Amanda Knox (26 years in prison) and Sollecito (25 years) guilty of Meredith Kercher murder

Some of you are very, very naive.

Four-and-a-half months into the Amanda Knox trial, prosecutors finally laid out the hard forensic evidence against the young American from Seattle: blood from both her and her slain roommate found in their apartment and Knox's DNA on the supposed murder weapon.

Speaks for itself

What, you think that just because she's a dream girl, she's not capable of murder? Pffft, please. Women are brutal.

[edit on 6-12-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth

The DNA evidence says it all to me. The body was in her apartment. I don't buy the story that they "just stumbled into the body in Amanda's apartment."



[edit on 6-12-2009 by SpeakerofTruth]

Well stranger things have happened. I just find there's too many things about this group murder/orgy that dont make sense. Such as why three people who barely knew eachother, two of whom had clean criminal records get together and commit such a violent act. I think the fact that the prosecution never seemed to be set on a particular motive just shows that they arent sure why it happened either.

Plus, I find it strange that they think knox managed to rid the crime scene of her and her boyfriends DNA (granted, not the bra clasp, but that wasnt even picked up for 6 weeks after the murder) but guede's dna was everywhere... and even though she'd managed to clean all of this dna evidence away, she forgot to clean the knife handle.

There was also no evidence that amanda knox was even in the room where the murder took place. So seems a little odd that from that the prosecution decided that she was the one who stabbed her to death, while the other two held her down. Especially considering the knife only matched one of the wounds.

The character assassination she went through was ridiculous as well. So much irrelevant crap like picking her display name on myspace apart, with the conclusion that it had 'sexual connotations'.

Edit - I'd just like to add Im from the UK so Im not under any blind patriotic spell... I dont actually tend to get on with americans.

[edit on 6/12/09 by Bluebelle]

First off......

Originally posted by whatukno
Thank god justice was served and this evil monster is going to go to jail for a very long time.

Now, saying that, I don't know whether or not she's in fact guilty of the murder, she just has the same first name as my ex wife, so therefore her going to jail makes me smile a little bit.

Secondly, I can't help but wonder what role the media had to play in this trial. It seems to me that media bias, character assassination and 'body language' play more of a role in a jury's decision than actually physical evidence like DNA etc......

news.bbc.co.uk...

Prosecutors played heavily on Amanda Knox's personality, her sexual habits, her drug-taking and party lifestyle.

They painted a picture of the American student as a she-devil, using terms that would probably not be allowed in a UK or US court.

Although Knox didn't exactly make it easy for herself...

Knox's odd behaviour after the body was found also aroused suspicions - she was reported to have performed a cartwheel and done the splits while waiting to be questioned by police.

Ive just read up on this case in detail (god bless google), and it seems that the italian legal system is a little bit insane.
The arrest of that Lumumba guy was based purely on knox implicating him.. since when is that grounds for arrest? Take him in for questioning yea.. but arresting straight away seems a little too enthusiastic.

And some of the evidence used is completely bizarre..

Prosecutors allege that manga comics found in Sollecito's apartment recounted tales of killing female vampires on Halloween night and that many of the details in the comics were similar to the scene police discovered. Kercher had attended a number of Halloween parties dressed as a vampire on the night of 31 October (the prior evening).

Comics? Fancy dress costumes?.. Really?!

Also, have to include this quote.. possibly the best fake story I've ever heard. Very convincing

Guede's account of the evening was that he and the victim had consensual sex, after which he became sick from a bad kebab and left the room to use the toilet. He claimed to be listening to music on his iPod while using the facilities and thus did not hear the killer enter the house.

Originally posted by LiveForever8

Although Knox didn't exactly make it easy for herself...

Knox's odd behaviour after the body was found also aroused suspicions - she was reported to have performed a cartwheel and done the splits while waiting to be questioned by police.

I really like that she did this.. I can just imagine the police officers looking on in horror/complete confusion throughout her performance.

But to be fair, doing that doesnt say much really.. shock can do funny things to people. And if she did murder her and just genuinely didnt care, that would indicate some serious mental issues. Which you would expect would have come to the surface at some point in the last 22 years.

i think they were guilty and justice has been done.

She claims the police forced the confession from her. Ok lets get the real story

Shes says she spent the whole night at her boyfriends ( Raffaele Sollecito), the police ask Sollecito if thats true he answers "i cant remember". Really cant remember ? how can you not remember something like that? He claims he had a few joints. No amount of cannabis will make you forget the whole night. sorry. Later he says she did stay the whole night.

So they claim they were at Sollecitos but we have an independant witness who saw them at the piazza around 21:30 , thats 100 yards from the murder scene.

sollecito claims he was on his computer for some of the time between 9pm-12am. Inspecting the computer shows it has no interaction after 9pm. Both of their mobile phones are switched off.

Forensic evidence is disputed by the defense except the forensic evidence against guede. Sollecitos DNA was found on the victims bra, defense claim contamination but failed to show any convincing way how that would happen. DNA evidence on the murder weapon is disputed by the defense as is the murder weapon itself.

Even leaving out the forensic evidence their alibis were erratic and claims they made shown to be false.

Would a prosecutor in the USA have secured the conviction? who knows, you can hire an expert to give any interpretation you want so they may have managed to muddy the waters enough to get them off. Personally i think they are guilty and the correct decision reached.

Originally posted by yeti101

She claims the police forced the confession from her. Ok lets get the real story

Its not uncommon for police to intimidate suspects to the point where they just tell them what they want to hear.
And apart from that, sollecito claimed he was mistreated by the police also. The pair of them saying that could easily be fobbed off, but what about this quote from Patrick Lumumba -

"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'

Considering that it was down to amanda knox that he was implicated in the first place, he would have zero motive for making that up.

Forensic evidence is disputed by the defense except the forensic evidence against guede. Sollecitos DNA was found on the victims bra, defense claim contamination but failed to show any convincing way how that would happen. DNA evidence on the murder weapon is disputed by the defense as is the murder weapon itself.

This article gives a moderately in-depth view of why the DNA is questionable..

Knox murder trial evidence 'flawed', say DNA experts

Its from the new scientist website, so its pretty credible.

reply to post by Bluebelle


there are many criminals convicted without the use of dna evidence. The fact they couldnt get their story straight about where they were or what they were doing between 9pm-12am is a pretty damning piece of evidence itself.

Ive noticed the US media bias and knoxs parents who spent over $1million dollars on a PR company to make her look innocent and spoon feed the USA news its talking points.

Just becuase the dna evidence is disputed doesnt mean they had no involvement.


[edit on 6-12-2009 by yeti101]

After reading up on it, not intensively my personal opinion is she is guilty. Thats beside the point though as im not educated enough on the case for my opinion to be of any value. I do wonder though if she was some fat greasy ugly woman who looked like she comes from the wrong side of the rails, would she of recieved half the attention and support that she has.

I think maybe its just me becoming too cynical in these times where celebrity, money and beauty are king.

Money in polanskis case by the looks of it.

reply to post by yeti101


Yes DNA evidence isnt always needed to secure a conviction. But in the absence of DNA, there's usually other evidence to suggest what happened. A motive for instance, which amanda knox did not have.

And the thing with this case is that there is DNA evidence, just none of it belonging to amanda knox. I just find it ridiculously unlikely that she managed to remove all her DNA... yet leave plenty of guede's behind. Its not like it would be blindingly obvious where her DNA in the room was, and all it would take is for the forensics to pick up a strand of hair to show she was in there. So logically that would lead you to think she cleaned the whole room top to bottom... but then leave one persons DNA behind. Doesnt make sense really does it.

She could well have been involved somehow, but I dont see how they've proven in any way that knox actually stabbed her. Having her DNA on a knife handle really doesnt mean much. Most of the knives in my house have probably got my DNA on them, so I'd hate to think that if someone I lived with was murdered, that I would be sent down purely because I'd made myself a sandwich at some point using the knife.

[edit on 6/12/09 by Bluebelle]

reply to post by Bluebelle


If I ever go to a Halloween party in Italy I'm making sure I go as the Virgin Mary or the Pope, just in case I get caught in the middle of a murder case.

As for this:

Guede's account of the evening was that he and the victim had consensual sex, after which he became sick from a bad kebab and left the room to use the toilet. He claimed to be listening to music on his iPod while using the facilities and thus did not hear the killer enter the house.

Case closed.

He deserved to be locked up just for that terrible, terrible lie.

Most of the knives in my house have probably got my DNA on them, so I'd hate to think that if someone I lived with was murdered, that I would be sent down purely because I'd made myself a sandwich at some point using the knife.

I always make sure to wear gloves whenever I make a sandwich. You have missed a trick there.

How long is it until Amanda Knox can appeal the verdict if she can.

I think this case was settled as soon as the media got involved and concluded she was the killer before any evidence or atleast the verdict.

Even though this sounds bad, i hope she is guilty because if shes going to be spending all that time in jail, man is she going to be mad if shes did not do it.



[edit on 6-12-2009 by thecrow001]

reply to post by Bluebelle


no i dont think theres anyway to prove knox actually stabbed her either. Nobody knows exactly how things went down in the apartment. The fact her & sollecito have been caught lying implicates their guilt.

If knox was so innocent she would have no problem with her alibi. Or telling the truth about that night,.

You seem to be doing what the US media and her PR company are doing. Trying to get her off on technicalities but ignoring their version of events doesnt add up. If she wasn't involved at all she could easily tell the truth.

Do you really believe her & sollecito had no involvement at all with this murder?

[edit on 7-12-2009 by yeti101]

Amanda & her Italian boyfriend are completely innocent. Acting strange after a murder in your rental house does not make you a murderer

There was no physical evidence of Amanda's or her boyfriends at the crime scene. Zero, none - NADA.

The only physical evidence belongs to a black dope dealer from the Ivory coast who raped and murdered the British girl. He left the only DNA & the only bloody fingerprints, the only bloody footprints. He left a bowel movement in the toilet. He had broke into another house by breaking a rear window with a rock - the same as was done in this house. In his original statement to police he claimed he came there and had consensual sex with the victim and then while in the bathroom somebody broke in, killed the girl and he saw a guy running away. That was just a rapists story trying to get out of a crime. The next story is the one planted by police that he was willing to go along with to take the spotlight off himself.

The truth is a rapist murdered his victim - happens all the time all over the world.

The stupid idea that a sex cult that only new each other for one week murders their own roommate and then sticks around thinking they're going to get away with it. How preposterous is that? It's a frigging insane fantasy by a psychotic prosecutor and it didn't happen.

All there was is a made up story by a prosecutor who's a psychotic nut job who is possibly going to jail himself for abusing his authority. I predict that the prosecutor will soon have a heart attack or a brain aneurysm as his punishment from god for putting an innocent girl in prison. I hope the rain washes his seed away.

About Amanda's story. She was a 20 year old girl who trusted the police. The police interrogate her for more than 40 hours. At one point more than 14 hours the police ask her just imagine she was there when the murder happened and what she would of done, seen or heard.
The police hit her in the back of the head when they didn't like her story. Then they take that what if story and call it her statement and make her sign it.

Amanda was demonized by both the Italian & British media and she never got a fair trial.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by verylowfrequency]

The window was broken from the inside. Nobody broke and entered from the outside.

In my opinion, She and her boyfriend have been justly found guilty of the murder.

reply to post by verylowfrequency


The claim guede acted alone isn't believable. A bloody footprint was found on a pillow underneath the victims bed. The print did not match the victims or guedes shoesize. But it did match amanda knoxs.

We also have the bloody footprints that were almost succesfully cleaned away. They were only visible under luminol. Again these match Sollicetos & knoxs. Another bloody footprint found in the bathroom matches Sollecitos bare foot to the milimeter. This print was visible to the naked eye.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by SpeakerofTruth


This is untrue. All the reports I've read say there was a very small amount of what was allegedly determined to be Amanda's DNA on the supposed murder knife. But DNA evidence experts contend that the amount was far too small to be definitively true. What is MORE important is that a more sensitive chemical test for blood came back negative on the knife. In real life, any DNA evidence would be washed away first. And then, if you were really really good you'd be able toi eliminate any chemical residue of blood. Not to mention, defense experts contend that the alleged murder weapon doesn't match the murder wounds.

Seriously, there are way too many 'don't-add-ups' for this verdict to be real.

One of the differences in the Italian legal system is that they do look at the persons background. We can complain that it is unfair but I do think it significant that this woman had previously put a rape and murder story on the net.
There was DNA evidence too.
Apparently she did cartwheels when apprehended. Slightly unbalanced would you say? Well I hope she spends many years in prison - doing cartwheels to her hearts content.
Possibly she'll appeal and get off. So in advance of anyone saying 'I told you so', I believe there are many instances of sentences being overturned and guilty people getting off. The clue that the system still believes they are guilty is when police say 'We are not looking for anyone else in connection with ....'.

[edit on 7-12-2009 by unicorn1]

OK, here is my Columbo-style version of how things occurred.

The events I am going to describe would explain a lot about the "flaws" in the investigation.

To understand these solution we have to step back a bit and get out of the "they are guilty or they are innocent" binary choice.

Amanda Knox, Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito are all guilty and innocent at the same time. Each of them with a different degree of responsibility.

First of all, they did not kill Meredith.

So, who did it?

That night there really was a fourth person in the apartment (Rudy, Amanda, Meredith and a mistery man). Sollecito wasn't there but was called later on by Amanda to help her with the mess.

The mistery man has been spotted by witnesses (some paramedics near an ambulance) the morning after, washing his bloody hands in a fountain. The man shouted at them to "f**k off" and that soon something would have happened. The journalist who reported this has been told by the police that she should stop reporting that news else be prosecuted. Luckily several newspapers reported it (ie www.timesonline.co.uk...).

That man wasn't Sollecito (Sollecito is a 'wimp', he wouldn't shout at the ambulance crew).
Although our fourth man is not a drug dealer, he's probably the son of an important person in Perugia (or area around).
When I say important I am talking about somebody who belongs to the Order of the Red Rose a masonic lodge present in US, UK and Italy (also France and other countries).

Check Joe Finkle's answer here for more details: uk.answers.yahoo.com...

What Joe Finkle got wrong is that Ms Carlizzi did not advice the prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. Actually Ms Carlizzi (who wrote several books about the Monster of Florence and other misteries) was beaten up by Mignini when he questioned her about the Monster of Florence. Carlizzi sued Mignini and nowaday Ms Carlizzi believes Amanda is innocent.

Back to what happened that night: the fourth man was in Amanda and Meredith's cottage with Rudy because Amanda brought Rudy and the fourth man there.
Think: Amanda studied in a Jesuit school. We know that the Jesuits are a masonic lodge on their own.
Rudy Guede, despite being described as a drug dealer, had been adopted by a wealthy local business man. Therefore he was hanging out with the local high-class. Probably he was also selling coc aine to his rich friends.
The fourth man killed Meredith, while Amanda was waiting outside the room (Rudy?). The fourth man and Rudy fled the scene. When Amanda realised what happened she and Raffaele tried to clean up the mess.

Amanda and Rudy are covering for the fourth man!! They are more scared of the Red Rose reaction than of a lifetime imprisonment. They are accomplices, so they would get a life anyway. They are playing the scarcity of evidence's card.

Why did they do that? Because when you join the Red Rose you have to commit a crime for which they can blackmail you. That is their way to keep you loyal. Probably Amanda and Rudy didn't know the fourth man's final goal when they decided to help him finding a victim (they helped him because their lodge's rules forced them to).

When Amanda found herself in that situation, went to Raffaele's place and asked him for help. That is why they switched the phones off: they were worried to be tracked down as moving around. Raffaele thought that Amanda was a victim, that she had been framed (actually she partially was).

Raffaele helped her. He was told what to tell the police. Amanda's behaviour can be explained by the mixture of feeling guilty and innocent. They changed their versions because they haven't told the truth yet.
During the trial Raffaele shouted to Amanda: "stop covering for him, tell them who did it". Probably she was also promised to be released if she kept covering for fourth man.

Now, keep in mind this theory when analysing the case ... it all makes sense.

reply to post by yeti101


Its fair enough that they cant determine exactly what happened, but there just doesnt seem to be any evidence that actually points to her being in the room or stabbing her. Or having any reason to stab her in the first place.

I think its a given that Guede played a significant part in what happened. As for sollecito Im not sure, its more amanda knox's alleged role in the murder which sounds out of place.

A technicality might not mean much in everyday life, but if you're locking someone away for 25 years for murdering someone, those 'technicalities' need to be addressed.

As for the change of story, yea that looks odd. But what I find even more strange is the idea that her, sollecito and the lumumba guy who would have had zero contact with eachother during the questioning all reported police brutality & trying to get them to change their stories.

Saying 'if she wasnt involved it would be easy to tell the truth' is quite a naive statement to make. Obviously it isnt if the police have already decided you're guilty, as in the case of patrick lumumba! (I LOVE his second name by the way)

Originally posted by LiveForever8

Guede's account of the evening was that he and the victim had consensual sex, after which he became sick from a bad kebab and left the room to use the toilet. He claimed to be listening to music on his iPod while using the facilities and thus did not hear the killer enter the house.

Case closed.

He deserved to be locked up just for that terrible, terrible lie.

I cant get over it, its brilliant... just think, the killer was probably sat outside the house waiting for that bad kebab to strike! And its definately only a coincidence that he was listening to his ipod while she was being killed.. which is of course the first thing you do when you feel sick, make sure you have your ipod at hand. He should have added some flying unicorns and garden gnomes in for effect.

projectfun......

OK, here is my Columbo-style version of how things occurred.

You forgot to use Columbos catchphrase: "Just one more thing..."

As for the kebab, surely the police questioned the local takeaway? It's the classic murder plot:

Give prospective suspect a dodgy kebab.
Wait for him to leave the room to 'use the facilities'.
Of course he will listen to his iPod, of course he will.
Then commit murder while prospective suspect is distracted by some soft jazz.
Leave scene.

Done.

"The Kebab Killer" strikes again.



[edit on 05/08/2009 by LiveForever8]