It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


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

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:23 AM
reply to post by FlySolo

Hold on your telling me that if your roommate was brutally murdered you’d be washing your significant others laundry at the murder scene!

If she’s so innocent way does she keep lying, better yet why does her boyfriend keep lying. They didn’t beat him when they questioned him. They both keep lying.

She had something to do with the murder.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:33 AM
reply to post by ericblak1947

Ok, you seem adamant that she is guilty and I am just beginning to follow this after the media circus. I trust something isn't right and feel she may have gotten a raw deal.

Now if you want to debate this, I would request you begin to show links for your sources.I'm starting with the crime scene:

"Incompetence at the crime scene

This whole investigation would be laughable if it weren't for the underlying facts -- a woman has been brutally murdered, and two innocent people and their families have had their lives devastated by a botched investigation.

I have reviewed the crime scene video, which shows how the police went about collecting evidence. The problems are are obvious.

They weren't careful with the way they handled evidence inside the room. For example, when they removed the blanket covering the girl's body, they shook it out, which would allow DNA and other evidence to travel all over the room.

But it gets worse than that. They actively destroyed evidence inside the victim's room.

The media have all seen pictures of one bloody footprint, found near the body. The authorities presented this footprint as a unique specimen, but it was actually one of several.

For some inexplicable reason, one of the officers at the crime scene systematically scrubbed away these footprints until no trace was left. By doing so, they made it nearly impossible for the authorities to establish their source. The prosecution tried to argue that the one footprint that was recorded with photographs belonged to Raffaele Sollecito. Sollecito's attorneys expended great effort proving this was not the case."


So far I haven't read anything about her with a mop and doing laundry. She came home and took a shower. But, I'm reading on

[edit on 11-12-2009 by FlySolo]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 01:52 AM
reply to post by ericblak1947

I thought I would wait till you cited your evidence of her being caught washing her dead roommates clothes but found this instead:

The washing machine was found to be on final cycle with Kercher's clothes inside.

I think you should do more research before spouting claims of accuracy. I have only been following this for what....25 minutes? So what the machine was found with her clothes in it? Ya, Kercher was washing her OWN clothes.

Perhaps you should read on the link I provided which shows the damning evidence against Guédé.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:10 AM
reply to post by FlySolo

We all know that Rudy Guede was involved! His DNA was found inside and on the victim. But he didn't act alone in this crime.


"Friday's key evidence focused on mixed genetic traces of Knox and Kercher found throughout the house. That's something, Knox's defense lawyers said, that was normal given that they lived together.

But mixed blood samples were found as well. Specifically, mixed blood of Knox and Kercher was found on the drain of the bidet, on a box of Q-tips sitting on the sink and the sink ledge.

A drop of Knox's blood was identified on the sink faucet. Kercher's blood was also found on the toilet lid and the bathroom light switch, on the part that would have been touched to turn on the lights. Elsewhere in the house, luminol-enhanced footprints were analyzed and found to be mixed genetic material of Knox and Kercher."


Transcript of Amanda Knox's

"I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:"


Why is she talking about evidence stacked against her, On the tv special i watched they kept saying that there is no "real" evidence. To me it sounds like she's trying to hide something.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:22 AM
Ok, I'll read these but first, one thing at a time. So we can agree she was not found washing clothes but rather sitting on the steps of her flat. The clothes are irrelevant

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:26 AM

Originally posted by FlySolo
reply to post by ericblak1947

The washing machine was found to be on final cycle with Kercher's clothes inside.

How long does a washing machine run? an hour at best? how was the machince still running if Kercher's was murdered hours before hand? If Kercher's dead who would put her clothing in the wash machine an hour before people are to come...

from your source..

"Kercher was murdered on the evening of 1 November 2007. Led by Dr Luca Lalli, pathologists put her time of death between 20:30 and 23:00"

"On the morning of 2 November, the Italian Post and Communications Police came to investigate"

"The washing machine was found to be on final cycle with Kercher's clothes inside."

Who put Kercher's clothes in the wash. Final cycle means that it was still running.

OJ did the same thing.

Guede didn't wash the clothes i can bet on was someone else...someone who was involved with the murder and was cocky enough to think that they could get away with it.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:30 AM
Definition for bidet

o - low basin for washing genitals: a low bathroom plumbing fixture resembling a toilet and equipped with a spray or jet …


Knox and Kercher. Perhaps menstrual? Possibly.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by FlySolo]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:33 AM
reply to post by FlySolo

I will dig up more of my sources. and site them. it's 3.27am for me so I'm off to bed. I have some links you will find interesting. Court testimony other things. post your findings for me. I'll post mines.

The thing about this case is that when i saw the show on abc, it didn't make any sense at all. All they kept saying is innocent girl in jail in Italy. I did research for a few days and concluded that she had something to do with the crime.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 02:39 AM
reply to post by ericblak1947

That's fair, I'm only beginning to educate myself with this thread. Its late here too. I want to see some more of her statements. Especially the laundry deal.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:08 AM
I'm not familiar with the case, aside from cursory media reports and what I've read here. It does seem as though the prosecutors were reaching somewhat in their detailing Amanda's weed usage and gardening projects, and her horrific wake and bake habits *gasp*.

Intuitively, I think that the more powerful of suspects were let off, and the blame went to whichever person's family connections were weakest. I would not be surprised if all were involved, though it is hard to fathom the kind of kick anyone would derive from sacrificing someone. Italy sounds like a good place to fact, outdoors is a good place to avoid. I have seen what powerful enemies can do to a person through police being held in the palms of very bad people.

I live in a town which rarely makes any headlines. One morning a man was gunned down with 3 blasts at close range. Within minutes, cops were tripping over themselves declaring on the air that it was 'a car jacking gone bad'. Over and over again. That is not what happened and everyone knows it.

In this case, politics are involved.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 03:56 AM
Let me give a unique perspective.

I used to have a murderer for a next door neighbor back in the 1980s. The crime scene was a national story for a short time.

Two people; one was a grown man, the other was a teenage male. Between the two of them, one man was shot dead, one was shot in the stomach, a dog was shot (don't remember if the dog lived or died), and a pre-teen girl was raped, stabbed in the forehead with a screwdriver, stabbed with a butcher knife 32 times from her forehead to her ankles, hog tied, dragged across the house, and thrown in a closet left to die.

By an act of God, she lived.

As for the man who was shot and also his dog was shot, I was an eyewitness to that part of the crime spree. I hid behind a parked car in fear that my next door neighbor would see me and kill me to.

They both fled the scene in a attempt to evade arrest. A third person drove the getaway car. I don't remember how involved the driver was in the premeditated part of it but I am pretty sure he was NOT under duress to help them flee.

Both the murderer and the attempted murderer did their time. Both currently walk the streets.

These were my next door neighbors. I ran around with the teenager for a short time. Many refused to believe they were really involved.

They were. I saw part of it with my own eyes. I was on the news. I gave testimony. For my assistance, I was offered very little, very temporary protection.

Their remaining family moved away in the cover of night. It probably won't surprise you that crime statistics PLUMMETED in our neighborhood once they left.

On to Amanda Knox. If this was an old, plain looking black man from Africa, nobody would care. I mean nobody!

Because it involves a hot, young white American girl, the whole world is interested. Fine. That cute little white girl is guilty. Very guilty.

For me, there is enough evidence to indicate she was deeply involved.

The media is only going to report the entertainment side of this trial. You have no idea how much the media ignores and how little they report. This is mostly due to time constraints however, what very little they do report is often littered with inaccurate "facts."

If Amanda Knox doesn't like the trial she received, my advice to her would be not to commit any more murders abroad. The main reason she is upset is because she got caught. Cry me a river, baby.

Cry me an ocean.

There is no doubt in my mind she is guilty. There is no doubt in my mind her associated "friends" are guilty as well. She got 24 years for murder. I'd say she is fortunate. I think she did well.

In a non-Anglo-Saxon country, her punishment would have been much more severe.

Amanda did it, pretty or not. She was tried under local laws. I'm okay with it.

By the way, my teenage next door neighbor got 50 years in 1986. Today, he is walking the streets. He's free as a bird. According to his facebook and myspace sites, he served no more then 20 years of his 50 year sentence. Possibly less.

You all have no idea what it was like to have these dual faced people for neighbors. Most of you have no idea what it's like to deal with the media. From what I saw on TV, the media treated the facts as optional in their so called reporting (edit to add: this statement is in reference to the situation I went through).

Anyway, that's my wild and crazy story. I can not guarantee that I will leave this post up. I am not even sure why I am bothering.

Amanda Knox did it. She is/was capable of doing it. Don't let her cuteness fool you. Her attractive face is completely irrelevant.

(Edit to remove information not prudent to the flow of the OP's thread.)

[edit on 12/11/2009 by Genfinity]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:27 AM
reply to post by Genfinity

If this was an old, plain looking black man from Africa, nobody would care. I mean nobody!

I'm sure somebody would care, but I understand your point, things like this happen all the time, but if it has entertainment value it will be highlighted.

You have no idea how much the media ignores and how little they report. This is mostly due to time constraints however, what very little they do report is often littered with inaccurate "facts."

I'm pretty certain that the majority of people here on ATS are relatively media savvy. The media is far too biased, they don't deal in facts most of the time, just opinions.

I prefer execution by fire. Fire is an excellent deterrent for others considering their involvement in a murder.......Sizzle, burn. Smell it? Not like a simple bullet.

I think we get off topic a bit here
We enter the world of the bizarre, the use of the word prefer is what worries me......

As for your 'wild and crazy story', i don't see what relevance it has here, maybe I'm missing something

Don't let her cuteness fool you. Her attractive face is completely irrelevant.

Yes it is (or at least it should be) 'completely irrelevant', but still people constantly mention it.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:46 AM
I think "Foxy Knoxy" is being used as a smoke screen. Out of all three convicted the media (and public) have focussed on her the most.

Rudy Guede was known to Italian police and allowed to get away with a series of crimes before the murder. 5 weeks before the murder he was discovered to have broken into an apartment by the bar tender who lived there and he was weilding a large kitchen knife when discovered. Cristian Tramantano recognised Guede and went to police 4 times about the break in but they would not log the crime!

The next week Guede broke into a nursery. He then broke in a second time and was caught by the nursery owner. Police were called and Guede questioned. A stolen laptop, digital camera and ten-inch kitchen knife were found in his backpack.
instead of being arrested and charged, Guede was escorted to Milan central railway station and placed on a train back to Perugia.

On the weekend of October 13, the office of lawyers Paolo Brocchi and Luigi Palazzoli, was burgled. A firstfloor window was smashed - similar to the break-in at Meredith's house. A computer and other items were stolen.
were later found in Guede's possession, but again he was not arrested or charged!

I find something very fishy about this, what exactly was taken from the lawyers office? Why was Guede (some one who police knew carried around a 10 inch knife) repeatedly let go? Was it possible he was a police informant. If so they left him free to murder Meredith Kercher. I'm not saying the other two are completely innocent but I think that there may be a cover-up in this case. The media frenzy surrounding Amanda Knox has served it's purpose to distract what was going on between Guede and the Italian police. You may remember he opted ( I'm sure it was voluntary) for a quick, no fuss trial in which he ended up getting 5 years more than the other two defendents.

I think everyone has been successfully hoodwinked with this one.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 05:30 AM
reply to post by LiveForever8

Especially when there is still a lot of doubt in public opinion about the verdict.

when should public opinion ever enter into the judgement of a court.? The only reason theres doubt in the american publics mind is becuase they havnt been exposed to the evidence.

Amanda’s first known lie wasn’t to the police, but to her flatmate, Filomena, on 2 November, the day after Meredith’s murder.

Amanda phoned Filomena at 12.08 pm, and said she was worried about the front door being open and blood stains in the small bathroom

Lie one. Amanda said she was going to call Raffaele, but according to Raffaele, Amanda had already returned to his apartment at 11.30 am, and then they had gone back to the cottage.

At 12.34 pm Amanda and Filomena spoke again. Filomena said, “We spoke to each other for the third time and she told me that the window in my room was broken and that my room was in a mess. At this point I asked her to call the police and she told me that she already had.”

Lie two. Amanda and Raffaele didn’t actually call the police until 12.51 pm.

The postal postal police unexpectedly turned up at the cottage at 12. 35 pm.

Lie three. Amanda and Raffael told the police that they had called the police and were waiting for them.

Lie four. Amanda told the postal police that Meredith always kept her door locked. Filomena strongly disagreed with her, and told the postal police the opposite was true.

Amanda and Raffaele were then taken in for questioning.

Lie five. They said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis.

It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.

Long term use of cannabis may affect short term memory, which means that users might have difficulty recalling a telephone number. But it won’t wipe out whole chunks of an evening from their memory banks.

Lie six. Amanda accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith at the cottage.

It’s true that two of Amanda’s such statements were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court. However, Amanda repeated the accusation, in a note that she wrote to the police on 6 November.

This note was not thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court, and it was admitted as evidence.

Lies seven and eight. In her 6 November note Amanda claimed to have seen Diya Lumumba at the basketball court at Piazza Grimana; and outside her front door. He was actually at his bar.

Line nine. Amanda’s supporters claim that she confessed to a lesser role in Meredith’s murder, and blamed Diya Lumumba, because she had been “smacked around” or put under pressure by the police.

But the real reason she had to say she was at the cottage was because she was informed that Raffaele Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi.

Raffaele had been confronted with phone records, and was now claiming that she was not with him the whole evening, and that she had only returned at 1.00 am. Amanda did not attempt to refute Raffaele’s claim, but now admitted that she had been at the cottage.

The significance of this about-turn cannot be stressed enough.

(Incidentally, Raffaele was also claiming that he had lied, because he had believed Amanda’s version of what happened and not thought about the inconsistencies. He is acknowledging that Amanda’s version had inconsistencies.)

If it had been true that Amanda had been “smacked around” by the police during questioning, why haven’t her lawyers ever filed a complaint? It was very telling that Amanda dropped her allegation of being hit by the police at her recent court hearing, and instead just claimed she had been put under pressure.

There’s a world of difference between police brutality and being put under pressure. It wasn’t the first time that Amanda has made a false and malicious accusation, as Diya Lumumba knows only too well.

Lie ten. Amanda claimed to have slept in at Raffaele’s until the next morning. However, her mobile records show that this was not so. Amanda turned on her mobile at approximately at 5.32 am.

The only plausibe explanation for Amanda’s deliberate and repeated lies? That she was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

It should be no surprise to anyone following the case that the same three witnesses who have repeatedly lied, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede, have all been placed at the crime scene.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by yeti101]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:07 AM
reply to post by yeti101

when should public opinion ever enter into the judgement of a court.?

It shouldn't, and i didn't state it should. I was merely pointing out the controversial nature of this case. She was given 24 years, which isn't lenient at all, in the face 'flawed evidence', as one newspaper put it.

My point was that public opinion, I'm in the UK by the way, is still very much divided, which is an indicator that this most definitely isn't an open and shut case.

The only reason theres doubt in the american publics mind is becuase they havnt been exposed to the evidence.

Like I said, I'm in the UK and over here this case has been covered heavily, yet still there are many questions and public opinion is varied.

It is interesting to see how the newspapers have handled the situation. I thought they would hang her out to dry, but it seems that they are somewhat sympathetic towards her, saying:

Flawed evidence would never have been allowed in UK court

I know that news is news and they change opinions like the wind but I was still surprised.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:36 AM
reply to post by LiveForever8

After some reconsideration, I removed part of my post that may have disrupted the flow of this thread. You helped me clarify parts of my post and I appreciate that.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:37 AM
reply to post by LiveForever8

even if you try to contest some of the evidence it leaves a shed load to convict.

The same evidence used to convict soll & knox is the same kind of evidence used in UK or US courts to convict. ie inconsistant statements/ lies to police & questionable dna evidence.

the reporting in the UK is actually seen as biased against knox by outside observers. You must have found 1 paper or journalist who chose a diffirent angle.

Flawed evidence would never have been allowed in UK court

sounds like this article is taking its cue from american reporting. Perpetuating the myth the italian system & court is like some backward banana republic. Whereas the US or UKs courts are perfect.

29 judges reviewed the case material and every single one concluded there was enough evidence to prosecute.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by yeti101]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 07:47 AM
So no one finds it interesting that one of the convicted three (Guede) was known by police to be carrying a 10 inch kitchen knife while he reapeatedly commited break-ins in the weeks leading up to the murder. He was caught red handed and observed by reliable witnesses, found in possession of a deadly weapon and stolen property, yet Italian police never charged him and let him go again and again.

This together with the evidence destroyed at the scene is very suspicious.

She probably was involved to some degree but I'll say it again, I think the focus on Knox is a distraction.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by DrHammondStoat]

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 08:37 AM
reply to post by DrHammondStoat

we all know guede was there he raped the victim. hes been sentenced to 30 years in jail. He's not been ignored.

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:50 AM
reply to post by SpeakerofTruth

I dont think I am fooling myself. Ive not based anything Ive said with regards to her not being guilty of murder on her looks. Obviously the media thought her looks were relevant because it made for an interesting headline. Sure there would have been less media attention if she looked like the back end of a bus... but in a way the attention its brought has just highlighted the poor way this case has been handled.
Id like to think that people on ATS can put aside irrelevant things such as what she looks like and look at the actual evidence, or lack of it.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in