Armanda Knox guilty---- again

[LoveMMC]

Poor girl.. Think of the parents of Meredith Kercher That's hell.

So destroying an innocent girl helps Meredith's parents?? Blame the man who killed her- who they have the DNA and confession

 

[minnie56]

He obviously didn't have as good of a defence team, I believe they were all involved... They got off is all.

 

[nugov2]

Agreed.

What evidence has led you to believe she is guilty? There is no evidence that links her to the crime. Her life has been destroyed over a witch hunt. I think that Meredith's family should want justice and they got it. The right person is in prison and the wrong people were let go. Nothing can take away their pain, but putting innocent people in prison will not help.

I hope that the American government never allows them to extradite her.

 

[minnie56]

My opinion based on many articles read over these years on both sides.
I think Amanda Knox is a psychopath..and she fools people.
The Italian police bungled evidence ..lucky for her.

Again, my opinion.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Poor girl..
Think of the parents of Meredith Kercher
That's hell.

The family of Meridith are determined to destroy Amanda's life. There was zero physical evidence putting either of them at the crime scene, someone please expand how only evidence of one person has ever been found? Now it's been proved bra hook not actual evidence their advisor lied in court. It's time to admit they didn't do it and leave be.

 

[PaulaSB12]

My opinion based on many articles read over these years on both sides.
I think Amanda Knox is a psychopath..and she fools people.
The Italian police bungled evidence ..lucky for her.

Again, my opinion.

How did she eliminate any evidence of her and her boyfriend while leaving the man who did kill her behind!

 

[nugov2]

How did she eliminate any evidence of her and her boyfriend while leaving the man who did kill her behind!

Exactly! I read entertaining fiction all the time that makes me really hate a character in the story and that is all the Italian prosecutors have done....they wrote a really good piece of fiction. There is no way they committed such a heinous crime and cleaned up only the evidence of 2 of them. I mean they were pot smoking college kids and they were somehow able to remove all physical evidence of just themselves from a bloody crime scene, that is next to impossible.

I also wonder why Rudy would allow them to stay behind and only clean up their part, while only implicating him. Are we to believe he ran from the house and let them stay behind after the murder? Why would anybody committing a murder with 2 other people do that?

 

[sunshinehighway]

My opinion based on many articles read over these years on both sides.
I think Amanda Knox is a psychopath..and she fools people.
The Italian police bungled evidence ..lucky for her.

Again, my opinion.

It's not a popular opinion but I agree with you. I think she, at the very least, knows much more than she's admitting to. There are things that just don't add up.
She has a very good PR campaign here in the US so most of the easily viewed information available to the public is pro Amanda.

 

[minnie56]

It's not a popular opinion but I agree with you. I think she, at the very least, knows much more than she's admitting to. There are things that just don't add up.
She has a very good PR campaign here in the US so most of the easily viewed information available to the public is pro Amanda.

Yes she does.
The ex boyfriend is now distancing himself from Amanda's defence ..
In the beginning she accused ( then retracted ) a bartender that wasn't even there blaming the effects of marijuana for her 'foggy' memory.

 

[nugov2]

It's not a popular opinion but I agree with you. I think she, at the very least, knows much more than she's admitting to. There are things that just don't add up.
She has a very good PR campaign here in the US so most of the easily viewed information available to the public is pro Amanda.

Yes she does.
The ex boyfriend is now distancing himself from Amanda's defence ..
In the beginning she accused ( then retracted ) a bartender that wasn't even there blaming the effects of marijuana for her 'foggy' memory.

But again, based on what physical evidence? She might be a nasty person, but that doesn't mean she murdered someone and somehow was capable of magically removing only the physical evidence of her and someone else. How in the drug induced stupor (which the italian prosecutors claimed happened) were they able to do that? There are people who plan out to the last details to commit a murder, who study how to remove physical evidence who still get caught b/c it is so difficult to remove all traces. Yet we are to believe these two were able to do it? I have read both sides and while I'll admit they acted odd there is absolutely no physical evidence of them at the crime scene. I do believe that she was scared and being forced to point her finger at someone and that is why she accused the bartender. I think she was mistreated during the interrogation and she started to say anything she thought they wanted to hear.

 

[goofyintoronto]

I think she, at the very least, knows much more than she's admitting to. There are things that just don't add up.

I agree with this. I think she knows way more, and I think she's a psycho path. I wont be sad if she is locked up.

 

[sunshinehighway]

But again, based on what physical evidence? She might be a nasty person, but that doesn't mean she murdered someone and somehow was capable of magically removing only the physical evidence of her and someone else. How in the drug induced stupor (which the italian prosecutors claimed happened) were they able to do that? There are people who plan out to the last details to commit a murder, who study how to remove physical evidence who still get caught b/c it is so difficult to remove all traces. Yet we are to believe these two were able to do it? I have read both sides and while I'll admit they acted odd there is absolutely no physical evidence of them at the crime scene. I do believe that she was scared and being forced to point her finger at someone and that is why she accused the bartender. I think she was mistreated during the interrogation and she started to say anything she thought they wanted to hear.

It doesn't matter why or how I formed my opinion. I've learned on these threads that it's not the opinion to have and will just be jumped on. Nothing I saw will change your mind or make anyone on this thread think twice so I'm not going to waste my time defending my opinion.

 

[pryncess527]

It doesn't matter why or how I formed my opinion. I've learned on these threads that it's not the opinion to have and will just be jumped on. Nothing I saw will change your mind or make anyone on this thread think twice so I'm not going to waste my time defending my opinion.

what makes you think that?

When people present solid evidence and a strong argument backing up their opinion, it absolutely makes me think twice. I would hope it makes most people think twice. Have you never been presented with a well-formed argument that made you reconsider an issue?

 

[nugov2]

It doesn't matter why or how I formed my opinion. I've learned on these threads that it's not the opinion to have and will just be jumped on. Nothing I saw will change your mind or make anyone on this thread think twice so I'm not going to waste my time defending my opinion.

Not true, if you can point me to physical evidence that proves she was involved I will change my mind. I just haven't seen any. I want the guilty in jail and the innocent free no matter who they are. If I see that there is evidence linking her I will change my view and would want her in jail. Thinking someone behaves badly and is a psychopath does not make her guilty of this particular crime.

 

[sunshinehighway]

what makes you think that?

When people present solid evidence and a strong argument backing up their opinion, it absolutely makes me think twice. I would hope it makes most people think twice. Have you never been presented with a well-formed argument that made you reconsider an issue?

Experience makes me think that. I have changed my opinion. Based on someone else's argument before but I don't think that happens much here.
I find what usually happens is someone will focus on the one little point they have a counter argument for and ignore the rest.
If you really look at the case, not just what the media here reports, you will see things that are very questionable.
The way you and the following post come off it's likely that nothing short of a video of her commiting the murder or her DNA on a bloody murder weapon will be good enough. That's not meant to be snarky. It's just people have such absolute opinions on her based on what has been reported by our media and much of that has been controlled by her PR team spin.

 

[pryncess527]

Experience makes me think that. I have changed my opinion. Based on someone else's argument before but I don't think that happens much here.
I find what usually happens is someone will focus on the one little point they have a counter argument for and ignore the rest.
If you really look at the case, not just what the media here reports, you will see things that are very questionable.
The way you and the following post come off it's likely that nothing short of a video of her commiting the murder or her DNA on a bloody murder weapon will be good enough. That's not meant to be snarky. It's just people have such absolute opinions on her based on what has been reported by our media and much of that has been controlled by her PR team spin.

This was my first post in this thread, and I have made no comments about her guilt or innocence at all up until this point, so I'm sorry if I am in some way coming off as a person who would not be convinced by anything short of video evidence. I'm just not convinced by her DNA being on the handle of a kitchen knife that she owned and had been in her kitchen. I have looked at the case -- not media reports from the US, but a wide variety of international sources -- and while I think Amanda Knox is probably a bratty, unpleasant human being, and I did read many things I thought were questionable, most of them pertained to the prosecution. I am genuinely curious what aspects of the case lead others to feel that she is guilty.

But you are certainly under no obligation to explain your opinion to me. I just find it interesting when people don't want to explain their opinion because of a belief it will not matter.

 

[frostedpink]

Why do you guys think she is a psycho path and a nasty person??

 

[Suger Mag]

This was my first post in this thread, and I have made no comments about her guilt or innocence at all up until this point, so I'm sorry if I am in some way coming off as a person who would not be convinced by anything short of video evidence. I'm just not convinced by her DNA being on the handle of a kitchen knife that she owned and had been in her kitchen.

If you luminoled my house it would look like a major crime scene happened all over the place due to the fact I am such a klutz. I cut my arm on a invisible shard from broken ornament while watering my Christmas tree... didn't notice it... until after I managed to bleed all over the floor making it look like something from The First 48.

I feel for the family of Kirchhner. However I believe Amanda is innocent, and the Italian justice system a joke. Remember they just convicted scientists of failing to predict an earthquake.

 

[minnie56]

Sometimes when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck , it's a duck too. Just saying.

 

[EMom]

If I only went by my impression of Knox, I would lean toward her being guilty. She is odd in many ways and seems unable to read social cues, often saying things that come across as uncaring or clueless. She can be weird. She acted in ways that made her seem shady. I have come to believe most of that is just Knox being Knox. I really think she is socially inept and just makes blunders that make you say WOW. But that is not a crime.

What I cannot get past is that Guede's DNA is all over the place, including the victim. But K&S's DNA is absent. It's that simple. It is not as if we have:

Knox--Yellow DNA
Sollecito--Blue DNA
Guede--Red DNA

You can't go around and scrub off the yellow and blue DNA and just leave the red intact. It doesn't work that way. There is no special color attached to your DNA so that you can selectively get rid of JUST YOURS and leave the 3rd party's. Blood is blood, body is body waste, saliva is saliva, fingerprints are fingerprints, skin cells are skin cells. There is no way Guede's DNA is plentiful and that K&S were such superior criminals that they managed to erase all trace of their own.

No, I think Knox is the sort that makes people say, "There's something off about that girl," and their radar makes them take a second look at her. But the physical evidence indicates she is not guilty and that Guede is.