Meh...not sure she killed her but def. seems like she knew about it or was possibly involved in covering it up. When you can't get your story straight, are buying cleaning supplies at 7am(not normal) and act super strange for someone who is innocent and being accused of horribly murdering our supposed friend...something aint right.

Probably shouldn't have been convicted but I could see plenty of US juries convicting her too.

But can't you only say that she tried to frame him if you look at it from the perspective that she is guilty? If she were innocent, it's not that strange for her to freak out and just accuse someone. Did she actually do anything equivalent to planting evidence against him or anything?

I love how people are outraged at this, mainly because she's American and being convicted in Italian court. If she was convicted in US court, none of these people would care. Just because the court system is not the US court system (which also makes many mistakes btw), does not mean it is inferior. Just now on 20/20 I heard a reporter say "There are only 8 people deciding, 8 people can decide a murder case?!" Yes, I'm sure having 4 more morons really helps.

To me the coverage of this case is equated to the coverage of random missing white girls.

Meredith Kercher is hot actually. On a more serious note, I think she is guilty. Cartwheels are irrefutable evidence.

Duh....Meredith Kercher is the victim you idiot.

Ok this is what Lumumba says was in the statement she made against him. I am still searching for some corroboration but it seems like this should be public record and he would have no reason to lie.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hs-murder.html


Ok here's some more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher


Also some fun quotes from the first article, where Lumumba (admittedly the guy who's life was totally ****ed up by her so might have an ax to grind) talks about her:

(this is the paper's caption to a pic of them kissing):

As far as I can tell the British media have lent on the side of Knox being guilty, the interest obviously lying with the murdered British girl and her family. Perhaps the American media has lent another way, I wouldn't know.
The fact is no-one in this thread has a better understanding of the case/evidence than the jurors who have found her guilty.

Why is there so much doubt about her guilt? What part of "my roomate is getting raped and killed yet I decided I would sit in the kitchen and not investigate" is normal? Which part of instead of tell a real story like an innocent scared person would, I try to frame my black boss? I mean she claims to have been there, doesn't claim to be anywhere else, has a sketchy story, didn't stop the murder, has no defense wounds from defending her friend. Lets say your roomate is getting attacked, even if you hate her you might be next unless you know otherwise. Do you call the police? Do you run to your neighbors and cry for help? Or do you sit in the kitchen, and plug your ears?

I think if she didn't lie and try to frame someone else it wouldn't be so incredibly suspicious. I think maybe the knife bit sounds suspicious to us but Italian police while probably corrupt in some way also have dealt with more than one murder, and can probably identify whodunnit. A classic symptom probably being really weird persistent lying.

There is so much doubt about her guilt because there is not a single shread of credible physical evidence that ties her to the crime scene. And I want to see videotape of her interrogations before I make any judgement about anything she may have said to the cops...Oh no tapes exist? How convenient.

I've been reading about the past of her prosecutor in this case Giuliano Mignini, seems like he some power mad tyrant persecutor type, jailing journalists, intimidation, wild accusations against people, corruption etc. I guess we are supposed to trust him here though? Yea sure...

She says the "plug her ears" thing was her imagining if she was at the crime scene and the police took it out of context and turned it into a confession. Of course this was also so she could put Patrick Lumumba at the crime scene. So I guess if you buy that she could be innocent and still try to frame her ex-boss, then it follows that she wasn't really at the crime scene. Maybe?

Right, if you weren't at the crime scene option #1 is omg don't convict me of murder wtfwtf this is exactly where I was, homemade sex tape with date transcribed here ya go. Instead, somehow the mind jumped to: "well, i hate my boss, so he was there too." Add on top of it all the DNA/evidence is tied to people who know Amanda and not her roomate, you should seriously wonder how not implicated she can possibly be. I mean if you're going to question her innocence, why not the boyfriend with the boot print?

How do you get two people that shouldn't know each other, except through one common link, to the same room, without the common link, murder a woman, and then have one of them confidently take a poop in the bathroom? All without the common link involved?

Again, if she hadn't lied about her boss she wouldn't have the critical sociopathic, condemning, self-indicting character witness that makes it so much easier to believe that an otherwise nice normal looking nice girl could perform such a gruesome murder.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28057560...eports/page/2/

MSN transcript to give more details than wikipedia about case stuff:

One of the reporters says her alibi is she wasn't there, came home, found blood, called boyfriend, neither called police and that was proven.

Maybe the jury didn't buy the whole argument that two pieces of evidence were somehow contaminated with foreign DNA by the police. I mean just because the defense makes their best case that that evidence could have been contaminated, doesn't mean the evidence isn't credible. The defense has to make that argument, it's the only one they have. It's the same one OJ had to make.

Her story was that she brought her boss back to her place and he went in the room then she heard screams and things got all fuzzy and she wakes up at the bfs. So she had to put herself there to put the boss there.

Btw this case is an amazing affirmation that "I don't know nuthin' about nuthin'" is always the best defense. She doesn't try to implicate her boss she might have gotten off.

actually "i don't know nuthin' about nuthin'" is slightly worse than "i refuse to answer any questions"

They have the questionable DNA knife evidence which can't be tied to the wounds on the poor girl, and the 6 weeks after the fact found bra clasp thing, yea 6 weeks hmmmm.

On the the other hand they got Guedes physical evidence all over the damn place at the crime scene. He left more behind than O.J. did apparently. Well I guess Mignini payed back Knox for her "loose morals", well played prosecutor.

No it's an amazing affirmation that guilty people truly do not know how innocent people act. And yeah if she didn't try to lie to the cops and ruin someone else's life she certainly would have seemed a lot less involved.

I want to see on tape on the "dream stuff" and where she "implicates her boss" and "tried to ruin his life" I'm not saying she didn't do so but I want to know the context on how his name came into it, police can twist you up in knots that you say alot of junk if you are a possibly spacey , scared, nervous 20 year old girl and are dealing with being questioned through an interpretor. You have to show me the tape here on this before I make any judgement on that.

Yes, spacey enough to in fact go from claiming to be banging your boyfriend at his place while watching Amelie, to your random black boss who has never been in your house legitimately went in, you heard screams, you were in the kitchen, plugging your ears, not calling the police. Come on.

Show me the tape...It's mind boggling that they would not videotape this in a case of this magnitude.

You realize she manufactured details? What kind of tape do you need? Do you think she was tortured into saying anything to make the pain stop? If you aren't being tortured, and you are innocent, at what point do you manufacture details? She stuck to the story even after interrogation.

What kind of tape? Are you kidding me? Police all over the world videotape questioning of suspects.(But apparently not in Perugia) They use it later to go over to check out facts and it can be used later in court. It would have been invaluable in this instance. Unless you can provide a tape of this interrogation you can make no judgement on what Knox might of said or under the circumstances it was said.

I say this in all seriousness and not just to make an awful poker joke: think of the variance associated with that and jury selection. The nice part of the US system is it is, seemingly, constructed to reduce variance as reasonably as it can.

Because there is this much arguing it should be obvious that there is no way she should be thrown away for 30 years or whatever. They need facts, no accusations and circle jerks. There isn't one bit of solid evidence that puts her there. While she may have had something to do with it (I really have no idea) I think it's ridiculous that she's getting locked up with what little info we have.

I will say the bootprint to convict the dude is really really questionable/scary as it still seems legitimately plausible he was not involved. As for her not being involved I just really don't see how you can have the motive to create a lie (even under duress), and let the guy sit in jail for 14 days without clearing it up and without being complicit. I think all of them having really bad alibis + not having their alibis checking out is playing into it as well.