Anonymous
Anonymous asked in News & EventsCurrent Events · 10 years ago

Amanda Knox, anyone else think?

The movie made her look like a guilty slut, who slept with that Italian guy the first day she met him. I've watched the movie, and if things actually happened like they did in the movie then they girl is as guilty as a fat kid with chocolate on his face. I don't know what to believe, I mean the movie makes her look sooo guilty.

BQ: You think she's guilty?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    There is overwhelming DNA and forensic evidence to support the fact that Amanda Knox, along with her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede, brutally murdered Meredith Kercher. No amount of fabricating stories, playing the American nationalist card or impugning the Italian legal system will change the facts of the case. Ignore the PR screeds from Knox’s wealthy and influential parents, who are themselves now charged with criminal slander for their scurrilous lies about the Italian police. Forget the lame made-for-TV movies and sensationalistic books dramatizing the crime. Look at the facts:

    • Knox’s DNA was found on the handle (Kercher’s DNA on the blade) of the knife used to slit Meredith’s throat. To cover this, Sollecito twice told an absurd lie about “accidentally” pricking Kercher’s hand while cooking dinner.

    • An abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA was found on the clasp of Kercher’s bra, which had been forcibly removed (the bra was severed with a knife). Knox’s DNA was also found on Meredith’s bra.

    • Luminol, a chemical agent used by forensic investigators to detect blood at crime scenes, revealed bloody footprints all over the house. The footprints were compatible with those of Knox and Sollecito. An additional footprint, believed to be Knox's, was found underneath Kercher’s body.

    • There were no less than five separate instances of Knox’s DNA being mixed with Kercher’s blood in three different locations in the house they shared.

    • The morning after the murder, Knox showered in a bathroom with Kercher’s blood still smeared across the sink and floor.

    • A shopkeeper testified to seeing Knox come into the store to buy cleaning supplies, most notably the bleach that was used (unsuccessfully) to clean the murder weapon, at 7:45 on the morning after the murder. Knox claimed not to have gone to the store.

    • A staged break-in designed to throw off the investigation was quickly dismissed by police because the window had been broken AFTER the room had been ransacked. Nothing had been taken in the “burglary” btw.

    • Knox and Sollecito gave multiple and conflicting accounts of their whereabouts on the night of the murder. None of their alibis was credible.

    • On the day after the murder, Knox phoned Kercher’s two cell phones, to help establish her false alibi that she was at Sollecito’s apartment. She was then seen throwing the cell phones into a neighbor’s backyard, presumably to aid the burglary story.

    • Knox was photographed kissing and cooing with Sollecito as the forensics team was removing her roommate's blood-soaked body from the house.

    • Knox was seen turning cartwheels and doing handstands after being interrogated at the police station. She evidently thought she’d (literally) gotten away with murder.

    • Knox falsely accused Patrick Lumumba, a former employer, of murdering Kercher. She admitted she knew he was innocent in a conversation with her mother which was intercepted by police. She later changed her story to implicate Guede as the murderer.

    • Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Kercher’s murder in a handwritten note she gave the police, one week after the crime.

    • Knox was constantly laughing, smiling and “voguing” for court cameras during the murder trial.

    • Knox was known to be promiscuous, very kinky in her sexual appetites and heavily involved in drug use (mostly methamphetamine and hashish). Evidence suggests Knox disliked Kercher intensely and was jealous of her good looks in particular. They’d only occupied the house together for a week and were not friends.

    Amanda Knox is no “victim.” The only victim was Meredith Kercher, a lovely and bright young woman who made the fatal mistake of sharing student lodgings with the psychotic Knox. An autopsy revealed that Meredith died a horrific death, suffering terribly at the hands of Knox and her friends. She had been sexually assaulted. The hyoid bone in her neck was broken, indicating she’d been violently choked before being stabbed. Her superior thyroid artery had been severed by one of three slash wounds to the throat. Forensic experts confirmed that she died a slow and agonizing death, literally inhaling her own blood until she drowned.

    I wish people would think about Meredith Kercher and her family before posting offensive questions about Amanda Knox being “railroaded” or treated unfairly by the Italian justice system. Knox is a deranged and homicidal sociopath who willfully participated in the gruesome murder of Meredith. Knox’s behavior in the aftermath of this heinous crime was appalling. She lied up and down, tampered with the crime scene, implicated an innocent man, and otherwise carried on like nothing happened. Her 26-year sentence is far too lenient. Life imprisonment is the very least Knox deserves for her crimes. She is guilty as sin and I hope she rots.

  • 4 years ago

    This seems like an unsafe conviction. Rudy Guede murdered Meredith Kercher. How likely is it that he was "assisted" by two students he'd never met before? How probably is it that there would be no forensic evidence of knox or her boyfriend at the scene? It seems she has fallen foul of the justice system mainly because she changed her story during a 36 hour interview without representation, and because she acted "strangely", doing cartwheels etc. Circumstantial grounds indeed.

  • It's just a flippin movie. It's unfair to say the Italians have no concrete evidence against her, because they don't have ANY evidence against her. Here's what the prosecution calls "evidence."

    1) A knife that they thought might've been the murder weapon, which has now been proven to be too thick to have caused the wounds.

    2) Amanda's DNA, in her OWN bathroom.

    3) A story from a man that they also convicted(which he changed).

    4) Amanda buying underwear a few hours after the body was discovered. Gee, I wonder if that might have had something to do with her not being allowed back into her apartment to get her clothes?!?

    5) The prosecution originally stated that they had a bloody footprint of hers, but that was withdrawn when they found out it was a lie.

    6) That her story changed, while she was being harassed and struck by the police.

    On top of all that, add the fact that the jury wasn't sequestered, allowing them to view all the negative publicity surrounding her, and make premature conclusions.

    Think about it, it was in Italy and her roommate was British - this murder was already getting publicity in other countries before Amanda was even a suspect. It eventually became obvious that one of Italy's own citizens was guilty, so wouldn't a great way to get the heat off of your country be to say an American woman used tricks to get him to do it? She was ****** from the start. The Italian judicial system is ****** ridiculous.

  • B
    Lv 4
    10 years ago

    I don't think she is. I saw her family on the Oprah show. They pointed out a lot of things that I hadn't heard before. One thing the Italian media jumped on was the fact that Amanda was caught on a store security camera buying lingerie right after the murder. Her family said she was buying underwear because she wasn't allowed to go back into her home to retrieve her clothes. It was also published that she was doing the splits or cartwheels (something to that effect), during her very long interrogation. Her mother said Amanda was tired and stiff and she was trying to stretch out her muscles. That girl had no motive to kill her roommate. None whatsoever. As far as the film goes, I believe it was based on rumour and here-say. There were quite a few scenes that took place between Amanda and her boyfriend alone. Who would've known what transpired between those two but the couple themselves? Certainly not some screen writer. I think everyone involved in that film is very irresponsible. A woman's life is on the line but apparently they didn't care, didn't care who they might influence or bias. As far as evidence goes, I don't think they have anything concrete. From what I've read it is all circumstantial. It's not hard to believe that there is misconduct among the officers and prosecutors. Remember the Duke rape case?

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • ?
    Lv 5
    10 years ago

    going by the stories I've read on the internet....she sounded guilty all along (I haven't seen the movie)

    I still think she's pretty hot looking...

  • 10 years ago

    Don't ever believe everything in the movies. It's hard to say about her. But the evidence against her outweighs the positives.

  • 10 years ago

    Haven't seen the movie so can't judge.One would really need all the facts.

    Mojo:she's not British she's American

  • 10 years ago

    I have no confidence in the Italian judicial system and I would not be in the least surprised if the Italians got it all wrong and that, in fact, she did not kill her

    roommate.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Not interested.

    British media circus cos one of their students got murdered.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.