcGregor

        dont think he is innocent, hes involved too..his bloody palm print was under her body. unless knox killed amanda then the lads helped her cover it up. It was a rage killing for sure whatever happened…kind of rage you could imagine coming from a ‘deranged psychopathic bitch’, pardon my french. What if solly and meredith had a wee fling? guedes dna was all over her body and the bedroom mind tho.

      3. JustJenna

        John was talking about lumumba. Do you know this case at all? Or you just read the daily mail?

      4. JustJenna

        I just wanted to apologize to you for my insult here. I don’t usually engage like this, and it was an out of character moment for me. I am truly sorry, and I mean that. Someone I respect pointed out that I had been rude and insulting, and he was right. I had to go back through my Disqus account to find what I had said, and I’m ashamed of myself. It’s not the kind of person I aim to be. I don’t know what got into me when I was rude to you but it was not fair or right and I humbly apologize.

      5. CaireannMcGregor

        ” I think this crime was committed while under the influence of drugs and booze which erased inhibitions while causing extreme violence”

        Yep I reckon youre bang on there and supplied by guede….something with a slight hallucenogenic edge or crystal meth/crack…explains the aggression..could explain the defecation in the toilet. Or defecation could be cos guede shat himself with fear. meredith was ok with weed but didnt approve of the class A’s. Perhaps guede and solly were having a drugged up threesome with knox and meredith flipped her lid at them.

    6. John Peddubriwny

      Your logic is almost faultless. Only one small error. RS did not live there. Other than that, the “minimum of two attackers” is clearly demonstrated by the forensics.

    7. Sarah McWilliams

      Americans have a hard time convicting a cute girl that’s crying during the trial. Ex: Casey Anthony, Jodi Arias, etc.

    8. Larry G

      Danny Don’t you know anything? The white, pretty girl is always inocent and the black man is ALWAYS guilty. It is science!! Don’t argue with science!!

  51. Jill Lewis

    If you had to talk about the same thing day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year, and you were asked to keep talking about it, you’d probably not have a lot of emotion left either.

  52. hkzombie1

    I always hoped and prayed she’s innocent. Then shed tears when I saw her on telly as her conviction was overturned. I am starting to have misgivings, though, after watching almost all her interviews following her release. I hate to say this but I could sense and see affectation in her speech and facial expressions. Each time. Makes me think that maybe she was not directly or physically involved but knows more than she is letting on. I truly hope I am wrong.

    1. Laramie Flick

      She is under the sort of scrutiny that US Presidents go through. Every mannerism and word and expression is heavily weighted. These men chose this life and are carefully coached and yet very few come across as human.

      1. hkzombie1

        I understand the US presidents have to study and be coached but Amanda just have to present herself as she is. Emotions, thoughts should come across naturally. Speech is another thing. One can always betray the other

      2. Nimrod0

        There is good reason to be reserved, since the first time she presented herself as is she was hauled into jail to sit there for four years.

    2. John Peddubriwny

      I have the greatest of respect for your post. I think she is probably guilty, but I am not convinced. But I do know that every time she and her family get caught in a lie, which is almost all the time, there are believers such as yourself who start to have increasing doubts.

      And it’s not a bad thing to shed tears for someone when you see an injustice remedied, but it is a terrible thing if you come to realisation that you have been used. I have no problem in saying to someone with your compassion, that I also hope you are wrong and that you have not been made a fool of.

  53. Danielle McRae

    Very interesting article, Vanessa! I’ve followed this case for the last few years, but this is the first time I’ve looked at it (and her) for lie detection purposes. It’s cases like this where I wish I could be in her brain for one minute to know what she’s really thinking.

    1. harryrag

      You don’t actually need a lie deception expert to know Amanda Knox is a liar. She gave three different alibis which all turned out to be false and repeatedly accused an innocent man of murder. The official court documents are available online at the Meredith Kercher wiki website. You can follow the latest developments in the case on the True Justice For Meredith Kercher website.

  54. Vincent Holt

    Just a note of after the question of “Were you there that night?” where the surprise expression and the mismatch of the headnod going in the yes motion, it looks like she has a look of fear on her face in there aswell. I thought I suppose that the 1st question of “did you kill?” may have been answered truthfully but that next segment, she looks as though she is hiding something for sure and a little bit afraid that saying no to that question may have consequences etc. Forehead stays crinkled for a bit there too. Its good to start noticing these things because awareness is the key first, then the hunting for the different traits begins from here on out. Thanks for the course, just starting it

    1. Vanessa Van Edwards

      Awesome Vincent! I agree with the look of fear. The hardest is trying to parse out what she has memorized and rehearsed and what is her genuine emotion. Thanks for these other hints. There is so much to dissect in this video.

  55. LearnerD

    Did anyone notice the slight raise of the right corner of the mouth when asked directly
    “Did you kill”? That response spooked me.

  56. mangymutt

    I watched the interview and the second I saw her nod I knew she was lying about being there that night! I have always thought she had something to do with it, but that she didn’t actually plunge the knife into meredith. This just cements it for me!

  57. Ethredel

    I find it interesting that none of you have considered the possibility that she is “just” a sociopath, but innocent.

    1. William Young

      The sum of my impressions lead to your conclusion as well. She acts like a sociopath because she is, and would act that way even if asked about the Kennedy assassination. Sociopaths have very practiced tactics for self defense and will use them whether they are guilty or not. Why? Because they work.

  58. Fernanda

    It seems to me that she often purses her lips, especially when she answers the question about knowing anything else and when she says that could have been the murderer. Therefore I draw the conclusion that she definately is hiding something. She also rubs her tongue along her teeth in the end. Also, I thought I saw a mismatch face of contempt sometimes during the interview, especially when she tells that she can tell anything to her mom and when she talks about the kisses in front of the house (that was a big red flag to me!). But I just started the course, so I could be overseeing (I don’t know if that is the best way to express it) things. Does what I said make any sense? Anyway, I do not entirely trust her either.
    By the way, I am really enjoying the course! Thank you!

    (I am brazilian and not used to write in english, so, please forgive my mistakes!)

    1. Vanessa Van Edwards

      Hi Fernanda,

      Thanks for writing in, (Your english is awesome!) I agree with your points. Pursing the lips is a huge red flag and the nervous gesture of how she rubs her tongue as well. So glad you are enjoying the course. Nice catches here!

      Best,
      V

  59. David

    Over the history of millions of years, us human beings have inherited a finely tuned and powerful tool known as ‘instinct’. It is a very powerful tool. Instinct is not always 100% correct, but it provides a very strong emotional ‘hint’ in order to make decisions and direct our behaviour. How many times have you heard the expression – ‘follow your gut instinct’.

    Watching this, my instinct tells me that there is something ‘not right’ here. I cant help but get the impression that Amanda Knox knows something else, and that for some reason, she doesn’t want to reveal what that something else is.

    I think if you were being accused of a murder you didn’t commit, you would be naturally over-enthusiastic to protest your innocence, and you would hammer that home with 100% conviction., especially if you had now been found innocent and you could open up and talk freely. You would go over the details of what you were doing that night with ease and passion. For some reason, that doesn’t happen here. Her responses seem somewhat calculated, sometimes slightly delayed, uncomfortable and unnatural. At times she seems ‘close to tears’, but again, it simply seems fake. No tears ever passionately flow.

    When asked if she killed Meredith, or if she was there that night, all she manages to say is ‘No’, followed by another ‘No’, and then ‘I wasn’t there’. That is it, practically the shortest words she could have used. She is uncomfortable speaking at that moment, and the gulp re-enforces it. That was her chance to verify her innocence, but instead it just seems that she wants that moment over. The question is, why?

    It could well be that this is simply Amanda Knox’s personality. If that’s the case, then at the moment, it isn’t doing her any favours.

    1. Vanessa Van Edwards

      Hi David,

      I completely agree with you. Something was just off. My gut was screaming that as well. I think she was forced into doing this to sell books, but the whole thing just made her look more guilty.

      Thanks for writing in!
      Vanessa

    2. Julie

      If you’d been in jail for 2 years, broken down to the point of dispair. Constantly had to answer the same questions over and over again you might begin to have some emotional detachment to the questions. She’s probably hyper aware she is being studied for micro expressions and therefore not completely natural anyway. This woman is not stupid. My ‘gut’ instinct is that she did not commit murder because there is absolutely no motive. Why would someone like her hang out with a previously convicted criminal such as the Rudy guy.
      Yes she has a slightly unusual demeanour and has displayed some odd behaviour but I think people are judgmental of the fact that she was also a good time girl. I still think in some circumstances body language signals can be over ridden by other thoughts, paranoia anxious thoughts that don’t relate to the truth (but don’t make you a criminal). For example if you think someone may not believe you but you are indeed telling the truth you can sometimes loose your conviction and express body language to the contrary.

      1. Stacy

        Maybe she hung out with him so she could get drugs, make connections, meet ppl, be a “bad ass”… it’s not a stretch to see that. She was in Italy for 5 weeks and had already slept with 3 guys there so she’s no stranger to danger. Those questions were conveniently abrupt and very vaguely answered.

        Also, I work in the Human Services field and the individuals who I’m personally responsible for r inpatient “M.I.C.A – C.A.M.I.” individuals who r no strangers to previous incarnation bids. It makes a person tougher than previously, but not the same exact type of way as she displayed. I’ve also been engaged and dated a few guys that were career criminals and I never observed those types of mannerisms, whether it be alone just the 2 of us privately or in a big group. The only time they need space to adjust is the 1st week home. Prison didn’t do that to her. She’s afraid to get extradited back to Italy… So she’s playing the role

    3. Dani

      I’m aware that this is 3 years late but just in case anybody else is reading this recently, her short responses and that flat out ‘no’ are the best indicators that she is telling the truth in that moment. A liar would need to go into more detail in order to persuade their audience of their innocence. A person who already knows that they are innocent would be more comfortable letting those short responses speak for themselves.

      Her behaviour when she answers the question about being there is more troubling. It would be interesting to compare these interviews and her initial interviews with the police.

      It is worth noting that if she is in fact completely innocent then we know that telling the truth has not turned out so well for her in the past and might have bitten her on the ass. It could account for the conflicting expressions, or it could suggest hidden information.

      I’ve also noticed people talking about the ‘smirk’ of contempt she gives when asked if she killed Meredith. I don’t think this is a signifier of guilt but likely a sign of contempt at still having to answer that question and perhaps a bitter resignation that she might have to answer that question for the rest of her life.

      I believe that she didn’t kill Meredith or play a complicit part in her murder but the behaviour in response to whether she was there could certainly be interpreted that she has hidden information.

  60. juliana

    also, even though she does seem genuinely touched in a few moments, not one single tear was shed during the entire interview. to me this is a red flag.

  61. susan

    psychopaths have a slow blink rate. She would have had extensive body language training before that interview. The yes nod after the murder question….that’s interesting.

    1. Selena

      Psychopaths don’t need extensive body language training. What they do comes to them naturally–being glib, having grandiose sense of self-worth, pathological lying, being cunning or manipulative, shallowness, callousness, and not accepting reprehensibility of his/her own actions. They begin learning from a early age because they are born with a dysfunctional (sometimes non-existent) amygdala. They’d have a slower blink rate because they genuinely don’t feel any remorse for their actions, so why should they feel nervous and blink a ton?
      A brilliant book to read on Psychopathy is “Without Conscience” by Robert D. Hare. It gives so much information in such a small book. I personally don’t think that Amanda is a psychopath. One of my peeves is people mixing the words psycho and psychopath and using them synonymously. Drives me nuts cause they are very different.

      1. Elisa

        There was nothing about her behaviour that said “innocent” to me. She was very controlled..holding her gaze and careful not to move too much when Sawyer asked her if she killed Kercher. Also, the slow blink told me that she was a). trying to remember (after all, they’d been so high on hash that Sollecito said they didn’t remember anything except each other”)..or b). she was attempting to use imagination in order to impress innocence upon Sawyer thereby manipulating her.

        She is guilty. I don’t know if she plunged the knife in. It’s possible but not probable. However, Kercher’s friends say that Meredith didn’t like Knox bringing home a lot of different men, partying and not keeping up her part of the roommate chores, a subject they argued about regularly. Knox is definitely complicitous…imo. I don’t care who you are or what age you are at the time of a “friends” murder – you don’t do cartwheels in the police station after hearing what happened…ignoring blood in the sink and on the rug, taking a shower and calling your mom, then eating breakfast and THEN calling someone for help. Too strange.

      2. Vanessa Van Edwards

        Very interesting notes here. I agree she was very “in control” it felt like a lot of her lines and answers were memorized. I do believe she is hiding something.

      3. Gorros

        “Drives me nuts cause they are very different.”
        Glad you said that. Because it was needed.

      4. Stacy

        Psychopathic and Sociopathic individuals r excellent actors, although it’s the sociopath that would be the 1 to win an Oscar Award cuz they literally jus mirror other ppl’s personality, behavior and what it is that they think is being seeked in them/their reaction. Psychopaths r less self-controlled then a sociopath.

        The dangerous types r the Narcopaths – Narcissistic Sociopath/Psychopath – which is very fitting in the contradictory behavior observed in Amanda’s responses. Also, there r a few times where there’s clear evidence of “Duping Delight” when the tough questions about what happened r asked.
        She obviously was coached on what to say & how to act but like *^Selena^* had said, there’s no conscious in these ppl…. no emotions, just a complete flat affect. A shell. I personally think that the reason for the up and down nod of “Yes” (nonverbal cue) vs. the verbal “No” was yet another calculated ploy to leave a door open in case she needs to go back and renege her statement.
        The only thing that I don’t agree with is the FACT that controlling ones body language and verbal responses is extremely hard to accomplish, even for the best sociopaths out there. Body language and nonverbal responses is actually 93% of communication. The actual talkin verbally is only 7% of the way we communicate. Controlling the subconscious thoughts while maintaining a pristine, angelic “poor me” identity is not an easy task to complete, & then u throw a few camera men and national TV with Diane Sawyer & the pressure will be amplified. Not out of fear for what was done, out of maintaining that mask and control over the viewers perception of her.

        Another possibility, that would go with the slow blinking responses could be “alters” -(D.I.D.)- switching from personality to personality. If u watch her face and her eyes close, u can see her pupils dilate and constrict almost like turning on and off a light.
        Idk…. just my personal opinion. I really don’t think Italy would be so persistent on her guilt if they didn’t have evidence or a reason for it. I’m Sicilian and the men in our family will fit to always be the correct 1, but even a broken clock is right 2 times a day.

Comments are closed.

Related

Read More in Lie Detection