Is Amanda Knox guilty or innocent of murdering Meredith Kercher?

[Bill C]

Not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In an interview today Necini stated (paraphrasing) that he had to assume that more than one person was involved since the ISC had ruled so in Guede's trial, a trial where AK & RS were not represented and where both Guede and the prosecution had a vested interest to find multiple perpetrators. No offense but this is BS and should be grounds for an appeal to the European court

 

[Steely Dan]

Alan Dershowitz on the case; http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/crime/2014/02/01/nd-knox-new-guilty-verdict.cnn.html

 

[Steely Dan]

For the first time, since I've looked at this poll, guilty is leading innocent.

Guilty 123
Innocent 118

 

[Angelonline]

What does other mean in the poll? I would love to hear from someone who voted "other" and why.

 

[James50]

The impression I have of this case is that overzealous prosecutors have conjured up an imaginary scenario and then tried to make the evidence fit in with this, while papering over the obvious cracks in their allegations. The prosecutor who originally leveled these charges against these two young people had used a similar "sex orgy" scenario to try to explain away a previous murder trial in which he was the lead prosecutor, so evidently this is his stock in trade. I think people need to look more carefully at his own state of mind. Perhaps this is a man who fantasises about sex orgies that end in brutal murders.

This was an extraordinarily brutal crime. To suggest that a young girl, with no prior criminal record, would have freely gone along with such a heinous act, is borderline insanity. This was her flatmate, for heaven's sake! It seems to me then that these accusations grew out of the absurd speculations of a single prosecutor hungry for fame and renown.

 

[LinasK]

The impression I have of this case is that overzealous prosecutors have conjured up an imaginary scenario and then tried to make the evidence fit in with this, while papering over the obvious cracks in their allegations. The prosecutor who originally leveled these charges against these two young people had used a similar "sex orgy" scenario to try to explain away a previous murder trial in which he was the lead prosecutor, so evidently this is his stock in trade. I think people need to look more carefully at his own state of mind. Perhaps this is a man who fantasises about sex orgies that end in brutal murders.

This was an extraordinarily brutal crime. To suggest that a young girl, with no prior criminal record, would have freely gone along with such a heinous act, is borderline insanity. This was her flatmate, for heaven's sake! It seems to me then that these accusations grew out of the absurd speculations of a single prosecutor hungry for fame and renown.

It was different prosecutors this time. Why is it so hard to believe that Amanda could be a sociopath who was jealous of her roommate and recruited her boyfriend and Guede to help her???

 

[James50]

Linask, to respond to your first point, thank you. I'm aware that it was a different prosecutor this time, but the damage was already done. The scenario the original prosecutor depicted was already so firmly impressed in people's minds that it was accepted hardly without question. I believe the media played a part, too, in playing up this image before it became clear that someone else was involved.

As for your second point, I don't see any evidence whatsoever that this lady is a sociopath, but quite the contrary, she seems normal and well adjusted to me. Just very hurt and traumatised by these incredible allegations by naive prosecutors who have watched too many bad movies.

 

[Zeno49]

I think something got out of hand and Knox went along with Rudy and Raphael and might have been more involved than that. She might have suggested it. I don't know. I'm 99.99999% sure she was involved. I'm willing to put my soul on the line that she was involved in this in some capacity. It's my belief that she played a major role. (I.E. helping to hold Meredith down or something.)



Unless 1 or more of the convicted murderers decides to reveal the details of the evening of Nov 1 2007 we can never know what happened to Kercher.
We can of course postulate a scenario that seems to include all the forensic evidence but it still remains conjecture.
That is OK.

Many if not most murders that involve a culprit claiming innocence are tried based on circumstantial evidence. For example the Staircase Murder incident.
Drew Peterson, OJ Simpson, and Jodi Arias.

The Ramsey murder I think is probably more complicated than we suspect although we can be certain that both parents were in on it.

Based on the theory of "felony murder" it doesn't matter too much what the details were with respect to the actions of AK or RS. The Italian courts convicted the guilty parties.

 

[Zeno49]

Innocent of this murder.. Along with RS.

You have probably laid out your reasoning in prior posts but I am curious why you are so confident that AK and or RS are innocent.
As an example - where in the Massei Opinion do you think the Italian court erred?

I on the other hand am totally convinced AK and RS are guilty with the same certitude as I find OJ Simpson and Jodi Arias guilty. To me, this AK/RS case is not even a close call.

I would also go on to speculate that if AK were prosecuted competently in a US criminal court she would be found guilty 9/10 times. In this I allow that a jury would vote to acquit based on "reasonable doubt" perhaps 10% of the time. It would depend on her defense strategy and of course the composition of the jury.

 

[Zeno49]

As for your second point, I don't see any evidence whatsoever that this lady is a sociopath, but quite the contrary, she seems normal and well adjusted to me. Just very hurt and traumatised by these incredible allegations by naive prosecutors who have watched too many bad movies.

I on the other hand have watched a number of AK Case documentaries, read the trial opinions, and watched this lady on national TV. Her conduct during the investigation and her diary entries are part of the body of evidence.

In summary, I believe she is a pampered, immature, manipulative, highly narcissistic person who is vacuuous and very much displays sociopathic personality traits.

 

[Zeno49]

I believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. There is NO evidence to connect them with the death of Meredith. Amanda's prints should be on the knife and any other belongings or furniture, because she lived there. Aside from the lack of physical evidence, it logically makes no sense. She and Raffaele were in the beginnings of a new romantic relationship. Why would they care at all what relationships Meredith was involved in or not. The "legal" system in Italy is extremely messed up, and this last "guilty" verdict is an exercise for them to save face. Politics, pay offs and schemes are the rule, not the exception. Having lived in Italy, we in the US can not even begin to understand how ridiculous the system is there.

"I believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. There is NO evidence to connect them with the death of Meredith. Amanda's prints should be on the knife and any other belongings or furniture, because she lived there."

It is unclear to me exactly what kind of evidence is requisite to allow a conclusion of "connection with the death".
To wit:
Kercher was held down and muzzled by someone. Hence the neck bruising. No fingerprints here. DNA transfer??
Two disparate knife wounds to the neck. We are not sure which knives those are but the ones analyzed were certainly wiped clean hence no inculpating fingerprints as would be expected.
There was substantial amounts of blood including AK's blood at the flat along with footprints. There really should be no blood from AK at that flat.
AK/RS had over 12 hours to stage and clean up the scene.
Take the Arias case. If there were no photos and had Arias managed to wipe the palm print clean there arguably would have been NO evidence connecting her to the crime scene. Arias like Knox spent considerable time cleaning up the crime scene. This still would not have exonerated Arias.

"Aside from the lack of physical evidence, it logically makes no sense."

This statement is simply not true. The Massei report elaborated intricate logic in this crime. It makes complete logical sense.

"She and Raffaele were in the beginnings of a new romantic relationship."

New - yes. Romantic - of sorts. Relationship - immature and shallow yes.

"Why would they care at all what relationships Meredith was involved in or not."

What RS and AK cared about is irrelevant to the determination of guilt or innocence.

The "legal" system in Italy is extremely messed up.

This seems to be conventional wisdom from naive viewers living in the US and of those who have been bombarded by the AK PR machine. Otherwise please cite proof that the "Italian legal system is messed up".

"and this last "guilty" verdict is an exercise for them to save face"

This is a superficial poorly reasoned conclusion. Please cite evidence or make a sound argument for this assertion.

"Politics, pay offs and schemes are the rule, not the exception".

This sentence is simply unintelligible.

Having lived in Italy, we in the US can not even begin to understand how ridiculous the system is there.

Who has lived in Italy? . . and why would living in Italy warrant a conclusion that the Italian system is ridiculous?
Indeed, I have yet to read a sound exposition that is amply documented and cogently argued that the Italian legal system is any worse or better than . . .
the USA, Canada, France, the UK, Germany, Spain, or Switzerland.

 

[James50]

I on the other hand have watched a number of AK Case documentaries, read the trial opinions, and watched this lady on national TV. Her conduct during the investigation and her diary entries are part of the body of evidence.

In summary, I believe she is a pampered, immature, manipulative, highly narcissistic person who is vacuuous and very much displays sociopathic personality traits.

Well I've watched a good number of interviews myself and the impression I get is of a very ordinary young lady who is naturally not herself because of these charges leveled against her. Put yourself in her shoes. You've been accused of committing a crime you know you didn't commit -- murder of all things. Every word you say is going to be analyzed with a fine tooth-comb for "evidence" of guilt, and be sure that guilt will be read into it. Every hand gesture, every statement you make will have double entendres attributed to them. That's what we do when we believe someone is guilty of a crime. We "find" evidence that they did it in their "conduct" when there is no solid evidence to speak of.

We like to paint people in black and white terms when in reality there are many shades of gray. I didn't see any narcissism, just vulnerability and naturally apprehension of people who have sought to cast her as some kind of devil woman. And I don't see how she is manipulative if essentially all she is doing it to try to defend her innocence, which anyone would do.

 

[Zeno49]

I have tried and tried to get past this because I live in the Pacific Northwest and most of my friends think she's innocent, but I am always left with this very strong feeling that AK was involved. Something really seems "off" to me when I see her interviewed about this case--my BS meter just starts pinging. It's possible that I could be incorrect, but I have always had a really good sense of reading people and I'm picking up on something very sketchy/dishonest. She may have not been the person who caused the fatal wound, but I definitely think she played a role in what happened to poor MK. So I'm voting guilty on this poll.
However the one thing I will add. . . I'm not sure if I could come to a guilt verdict if I were a member of the jury--it may simply be a case (as some other cases that have gone to the court) that although a juror may be pretty sure someone committed the crime, the prosecution is unable to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I would say I am about 95% sure that she is guilty, but to me, that leaves room for reasonable doubt (at least in my mind). So I guess if she is truly guilty, I can just hope that karma takes care of it.
RIP, Meredith.

I have never heard "reasonable doubt" expressed in quantitative terms before.
I suppose many people believe if there is a scintilla of doubt in a jury case you must acquit. This is not the case nor the intention of the law. There are very few things in life that are apodicticly true or false OR 100% certain.
One could always articulate a doubt in most criminal cases short of overt confessions or video films of the crime.
In statistics if you get a 95% assurance with a 5% error that is pretty good and in criminal cases about as iron clad as you will ever get.
A 95% chance you get it right is reason to convict otherwise you would be setting free most defendants because of possiblitities of outliers.

As a matter of policy I would suggest conviction on anything over 80%.
Even 70-30 will arrive at the right decision.

I might grant an acquital with a 50-50 split knowing that I would be WRONG half the time!!!


Again - a reasonable doubt does not mean any doubt whatsoever. Reasonable means a well thought out articulation of grounds for acquittal after careful consideration of all the possibilities and evidence.

The proposition of "if it does not fit, you must acquit" was a patent absurdity.

Besides the infamous Simpson trial, there was a complete misappropriation of this concept "reasonable doubt" in the case of the Casey Anthony verdict.

 

[Zeno49]

Well I've watched a good number of interviews myself and the impression I get is of a very ordinary young lady who is naturally not herself because of these charges leveled against her. Put yourself in her shoes. You've been accused of committing a crime you know you didn't commit -- murder of all things. Every word you say is going to be analyzed with a fine tooth-comb for "evidence" of guilt, and be sure that guilt will be read into it. Every hand gesture, every statement you make will have double entendres attributed to them. That's what we do when we believe someone is guilty of a crime. We "find" evidence that they did it in their "conduct" when there is no solid evidence to speak of.

We like to paint people in black and white terms when in reality there are many shades of gray. I didn't see any narcissism, just vulnerability and naturally apprehension of people who have sought to cast her as some kind of devil woman. And I don't see how she is manipulative if essentially all she is doing it to try to defend her innocence, which anyone would do.

OK

If I were wrongly committed of a crime I would shout out my innocence to whomever would listen and whenever I had an audience.
I would explicitly say WHY I AM INNOCENT.
I would volunteer for a polygraph test.

I would WELCOME every word I say to be analyzed with a fine tooth comb.

I would NEVER NEVER worry about slip ups in my story or my story changing with time because I would state plainly and firmly at the onset EXACTLY WHAT I DID AND WHERE I WAS. ONCE. I might add to the story details that I neglected at first but the essence of my story at the onset ie a 911 call would remain unalterably stable.

I would be exruciatingly precise and detailed about what I was doing and where I was when the crime was committed.
If I were smoking hashish I would estimate when and how much and all the details about my conduct.


I would NEVER NEVER conjure a story that is a fabrication.
I would NEVER NEVER implicate another person doing something he did NOT do. [Doing so really screws you!! - AK 's lame explanations notwithstanding]
I would never say the victim had her throat cut if I did not do it and I did not know how she died.
I would NEVER do cartwheels.
I would suggest to the investigators where to look and what to search for that would prove my innocence.

I would gladly have my body photographed and my hands analyzed for DNA or powder burns.

I would welcome police to search my room, my place of employment, and monitor all my phone calls.
I would NOT hide behind experts or go out and buy PR influence.

I would say my cell phone was turned off because I always turn my cell phone off at 10 PM. Please check my cell phone records.

I sleep 12 hours on the night of the murder because I am known to always sleep 12 hours. Check that out with my friends.

I shower in a cold apartment despite showering the night before because I always shower in the AM and the room temperature does not matter to me. Check that out.

If I happened into my home and found the front door ajar, a broken window rifled clothes, and blood in the bathroom and on the floors I would RUN AWAY as fast as I can and call the police IMMEDIATELY. Who would not do that (besides the culprit who staged it and knows why the blood is on the floor)??

I would NOT call the victim's cell phone at 12:10 hours and then 10 minutes later tell my roomate otherwise. IF I were genuinely concerned about the victim I would call both her cell phones AND I would let my other roomates know that is what happened.

I will not say my roomate locks her room all the time when she does NOT.

When given a chance to speak on national TV I would explain my innocence in clear simple detail once again stating where I was what I was doing and not babble on about the corrupt system.

 

[James50]

My friend.

Do you honestly think that you wouldn't very soon get sick tired of "declaring your innocence" when with every attempt to explain yourself, the media is in your face telling you you did it? Do you honestly think it would do any good? On the contrary, smart people know that the more you try to explain yourself, the more people wonder about you. With the focus of public attention on you, for sure you are going to be EXTREMELY careful what you say, even if you know you did nothing wrong. If you think that stating your innocence over and over again would change a damn when an experienced prosecutor is hellbent on convicting you and wants your blood, then you are naive, I have to say.

Do you honestly believe you would remember every tiny little detail of what you did that day to be excruciatingly accurate?

Do you honestly think honest people remember every details of what they did so well that they never make mistakes of detail? Do you have that much faith in the all too fallible human memory?

You would never do cartwheels knowing you're a suspect in a murder crime either. But no two personalities are the same. There are people who do cartwheels same as you and I scratch our heads.

She explained that she showered back at her place because his shower was "crummy". She's American and Americans take showers all the time and whether it was cold or not she needed to take one after her overnight stay with her boyfriend.

She explained that the door sometimes played up. When an occupational criminal leaves the scene of the crime, they do leave doors and windows open. Why would she not have closed it and told everyone she'd found it closed if she was trying to deceive people here? Why tell them the truth?

I would never say the victim had her throat cut if I did not do it and I did not know how she died.

There's blood all over the place. Chances are good then that she was knifed to death. Typically when someone aims to kill someone, they cut their throat. Besides, saying that someone had their throat cut is a common American turn of phrase that just means they were murdered. Then there's feminine intuition.




She did painstakingly explain why she is innocent. But if she didn't feel the need to explain herself right away, that's easily explained away if you consider that she was a naive young person who didn't expect to have to do that. She probably didn't at first believe that she would be implicated for such a brutal crime and it must have felt surreal to her that she was. Not everyone's the same. Some people take time to take stock of what's happening to them in a situation like that. Not everone would react like a chicken with its head cut off. My wife is like that, too. She doesn't cry when other people do or speak to defend herself when she knows she's innocent of something. But she is the most wonderful person alive.

She did willingly offer to take a polygraph test.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...urder-It-didnt-change-minds-change-yours.html


And in that statement incidentally, she vehemently and in no uncertain terms defends herself.

 

[song22]

I say guilty, but I do have some doubt and I'm not sure what I would do if I was on the Jury.

I feel like Amanda's confession of being at the house at the time of the murder with her fingers in her ears while Meredith screamed is probably the truth. My number one theory is that Amanda and Sollecito got stoned out of their minds and ended up back at the house. I think Rudy killed Meredith and AK and RS did not intervene. I think when they sobered up a bit the full impact of what had happened hit them and they knew no one would believe that they had been there and not directly participated. So they cleaned up in a panic, leaving only what was most obviously connected to the direct crime scene. I think this accounts for the confession, the references to drugs, the clean-up, and the strange behavior afterwards. My second theory is that it was a thrill-kill, but I find that more problematic. I think AK is a narcissist and her behavior was not normal, but as an outsider I can't say right now BARD. I do tend to trust the process and think that if two courts have found her guilty, they are probably privy to more than I am.

 

[Effective]

My number one theory is that Amanda and Sollecito got stoned out of their minds and ended up back at the house. I think Rudy killed Meredith and AK and RS did not intervene. I think when they sobered up a bit the full impact of what had happened hit them and they knew no one would believe that they had been there and not directly participated. So they cleaned up in a panic..

Yeah I tend to lean to this theory myself, although I'm still not sure what happened.

The thing that bothers me is how Knox claims to have a good memory of that day, and yet she doesn't. In her confession she keeps talking about how confused she was. Sollecito admits to being extremely drugged up and thus could not remember things clearly. Even in court, Knox could not remember calling her mother when it was in the middle of the night in Seattle time (around 3ish or 4ish in the morning). If I called someone that early, I'm sure I'd remember why.

I think a large part of this case is actually how drugged up both of them were and why they have such a difficult time convincing people of what happened. I don't know if they were involved or not.

 

[James50]

In my very firm opinion, those who consider that AK is guilty are either not aware or have missed the point that she was convicted on the basis of the product of some very weird prosecutor's wild imaginations and that this scenario has since been discarded. To really get it clear that the case against her is absurd, I urge people to read this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-amanda-knox-is-innocent-2014-1

Get it clear, guys! The convicted murderer, Guede, had a history of breaking and entering homes at least once with a knife. That was his MO. The orgy scenario was the prosecutor's line in a previous trial, which case fell apart.

Guede broke in to homes, that was his MO.
The orgy scenario was the prosecutor's usual line of argument.

Read that again and again until it sinks in that the notion that AK was involved is clearly absurd.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

In my very firm opinion, those who consider that AK is guilty are either not aware or have missed the point that she was convicted on the basis of the product of some very weird prosecutor's wild imaginations and that this scenario has since been discarded. To really get it clear that the case against her is absurd, I urge people to read this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-amanda-knox-is-innocent-2014-1

Get it clear, guys! The convicted murderer, Guede, had a history of breaking and entering homes at least once with a knife. That was his MO. The orgy scenario was the prosecutor's line in a previous trial, which case fell apart.

Guede broke in to homes, that was his MO.
The orgy scenario was the prosecutor's usual line of argument.

Read that again and again until it sinks in that the notion that AK was involved is clearly absurd.

I agree. The murderer is in jail.

This is not justice.

 

[James50]

I say guilty, but I do have some doubt and I'm not sure what I would do if I was on the Jury.

I feel like Amanda's confession of being at the house at the time of the murder with her fingers in her ears while Meredith screamed is probably the truth. My number one theory is that Amanda and Sollecito got stoned out of their minds and ended up back at the house. I think Rudy killed Meredith and AK and RS did not intervene. I think when they sobered up a bit the full impact of what had happened hit them and they knew no one would believe that they had been there and not directly participated. So they cleaned up in a panic, leaving only what was most obviously connected to the direct crime scene. I think this accounts for the confession, the references to drugs, the clean-up, and the strange behavior afterwards. My second theory is that it was a thrill-kill, but I find that more problematic. I think AK is a narcissist and her behavior was not normal, but as an outsider I can't say right now BARD. I do tend to trust the process and think that if two courts have found her guilty, they are probably privy to more than I am.

Firstly, I don't think what a naive 20 year old "confessed" under pressure from seasoned cops who convinced her she'd had amnesia, in the absence of any lawyer means very much. I fact I don't think it means a damn.

She herself stated on November 6th: "In regards to this 'confession' that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly."

Secondly since RS downloaded a movie, that places him (and hence her) in his home, not at the cottage, and clearly then this is where they were.

The clean up is neither here nor there. She was an American, with no lawyer as yet and very naive about the law in general. She saw a place that needed cleaning and she cleaned it, End of story. But of course people looking for clues are going to home in on that and magnify it into something it isn't.