Did you believe Amanda Knox was guilty?

[Anonymous]

The Fatal Gift of Beauty, that's it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read the trial transcripts. She was definitely present and heavily involved. Whether she actually cut the victim's throat is unknown. She got off on a technicality, but only after serving time for false accusing her boss (a black man).

So you bought the procecution's story despite the actual evidence. The prosecutor is a charlatan who exploits the fact that there are gullible people like you in the world to push his political aspirations.

She didn't get off on a technicality. The appellate court (which conducts a full review of the case) found that there was no evidence of her guilt. Then the Supreme Court found that the case was without foundation, and strongly criticizing the conduct of the investigators and prosecutors. That's not a technicality--it's the opposite of one.

They reheard the case after it was found the police mishandled evidence (a bra clasp with DNA evidence). She was found guilty before the massive PR effort and pressure from US. I recommend "Murder in Perugia" for a concise summation of the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have read the trial transcripts. She was definitely present and heavily involved. Whether she actually cut the victim's throat is unknown. She got off on a technicality, but only after serving time for false accusing her boss (a black man).

So you bought the procecution's story despite the actual evidence. The prosecutor is a charlatan who exploits the fact that there are gullible people like you in the world to push his political aspirations.

She didn't get off on a technicality. The appellate court (which conducts a full review of the case) found that there was no evidence of her guilt. Then the Supreme Court found that the case was without foundation, and strongly criticizing the conduct of the investigators and prosecutors. That's not a technicality--it's the opposite of one.

They reheard the case after it was found the police mishandled evidence (a bra clasp with DNA evidence). She was found guilty before the massive PR effort and pressure from US. I recommend "Murder in Perugia" for a concise summation of the facts.

You mean she was found guilty after the massive sensational smear campaigns in the Italian and British press. Then pressure was applied to actually pursue justice. Now she's home, because there isn't any evidence of her committing a crime. She isn't guilty.

[Anonymous]

Those stories that she was interrogated endlessly, behind closed doors, etc., are completely, 100% false. But, I am trying not to get drawn into this again . . . .

If you look at the facts, she was questioned for 2 1/2 or 3 hours -- in a room with a glass panel so others could see into it -- before she pointed the finger at her boss (after being told of the evidence that someone of African extraction had been in the apartment).

She grabbed at the chance to point the finger at someone innocent. That is why her conviction for that false accusation stands.

[Anonymous]

Rudy's story abot her being killed while he took a dump is unbelievable. A weird sexual conspiracy is also unbelievable.

Rudy's bloody handprint was found UNDER the body. It doesn't get much more straightforward than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those stories that she was interrogated endlessly, behind closed doors, etc., are completely, 100% false. But, I am trying not to get drawn into this again . . . .

If you look at the facts, she was questioned for 2 1/2 or 3 hours -- in a room with a glass panel so others could see into it -- before she pointed the finger at her boss (after being told of the evidence that someone of African extraction had been in the apartment).

She grabbed at the chance to point the finger at someone innocent. That is why her conviction for that false accusation stands.

She was interrogated for more than 40 hours over five days. The interrogation that night lasted from just past 10 pm to at least 6 am. One of the techniques used to get her to break was to start questioning her at night, and push her past the point of exhaustion.

[Anonymous]

To all of the vultures asserting her guilt... pray your kid doesn't run into trouble abroad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yup.

The claim that there is no evidence is baffling. Among the 10,000 pages of evidence presented is, of course, the DNA evidence.” Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon – a knife belonging to Sollecito – and Kercher’s was found on the blade. Whether it’s really Kercher’s DNA is hotly contested by Knox supporters, but contamination was ruled out at the latest appeal. The probability that the DNA on the blade did not come from Kercher was found to be one in 300 million billion.

and what tinfoil hat blog did you pull this from?

Salon

A trace of her DNA was on the knife, but according to the documentary, it was probably from contamination. It was not tested separately. Instead, it was tested with 50 or so pieces of evidence containing Kercher's DNA. Contamination is the most probable scenario.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone seen the Netflix documentary?

I already knew that the prosecutor is capable of spinning fantastical stories as fact and willing to imprison innocent people, so his statements like "there was clearly a woman involved- no man would have covered the body" came as no surprise. That reporter that they featured, though, was new to me. What an absolute sleaze.

[Anonymous]

After watching her Netflix (?) documentary, 100% yes.

[Anonymous]

This is so true.

Only a woman would try to preserve another woman's dignity, yes even if that same woman just raped & murdered her a minute ago.
A Male killer acting alone would never take a look at a bloody naked corpse + have the compassion to cover up a woman's nudity. Ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is so true.

Only a woman would try to preserve another woman's dignity, yes even if that same woman just raped & murdered her a minute ago.
A Male killer acting alone would never take a look at a bloody naked corpse + have the compassion to cover up a woman's nudity. Ever.

This is really stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
1. There is a strong mistrust of foreigners among the Italian population.
2. Italian culture is rather misogynistic with a strong madonna-whore complex. Foreign women, especially young American and English women studying in Italy, are viewed by the general Italian public as promiscuous.

1. Why?
2. Why do Italians view American girls as sluts? Are Italian women not so promiscuous? If not, where does the macho 'Italian Lothario' stereotype come from if those men aren't fooling around with Italian women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think she was an accessory to murder, possibly incited the murder but did not necessarily physically commit murder.

Which is no diff than murder.

[Anonymous]

HBO can make a second season of The Night Of from Amanda Knox.
Wrong place at the wrong time. Framed.