Is Amanda Knox Truly 'Fascinating?'

The only thing fascinating about her is that one will never know whether or not she killed Ms Kercher.

Only and Mez and Rude Guede know the absolutely true answer to that question. Knox was"Acquitted",as pronounced by the Court on October 3, 2011 in Perugia. How could you have missed that? That's all you need to know.

I guess that makes her fascinating? Barbara Walters seems to be an unwelcome intrusion in Knox's life.

Know was found guilty of lying about an innocent man, and served three years in prison for this. She still has to explain why. So do all the creepy old men who slobber around her pretending they mean something to her.

She's probably really pretty boring as are everybody else on the list. I find the story itself fascinating mainly in the difference of opinion of whether she is the diabolical drug fueled killer or the naive women that was in the wrong place at the wrong time. According to the Journalist/Author Barbie Nadeau "Amanda Knox is an Engima".

One incorrect fact in your story is she didn't take a shower after the police arrived. Amanda story is she took a shower around say 11 am. but the body wasn't discovered until around 1:30pm.

What is truly fascinating is how many people, many of them women, bought into this psychopathically-inspired nonsense, driven by a bull goose loony Public Prosecutor, and the psychopathic polizio-prosecutorial system he has created in Perugia over many years. His web even includes the Kercher family's lawyer Francesco Maresca, buddy of Mignini, and callous but highly effective supplementary prosecutor.

None of the things you report Amanda as doing actually happened. She was doing Yoga stretches, and the cartwheels and splits were two of many lies that the police and prosecutor used to help frame her in the public eye. She was not 'making out' but simply seeking tenderness and comfort from her then boyfriend when she discovered her friend had been murdered; and also had to face the shock that if she had been at home it would have been her as well. She was an innocent 20-year old, away from family and friends, interrogated in a language she hardly understood who had never imagined anything but good of people, and who trusted the police. In her innocence she flew straight into a trap, but that, even in Italy, is not supposed to be a crime.

I write as a retired British doctor who lives in Umbria, and who went to all but one of the appeal sessions that led to this poor girl's release after four days in prison for a crime she was framed for. Believe me, the corruption and injustice I saw, and tried to help fight, was not pretty. Amanda and Raffaele just want to be allowed to recover from 4 years of torture, so please would the press let them. Amanda (Raffaele was trapped as an incidental) does not want to be fascinating to anybody but those she loves.

If they want someone fascinating to nominate, Barbara Waters. or Chelsea Hoffman, I suggest Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini; plus the fascination of why the rest of us let him get away with it.

Let's see if Amanda Knox declines to participate in the Barbara Walters special. I'll wager she does not, and she will be rewarded with a large publishing deal in return. Incidentally Walters is breaking from her longstanding practice of not celebrating convicted criminals. Tiger Woods was excluded on this basis even though he wasn't convicted. Meanwhile it was reported yesterday that Sollecito has retained a literary agent and will be shopping a memoir of his own. Real salt-of-the-earth types, they are. I think your involvement in the Kizko case has warped your view of Knox and Sollecito. The two cases are nothing alike.

No hard questions are ever asked on "Most Fascinating People". That's why it's the perfect venue for Knox.

Chelsea
There are MANY people who believe tht Amanda is has got off lightly.

Ignore those who insist that Ms Knox is innocentl

This is an excellent piece, which rightly highlights the deep sense of suspicion in which most decent people hold Knox, a woman who was convicted of lying about an innocent man and sentenced to three years in prison.

This convicted criminal has never explained why she lied, although she originally implicated herself in the murder of Meredith Kercher, before lying through her teeth to try and distance herself for a statement she wrote in some detail, and while under no pressure whatsoever (you can read it if you Google ‘Amanda Knox note’)

It is very disturbing to read manic, insecure propagandists full of status anxiety ('I used to be a doctor...Ooohh...did I mention that I used to be a doctor? Look at me!) trying to link this case to an assault on Italy’s very liberal criminal justice system, because of their own previous problems with the law.

The biggest problem is that this system bowed down to a cynical, immoral PR campaign which lied as much as Knox. The fact that Knox has given zero interviews since she arrived in America (‘Oh, how do I explain switching my phone off? How do I explain calling mom in the middle of the night? How do I explain taking a shower in a bloody bathroom? How do I explain ‘forgetting’ where I was??!!!!) says it all…..

.

You are stating Knox's version of the interrogation as if it were fact. Ordinarily when it comes down to who do you believe, the police or the accused, the benefit of the doubt goes to the police. At least that's what happened to me when I got a ticket for speeding.

I'm guessing people accuse Knox's parents of a PR campaign because THEY HIRED A PR FIRM. Is that somehow unreasonable?

Some facts: There are lots of murderers who are middle class or higher--doctors, politicians, other respected members of society with no prior history of violence. Some more facts: The 2nd floor burglary of which Guede was suspected--never charged, mind you--was an easy climb which my elderly mom could probably do. Knox talked with Guede at least twice, at Le Chic and in the boys' flat, and according to him they greeted each other in passing a number of times. Guede's English was at least good enough to have carried on a brief conversation about Seattle. In any case Knox spoke some Italian and Sollecito spoke good English. Sollecito was fascinated with knives and with manga. By his own admission he smoked enough weed that he could hardly remember entire days. He told the police Knox was gone from 9pm-1am, and he never fully retracted this. He's a weirdo pure and simple.

If you look at the crime scene photos of the murder room, alot of the space was taken up by the bed, wardrobe, nightstand and desk. If you look at position of her body and the blood distribution it would very difficult to fit four people in the room, commit the murder and sexually assault her.

This is a legitimate argument, but the prosecution presented a scenario for how it could have happened. She was forced to the floor fairly quickly, as evidence by no blood drops above knee-level and not a lot of damage to the furniture. I still don't have a good sense for exactly what happened, but the defense scenario is definitely implausible.

Let's be honest - we just don't know whether they are guilty or innocent. To pretend, however, that the circumstances at the time were not extremely suspicious is absurd.

Lee has every right to be concerned why they turned off their phones, more importantly, why did they turn their phones back on so early next morning - when they claimed to have slept late. To claim their innocence simply because their DNA was not found in Kercher's room just doesn't stand up - Guede's DNA was only found on her crotch and wrist - not all over the place. These are the body areas where forensic police would test in a sexual assault case, the absence of Sollecito's and Knox's DNA on the body areas tested does not, of course, prove their innocence. Lest we forget Sollecito's and Knox's DNA was found on the knife, the bra clasp, in mixed blood samples, in luminol revealed bloody footprints, and there was also bloody footprint on a bath rug. The defence argued during the trial that these forensics were incorrect or contaminated.

Dana - the splits, cartwheels and kissing, are irrelevant. Knox's and Sollecito's behaviour was perhaps controversial, certainly the British and Italian young people thought it extremely strange, but it was of no consequence or importance. Lee, I would imagine, is referring to the spattered blood drops, the bloody light switch and door frame - absolutely nothing to do with the pink luminol photographs of the police.

Mr Anderson - your accusations concerning the prosecutors, lawyers, judges, and police force of Perugia are completely baseless in facts, lack even the slightest evidence, and are really quite risible. Perhaps, since you attended the trials, you could explain why Knox, Sollecito and Guede can still not supply third party witnesses or even adequate alibis. Perhaps you can explain why they all suffer from a very similar form of haziness and amnesia for that one night. Perhaps you can recite for us Knox's explanation for accusing Lumumba.

It's easy to be 100% convinced of Knox's evidence if you don't read other people's arguments carefully and misunderstand the facts. The police knew they had accidentally left the bra clasp within a few days after the murder. They just didn't think it was important to retrieve it until 47 days later. Yes it is surprising that that turned out to be the most direct evidence against Sollecito, but it happens. For instance what were the chances that Guede would leave his poop in the toilet the night of the murder, or that he would steal Meredith's wallet when it had her rent money. The footprint on the bath rug does match Sollecito. You are probably viewing the photoshopped images at IJP.

Paul said turning on the phones was relevant not turning them off. How do explain turning them on at 6:02am when they said they awoke at 10am? The cat did it?

The alleged semen stain on the pillow was discovered months later by an expert for Sollecito. It wasn't the role of the police to decide if it should be tested, it was the decision of the court. Massei obviously thought it was a fishing expedition, which it was if you think about it. What possible result would exonerate Knox and Sollecito of the murder.

Mignini felt he was complying with the law when he did not record Knox's spontaneous statement. The Supreme Court found differently and as a result the evidence was excluded. What more do you want?

Meredith's DNA may well have been on the knife. There just wasn't enough of it to satisfy the "independent experts." The Rye bread residue was near the handle and had nothing to do with the DNA.

Who cares what Barbara Walters finds interesting. I do not consider her nor the Kar-Trash-ians the least bit interesting.

I was surprised to see Ms. Knox on the list. Then again, she was prosecuted for a case in Italy she never would have gone to trial for in the US. I'm surprised though she didn't include the prosecutor, since he has such interesting satanic theories. Every case is a satanic conspiracy!

Unfortunartely psychopathy is very common (in its extreme form a conservative estimate is 1% of people), and such people tend to congregate together, especially when a primary psychopath is in a powerful position, such as a police chief or public prosecutor. What is interesting and new in this case is just how ruthlessly a psychopathic poliziojudicial system has managed to a) exploit the same tendencies in the tabloid press, b) develop into an art form hateful blogsites and anonymous bloggers such as the infamous harryrag (not you of course b-mull) and c) play upon the percieved weaknesses of normal people, that is to say their capacity to empathise with others. This capacity for empathy is one of the most important features that defines most of us as social human beings, and is abundantly apparent in both Amanda and Raffaele. In contrtast we see lack of empathy flooding out of the whole of Perugia's prosecutorial and police system, and then being cloned and copied worldwide.

This whole investigation and prosecution was performed under the direction of a man who bears the mask of sanity under the cloak of extreme medieval catholicism. And that is convenient, for you will read in the history books that the inquisition was hardly oozing with empathy. What we have seen here is nothing less than burning witches 21st century style, and it is high time normal people woke up to this.

Oh, and b-mull can you and your friends please explain in simple terms suitable for a decerebrate former scientist why DNA from semen stains on the cushion on which Meredith's body was found has not been analysed to see if it belongs to Rudy Guede or AN Other? After all, prison fellow-inmate and murderer Mario Alessi testified that Guede both told him that another man killed Meredith, and that he masturbated on her. Too complicated that for a Public Prosecutor who gets the answers by divination, and also unfortunately for inexplicable reasons for the Kercher family's caring lawyer and fellow Prosecutor Francesco Maresca. But it seems pretty obvious to me that this was a wilfull and criminally negligent omission.

As I have posted before here, I am neither what you call an "innocenter or a guilter". Frankly, none of us know. I have always kept an open mind and been prepared to grant Sollecito and Knox the benefit of the doubt. I believe strongly in the old tenet - better that a guilty person walk free than an innocent be jailed.

What irritates me is that some posters, who profess their innocence so adamantly, seek to contort the facts, invent detail, and when asked relevant questions have to reply with questions of their own! One has to ask why? Mr. Anderson your rantings and accusations against the Perugian authorities are completely unfounded - and really, quite churlish. If you were present at the court sessions, why do you not enlighten us with the evidence - instead of these generic accusations. Most people who have followed this case would like answers. Apart from the forensics and DNA, independent eye witness accounts and much circumstantial evidence, we would like to know the answers to the following four questions.

1. Why did they switch their phones back on so early in the morning - they claimed to have slept late.

2. Why did Sollecito's computer show evidence of activity so early in the morning - he claims to have slept late.

3.Why did Knox phone her family to tell them about the incident before anything had actually happened? When her mother asked her this very pertinent question in prison - why was Knox unable to answer - she claimed she was confused?

4. Why did Sollecito state in his dairy that he had accidentally pricked Meredith with the knife whilst cooking - thereby explaining her DNA on the blade. Meredith had never been to his house.

I realize these questions might be unanswerable - Knox was unable to provide adequate explanations in court. Your opinion, nevertheless, would be welcome.

None of the above, Paul Gallagher, as far as I can recall, is either relevant or correct, or depends on anything other than the untrustworthy word of the police and prosecution. By the way the so-called 'independent eye witness accounts' were without exception shown in the appeal to be unfounded. But I am glad to hear that you subscribe to the view that it is better a guilty person go free than an innocent person be jailed.

These two are and always were the most improbable of suspects; they were new lovers in the throes of a whirlwind romance - just imagine, Raffaele's first girl, and he's going to get bored overnight! Both kids have shown themselves to be way towards the extremely empathic end of normality. It is to the great credit of the Appeal Court judges and jury that they have been declared innocent 'because they did not commit the crime' (and that includes the nonsense of the alleged contrived break-in and clean-up). We will see whether the sop of Lumumba holds up on appeal; of course it should not on the grounds that the police did not record their illegal all-night interrogation under stress, in a foreign language and under sleep deprivation, with no lawyer present; anyway she rescinded next day when she had had a chance to sleep and so was no longer hallucinating. To call a psychopathic spade a spade is not churlish or irrelevant in my book. And people who accept 'confessions' of any kind obtained under the duress these kids were subjected to have not studied the extensive literature on false confessions, and how police world-wide use them illegally to get an easy conviction before a jury. That is why interrogations are supposed, even under Italian law, to be recorded; and to fail to do so means the Law has broken the law. It is also why on the UK, interrogation is not allowed during the normal hours of sleep.

The real answers relating to why such a preposterous theory was constructed have yet to come out. Certainly someone needed to cover up connections with Guede, and Mignini, as shown in the Monster of Florence/Narducci/Order of the Red Rose/cadaver swopping nonsense, has a propensity for fantastical and Satanic theories. He does not seek evidence, he constructs it. And don't YOU find it odd as well, especially since you attach importance to irrelevant and inaccurate trivia, that it was ruled unnecessary by the Prosecutor to do DNA analysis on semen stains on the cushion on which the poor murdered girl's body was found. to find out whose it was? I would have thought this was absolutely central to the proper investigation. "Might have been the boyfriend Giacomo's' was the reason given to me by one of the Kercher's lawyers when I asked her. Well, that would be easy to test were to turn out NOT to have been Guede's. Whatever the result it would have put a whole different complexion on the case. But no, we prefer the 'evidence' of a heroin-pumping tramp, found months later by a local sycophantic muck-raking journalist Fois, and then passed to Mignini on a plate. Can't even get the day right, Toto Curatolo, Mignini's star witness!

DNA on semen is called simple tell-tale forensics, and in this case, failure to test it is the grossest example of how the Prosecution and police 'experts' preferred to stick, for whatever bizarre or criminal reasons, to tittle-tattle over the tell-tale evidence. That is not ranting but simply stating the obvious.

Mr. Anderson - The questions put to you were also posed to the defendants in a court of law. They are correct and certainly not irrelevant. To argue they can be dismissed due to " corruption of the police and prosecution " is mind boggling. There may be perfectly simple and genuine explanations, confusion and the inability to remember does not necessarily confer guilt - but it does remain suspicious.

Whilst I try to keep an open mind, I am astounded as to why people who adamantly maintain their innocence need to contort and obfuscate basic facts. Dana's posts are mostly composed of issues that have been doctored or given a slight twist by various sites, from which they have undoubtedly been culled. Though her reasoning conveys a naivete and lack of understanding, her posts bear no malice. You, on the other hand, seem bent on some vile crusade against individuals who were only doing their jobs. There is not one scrap of evidence to support your accusations.
Why, one has to ask! Sollecito and Knox, if they are innocent, can certainly do without ridiculous accusations of the Perugian authorities, which only serve to make people suspicious as to your motives. I certainly feel you do them no favours.

Amanda and Raphaelle had no alibi? How does one make that conclusion? They had each other which happens to have been the EXACT SAME ALIBI that another of the roommates had. And she was not suspected, she was not fingeprinted, in fact I have read nothing that even implies that she was questionned. AK and RS also had another person yestifiy that they were at RS apartment at about the time of the murder BUT Mignini changed the time of death to later in order to make it possible for AKRS to be guilty. He even had to FIRE THE MEDICAL EXAMINER when he refused to change the time of death for him.
As for who said what - it truly depends on whom you believe. I believe Amanda whose story never changed - even regarding the Lumumba fiasco, if you read her statement you will see that she never actually said anything at all about Lumumba that wasn't couched in terms of 'I'm not sure' and 'it seems like it's a dream' and lots of other doubt-laden terms. She was ordered to imagine and she did as she was told. I believe nothing out of Mignini's mouth as he has been proven to have lied repeatedly, I believe nothing from Rudy for the same reason. Examples: Amanda was told she had AIDS by a "doctor" that Mignini sent, Mignini told the tabloids so many reputation-smearing lies that even he has lost track of what was true and what was fantasy. In fact he has even lost track of which of his lies were disproven. Rudy is a known liar and changed his story about what happened whenever it was advantageous for him to do so.

The face of a killer. The same look O.J. Simpson had several years ago. The surprise of realizing that they just got away with murder. What a wonderful world.

People believe what they want to...I believe Raffaele & Amanda are INNOCENT.