95%

5%

I agree that she wrote a 3000 word account of her story so she could remember it and possibly so other people would collaborate it but she sounds like a high school dropout. One of the big myths is that she was this star academic but if she actually was an honours student then the standards of her university are a joke.

That e-mail was just odd because not only did she send it to her friends and family but also to the dead and registrar of her university and a bunch of other people that while they don't come to mind now were official / media connected. For someone who was so confused and making false claims she had the presence of mind to contact people in positions that could help her. I have never seen that before and it certainly isn't the kind of behaviour you'd get from someone who was badgered into a false confession.

Ok here's the email from Amanda to her family: http://www.facebook.com/note.php?not...37439732939812

We start discussing it itt here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/34...l#post15325968

I know her writing style is that informal kid thing. But she's definitely not borderline ******ed.

You don't have to be borderline ******ed to falsely confess.

So does anyone here believe she is (>50%) innocent?

Thanks.

I've been thinking about this a lot in the past day or so. I really have honed in on the question of "why do I care?" For the most part, I don't really care about Knox, Guede, Solecitto, et al. To be honest, I don't really care about Kercher (but, I am sympathetic towards her and her family, but as far as "avenging her death, etc." that does not really hold my interest).

I have concluded that I am just offended at the hypocrisy and arrogance of the Knox camp and the people who have sold out their integrity to trumpet her cause. Yes, the entire issue is disguised as "We are fighting for the rights of an American who has been unfairly treated in a foreign land." This is appalling:

1. How many foreign citizens are tried in America? How receptive are American citizens to any outrage or demonstrations by the defendant's home country? How many Americans are open to the idea of a foreign country and its citizens (as well as paid media shills) attempting to assert their influence over an American trial?

I think in general, the expected response is summed up with a "Get the **** out of here and mind your own business ... who are YOU to tell US how to run things in OUR country. If you want the protection of YOUR system, maybe you should stay in YOUR country." I think that is a fair characterization of a typical U.S. attitidue.

2. Non-U.S. countries are very sensitive to their impression that America insists on flexing its muscles at every opportunity and is quick to stick its nose into other people's business. U.S. citizens are very sensitive to the fact people apparently think this way. The U.S. fancies itself as a benevolent power and will only act to protect rights and freedoms of those who cannot fight for themselves and further common goals.

The Knox camp has pressed hard to position this as a scenario necessitating U.S. intervention. I think that is crass. Italy has been doing quite fine on its own, thank you. I think Italy is quite capable of handling a murder in its own country. This is not a matter of international security; there is no danger of harm spreading beyond Italy's boundaries should Italy make a mistake.

3. The base assumption that Italy endeavors to act like a third-world country because they have the audacity to stick to a legal system that properly captures their culture, values, and sense of justice is the act of little minds.

How dare they continue to use remnants of a legal system that predates the United States by 1,500 years.

Why do the Italians take so many breaks; how come their work day is different than OURS; they must be lazy in general, so they must be lazy at the pursuit of justice!

Look at this, the prosecutor, the judges and other persons of power are POLITICALLY MOTIVATED! There is no way a young, sexy American girl can get justice in a system so rife with corruption. Of course, these same positions in America are also politically charged and the public trust is vested in the fact that we rely on the integrity of the individual who will rise to the occasion when the job call for it. That can only happen in America, right? - Americans are the only ones that can possibly separate their political motivations from sense of duty.

No way, Italy uses protocols that differ from "Accepted International Standards!" Obviously, this is designed to railroad defendants and bend the case to fit the prosecutor's will! Over and over, there are criticisms lobbied about the "deficiencies" of the Italian legal system, but there is no concrete example of how such have lead to an unfair result here. Just being different does not equal wrong. I find it compelling that Italy has one of the lowest conviction rates for murder in the world. How can that be possible if the system is unfair to defendants? I don't think it can.


In sum, this entire case makes me embarrassed for my country. I believe my reaction to these Knox shills is colored by my belief they are bastardizing the privilege of public discourse and debate about this subject. I believe hiring the P.R. firm and using coercion to force people in the PNW to get in line or be shunned, is beyond the pale. How is bullying the opposition into silence and corrupting public opinion consistent with America's values? The first amendment is to protect free thought and exchange of ideas as opposed to striking out with a blunt intrument at those that disagree with you. I think the whole US (U.S.) v. Italy (presented as blood-thirsty devils looking to get one over on the Imperialist U.S.) is sickening. I think it makes me sad just as a human being to see "experts," "journalists" and "politicians" falling all over themselves to scoop up the money and cheap publicity - while ignoring almost everything that the true United States stands for.

Tens of millions of people have died fighting for the fundamental right to free expression, thought, debate and the right to self-govern. Millons of these are Americans. That some believe that these values can be compromized for the sake of one life is beyond reason.

Every case I've seen the person was somewhere between ******ed and extremely low IQ. Please feel free to provide examples instead of assertions.

Oh wait! you mean it's not actually a "fact" that there were bloody footprints found in the apartment? In fact, the true fact is that it is extremely unlikely that any bloody footprints were found throughout the apartment.

But never mind all that. I'm sure this blogger is another paid shill astroturfer for Amanda Knox.

I don't know much about the case, but Suzzer saying she is 99% guilty and the Fade Suzzer strategy means I would lean towards "probably innocent".

Low IQ is obviously more likely, but it doesn't mean it's a sure thing, especially considering what conditions happen in the interrogation process.

http://www.psychologyandlaw.com/Fals...esearch%20.htm

If you are tortured, it's very easy to give a false confession even if you have a high IQ.

If you are subjected to very tough conditions, it's harder but at least possible.

Being in a police interrogation for hours on end, being threatened, yelled at, etc..., is enough to make a lot of people crack. Low IQ or high IQ. I think I remember a few forensic files where they didn't show the guys IQ afterward, but he was a seemingly normal guy who was verbally beaten into submission by police to confess to his wife's murder or something of the sort. I see no reason why a high enough IQ would exempt someone from these kinds of pressures, although I can certainly see why it would make it much less likely.

I will discount all non-taped confessions from police interviews to mean very little, though. I don't trust the process at all after seeing a few interviews. If they give specific information that could have only been known by the killers AND the police didn't know it, then it makes things a lot easier to trust, though.

That's all you got out of that? WOW. Guess it was too many big words for you, my bad. Yea a biochemist from Wilmington, NC is on the payroll for a personal blog that not a lot of people read, righttttttttttttttttttttttt

And how in the **** can you even try and compare Italy's justice system to America's? Italy runs on "guilty until proven innocent". Have none of you learned how irresponsible and backwards that is or did you not see the media frenzy unfold like that in the Casey Anthony case? Could you imagine if the jury was not sequestered for the Anthony case? OMG! Would have been no point for the jury to even here the trial because there minds would have been warped by all of the coverage. Laughable.

This is a good guideline. You're looking for something to corroborate what's told. In this instance, the facts don't line up with statements or the statements between the two don't line up with each other. At that point, it's pretty easy for me (not you) to totally disregard the statements entirely.

So she points the finger at her boss and he has an alibi? BFD. Gimme something I can get a hold of, not straws.

One thing I haven't heard or seen anyone talk about is Meredith's two phones. It's the one thing I can't figure out

She walked the last 500 yards to her house and made it home. This we know because she was found in her room. However, it's not known if her phones made it home or not as they were found down the hill and returned to the house leading to the whole thing...

So, did Meredith accidentally drop the phones on her way home? Did the killer remove the phones from the home and drop them on the way out??

Thoughts anyone?

Actually we do because cell phone activity puts them there.

Not that it is relevant to the evidence but it does show that people defending Amanda are not as familiar with the case as those who feel she is guilty.

The problem with arguing with people on the internet is that they can always just avoid questions they don't like.

I am still waiting for an explanation of why the innocent couple called the police to report the B&E after the police had already arrived.

I wasn't asking about cell phone records. Obviously Amanda admitted to making phone calls while there's a dead body a few feet away in a locked room.

You're saying there's cell phone records of Meredith's putting the phones IN THE HOUSE?

I'm talking about Meredith's two phones. Why are they separate from Meredith? If the records put the phones in the house, then why are the cops bringing the "lost" phones back to the house?? This does not follow.

At some point, the phones separate from Meredith.

Is it coincidence or is there a correlation? If there's a correlation, what are the most likely explanations? Just wondering if anyone has put thought into this.

And while this might be true, I have a rebuttal. If you want to use facts and logic, that's probably better than just saying those that believe X don't understand Y. I can tell you that you have no training in Z, while I do. It's not relevant at all.

You understand that Wind can tell roughly where a phone is. At 9:30 and 10:00 the phones were still at the house. At 10:13 they were not at the house.

I predict this new batch of Knox supporters runs of out stamina for discussing actual facts in a day or two.

^ Rather impossible when the Guilters haven't brought many facts themselves. Unless you consider a lot of the stuff said fact. To me it has been a lot of opinion both ways.

Henry your question: I am still waiting for an explanation of why the innocent couple called the police to report the B&E after the police had already arrived.
Here's an attempted answer: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/garage.html yet you won't believe it or write it off because it comes from a site that doesn't share your belief in this case. You are more entitled to believe reports that agree with your opinion so that is just human nature. I'm not saying I believe it either, but you asked a question and I attempted to provide an answer.

I don't see how calling the police after the police arrived is proving guilt even if he did do that, but whatever. Since you feel so entitled to ask questions so much though I'll ask you one myself, why is it that just about every single witness called against Knox and her boy are/were drug users and are in jail now? Can you really trust people like that? If you are questioning contradictions in Knox's story then why aren't you questioning contradictions in the persecutions case? In testimony? Because they are there! That isn't being consistent.

Why are you not questioning the bad practice of protocol in the collection of evidence. I'm sure you have seen the video. I did take a Forensics course in high school, and no I'm not saying that makes me any kind of expert but it does give me some general knowledge of the proper way to collect evidence and when I watched that video even I was scratching my head at some of the stuff they were doing. I'm not throwing them under the bus either because that could easily happen in the United States as well, but why aren't you questioning that? Why are you only questioning things that make your side look good?

Dale4Saul2Red0,

I don't rely on anything said by drug users as evidence. Their testimony is icing on the cake but completely unnecessary. The physical evidence and Amanda and Raf's statements are more than enough.

Also the characterization as all the witnesses being drug users is wrong.

I assume you are referring the the bra clasp. If you knew anything about forensics you'd know there is nothing that bad but whatever. You don't need it to find her guilty. That is the beauty of this case -- even if you exclude stuff there is still so much that you'd have be ******ed to not think she was involved.

LOL @ being called a "supporter"

I see a crime, told there's a vast conspiracy that doesn't match the MO, and so I raise the burden to compensate... and I'm called a supporter.

My mind can be changed, its just if you want me to believe something hugely improbable, I need some big reasons. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Okay, so they triangulate Meredith's phone and find that at exactly 10:13 (I assume this is PM) the phones are moved. The cops find these phones the next morning and return them.

EZ game. Rudy took the phones from the house - but why drop them? And why actually take them in the first place? Was he worried she'd somehow wake up from a throat slashing to call the cops on him?

Or were you talking about Amanda & Raffy showing their phones at the house precisely when the murder is supposed to take place? If so, this still doesn't answer my question about Meredith's phone. Please clarify what you're actually saying. My understanding is that their phones were OFF pretty much the whole night.

And as for lies during interrogation or not calling the cops quickly enough and lying about that... not relevant to me until I have a reason to make it so.

It's quite basic actually: throat slashing of young female allegedly at home alone one night = predator type killer. Evidence in room comes from such a person. But now for some reason we need to bring two other people into the crime and say that the predator killer was hired, etc etc or there was some sort of sex game gone wrong. Do you folks realize there's probably not a single case in the whole world like that, ever?

I know of only one case where two young people got together for a mass killing (let alone three people). Two twenty somethings killed one of their families for insurance money. I've never ever heard of a young female participating with two males to slash the throat of a roomate or anything similar or remotely similar.

So... supporter?
No. Just someone that thinks "okay, either we have a killer acting alone + some suspicious ish, or we have some conspiracy involving a highly violent killer and two college students + no motive"

The razor shaves down the entities to solve the puzzle in the simplest form.

LOL, EZ game.
Now show me some proof.

Edit: there are more than 1 example of two people getting together for a mass killing obviously. Columbine is a famous example. It happens everyday in gang warfare. I'm more speaking about this sort of acquaintance type killing.

You didn't respond to my link about the call made to the police and how the times lines up. Can you do that? You asked someone to respond to that question you proposed and then even failed to address it when someone did.

If I knew anything about forensics I would know there is nothing that bad? So what you're saying is in that statement is there were some questionable things done in the collection of evidence. That is what I'm interpreting your statement to be. When you're saying stuff they did "wasn't that bad" in regards to evidence in a murder case do you know how bad that sounds?

Please list the stuff you're talking about. I keep hearing you say this, but you haven't brought evidence to back your claim. Saying there is a bunch of evidence is a statement. Make me believe it. You haven't. I just see no relevance in a lot of what you are saying Henry. You're throwing up a bunch of smoke screens and I'll admit you're doing a good job but that is about it.

ColorUp I think we'd get along fine in the real world. I like your style haha.

Meredith's phone was used twice after she had arrived home. So she made it home with the phones. At 10:13 the phone was again active but now it was not at the house. Time of death is before that.

I don't have no do I need a theory for why the phones were dumped. It was done quickly after the death. There was also an attempt to call Meredith's bank that failed because whoever was dialing did not know how to use her UK phone. If they called the bank intentionally hoping to gain access to her account or if they called it randomly because it happened to be the first entry is unknown.

I haven't heard any theories of why they dumped the phones but the reason I would do it is to confuse investigators about the location of the crime. If you have cell phone use the police will find that and if it is close enough to time of death will assume it was Meredith using her own phone. Then you dump the body somewhere and the crime scene is not the house but somewhere else. The problem was one of the phones turned on so they didn't have enough time to finish the clean up and move the body.

You come home and you think someone broke in, you see blood, and you decide to take a shower. Then when the police show up you decide to call the police to report the B&E. There is nothing suspicious about that at all -- silly me.

[quo
It's quite basic actually: throat slashing of young female allegedly at home alone one night = predator type killer. Evidence in room comes from such a person. But now for some reason we need to bring two other people into the crime and say that the predator killer was hired, etc etc or there was some sort of sex game gone wrong. Do you folks realize there's probably not a single case in the whole world like that, ever?[/quote]

Raf was into violent graphic novels and he collected knives designed for killing -- Rudy was a loser criminal and a small time drug dealer. Which sounds like more of the predator?

There is a footprint on the pillow which clearly proves someone else was there and that they happen to be Amanda's shoe size. Then there is the clean up and the mixed blood, the luminal footprints, and all the lying.

Are you really serious?

There are plenty. The most famous is likely Homoika who drugged her younger sister to give her to her boyfriend as an engagement present. During the rape the sister had a reaction to the K and died. The two would then go on to kidnap, torture and rape young girls.

Then there is the one that was about two years ago where a teenage girl in the States had her BF kill some girl because she was a rival to her at school. They were still in their early teens.

A young couple here in Ottawa killed some old couple just because according to them they were bored and had never killed anyone.

I could likely pull up an endless supply of these.

If you knew anything about the evidence you'd know that under all theories Rudy could never have acted alone. The crime involved at least two people and likely three. The defence has always maintained it was Rudy and a friend.

Also Rudy was not a violent killer. He was a low level drug dealer with some small time B&Es.

So you assume Rudy was not a killer because he was a low level drug dealer with small time B&E's, but you assume Raf is a killer because he was into violent graphic novels? WOW!

So a guy who breaks into houses isn't likely to freak out when he enters a house he thinks is empty only to find someone there? Then he murders the girl out of fear of getting in trouble. You really think that is a ridiculous notion?

You keep saying if we knew anything about the evidence. Then enlighten us buddy. I've asked you plenty of times to do it. Educate us, I'm here to learn.

BTW you keep sticking to the footprint on the pillow theory, maybe you need to read up: "There were a total of five shoe prints found on the pillowcase. The prosecution's expert only found two shoe prints on the pillowcase. Forensics expert Francesco Vinci identified all five by highlighting the fabric using a process called Crimescope. None of these shoe prints represent a woman's shoe size 37. The prosecution's expert found one partial shoe print on the edge of the pillowcase. It was that shoe print that was said to be a woman's shoe. The truth is, there were three partial shoe prints. All three partial shoe prints match the tread pattern on Rudy Guede's shoes."

There were 5, let me repeat 5 footprints on that pillow. 4 of them are 100% confirmed to be Rudy's and you want me to believe the 5th and final print is Amanda Knox's? Are you insane? Look at where the prints were dude. You really believe she made that print? That is naive. Please use common sense.

Dale you keep saying you've read the evidence and are an impartial observer, but then you say stuff like this:

and don't respond to the bulk of Henry's points. Imo this tends to make you look a lot more like the obvious shills we've enjoyed so much in this thread.

I've noticed that the footprints seem to be the new punching point on the friends of Amanda website: http://friendsofamanda.org/forensics.html Seems like this is an area they feel comfortable steering the conversation towards now, as do you.

interesting stuff dale.

what's your take on Solecitto being confronted about the knife and then claiming that Kercher pricked her finger during lunch at his place when all evidence points to Kercher never even being inside Solecitto's place?

Because it is garbage. The faux-police declared the site a crime scene and contacted the real police at 1:15.

Raf called the police twice first at 12:51 and again at 12:54.

No one contests the events. The police arrive and they find the two outside. They talk to them. Then Filomena and Laura's BFs arrive followed shortly by Filomena and Laura. The faux-police talk to them. Then they go to look at Filomena's room and assess that nothing is missing.

Discussion turns to Meredith and her locked door. Amanda claims nothing to worry about she always locks her door but Filomena contradicts her claiming she has never locked her door. The decision is made to break down the door but the faux-police don't have a legal right to do so and Raf claims that he can't despite having martial arts training. Filomena's BF breaks the door down and they find the body.

The reason the link is BS is because they are intentionally confusing the real police with the postal police that had arrived earlier. The real police called Amanda at 1:26 for directions but the police investigating the cell phones had called the police to report the body at 1:15.

The bra clasp was not collected immediately. Despite what CSI has led people to believe that isn't the end of the world. DNA is does not transfer easily and to demonstrate it the experts did what is refereed to as the sock test. Regardless if it bothers you exclude it. There is so much evidence that losing some makes no difference.

I have stated it multiple times and I assume you read the topic. I find having to cover the same ground every time a new knox-fanboy shows up bothersome.

1) luminal footprints leading only from the murder scene to Amanda's room
2) Mixed blood in both the bathroom and at the staged B&E
3) Staged B&E
4) The clean up
5) the footprint on the pillow
6) The knife and if you choose to exclude the knife then the fact that they lied to explain why DNA should be on the knife
7) calling the police after the police have already arrived
8) inconstant and constantly changing stories. Caught lying multiple times about what they did that night.

Then there are a dozen or so small items that would seem like I was being a nit over but which when combined are pretty decent evidence.