Anonymous
Anonymous asked in News & EventsOther - News & Events · 1 decade ago

Do you believe Amanda Knox is guilty?

I've been following the case from the beginning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox#Amanda_Kn...

I don't know my answer yet.

10 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I do not believe she is guilty and here's why:

    Let's begin with the prosecutor, to get a general idea of why things have gone so terribly wrong in this case. Guilliano Mignini has been indicted for falsifying evidence and has a history of prosecuting reporters who disagree with him in the Monster of Florence case. In that case (though I think it was before Mignini got involved), a new prosecutor threw out the charges against Pacciani on appeal (Italy has a good appeals process involving an independent prosecutor, which is probably Knox's best hope), because Pacciani had nothing to do with the murders, because the evidence was complete BS, as any objective look would determine. Mignini still believes that a satanic cult conspired to pay Pacciani and a band of his acquaintances to cut out the sexual organs of women in Italy in the 1970s and '80s for their rutuals, based largely on the conspiracy theories of Gabriella Carlizzi, who gets her theories by speaking to the dead priest Father Gabrielli. Carlizzi believes that September 11th was orchestrated by the Cult of the Red Rose.

    This is the same lunatic, while still under indictment and being actively investigated, who is responsible for prosecuting Amanda Knox. Read The Monster of Florence for more information on the Monster case and the underlying causes of why it was so incredibly screwed up. It goes deeper than Mignini, but his antics take the cake among a series of botched investigations that have resulted in the man who is likely the real killer still living in the outskirts of Florence. Mignini told American reporters that he had been in jail during one of the murders. A quick check of the records easily revealed that was untrue.

    But that's a different case, I use it to illustrate the kind of person making the accusations, not to directly cast doubt on the evidence in this case. Let's look at the supposed evidence:

    First, the confession was thrown out because Knox didn't have a lawyer present. If she had, her lawyer would never have let the police interrogate her all night and never would have let her respond when asked to "imagine what would have happened" or "picture herself at the crime scene". (Mignini used these same tactics when interrogated Douglas Preston in the Monster of Florence case). Preston was an experienced journalist, not a college student, and they came pretty close to getting a false confession out of him, or at least getting him to implicate a close friend whom they suspected. Also, consider the fact that her confession is known to be untrue. They asked her who had sent a particular text message and then coerced her into implicating him in the murder. That man had an alibi and they had to let him go, replacing him with Rudy Guede after the DNA found in Kercher's body matched him.

    Next, let's look at Guede. Guede admitted to having been there immediately. He admitted to having had sex with Kercher. He fled the next day. There was tons of evidence to implicate him in the murder and at the very least, he was clearly a great witness. He never saw Knox or Sollecito. He repeated that testimony for months, even when faced with prison. He caved to pressure hoping for a deal and implicated them, then retracted it. He has been convicted of the murders, but is appealing. His story now, which has been his story since the beginning, is that he slept with Kercher, then went to the bathroom, then when he came out of the bathroom, saw someone else fleeing the apartment and discovered that he had killed Kercher. Is that true? I don't know. Anyone's gut reaction would certainly be "no".

    However, there's some evidence to back Guede up. Specifically, a local drifter known for breaking into people's homes and matching the description Guede provided was seen by a number of eye witnesses who went on record saying he was covered in blood washing up in a fountain screaming about how he had "killed her". Mignini claims he investigated and found no connection. He also threatened to prosecute the reporter who broke the story with prosecution for interfering with the investigation by spreading lies. She dropped the issue and it wasn't widely reported after the first day it hit the papers. Maybe Guede killed her. Maybe he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. I wish somebody other than Mignini had investigated though. Once he settles on a theory, evidence, it seems, cannot change his mind.

    Turning back to Knox and Sollecito, let's look at the story Mignini first presented regarding them. He claimed that they, along with Guede, whom they had only met once or twice before, were involved in a satanic cult and after Kercher refused to join them in a sexual satanic rite, they sacrificed her in a satanic ceremony dedicated to Halloween, which they did the following day because Kercher had a scheduling conflict and couldn't be lured into their trap on Halloween. Sound far fetched? It does to me. Let's look at the evidence backing this up:

    First, there's the knife. It was found at Sollecito's home, containing Knox's DNA on the handle and Kercher's DNA on the blade. However, it was an ordinary kitchen knife. I've got similar knives in my home. Knox was her girlfriend, it's not unusual for some of her skin cells to be found on the handle of a kitchen knife in her boyfriend's home. The DNA on the blade was so degraded no match could actually be made. It was not inconsistent with Kercher, but it could have been from anything, touching the blade, just as touching the handle caused Knox's DNA to be there, or any number of other scenarios and the DNA may or may not have belonged to Kercher. But that's not the craziest part. THE KNIFE DOESN'T EVEN MATCH. There were imprints of the knife used on Kercher left on the sheet at the crime scene. The "murder weapon" found at Sollecito's home is substantially bigger. It simply isn't the murder weapon, it's a complete fabrication, similar to a bullet planted in the Monster case or a common doorstop used to implicate Spezi in a satanic cult. (Mignini is big on the satanic cults.)

    Then there's the ear witness who claimed she heard 3 people flea the scene. However, that witness is not sure what she heard, she's not sure on what day she heard it, and it's not clear she even could have heard what she claimed to have heard from her apartment.

    Then there's the footprint. Mignini claims that Sollecito left it. In fact, it's not his size, but it does match Guede, who we already know was at the crime scene because he readily admits it.

    Then there's the bra clasp. It had been ripped off Kercher and supposedly has Sollecito's DNA on it. The clasp was first noticed by crime scene investigators not long after the event, but they left it at the crime scene to be contaminated by practically anything before picking it up months later. That clasp is probably the best evidence in the case and even that is completely unreliable. It's the only thing that even raises a question in my mind, very far from enough to convict.

    Source(s): The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston with Mario Spezi, with afterward about the Kercher case, and other research since reading the book.
    • Login to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    She may not have been the one who murdered her directly with the knife. But I think she was there and had some involvement. Now i know this is not something to base a verdict on but if you look at all the photos taken in & out of court of Amanda Knox.........look at her eyes in some of them ......i just see guilt and or someone who is hiding something or for lack of a better word as a person up to no good, my intuition just tells me something is not right there. Maybe the situation got carried away with and then she was in the middle of it and next thing you messing around escalated somehow then u end up with a rape & murder. Who knows. But I think she is guilty of being involved somehow one way or another.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    I don't. The scenario put forth by the prosecutor seems far-fetched to me, and the forensic evidence is shoddy, at best. If she had killed Kercher, there would be way more DNA evidence at the scene of the crime that had her name on it. Doesn't anyone wonder where her clothes are that most definitely would have been blood stained? What about all her shoes? Were any of them blood stained? The poor victim bled to death, and it stands to reason that both Knox and Sollecito would have belongings with blood spatters on them or stains. I haven't heard any of that. The forensic evidence just isn't enough to prove that she did it.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Well if you are innocent you would be upset, frightened and angry. When you go into court, laughing, smiling and then having photoshoots kissing her boyfiend that shows a cold blooded indifference.

    She is a sex mad whore and because that murdered young girl refused to get involved with this sordid filth, Knox either had her murdered( because she felt dirty and the whore is) or allowed that young girl to be murdered and kept up a wall of silence.

    Shame the Italians don't have hanging and do away with the b itch!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    I really don't know , but one thing I know is over in Italy she won't get a fair trial their courts are way different than over here I think the verdict is dec 5 th I wonder how that will turn out!

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    Yes. She is a psychopath who clearly believes she can manipulate the legal system and public opinion to escape justice.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Dan H
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    Maybe you'll find this article interesting: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/nov/25/italy....

    It's better that the trial is by jury rather than by the internet isn't it?

    • Login to reply the answers
  • LadyB
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Not of murder.

    Perhaps she's guilty of partying too much tho.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Arggg
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    Absolutely not.

    • Login to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    not guilty

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.