<p>cptofthehouse, doesn’t it bother you that the first version of the story was concocted during several days of sleep deprived, lawyerless questioning? I’m assuming that Sollecito was also questioned in the same manner. Don’t you have a problem with that, and can’t you understand why they would give conflicting stories because of that?</p>
<p>Don’t you have a problem with mishandled evidence, abuse and trickery by the police? The desire not to find the truth, but to ensure a conviction? Doing things like lying to Amanda and telling her that she had HIV and had to list all her prior sex partners so they could be notified…then releasing the list to the press to influence the public?</p>
<p>And even if she did exactly what you lay out, don’t you think that four years in prison she’s already suffered through is sufficient?</p>
<p>It is sadly amusing what they say the motive was for the murder this time. The prosecutor presumes that it was a fight triggered by Guede not flushing the toilet in their apartment. Maybe Knox and Sollecito were supportive enough in the philosophy, “If it’s yellow, let it mellow,” that they helped him kill Meredith for disagreeing.</p>
<p>At this point, I don’t think that many folks are going to believe any of the three of them convicted of the case even if they do tell the full truth. Too many lies told by all three, and, yes, all three lied in their first versions of what was told to the police in their routine questioning of them. The roommates and friends of Kercher, the flatmates from downstairs, their stories all checked out. </p>
<p>I recommend John Kercher’s book, because it does bring up issues, facts that our media blitz is not including. Not as a guide for the truth–there is no such thing, but to see why this family, Knox’s roommates and Kercher’s friends are so convinced that she is involved in this terrible thing. That it’s not just an Italian vendetta against Americans that this case has come to this. You will have no problem coming up with the “Innocent Knox” stories at all, and they do tend to say the same things, some of them untrue. The Knox family has spent a veritable fortune as have the Sollecino’s to come up with things to show their children are not guilty and have heralded some findings that are not true, and have discarded anything that has come up that doesn’t help them. As most of us would do if in the same situation. I don’t blame them for anything more than saying some blatantly untrue things which they have.</p>
<p>But, bottom line, I have a lot of trouble believing what the Italian courts say happened. The trio of convicted just don’t work as team of rapist/murderers getting together to jump Kecher. They didn’t know each other very long, Guede hardly knows, or is known to S and K, they couldn’t even implicate each other effectively,</p>
<p>“Too many lies told by all three, and, yes, all three lied in their first versions of what was told to the police in their routine questioning of them.”</p>
<p>Two questions for you, one that I already asked.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Is four days of sleep deprived, lawyerless questioning “routine questioning”?</p></li>
<li><p>Why is it surprising and suspicious that they would have a confused, changing version of the story during the four days of sleep deprived, lawyerless questioning?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Since my kid didn’t drink (despite our best efforts!), doesn’t smoke, shows no sign of ever having tried drugs, and hadn’t even dated as far as I could tell, I actually didn’t worry too much about my kid’s year abroad. But yes, I think it should be a concern for parents. Kids do make foolish decisions and foreign standards of justice can be quite different. There have been a couple of cases of Americans getting caned in Singapore for vandalism. </p>
<p>How do you know that? I don’t know what evidence of restraint there is, but I think that many men can hold down the wrists of many women above her head with one hand. You also don’t know that he didn’t stab her a couple of times, regain his hold and stab her again, and so forth. Guede apparently had evidence of having been in a fight. Who said there were no defensive moves on her part?</p>
<p>I’m STILL waiting for you to explain exactly how Amanda Knox was involved in the murder struggle without leaving a single iota of DNA, a single hair, anything in the room, and without acquiring so much as a tiny scratch or bruise. </p>
<p>The conspiracists will believe whatever they want but you have to suspend all logical thinking to convict Knox and Sollecito of this crime. You still have many people today convinced in the grassy knoll theory and that John Kennedy was killed by more than one person. They can spin the evidence and distort the facts to make it a certainty in their eyes. Nobody will ever change their minds. </p>
<p>If you read the link I posted earlier in the thread, there is no way any reasonable person could conclude the Italian justice system got this right. </p>
<p>Yeah, Knox killed Kerchner because they disagreed about who should clean the bathroom. Since the sex games motive didn’t work, let’s try this one on for size. LOL</p>
<p>And I would add that if Sollecito now comes up with some story implicating Knox, well, why wouldn’t he say what they want in exchange for a lesser sentence? He knows she is out of their grasp and highly unlikely to return. Why he didn’t stay out of the country I cannot imagine.</p>
<p>If my S were in his position with the facts as they are, he’d be living in another country and asking for asylum as fast as I could ship him there.</p>
<p>I do love it, goldenpooch. Apparently she isn’t a twisted sex kitten or a satanic cult member, no, she’s a NEAT FREAK!!</p>
<p>You keep saying that John Kercher’s book will help us understand why Kerchers feel the way they feel. The problem is that his account is prosecution account. He repeats what he has been told by police, prosecution and his lawyer.</p>
<p>Moreover, so much of “evidence” he references has been proven to be wrong. </p>
<p>Also, you keep referencing luminal print. But you omit that while defense cannot prove it was not blood, the prosecution cannot prove it was, nor can they show that that particular print had Meredith’s DNA. So, this print is inconsequential. </p>
<p>Also, if you are going to blame Knoxx for changing her story, why not hold prosecution to the same standard? </p>
<p>BTW, I get why some people think that something is off with Knoxx. I also get kind of unpleasant wibe from her. I think that is because I remember all tabloid stories several years ago that painted her in negative light . Even though it’s been shown that those stories were distorting the truth, I probably subconsciously remain biased . But it should not mean that she should be convicted of murder with no physical evidence against her.</p>
<p>Some on this thread were wandering what Guede had to say. Before he was arrested, police recorded his skype conversation with a friend. In it he said that Knox was not involved. Only after he lawyered up, his story changed.</p>
<p>Again, goldenpooch–what do you know that no one else does? Also, I don’t see why it is necessary to impugn the thinking skills of those who feel differently, or accuse them of being conspiracy theorists. None of us is a juror on this case. We are all reading and absorbing the information in our own way.</p>
<p>No, I was not a juror on this case, but I urge you to read the link I posted earlier in the thread. After you read the very credible analysis of this FBI agent of all the evidence in the case, you will know why it is necessary to suspend logical thinking to convict Knox of this crime.</p>
<p>When I read Amanda’s memoir I wondered if she had undiagnosed asperger’s, to be honest. When she described a lot of her thoughts and actions which were misinterpreted, and how and why that happened, I was struck by how it all made sense to me… and how it would not to most others. I’d never had any reason to think that before but I remembered she received so much criticism due to her facial expressions and demeanor and it frightened me to think that if I were ever in the same situation, my facial expressions and demeanor would condemn me to people as well. Then when I read her book… it was very, very interesting. I recommend it if you haven’t read it already. She directly addresses a lot of her naivety and social awkwardness and mistakes, and what she was thinking at the time, in ways that made perfectly logical sense to me. </p>
<p>I’ve been researching this case extensively and find it difficult when others do not but talk as if they have, which seems to be most everyone who has an opinion for Amanda or against her. </p>
<p>Something does not add up with Knox. If the verdict is upheld, at the very least she will be a prisoner in the USA since I believe there would be an international warrant for her arrest.</p>
<p>That’s a perceptive and interesting observation, ema. I wonder if people have overlooked the possibility of aspergers because she is so pretty and bubbly. They expect people with aspergers to be quiet and reclusive.</p>
<p>Remember Lindy Chamberlain in Australia? People were ready to believe that she killed her baby because she didn’t react in public the way they wanted her to. They relied on bogus evidence. People speculated that they were involved in something evil or satanic because the child wore an item of black clothing, and her name was unusual. The theory they came up with of how she supposedly committed the crime was absolutely nuts. She was convicted, but eventually a missing item of her child’s clothing–a sweater that the prosecution said didn’t exist-- turned up by a dingo den, and proved that a dingo had indeed taken her baby. </p>
<p>I agree that there is a lot of misinformation flying around in this case. And in all fairness, it is on both sides. But the “rock” that so many seem to base their presumption of innocence on, is in reality a big piece of that misinformation. Many believe that Knox told all the lies under duress, because of a brutal and relentless interrogation by the police. But if you followed the testimony during the trial, this is not factual. English translations of the transcripts of the trial are in fact available online.</p>
<p>Knox did have an interpreter. Her name was Anna Donnino and she testified at trial. The “interrogation” lasted 2 hours and 30 minutes from 11:00 p.m until 1:30 a.m. Knox was offered tea during that time, as she had told police she had finished dinner about an hour before. When she claimed she was hit, the head of Italian police asked her to identify who hit her. Knox could not, and never did, give a name or description of the person. Not even at trial, despite the fact that there were only 2 police officers interrogating her. One of the officers was actually a woman named Rita Ficarra. The two police officers and the interpreter testified that no one in the room that night ever hit Knox.</p>
<p>Further, the only reason that Knox was asked to answer some questions was because Sollecito had just told them that contrary to Knox’s statement to police at the scene, he could not confirm that she was with him throughout the night of the murder. Thats when she presented the whole fabrication of her being at the apartment with Patrick Lumumba. </p>
<p>So could Knox be totally innocent? Sure, but I still have problems reconciling all the conflicting stories given to police before, during and after the interrogation. Under U.S. law the questions that all of us have would be enough to acquit her under our standard of reasonable doubt. And in the U.S. she could never have been tried twice for the same crime. But unfortunately for Knox, Italian law apparently does not work that way.</p>
<p>Exactly. I am a pretty and bubbly and academically successful asperger’s girl myself and nobody believes I could have asperger’s, I wasn’t diagnosed until I was the age Amanda was when this all started and nobody would have ever known had I not gotten a wild idea and pursued an expert at an autism research facility that happened to be local on kind of a whim. Someone on CC suggested it to me. That is why so many spectrum women go undiagnosed, we present differently. I don’t know nearly enough about Amanda to say, but it was a thought that occurred to me when her behavior was being scrutinized and her book really strengthened that theory for me. She describes things, like doing the splits in the police station, or making faces at her boyfriend, that sound so incredibly stupid, but when I read what she was thinking at the time I thought, “oh… that’s sounds like something I might have done.” She could also have just been very socially unaware and psychologically overwhelmed, she admits to both in the book and tries to explain, “I know now that this looked weird, but this is what I was thinking,” and it makes sense. At least, it did to me, but maybe that’s because I have asperger’s.</p>
<p>I do know that, as someone with asperger’s, if I was put through the interrogation she describes I have absolutely no faith in what would come out of my mouth. It would break me into a million pieces and I’d believe anything they told me-- which is almost exactly what she says word for word. It’s really, really scary to think about.</p>
<p>This is all just kind of a random thought and a plug for her book since I found it really interesting. I really don’t want to be ripped to shreds for making the suggestion, I know the Amanda Knox story is a controversial subject. It was just a thought I had reading her book. I could really readily relate to the incredibly naive and dangerous mindset she described having when she first arrived in Perugia and how she made some of the mistakes that she made. I was a lot like her when I was 20. Sometimes she says things in a way that I think, if she had used different words, people might have agreed with her but they cant get past her strangeness and don’t realize what she actually said. I can relate to that too much for my own liking.</p>
<p>I just googled it and apparently I am not the only person who has thought of this. But, asperger’s or not, she admits to being incredibly naive and socially unaware and the book provides an interesting insight into that side of the story. </p>