Above: Amanda Knox's devious mischievous smile during trial
If you've studied the infamous and controversial Amanda Knox true crime case, involving her and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito's public trial, incarceration and acquittal for the murder of her roommate Meredith Kercher, you may confused because the evidence doesn't stack up and seems conflicting and confusing. However, if you weigh all the evidence and arguments on both sides, the evidence and case for her guilt seems stronger than her innocence. This suggests that she was at least involved in the murder at some level, even if she didn't commit the murder herself. See the Murder of Meredith Kercher Wiki Site.
Since researching this case is time consuming, I thought I'd help you out, if you're interested, by posting the best summary lists of the case for her guilt or involvement that I found and collected from YouTube comment sections and other sites written by true crime buffs. They will give you an idea of the big picture and see what I mean. Keep in mind that while each piece of evidence individually can be explained away with alternate theories, when added up cumulatively it paints a very strong big picture of guilt, hence the preponderance of evidence definitely points to her guilt or involvement in the crime. This is what the pro-innocence crowd that defend Knox doesn't understand or consider. They nitpick and cherry pick flaws in the prosecution case due to their biases, but don't look at the big picture.
But first, here are two short videos that give a good summary of the case for her guilt, and the list of evidences and facts that are very hard to explain away. So you can get a rough idea of the prosecution case. They won't take long to watch.
Summaries and Lists of the Evidence Against Amanda Knox by True Crime Buffs on YouTube and Other Sites
"Knox and Sollecito are guilty. The evidence leaves no room for any doubt!
1- Faked burglary to throw suspicions away from people connected to cottage
2- Cleaning-up revealed by luminol and small spots of blood all over the cottage
3- Staging of victim's room and body
4- Knox's knowledge of details of murder long before police
5- Knox confession of being at crime scene
6- Knox's accusation of innocent man - how did she know Lumumba was innocent? Because she knew who committed the crime!
7- False alibis
8- Contradictory stories proven false by phone, Internet records, witnesses, and by her own letters, mails, memorials, all contradicting each other
9- Knox's DNA mixed with victim's blood on different spots
10- Sollecito's bloody footprint on bath mat
11- Barefoot prints with Knox DNA mixed with victim's blood revealed by luminol
12- Solleciot's DNA on victim's bra clasp
13- Knox DNA on handle of knife with Meredith's DNA on the blade
14- Wounds on victim's body prove she was attacked by three people"
"5 Incriminating things about Amanda Knox from the comments section on YouTube that can't truly be explained away.
1) The confession.
Knox confessed that she was in the house on the night of the murder and that she heard Miss Kercher scream, identifying a Congolese bar owner, Patrick Lumumba, as the assailant. She told the court during the trial that the confession was made under duress but then repeated the entire account in a five page memorandum the next morning.
2) The false accusation.
The prosecution said the fact that Knox falsely accused Lumumba of being the killer was a sign of her own guilt and an attempt to throw them off her trail. He was arrested in a dawn raid by armed police and spent two weeks in jail. It was only by chance that a Swiss businessman read about the case and came forward to say he had been talking to Lumumba in his bar on the night of the murder — offering him a rock-solid alibi. Lumumba says Knox nearly ruined his life and is suing her for defamation.
3) The alibi.
Sollecito could not back up Knox’s alibi on the night of the murder.
She claimed she spent the evening with him, smoking marijuana, watching the French film Amelie and making love. But Sollecito told police he could not remember if Knox was with him that evening or not.
Even assuming his memory was hazy because of the drugs, it seemed odd that a young man who had just embarked on a new relationship could not recall whether he had spent the night with his girlfriend or not.
4) Computer and telephone records.
Sollecito claimed he used his computer to download and watch cartoons and Amelie. But computer experts told the court that there was no activity on his laptop between 9.10pm on Nov 1, and 5.32am the next morning — the time frame in which the murder took place.
Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones on the night of the murder, from around 8.40pm, and turned them back on at around 6am, inviting further suspicion.
5) The staged break-in.
A bedroom belonging to one of Miss Kercher’s Italian flatmates was ransacked on the night of the murder, with a window smashed with a rock. But police said the break-in was staged – broken glass from the window was found on top of clothes scattered on the floor, suggesting the window was broken after the contents of the room were messed up. Prosecutors accused Knox and her boyfriend of staging the break-in to make the killing look like a burglary that had turned into rape and murder."
"Jacky J Jones
1. Of all the people living in that house... AMANDA KNOX was the only one whose DNA was mixed with the victim's blood in various places throughout that house, even in Filomena Romanelli's room... the "very same room" that the flimsily staged break in was orchestrated!
2. When the postal police turned up to investigate the phones found in someone else's back yard... Amanda and her boyfriend lied to them about calling the Italian police... (there never was 'ANY OFFICIAL RECORD' of them ever calling the Italian police!!)
3. Both Amanda and her boyfriend had their cell phones "turned off" at the time of the murder... (there was never another time that records showed them to have done this!!!)
4. Of all the people living in that house... "AMANDA KNOX" was the "only one" to have blamed a "TOTALLY INNOCENT PERSON" of committing the crime in an OFFICIAL POLICE STATEMENT!!! All members of the house were questioned by police!
5. Of all the people living in that house who were questioned by police... "AMANDA KNOX" was the "only one" to have claimed she was beaten up by the police!!!! Even her 'OWN DEFENCE ATTORNEY DENIED THIS CLAIM'!!!"
From IMDB:
"So what's the verdict on Amanda Knox the documentary? Well it's a terrible, false and ultimately immoral exercise in innocence fraud and here are some facts that Knox's PR infomercial left out:
1. The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Amanda Knox was present during Meredith's murder and may even have possibly washed the victim's blood from her hands afterwards but it STILL can't be proved that she did it. (which begs more questions, namely why didn't innocent Amanda call the cops for her friend and why wasn't she done for accessory at least?) The same Supreme Court do not make the same allowance for the black guy though, had he had have washed the victim's blood from his shoes for example. The court also states that there's "strong suspicion" that Sollecito was there.
2. The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that the burglary was staged.
3. The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Meredith was murdered by three attackers and that Guede had two accomplices. (And you really don't have to be Stephen Hawking to figure out who these two accomplices were, when you view the evidence in its totality)
4. The Supreme Court's acquitting nonetheless finalizes Knox's calumny/ criminal slander conviction, which she got for falsely accusing her innocent employer of rape and murder, leaving him in prison for two weeks and never retracting her statement, despite false reports that she did, meaning that Knox's status is still that of a convicted criminal felon.
5. In finalizing Amanda Knox's calumny/criminal slander conviction, The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Knox blamed her boss to protect Rudy Guede as she was afraid that Guede could "retaliate by incriminating" her, which of course begs some more very interesting and pertinent questions, such as how could Guede incriminate innocent Amanda to begin with?
6. The Supreme Court's acquitting report does NOT exonerate Knox, it acquits her due to "insufficient evidence",like Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and that nice man Robert Durst.
RIP Meredith Kercher, who along with her stoic dignified family (who have been subjected to absolutely abhorrent abuse and attacks by Knox's supporters online) and Knox's employer Patrick Lumumba are the only victims here. May the truth shine in your case one day and the facts and truth come to light. Neither Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito are fooling anyone familiar with Ms Kercher's case & facts are available at the murder of Meredith Kercher .com and in the Nencini and Massei reports."
"EXCLUSIVE - Foxy Knoxy's ex love Raffaele Sollecito blows a hole in her alibi at time of Meredith Kercher's murder - on eve of final appeal
* Sollecito, 30, has submitted a withering 306-page court document in an attempt to distance himself from Knox at their final appeal
* Claims he now can't remember whether Knox was with him when Meredith Kercher was stabbed 47 times in November, 2011, as he was stoned
* Added that he did not have a motive for the murder, but Knox did
* Said he didn't know her well enough to help her carry out the murder
* Expert said it appeared to be 'brutal last ditch effort' to save his own skin
* Pair face their final fate on Wednesday at Italian Supreme Court after two previous trials. If convicted Knox will face immediate extradition request
Amanda Knox's former lover Raffaele Sollecito claims that he does not remember whether she was with him at the time of Meredith Kercher's murder, bombshell court papers reveal.
In a dramatic change in legal strategy, Sollecito has cast serious doubt on Foxy Knoxy's alibi, with the Italian now saying he can't be sure she was at his house for the whole of the night on which the British student was brutally murdered.
All the evidence against the former couple points to Knox, Sollecito claims in papers filed by his lawyers in advance of a make-or-break Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday."
Here is what Italian supreme court said. See below:
"Harry Rag
@Tom Graham Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were acquitted under paragraph 2 of article 530, which is an insufficient evidence acquittal. Had they been acquitted under paragraph one of article 530, then that would have been a definitive acquittal or exoneration.
The Italian Supreme Court ascertained there were multiple attackers and it's a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. It also stated Sollecito was probably there when Meredith was killed. It's not difficult to work out who Rudy Guede's accomplices were."
So you see it was insufficient evidence acquittal not exoneration. Here is the Supreme Court report that you can read yourself.
English version
Italian version
"Harry Rag
Amanda Knox repeatedly makes the false claim she was exonerated by the Italian Supreme Court when in reality she was acquitted due to insufficient evidence. Unfortunately, her claim is accepted as fact by journalists who have never bothered to read a single page of any of the official court reports and court transcripts.
She also brushes inconvenient facts under the carpet. The Italian Supreme Court ascertained (1) there were multiple attackers (2) it's a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed (3) she washed Meredith's blood off in the bathroom (4) she lied repeatedly to the police and (5) the break-in at the cottage was staged and it wasn't staged by Rudy Guede.
The Supreme Court also places Raffaele Sollecito at the cottage at the time of the murder. It's not hard to work out who Guede's accomplices were."
Something else to consider:
"@Francisco There have been a number of high-profile cases where seemingly normal girls have committed horrific and senseless murders with little or no motive e.g. Laurie Ann Swank, Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel, Amy Bishop, Karla Homolka, Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker, Kelly Ellard, Anna Maria Botticelli and Mariena Sica, Erika de Nardo, Jasmine Richardson, Rachel Shoaf and Shelia Eddy.
It's worth highlighting the points that Vieri Fabiani, the Kerchers' lawyer, made about motive:
"When we speak of a crime – we often say we need a motive. But whoever opened the door to Rudy Guede, what does it change? There were a series of contrasts between Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. The motive, or the lack thereof, is absolutely irrelevant. Because the voluntary homicide is proven. There was a progression of violence. Alcohol. Drugs. Fatigue. Stress. There could be 1000 problems that evolve into a punishment of the victim, because that is what we see in the escalation of violence that killed Meredith Kercher."
Professor David Wilson pointed out that "murder may often primarily be an ill-thought-through response to a highly-charged emotional situation"."
"Here's something interesting. I was wondering if Knox took a lie detector test or not. So I Googled it and apparently she has agreed to but never actually took one yet. See below. Notice that when she says she is willing to take a lie detector test, she shakes her head. Why does her body language always contradict her words? That's strange. Hasn't she been trained and rehearsed by the PR firm that her parents hired, about how to show honest congruent body language rather than contradictory body language?
Also, why didn't the Italian police give her a lie detector test? Knox's defenders say that they didn't because if she passed, their case would have been weakened and discredited, so it wasn't to their advantage to do so. What do you think? How accurate are lie detector tests and why aren't they admissable in court?
"Defense Attorney & Legal Analyst Richard Herman on King Jordan Radio talks about how he feels Amanda Knox is Guilty! Richard Herman can be seen Saturday's on CNN @ 12 noon est.
According to the prosecution, Knox’s first call of November 2, to Kercher’s English phone, was to ascertain if Kercher's phones had been found, Sollecito had tried to break in the bedroom door because after he and Knox locked it behind them, they realized they had left something that might incriminate them. Knox’s call to her mother in Seattle, a quarter of an hour before the discovery of the body, was said by prosecutors to show Knox was acting as if something serious might have happened before the point in time when an innocent person would have such concern."
"Maria Birchwood
+RogerGT How many hands would Rudy have to have to be switching two different knives, whilst holding Meredith two shoulders? whilst sexually attacking her, gagging her and strangling and Meredith didn't offer ANY RESISTENCE ? despite being trained in Karate ? Only a FOOL wouldn't understand that Guede couldn't have done this alone this feat needed the aid of others and those others ALSO left their DNA all over the scene crime scene.
2.) you say "otherwise they would have incriminated their partners in crime" Not so. Knox even covered for Guede by NAMING AN INNOCENT BLACK MAN AS THE MURDERER. Different layers of courts of law have ruled that Guede DIDN'T ACT ALONE AND HE HAD ACCOMPLICES and everyone agrees that those accomplices were Knox and Sollecito.
3.) You are quite happy to accept ALL the forensic analysis which incriminate Rudy Guede but when it comes to Knox and Sollecito suddenly the samples are "contaminated" Well, you are wrong about that too. Since the blood of Meredith's on Sollecito's knife was NEVER CONTESTED even Carla Conti the Defence admitted in court that the sample was indeed Meredith Kercher's DNA and Sollecito even LIED in trying to justify Meredith's blood on HIS KNIFE.
4.) THAT IS NOT TRUE. None of the other witnesses had this " state of confusion " these were questions that could have been answered by a 10 year old. The only ones who changed their alibies several times are Knox and her lover Sollecito NONE OF THE OTHERS REPORT HAVING HAD ANY PROBLEMS WITH THE POLICE. NONE. Just these two."
Ann Coulter on Fox news explains to Bill O'Reilly why Amanda Knox is guilty.
Interesting explanation for motive I saw on YouTube.
"TO ALL: Research catathymic sexual homicide for a better understanding as to motive, and the parallels between Knox's pathology and this type of complex offender profile. Put simply, a catathymic sexual homicide arises from underlying sexual conflicts that originated from the offender's long-standing fixation with, or disturbed attachment to, the victim (Meredith). Knox had become increasingly obsessed with Meredith, jealous of her, and perceived the mere existence of Meredith as a threat to her sexuality and fractured ego. These types of homicides are typically precluded by stalking, which we know Knox participated in based on her own statements, witness statements, and cell/text history the evenings of the 31st and 1st - where she had desperately attempted to reach Meredith in an effort to hang out with her, knowing very well that Meredith had already informed her that she would be with her British friend's on both evenings.
After aimlessly walking around Perugia, alone in her cat costume on Halloween night 2007, Knox literally stalked Meredith to the Merlin Pub where she was with her British friends; this, being the final perceived rejection from Meredith, with the added trigger of Lumumba just recently informing her that he was interested in hiring Meredith, and ultimately being told not to come into work that fateful night, Knox was determined to humiliate Meredith and obtain a reaction from her - essentially seeking some form of narcissistic supply. In Knox' deluded state of mind, the mere existence of Meredith had become so strong a perceived threat that Knox physiologically could not endure the emotional tension which had gradually built up within her, thus resulting in a catathymic release of anger and violence. Knox' behavior, both pre and post murder, is a classically defined catathymic crisis."
Expert statement analysis of Amanda Knox's letter.
Articles with very incriminating evidence against Amanda Knox:
The famed Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz explains why the preponderance of evidence points to Amanda Knox's guilt.
Thanks for reading. If you're interested in researching both sides of the Amanda Knox case, here are sites from both camps that try to argue their side of the case.
Pro Amanda guilt websites:
Pro Amanda innocence websites:
Thanks guys for the TJMK link though we are pro truth not pro guilt. I'd add to what you say very well: (1) Knox has caused American exchange student numbers in Italy to drop and in Perugia a lot; it is a big financial hit. (2) Just about every year American students turn up in Italy and murder someone. We have some reports on those. Often they are off their Ritalin or into drugs & booze (as was Knox). Just weeks ago 2 were sentenced in Rome. (3) Knox was NOT an exchange student. She was freelance and self-funded, did not enroll, and passed up on $24,000 a year from UW (and thus all supervision, so she could do her drugs). In 2009-10 all American universities moved sharply to ensure they would have no liability if future Knoxes fall foul of the law. Pete
ReplyDeleteWhat is the TJMK link? What site is that? I am not pro guilt either but even if Knox is innocent, she is very unlikable and has many unlikable traits and character flaws. She does not seem like a good or kind person at all and likes to play the vicitm card all the time. She does not seem like a person of good character or soul either.
Delete"What is the TJMK link? What site is that?" Sorry, see the TrueJustice link under the Prom-Amanda-guilt heading just above.
ReplyDelete