Amanda Knox makes me feel VIOLATED
(Video no longer available)
In this video, I have to ask you to put yourself in Amanda’s shoes.
Imagine you are innocent, and wrongly accused of MURDERING someone you did NOT murder.
Imagine you went to trial, were denigrated horrifically around the world, had your reputation ruined, you were found guilty of murdering someone you DID NOT MURDER and you sat in prison for four years.
Think about how you would feel…
I can be 100% confident you would be mad and angry and that you would feel extremely violated that a justice system could get things so wrong!
And I can be confident that years would not take that feeling away from you or her especially in the light that courts are now re-looking at Knox again and could lock her up.
Now watch sweet, innocent looking Amanda talk.
Listen to her words.
What do you hear?
Do you hear a victim?
I don’t.
The first thing real victims of injustice will talk about is their injustice.
Not Amanda…no, its not in her thoughts at all.
Amanda’s first comments to Robin Roberts?
“I’m so grateful to be here. I’m so grateful to have this chance and um, I really, really hope that….people will read it.”
Hmmm…she seems most concerned with getting people to read “it” her book. Wow.
Notice that she says nothing about how it feels so good to have the chance to tell people I am innocent–I am NOT guilty! Do you hear that? Or… I was wrongly accused. Nope. Nothing!!
Robin even gives Amanda another try to get it right and even focuses her. Robin says, “What is it you wanted people to hear MOST from you?”
I expect I am innocent to come blaring out of her now. Does she do it?
No.
Amanda says, “Wow. It…(sigh)…I wanted people to know who I was because I felt that I was lost in the middle of this storm…and I was taken over…and I want people to know precisely what it is I went through and precisely what I thinking at every moment and I wanted to give what I was able to get out of it.”
WOW oh WOW oh WOW.
Are you kidding me? What a bunch of nonsense!!!!
If you were wrongly convicted, would you be lost in a STORM?
Hell no. You wouldn’t be lost at all. You’d KNOW you were RAILROADED.
I can’t believe the crap she is dishing out.
I’m flabbergasted.
She goes on to say it is so important for her to be honest?
Epic fail, Amanda. Epic fail.
I do not believe Amanda now, like I didn’t before, but this time she has given me her own words and behavior to support my belief. There is not one thing Amanda did in two interviews that made me believe her for one instant. Not one.
I find Amanda to be cold, callous, deceptive, and an actress who portrays different personalities to different people–exactly as I felt before.
The sweet little Amanda we saw in court and on TV is not the same woman who her friends saw, or the people in Italy saw prior to this crime. No, this sweet woman says about Meredith to her friends after her death, “How could she not (have suffered), she got her fucking throat slashed.”
Nice girl, eh? Sweet and demure? Not.
For those who think she is sweet and innocent, this comment tells you otherwise. This is not consistent with a sweet, little demure innocent girl from Seattle. No, Amanda is smart, intelligent and far from unworldly. She is a smart cookie, no doubt, but not good at playing a victim when she is not.
I wish I had more time to write now, but I don’t. Check back for more thoughts as my time permits.
__________________________________________
Please know all people have right to disagree with my thoughts, and disagreeing thoughts are welcome. Rudeness, however, or a lack of respect will not be tolerated in comments below. Please be advised. Inappropriate behavior will be banned promptly.
Yeah, I disagree. I think it can be difficult to compare her to much else because what she went through is so unique, particularly that it happened in a foreign country. Could someone who has a form of PTSD react differently than someone who does not?
With respect to the quote about whether Meredith suffered, do we know the context of that at all? I’d need to see that in context. Did that come after hours and hours of coercive interrogation?
Also, the interview is very scripted and edited. No doubt she does want to sell books, but I don’t that makes her guilty. She is definitely bitter.
If she suffered PSTD, she should be telling you, Jeff. She’s not! She would be the first to claim it. That’s Jodi Arias’ defense— a last minute ploy to save her life. Victims who see people murdered don’t claim PSTD. This is nonsense.
She didn’t make that “f’ing” comment to police. She told it to the friends — no pressure there!
Amanda seems to be saying, “The only thing that I can give the Kerchers is ME ME ME!”.
Truly odd. Amanda never seems to have a sense of what’s going on or how she’s seen or has affected people. Even mentioning the Kerchers, let alone wanting to ask permission to visit the grave some day, is just so totally wacked. You’d think her publisher or someone would have discouraged her from saying anything like that. WTF
Well Jodi Arias is a liar. Amanda doesn’t “need” PTSD as a “defense” and probably doesn’t or wouldn’t want to admit it. If she said that it would look like she’s fishing for an excuse ala Jodi Arias. Like she’s trying to play up being a victim.
And aside from the context of the “fucking throat slashed” comment, if she was really guilty back then, and she’s smart as you say he is, why would she say something like that? I think it was more than she was frustrated and immature. All this attention suddenly thrust upon her, she was uncomfortable and acted out in unusual ways.
BTW, I do respect you EFL. I think you’re very good. But not perfect. I’m confident you got this one wrong.
What Amanda went through is not “unique.” It’s not “unique” for someone to be put on trial in a foreign country, not their own. I would say it happens quite often, here in the US.
oh no another jeff in this community!!!!!
I will be forever the jeff with no capital J 😉
When Diane asks if she killed Meredith she nods yes while saying no…
Absolutely.
Totally agree. I follow your blog and was dying to know what you thought. I only watched her on Diane Sawyer and kept waiting for that declaration of innocent but it never came.<br /><br />I also noticed when asked if she killed Meridith she said no but nodded yes. And I saw that deep gulp in her throat. <br /><br />Nope, I'm still convinced she's a liar.<br /><br />Also what bothers me
this was awesome. thank you!
I agree that I would have been proclaiming my innocence first and promote the book 2nd. At 6:37 she says “I give every answer that I can…” she again shakes her head no.
Thank you, EfL. Very interesting and I look for ward to more. 😀
She hid herself inside of herself. LOL.
I think on some level, she believes her own bullshit the same way that hucksters and snake-oil salesmen do. You see ’em on TV all the time: these so-called “psychics” who make mistakes and still manage to fill huge chasms between their “predictions” and reality by pulling some OTHER “explanation” out of their ass about what “train of thought” they were on or why their “spirit guides” thought it was important to show them total bullshit before “revealing” the truth.
She seems to have put herself in this headspace that gives plausible deniability TO HERSELF by making her own mental status a matter of ambiguity. That’s why she prefaces a lot of things with “From MY perspective” and “In MY mind” and “I don’t know exactly___ but it seemed to me that___”
That’s why she’s writing a book explaining to everyone what SHE WAS THINKING each step of the way instead of WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
Amanda talks in circles and never seems to get, even close, to making a real point. I think Amanda is putting on an act, also. I think I see a look of sadness, anger, and contempt at 07.03 when Robin is speaking of her being retried. I think it would be understandable for her to have these emotions, but she puts on a sweet, innocent act that is not real. I realize that she has to be careful about what she says due to a possible retrial, but why try to deceive every one about how she really feels? If she expressed her anger and contempt, I don’t think she could get convicted on that.
It is me! me! and more me and buy my book. She says she is trying to help by writing the book, but she is never clear about, how she is going to help, and who she is going to help. She finally talks about the Kercher family, after Robin brings them up, and she thinks her book will help them, This seems to be an afterthought to me.
Her speaking is jerky, and it doesn’t flow. A big part of this interview was rambling and unclear. Personally, I find this whole video awkward and hard to get through, and I get the sense that this interview doesn’t show the real Amanda Knox.
“I get the sense that this interview doesn’t show the real Amanda Knox.”
You definitely get that when they showed the video clip on Diane Sawyer’s interview of her and her friend video taping her talking about seeing the statue of David and how she finds naked men to be very attractive. The person you see in that video is COMPLETELY different than the person you see interviewed. There are basically no traits alike between the two other than the trait of putting on different faces for different people.
Don’t we all put on different faces for different people? How we act in an internationally televised interview regarding yourself as a murder suspect is completely different from how we would act goofing off with friends. This is much to do about nothing.
No, we don’t. Many of us do, myself included to some extent, but everyone doesn’t. The key is to notice whether a person is putting on a different face in front of a different person for a self-serving purpose or for the benefit of the other person. When I put on a “different face” in a different social context, it is for the benefit of those within that context, not myself. I never change who I am to serve myself.
For example, if you were to follow me on Facebook, you’d see an entirely different side of me there than you do here. If you were to be around me with my good friends, you’d also see an entirely different side of me there than you do here. I swear like a sailor around my closest friends at times, I never do that here. I also speak much less formally around friends or at work than I do here. Here, I maintain a more “professional” image, because I think it’s more appropriate to the context and most of the discussions that take place here. But none of those “differences” are ever self-serving, and they’re also always consistent with who I really am.
I hope that helps to clarify what I meant in my previous comment. Does it make more sense in that light?
No, it does not make more sense. In fact, you proved my point. We all act differently in different circumstances. It’s completely normal.
No, you missed what I said at the beginning. We don’t all act differently in different circumstances. There are quite a few people who act exactly the same regardless of who they’re around or what situation they’re in. They’re a minority, but they’re still a significant number. You are right that it’s completely normal for some people to act differently in different circumstances though.
One of the fundamental skills that truth wizards seem to share is an ability to identify a person’s personality just by looking at them. That’s why they’re good at spotting lies– they’re able to recognize when something is normal for one person that isn’t normal for other people.
I see the same thing Eyes sees with Amanda. She’s one of those people that a lot of people would be poor at evaluating. There are two categories of people who fall into that group. One are people who others see something as indicating something that they don’t indicate, and the other are people who others dismiss something that does indicate something. Amanda falls into the latter category if you ask me.
Who then acts the same in any circumstance as you claim? Who would carry themselves in a formal manner around friends at a party? Who are these people? Are they autistic? I think it’s beside the point. Amanda acting different in different circumstances is completely normal.
And while I do put a lot of weight on Eyes opinion, recall that she is not infallible. She has admitted to mistakes. Know that with Amanda, Eyes has not said she is a murderer, but that she feels responsibility for the murder in some way.
I find some of the things people here focus on to be irrelevant. Like the interview not showing the real Amand Knox. She was weird before she was suspected of murder. So she has odd behavior to start out with and plus she’s trying to sell a book. Who is the “real” someone anyway? You can say the same thing about people in your own life.
That’s it right there. She’s trying to sell a book. She’s been “unfairly characterized” by the world for something she says she didn’t do. She was found guilty by a biased prosecutor, had her verdict overturned and was freed but now faces another trial and prison once again, and she’s selling a book rather than proclaiming her innocence. That goes well beyond “odd” behavior or feeling responsible for a murder she didn’t have anything to do with.
Anyway, I don’t expect I’ll convince you that there’s more to it than what you’re seeing, but that’s OK. It’s not in either of our hands. I don’t know if she’s guilty of anything other than looking bad, but I’m 100% convinced she isn’t and hasn’t been honest about the case. I’d like to know what the truth really is, but we’re not always so privileged.
Perhaps you are splitting hairs. Yes, she has a book to sell but I don’t think that makes her someone who is not themselves. It just makes them a salesman.
At least one thing we can agree on is that she has lots of weird behaviors, mannerisms, and hot spots. She seems to answer questions in ways that don’t necessarily support innocence. Yet there is a lot of evidence that proves Rudy is the murderer and none that implicate her or Solicieto. The saga continues…
I know I posted this elsewhere, but I also wanted to post it here:
I believe Eyes, that what you see in her Sawyer interview is accurate. I
see a lot of it myself. However, what I’m having trouble with is
squaring it with what seems like the only two possible scenarios:
1. She took part in the actual murder
2. She was at the house, but did not take part in the murder
Even though Amanda is lying, how could she be involved in #1?
How do you get no DNA, no hair fibers, no iota of anything, NOTHING,
in the KILL ZONE (please don’t bring up the bathroom at this point), I’m
talking about the kill zone. This is where an epic struggle for life or
death went down. How do you have NOTHING? I don’t care if she’s lying
all day long and you spot every deception, how do you have NOTHING in the KILL ZONE? Which to me means I still believe she’s lying, but not
about #1.
Even though Amanda is lying, how could she be involved in #2.
How do you have a career criminal like Rudy, who while on the run in
Germany, confesses during a secretly taped Skype conversation with his friend, Giacomo Benedetti (while police listened in) that Amanda was not there? He didn’t even mention Raffael at that time. Doesn’t Guede
strike you as a person who would turn in his own mother to save himself,
much less some stranger he barely or doesn’t even know? Which to me
means I still believe she’s lying, but not about #2.
I see her in the interview myself answering “no” and shaking her head
“yes”. CLASSIC, TEXT BOOK. I get it!! But how can these
contradictions above put her in the house, let alone the room?
I concur that she’s not telling us “everything she knows”, but I
can’t find a way to have “not telling us everything she knows” and even
lying, put her in either #1 or #2, “in the house” or “in the room”. Do
you see my point?
Yes, I do see your point. We are saying similar things.
Mark — I can understand it is hard to see the contradiction in Amanda’s behavior. It’s hard for me to explain right now, but think of Jodi Arias. They are very similar in their behavior. Portray a sweet, meek mouse, but boy when no one is looking, watch your back–the foul mouth beast comes out and behaves very differently.
Eyes, I wonder if part of what you’re seeing is that they are too meek, too sweet… it’s a sweetness that has a fake feel to it because it’s so excessive. (Watching Jodi Arias, I almost wanted to say, “Are you seriously going to whisper throughout your entire trial?”) They already seem phony but when we get glimpses of the beast underneath… that REALLY makes our skin crawl. IMO, what distinguishes this is that it’s much more extreme than the normal way people behave differently around different people, for instance: polite and composed to a teacher or minister, raucous around peers.
I dated someone once who was excessively polite, even rather old-fashioned. What could be wrong with that, right? However, sure enough, the foul mouthed beast that exploded out of him was so different… cursing like a sailor, terrible grammar, even a different accent! The creepiest thing was the huge discrepancy between his 2 sides.
It makes them seem like they have something to hide and people with something to hide are dangerous.
I just know a person’s real demeanor by their facial features, and the clues they leak that the sweet is inconsistent. With Amanda Knox when we see her videos of life prior to this, there is no meek nothing.
Ah, I see what you’re saying. Thanks for the reply, Eyes!
Pardon my verbosity, please? Also, this is a wickedly belated comment (but the re-re-trial results came out this week–Feb ’14–& wanted to see what you & readers had to say).
Anyway, ’til now I’ve merely read your posts; had no idea what I was missing in Comments sections. The heated, yet well-referenced & never *quite* ad hominem debates are remarkably informative & well-written.
Am now eager to visit comments re Jodi Arias (a near-obsession due to her tireless ability to lie). Was hooked by her police interrogation tapes: the impossibly patient cop, her ever-flexible tales, & the climax in which she adamantly refused to accept incontrovertible proof that she’d been lying throughout the (incredibly skillful) interrogations. What student of human nature could not be fascinated by the real-time unfolding of Jody’s hubris, & her adamant refusal to tell the truth?
Re Amanda, while it’s unlikely she had direct involvement in her roomie’s demise, the young lady is clearly a bald-faced liar (‘Prison Diary’ vs ‘Memoir,’ anyone??). For me, her most interesting statement was that she hid her head under her pillow to block Meredith’s screams (since when is being 20 an exculpation for such a chilling (in)action???). Still; she & Solecito seem to lack any motive, despite juicy tabeloid suggestions.
Yet… between the ‘pulling pillow over her ears’ claim; the Book/diary/interviews, &c; she does emit the vibe of a sociopath &/or someone operating w/a fairly serious narcissictic personality disorder. Nonetheless, unless others suffer crimial harm, there’s no law against being a gross human being….
Really. You’re being very disrespectful to Eyes.
I really don’t feel that I am. I am disagreeing with her, but not in a disrespectful way. If she feels otherwise, she is welcome to let me know.
We know the forensics team was called out for poor practices. That wasn’t disputed. So the fact they couldn’t get her DNA is not an issue for me for or against her. It’s neutral. The fact that she lived in that house, I would actually not be surprised if they got her DNA innocently.
Amanda could feel that she is responsible because she didn’t get help, held Meredith down, hit her, pushed her–who knows what. There are many things a person can do that wouldn’t leave DNA at a crime scene, but where they were still involved and feel responsible.
I think Guede was Amanda’s drug supplier, personally, and for all we know he was high and she was high. Maybe they got high together that night and that is how this all started? They both may have had fogged brains from drugs. Both are known to do drugs. Both may have skewed their memories, so whatever they say is unreliable. I don’t trust either of them. There are many scenarios that can explain the situation…
The only scenario that explains the situation is that Guide committed the crime, and he alone. The fact that Amanda was high on the night of the murder may explain some of her uneasiness with the situation. She might not remember exactly what she did that night. But she certainly didn’t participate in her roommate’s murder.
I can’t let that lie go unchallenged, Mark.There is plentiful evidence that convicted all three. This is no place and no time for more Knox promotion. Enough already. http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php
Mark H
I’m glad you pointed out what I felt whenever I saw Amanda, Pre/Post Italy. She was always weird. Always odd. Always couldn’t finish a sentence. Always sounded like she was caught between a mystical pot induced haze and not hearing the question.
In fact, that’s exactly what helped me excuse her for so long, and think she was innocent when everyone else was pointing to her odd behaviors as proof of guilt. I was like if I only were privy to Amanda’s answers, I wouldn’t be able to tell who had posed the question, a prosecutor or her mother.
Very confounding to say the least.
I don’t think Amanda was every weird or odd. I saw her as quite social, able to get along well with people, popular, etc and that is exactly how Amanda was described by her friends!! Amanda calls herself “quirky”. She knows there is something off about herself.
I don’t think anyone who doesn’t date until age 19 would normally be called “popular”. Accepted maybe, popular no. But that’s just semantics.
I do think that the face Amanda is presenting the world now is a little bit of a put on. Why? Because she was completely open and honest during the first few days of the original interrogation process, and look what that got her. Of course she is presenting herself in a different way now. She is one of those people who don’t process things the same way you or I do when it comes to social cues and norms, so if she was completely open and honest now, it would probably look bad for her and she knows it. So she tries to present the face she believes others expect. She’s not a great actress, and she’s probably not a very likeable person, but she’s also not a killer. Comparing her to Arias’ might have some value, as their underlying mental issues might actually be somewhat similar. The difference is that Arias actually killed someone, and Knox didn’t.
Take the example of the insensitive comment she made about how it wasn’t possible that Meredith did not feel pain . 95% of us think about that for a split second, but very few of us would actually say it. Knox has a long history of saying and doing things that make others uncomfortable because things simply don’t register as wrong to her the way they do to the majority of people. She has to actively think about how others will perceive her actions, where others do this on an instinctive level. If it’s a situation she is familiar with, she has probably already learned what is acceptable. If it is something new, like say your roommate getting murdered, then she is in virgin territory and is likely to say and do some weird things. Which is exactly what she did.
One thing is for certain. Amanda Knox is 4 Million dollars richer due to the advance she got from Harper Collins. I didn’t believe her ever since she falsely accused her boss Patrick Lumumba in her confession. It showed she knew there was a black man there, so she must have been there, too. And if she had such warm feelings toward Meredith, why did she not attend the memorial for Meredith? (instead allegedly spotted shopping for lingerie with Raffaele and discussing what great sex they were going to have) The cops say they found her with a mop and bucket when they arrived at the residence after finding Meredith’s cell phones and another witness testified Amanda bought bleach that day, too.
Mary Massie,
If I believed that Amanda is guilty, I’d be enraged that she was getting a single dollar, let alone $4 million. I don’t know if this info will temper your feelings but here it is:
$3.8 million dollar book deal
$1.9 million goes to taxes??
$1.5 million goes to pay her dad and legal bills
$100,000 to her grandmother for pulling out her ‘retirement’ account
That leaves her with $300,000.
If Amanda killed Meredith, it’s 300K too much.
If Amanda’s innocent, they couldn’t pay me enough to spend 4 years in a foreign prison with no hope.
She was found guilty unanimously on the evidence, not cartwheels, not for being quirky or American.
bucketoftea,
I think you were sure of her guilt EVEN BEFORE this recent ruling ordering a new trial.
Apparently letting her out of prison, not to mention out of the country for the last year hadn’t influenced your thought process much.
Yes. And it’s not a new trial. It’s a repeat of the second level…the automatic appeal.
bucketoftea,
I’m sorry for not being clear. I had understood this phrase to mean that you were basing guilt or innocence on what the Italian courts determined, not your own opinion despite what the courts said.
“She was found guilty unanimously on the evidence”
Because if you were truly basing your belief on what the courts said, then for the last X months of Amanda’s freedom decided during LEVEL 2, you would be quoting the “unanimous” decision from the trial that “unanimously let her go”
But clearly, you’ve believed in her guilt all along, even though you claim it’s only based on the courts.
In other words, if the next outcome is that they find her innocent, you’ll still believe she’s guilty.
Oh wait, let me guess, this is my fantasy version, and only your reply will bless us with reality.
Mary Massie,
I too, see Amanda as self absorbed and NOT warm. However, she is smart (Eyes said so–and even if she weren’t the following would only require common sense anyhow).
Here’s what I would do if I were smart, and I had just killed someone.
I would feign sorrow
I would fake sympathy
I would pretend to cry in front of all the right people
I would have a tissue with me and hide my face so they couldn’t see that the tears I was wiping were actually missing
I would do a hundred things to throw off suspicion
Here’s what I as a smart and GUILTY person, would NOT do:
Act insensitive
Not attend the memorial
Exchange kisses at the murder scene
Do cartwheels
Sit on my boyfriend’s lap at headquarters
Remain in Italy and help the Italian police
The fact that she acted insensitive and kissed and did the splits only contributed to me thinking she had to be innocent–a guilty person would not risk such behaviors. Would you?
I totally agree with you.
I don’t think that someone like Amanda knows how to fake sorrow, etc. I think that’s why we thinks she’s off — she’s trying but doesn’t really
‘get it’.
People who suffer from antisocial disorders THINK they are acting sad, sorrowful, etc. Amanda TRIED, but she failed because she has no real understanding of the emotion of empathy.
That doesn’t mean she was involved. It just means she is not emotionally normal. A person who is emotionally challenged, when thrust into a situation like this one, is going to fail miserably. It doesn’t mean that they were anything other than present though.
Interesting, I hadn’t thought of that, that she WAS trying, but failing miserably. I’ll have to ponder that one. But all I can think of is sticking her tongue out and making faces with Raffael … presumably reflected back to her while sitting on his lap in the police station.
Sticking your tongue out seems so far off from something that even in her mind could pass as ‘trying to act sad’ though. And if Raffael did it back to her, then he’s got antisocial disorder too I suppose.
I mean Jodi Arias seemed pretty good at behaving correctly a lot of the time, sent flowers to the grandmother, etc. But her borderline personality might not qualify as an antisocial disorder.
Where The Truth Lies-You did not answer the part of my post about why Amanda Knox accused her boss Patrick Lumumba in her confession. Why did she go on to say she had communication with him and met him at 9 p.m.? Why did she say Patrick went into Meredith’s bedroom with Meredith? What are the chances Rudy Guede would later fit this pattern while Lumumba had solid alibis? What are the chances of someone making up a scenario that so conveniently fit another black man? I mean really, she can’t tell the difference between two black men, one of them her boss? I agree with Eyes. I think Rudy was her drug dealer. As to the other parts of my post I clearly stated they were “alleged” and what the cops said. http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?=9173&sid=69c74f2bc497864ea45932351e25c106#p9173.
Well, a lot of the things that you seem to think were so coincidental were things that Amanda already knew because she was present when the body was discovered. She knew the crime took place in Meredith’s bedroom.
I think the reason she implicated Lumumba was because she had already been asked numerous questions about him. They knew she had been in communication with him that night, and they probably suspected Lumumba as the actual killer themselves. Knox picked up on that, and when she broke, she chose him as a scapegoat because she thought the police would believe that story. She was right, they believed it. The fact that Guide also happened to be black was pure coincidence.
Mary Massie,
Sorry I missed that part. These are not my words, but this is my belief about how Lumumba (another black man) became falsely accused. It’s obviously taken from a ProAmanda website (http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheInterrogation.html), so I’m sure there are objections, but nonetheless, this is what I have believed for a couple years. I’m just starting to read Eyes’ comments about Amanda, and since I believe Eyes’ track record, I’m having to reexamine my beliefs. But I’ve believed my beliefs for 2 years longer than I’ve heard Eyes’ new comments. What makes this more believable, despite all of Amanda’s lies, is that:
The police have no recording of the interrogation–why is that?
A reporter barely made it out with his life when falsely accused and illegally interrogated by Mignini – the monster of Florence (so it’s not far fetched at all that this type of interrogation was used against Amanda–it’s my understanding that this type even happened to Lumumba)
But here it is:
The police took a text message on Amanda’s phone out of context. The text from Amanda to Patrick, “see you later” was taken literally by investigators. In the US, this phrase, in the context that it was written, simply means goodbye. The police told Amanda the text meant
that she planned on meeting Patrick on the night of the murder. The
police also left out the second part of the message, “good night.” When
you put the phrase together, it explains the meaning even more clearly.
Amanda had no intention of meeting Patrick that night. She was simply
saying goodbye to Patrick in the text.
The interrogators told Amanda to imagine she was at the cottage. She was told to imagine that Patrick committed the crime. None of it seemed
possible to Amanda. She tried to explain to the police that none of what
they were saying made any sense. She knew that she was not at the
cottage at the time of the murder. She had repeatedly told the
interrogators the truth and now they wanted her to imagine something
completely different.
The interrogators kept telling her over and over again to imagine that she was there. When she still could not imagine what they were saying, she was slapped across the back of her head.
Once again she was told to imagine that she was there. She still could not do it. She knew what they were telling her was simply not true. She was scared and confused. After many hours of interrogation, with nothing to drink, exhaustion started kicking in. Amanda was trying to remember, she was trying to help but it just did not seem possible.
Then came another slap across the back of her head! You stupid liar! You were in the cottage! You will spend 30 years in prison! You are
protecting a murderer! You will never see your family again! You will
imagine that this happened!
This abuse went on for hours until Amanda was finally broken. She was
desperate to end the questioning. She was extremely confused and she
could not take anymore abuse.
Suffering from extreme exhaustion with no food nor water, after a long and grueling interrogation, twenty year old college student Amanda Knox gave in to the interrogators demands by describing an imaginary dream or vision. In this vision, she was in the kitchen covering her ears to block out screams while the man she worked for, Patrick Lumumba, was in Meredith’s bedroom.
This so called confession was typed out by the police. The confession was not written by Amanda Knox. At least 12* members of the police force interrogated Amanda. Why was it necessary for 12 people to interrogate a 20 year old female college student?
Mary Massie,
I had understood your use of “alleged” to apply only to “shopping”:
“… (instead allegedly spotted shopping for lingerie with Raffaele and discussing what great sex they were going to have)”
Mary Massie,
I find the bleach story very hard to believe. Please let me know why you think it’s plausible.
How could anyone hope to even FIND let alone CLEAN UP their DNA in a murder scene like this?
How do you go into a room filled with blood, hair fibers, saliva, dna, and hope to identify that “that spot over there is mine”, “nope, that one’s yours Raffael”, “oh, don’t forget the one over there on the wall”, “oh no, that’s Rudy’s, I can tell from here, don’t clean that one”.
Here’s a blog about it–believe it or not–but it might suggest how “the bleach” got into the consciousness of the public:
“Lie-Amanda Knox was seen waiting at the store the morning after Meredith was murdered, waiting to buy bleach. It was widely reported that the authorities had bleach receipts proving that Amanda purchased bleach. On November 19, 2007, Richard Owen reported for the UK Times that police had found receipts showing purchases of bleach on the morning after the murder. The information was specific: one alleged purchase was made at 8:30, and a second was made at 9:15. No receipts were ever found. Then, in a November 25, 2007, report, Owen quoted an apparently official
source as saying that the entire cottage, except for Meredith’s room and
the bathroom she shared with Amanda, had been “thoroughly cleaned with bleach.”
It was reported that Amanda and Raffaele were caught by surprise that morning standing on the porch of the cottage with a mop bucket and bleach when the Postal Police arrived.
Truth
– Amanda never purchased bleach. No receipts were ever presented at trial. Amanda and Raffaele weren’t caught by surprise. In fact, Raffaele had already called the police to report a possible break in. The mop bucket at the cottage was investigated and no evidence was ever presented in regard to any mop bucket. This story was told around the world. This lie is still being told. On December 10, 2009, Anne Coulter
repeated this lie on the O’Reilly Factor.
There have also been reports that Raffaele purchased bleach and that receipts were found in his apartment showing proof of this purchase. Once again, this is simply not true. Raffaele’s apartment was thoroughly searched. Receipts were found in his apartment but none of the receipts indicated a purchase of bleach. The police took video of the receipts that were found.
The prosecution presented no evidence at trial that anyone cleaned the cottage with bleach, Bloody footprints from Rudy Guede’s shoes are seen going down the hall and right out the front door. How could Amanda and Raffaele clean the floor with bleach, removing all of the evidence that pointed at them while leaving all of the evidence that pointed to Guede completely untouched? This theory is simply nonsense.
I don’t believe anyone cleaned up. I think the forensics team was shown to have done a poor job so looking for DNA. Amanda Knox lived in that apartment. I expected they would find her DNA regardless, and they didn’t. That says a lot. I also don’t dispute Rudy was the major offender in this case. They did get his DNA because it was so ample.
I’ve always wondered about that — how can her DNA NOT be found? She lived there!
Amanda’s DNA was not found in Meredith’s bedroom which is where the attack occurred. Amanda’s DNA was found in the bathroom which is to be expected since she lived there.
An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. Professor Novelli pointed out there’s more likelihood of meteorite striking the courtroom in Perguia than there is of the bra clasp being contaminated by dust.
The bra clasp. You mean the bra clasp that was moved around the crime scene several times. The same bra clasp that wasn’t collected until several months after the murder. Again, this “evidence” was contaminated and should have never been admitted in court. To downplay the likelihood of this cross contamination as though it would be from dust is irresponsible.
If we are offering expert opinions then what do you make of the appeal judge’s comments when he threw out the convictions:
In an official statement of their grounds for overturning the convictions the judges wrote there was a “material non-existence” of evidence to support the guilty verdicts. The judges further stated that the prosecution’s theory of an association between Sollecito, Knox and Guede was “not corroborated by any evidence” and “far from probable”.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher
The fact the bra clasp wasn’t collected immediately is irrelevant. People such as Ronald Castree and David Burgess were convicted of murders many years after they had been committed on the strength of DNA evidence. These cases put the six-week delay into perspective. The bra clasp wasn’t placed where it was originally found. That doesn’t explain how an abundant amount of Sollecito’s ended up on the exact part of Meredith’s bra that had been bent out of shape during the attack. Sollecito never claimed he had been in Meredith’s room, so why would his DNA have been there?
“Sollecito never claimed he had been in Meredith’s room, so why would his DNA have been there?”
Easy. Cross contamination.
What was the source for Sollecito’s DNA?
Professor Novelli also pointed out that contamination has to be proved:
“The contaminant must be demonstrated, where it originated from and where it is. The hook contaminated by dust? It’s more likely for a meteorite to fall and bring this court down to the ground.”
I addressed your dust assertion earlier.
Sollecito could have come from himself or even Amanda as they were sexually active.
You also asserted there was an “abundance” of Sollecito’s DNA on the clasp yet there was not enough DNA to retest it later. I’d like to see the source for this “abundance” of DNA because it characterizes it in such a way that contamination would be unlikely.
You need to explain how Sollecito’s DNA ended up on Meredith’s bra clasp. Are you claiming that his DNA floated on a speck of dust and landed with laser-like precision on the exact part of Meredith’s bra clasp that was bent out of shape during the attack?
The bra clasp had rusted which made it impossible to perform a new test.
harryrag, I think you didn’t read my post earlier. That is exactly what I was not asserting but someone else did in an effort to discredit in reader’s minds the idea that Sollecito’s DNA got on the claps by any means other that participation in the murder. You know I already stated that it got there by cross contamination yet you ask if I believe it got there by dust. Please don’t pull that with me.
In other words, you can’t provide a plausible innocent explanation for the abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA that was found on the exact part of Meredith’s bra clasp which had been bent out of shape during the attack.
You keep ignoring my arguments and reiterate your own that I have challenged. I’m finished arguing with you.
You still haven’t provided a plausible an innocent explanation for the abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA that was found on he exact part of Meredith’s bra clasp which had been bent out of shape during the attack. Don”t worry about this – the defence lawyers couldn’t provide one either.
harryrag,
Arguing contamination vs. not demonstrated reminds me of the cowboys in the movie “Blazing Saddles” being impeded by a 20 foot wide toll booth erected in the middle of this big wide prairie.
youtube.com/watch?v=SbWg-mozGsU
Instead of just going around the booth, they, in their tunnel vision (it’s a comedy) have to ride all the way back to town to get some dimes to put in the toll booth … when they could just as easily ride their horses 10 feet to the right or left, and continue on their way in the wide open lone prairie.
Here you are at the toll booth, arguing about contamination or not, of a SINGLE article with DNA evidence. Let me say that again, THE ONLY article in the entire room.
And you’re missing out on just riding around the toll booth to an entire prairie of conflicting evidence.
You’re missing out on the fact that there was this epic life and death struggle in a small space, knives flying, hands clawing and defending, hair being grabbed, blood splattering … and Raffaele’s DNA is NO WHERE ELSE in this entire kill zone.
Hmmmm, after watching the forensic evidence gathering video, I think it would be best to rule out contamination and instead place Raffaele at the crime scene, sound good Professor?
Maybe it would be better if a meteorite DID bring the court down to the ground.
How do you know when the bra clasp was bent out of shape?
It’s the assumptions that make it impossible for anyone to objectively look at the evidence.
@Tarthulhu,
I haven’t made any assumptions. I’ve simply read the official court documents.
“The exam showed a positive genetic result for human blood on trace A and the profile of the victim. On trace B, from the clasp, a mixed genetic profile was found: the victim plus Sollecito and that result was further confirmed by the Y profile of Raffaele Sollecito, also found on the hooks.
The biological nature of this trace, she specified, was not blood (“the hooks presumably have epithelial cells”) and one of the two hooks was particularly bent out of shape (page 100 of the transcript)”. (The Massei report, pages 197-8).
Nowhere in that does it say the clasp was bent out of shape during the attack. That was a conclusion you jumped to.
Thank you for proving my point.
“The cutting of the piece of bra on which the clasps were to be found, one of them resulting in being bent, a clean cut that appears to have been done with a cutting implement, requires a further consideration: whoever was eagerly forcing the clasps, being unable to unclasp the bra and only to bend and deform one of the [400] clasps, decided to cut the bra so that, in fact, it resulted in being cut right next to the clasps.” The Massei report, page 373).
And again, imagining how something may have happened does not prove that is how things happened. The facts are: 1) The bra was cut in several locations, and 2) The clasp was bent. Someone who was not standing right there watching does not /know/ how it happened. They are making assumptions.
Harry Rag,
“I haven’t made any assumptions. I’ve simply read the official court documents.”
You must be referring to the court documents that didn’t let out of jail and then out of the country.
From the reports I read this is simply false. The amount of sollecito’s DNA found on the bra clasp was sufficiently small to have come from washing clothes in the same washing machine, which was apparently a routine occurrence in the home due to the fact that they had numerous people living there and had to share the facilities.
Please cite some credible sources to support your claim.
Thanks in advance.
I have not yet found the specific article I read at around the time of the acquittal. It’s obviously not still in my browsing history. I will keep looking for it. In the mean-time, here is what one of the experts who testified in the case had to say.
“What (the Italian forensic experts) found was that the knife recovered from Raffaele’s apartment not only did not have traces of human blood, but it had not been cleaned in the way the prosecution said. They had said that Amanda bleached the knife. Instead, what experts appointed by the judge said was that the blade had potato starch on it. It was a typical kitchen knife. It was found in a kitchen drawer with other knifes. It wasn’t well cleaned and it wasn’t used as a murder weapon.”
The Italian prosecutors used a DNA detection limit far below that of the independent U.S. experts or the FBI in determining the presence of blood DNA on the blade, Hampikian said, which made contamination a much more likely source of the genetic material.
The second piece of evidence was Kercher’s bra clasp that allegedly had Sollecito’s DNA but was inconclusive, according to Hampikian. Police investigators found no DNA from Sollecito or Knox on the rest of the bra, other items of Kercher’s clothing, objects collected from Kercher’s room, or in samples from her body. However they did find large amounts of DNA from Rudy Guede, a drifter from the Ivory Coast who was separately convicted of Kercher’s murder and is serving 16 years in prison.”
The original forensics team literally confused potato starch with blood residue. Think about that for a moment. Let it sink in.
Numerous claims that the prosecution made which were used to convict Knox and Sollecito have been proven to be absolutely untrue. Fabricated in point of fact. They lied about nearly everything associated with the case. To my way of thinking, if they would lie about everything else, what would stop them from lying about the DNA evidence, or faking it when they needed something to prove a case for which they had no evidence? It’s actually far more plausible that a prosecutor with direct access to evidence and a history of inventing satanic conspiracies deliberately tampered with the evidence than it is that Knox and Sollecito had anything to do with Meredith Kercher’s murder.
I feel so sorry for Kercher’s family. They will never feel like they have justice for their daughter, even though they already have the murderer behind bars. The Italians gave the murderer leniency in exchange for a false implication against 2 innocent people. That at a minimum should be reversed from how it currently stands.
@Alan
Comodi said that the gloves used by the forensic police contain starch and this explains why starch was found on the knife.
Three facts worth highlights are:
1. Greg Hampikian admits that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of the knife.
2. Greg Hampikian admits that Sollecito’s DNA was on the bra clasp.
3. Greg Hampikian has been unable to prove there was any contamination.
Incidentally, large amounts of Guede’s DNA were not found at the crime scene. Have you noticed that the people who claim this never specify how many samples of Guede’s DNA were found at the cottage? There were five instances of his DNA at the cottage.
The knife from Sollecito’s apartment is almost universally rejected as the actual murder weapon. It almost certainly doesn’t match the wounds on the body(the judge inexplicably denied defense requests to have the knife forensically compared to the wounds, but experts in the field say it can be ruled out from photos alone) and it doesn’t even remotely match the imprint left in blood when Guede put the actual murder weapon down on Kircher’s bedspread. It does however match the description of a knife Rudy Geude stole from another residence shortly before the murder. A residence he threw a rock through the second floor window to gain access to by the way. Sound familiar?
The defense admission that Kercher’s DNA was found on the knife says nothing about how it was found there. It’s simply an acknowledgement of the facts of the case as determined by the judge in the original trial.
This is also the same knife that sat in the lead prosecutor’s desk drawer for weeks without being bagged or forensically protected before it was tested, an extraordinarily large breach of forensic procedure and chain of custody protocols. That alone makes any forensic evidence recovered from it clearly inadmissible in the vast majority of justice systems worldwide.
As for the starch from the gloves, if they were using these gloves everywhere, then why did starch only turn up on the knife, and why is it specifically referenced as potato starch?
Bottom line, that knife is not the murder weapon. The murder weapon is probably at the bottom of a river in Germany, where Guede dumped it.
Amanda Knox’s blood was found mingled with Meredith’s blood in the bathroom. This means they were both bleeding at the same time.
This is a false claim that has been discredited. There is no way to establish a time-line for that. The actual evidence simply means Knox and Kercher’s DNA were collected on the same sample media. Nothing more. The claim that both of their blood was intermingled is blatant speculation. While it is a possible explanation of the evidence, there is simply no way to establish that the Knox DNA came from blood for one thing, nor when it was deposited for another. The only thing the evidence can actually tell you is that at least one of the samples came from blood, and there were two DNA profiles in that location. There is nothing to prove that Knox’s DNA was in the form of blood, nor anything to prove the time it was deposited.
The much more plausible explanation is that Kercher’s blood was deposited onto a surface that already had Knox’s DNA on it, such as a tap handle for the sink, which is a place you would naturally expect to find Knox’s DNA. Kercher’s blood was all over the place after all. The fact that no wounds were documented on Knox is further proof that this claim is in fact a false claim, like virtually all of the claims made by the prosecution. It’s not so amazing that the prosecution made ridiculous claims. It is amazing that the judge allowed them to stand and denied the defenses attempts to challenge them.
Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells were murdered at Ian Huntley’s house in Soham, England. He admitted that they there were in his house and they had died there. However, the police didn’t find a single trace of the two girls. According to the logic of Curt Knox, Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells couldn’t have been at Ian Huntley’s house because there was no trace of them there. This is simple-minded reasoning and and it doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny.
You say Amanda’s DNA was not found and that says a lot. Do you mean it was not found in the bedroom where Meredith was murdered? That is true, it was not found there, which is consistent with her not being directly involved at the least and possibly not involved at all. What do you assert it says?
My understanding is her DNA was found in the bathroom. That we can expect since she lived there.
@Mark,
According to the prosecution’s experts, there were five instances of Knox’s DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. Even Amanda Knox’s lawyers conceded that her blood had mingled with Meredith’s blood. In other words, Meredith and Amanda Knox were both bleeding at the same time. DNA expert Luciano Garofano explained why he could tell Knox was bleeding in Darkness Descending:
“However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA. In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda’s DNA than Meredith’s. Amanda has been bleeding.” (Luciano Garafano, Darkness Descending, page 371).
“Let’s say the assassin used the basin and bidet to wash the knife: if you look at the electropherograms you’ll see that there seems to be more of Amanda Knox’s blood than Meredith’s. There is a copious blood loss by Amanda.” (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending, page 374).
I have watched the video of the forensics people obtaining the samples and it is horrifically shoddy work. They literally take the swab and dab it in multiple places multiple times, thereby guaranteeing cross-contamination. They never change gloves which also likely causes cross-contamination between samples. The forensic work was botched in such a horrible way that it is unreliable. Considering this collection method it’s no surprise that Amanda’s DNA was intermixed with blood. Given that your assertion (and Garofano’s) is based on this contaminated evidence I consider it completely unreliable.
It’s critical that Amanda’s DNA was NOT found at the murder scene which is in the bedroom.
Also, I looked up RFU and it is simply a measure of how florescent a sample is and by extension how valid a DNA sample is. It has nothing to do with blood specifically. IOW you can’t tell whether a DNA sample came from blood, semen, saliva, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFU_peak
@Mark,
None of the defence experts were able to prove there had been any contamination.
Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it doesn’t exist.
It is clear that Amanda Knox was bleeding on the night of the murder because her blood was on the tap of the basin in the bathroom.
“…a sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox…” (The Massei report, page 192).
Of course it’s not possible to prove there was contamination. Once the samples intermingled there is no unmixing them. It’s not possible to determine. However, you can see from the video that they fail to follow basic forensic collection methods and reasonably deduce that contamination is likely.
What collection methods are you referring to? DNA protocols vary from country to country.
It should be noted that the Italian Scientific Police follow the guidelines of the ENFSI – European Network Forensic Science Institutes. Dr. Stefanoni observed that they followed these specific guidelines whereas Conti and Vecchiotti basically picked and mixed a random selection of international opinions:
“We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions”.
So what? It doesn’t mean there wasn’t contamination. It means their collection methods must improve.
There was no proof of contamination.
Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the Scientific Police, independently reviewed the forensic investigation and findings in 2008. He confirmed that the forensic findings were accurate and reliable and praised the work of Dr. Stefanoni and her team:
“We are confirming the reliability of the information collected from the scene of the crime and at the same time, the professionalism and excellence of our work.”
It’s not something that would be easy to prove. I think it’s impossible to prove given the circumstances. I also believe it’s likely to have occurred. Again, considering the botched evidence collection it’s the most likely explanation by far.
Let me ask you harryrag. Do you believe the evidence collection was “excellent”?
Dr. Renato Biondo is the head of the DNA Unit of the Scientific Police. I trust his expert opinion.
Harry,
I like the idea that you are entrusting your conclusion to the testimony of an EXPERT’S opinion, Biondo.
If being an expert is the criteria you use to put trust in an opinion, what is it that compels you to not trust the following EXPERT’S opinion: the ones with the 11 letter title in front of their names …. the INDEPENDENT experts who said the dna collection was a disgrace?
Conti and Vecchiotti didn’t visit the laboratories of the scientific police or ask about their cleaning procedures. They didn’t know that the negative tests had been filed with another judge. They didn’t know that Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA or that she last handled Sollecito’s DNA 12 days before she analysed the bra clasp. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory. Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment, so contamination away from the laboratory was impossible.
Galati made the following common sense observation in his appeal:
“It is evident that the “non-exclusion” of the occurrence of a certain phenomenon is not equivalent to affirming its occurrence, nor even that the probability that it did occur.” (The Galati appeal, page 57).
He goes on to explain that unless there is proof of contamination of the knife and bra clasp, you can’t simply claim there was in order to nullify this evidence:
“…if one is not able to [67] affirm where, how and when they would have happened, they cannot enter into a logical-juridical reasoning aimed at nullifying elements already acquired, above all if scientific in nature.” (p57).
Conti and Vechiotti regarded the downstairs flat as part of the crime scene even though no crime was committed there.
Worst of all, they didn’t carry out a new test on the knife despite the fact they were specifically instructed to do so and there are a number of laboratories that have the technology to carry out a test on the remaining the DNA.
Incidentally, Vechiotti was appointed by a judge at the Cosenza court and the judge didn’t accept her findings. Other experts were appointed and they found incriminating DNA evidence that she had missed. The suspect admitted his guilt.
Harry,
I see and have read Biondo’s statement, and I’m trying to match it up with what I saw with my own eyes: the forensics team playing field hockey with the bra clasp after handing it off one to another with dirty gloves.
I’m more compelled by the video than by what I’m assuming is one of Mignini’s minions.
Nobody played field hockey with the bra clasp. Please stick to facts. If the bra clasp was a bit dusty or dirty, it’s understandable that the some dust and dirt would be transferred onto the glove. Sollecito never claimed he had been in Meredith’s room, so it’s impossible that an abundant amount of his DNA just happened to be on the floor of her room.
The work of the Scientific Police led to the release of Diya Lumumba. They don’t blindly agree with the prosecutors.
Harry,
Here’s two scenarios:
1. NO DNA of Amanda in the room of the murder
2. A small dot of blood in the bathroom
To me it seems like you are ignoring #1 while focusing on #2. And somehow #2 makes Amanda’s involvement in the murder possible, but #1 doesn’t hold any weight.
Am I perceiving your take on this correctly?
There was no DNA of Rudy Guede in Filomena’s room or the blood-spattered bathroom. Does this mean he couldn’t have been in either room?
Yet Amanda Knox had no wounds on her body a day later. Is she just a ridiculously fast healer? No, she isn’t. The work done by the Italian technicians was extraordinarily shoddy.
Hi Eyes,
There were five instances of Rudy Guede’s DNA at the cottage. Surprisingly, there was only one instance of his DNA on Meredith’s body. There were six incriminating pieces of DNA evidence against Amanda Knox.
Hi Harry — Thanks for the correction. I know you’ve followed this case extensively and that you’ve done a ton of research. If you could elaborate more, I’d like to hear more about this. Thanks!!
There was only one instance of Rudy Guede’s DNA on Meredith’s body and two instances of his DNA on Meredith’s clothes (on the right side of her bra and on the left cuff of her light blue tracksuit top). Guede’s DNA was also mixed with Meredith’s DNA on the purse zip. There were four instances of his DNA in Meredith’s room. His DNA was also found on toilet paper. That’s a total of five instances of his DNA at the crime scene.
There were five instances of Amanda Knox’s blood or DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage in Via della Pergola: the bathroom, the hallway, and Filomena’s bedroom.
Amanda Knox’s blood was found mingled with Meredith’s blood in three places in the bathroom: on the ledge of the basin, on the bidet, and on a box of Q Tips cotton swabs. Their blood was also found mixed together in Filomena’s room where the break-in was staged.
Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of Sollecito’s kitchen knife and Meredith’s DNA was found on the blade. That’s a total of six incriminating pieces of DNA evidence against Amanda Knox.
Here are actual police videos of the collection procedures used to collect the “mixed blood” in the bathroom. Let me know what you think:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/contamination2.html
They found her DNA in numerous places in the apartment, just not in Kercher’s room. It was all in the common areas and in her room. Exactly where you would expect to find it. It’s absence in Kercher’s room is entirely consistent with the truth, which is that Rudy Guide killed Meredith Kercher.
Alan,
Eyes comment above yours made me think about the incompetence of the forensics team … especially having seen the video of them all playing field hockey with the bra clasp.
So for a minute, Eyes had me thinking, “oh yeah, maybe she’s right.” Because in addition to the common areas, Amanda HAD to have at some point, gone into Meredith’s room and sloughed off some skin cells or a hair at least. So, if forensics team didn’t find anything of Amanda’s, it says more about their ongoing ineptitude than Amanda not being in the murder room.
But then I realize, this was not Amanda sitting down with Meredith and reading Harry Potter together. This was an epic life and death struggle, with multiple attackers, and knives wielding around, and nails digging into flesh for salvation.
I don’t care how inept those police were, there’s no way they could miss that. Especially, when they had it out for those two.
Mary,
Guilty or innocent, this is a good example of how the rumors got started:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n71ZJPBq8uk
There is one major problem with evaluating Amanda Knox with your methods Eyes. That problem is that she is not normal, and your method is to evaluate a person’s responses and compare them to that of a normal person. The method falls apart and becomes useless when it is applied to a person who’s personal normal is not the same as average. A small % of the population just don’t have normal mannerisms. That’s why you are wrong a small % of cases.
Amanda Knox is somewhere on the high functioning side of the Autism spectrum. She displays abnormal mannerisms because she is abnormal, it is as simple as that. Everyone who knows Knox from her normal life has described her as a little odd, book-smart, but not people-smart, etc. All nice polite ways of saying she is a little weird. Virtually all people who fall into the “a bit off” category are somewhere on the Autism spectrum, provided they don’t have more disturbing illnesses. Knox shows no signs of any profound mental illness though.
Knox mentions in her own diaries that she never feels embarrassed, and counts this as a positive as it allows her to be outgoing and meet new people easily. Others found it odd, because she would stop and talk to virtually anyone in unusual and often uncomfortable situations that made others feel uneasy. She also lacked the normal reservations about public display of affection. Our sense of embarrassment is a huge driving force in enforcing “normal” behavior. It’s what stops us from doing something others might find strange, or even downright weird. The lack of such sense is the entire reason Amanda Knox is known to any of us. If she had it, she never would have been a suspect because she would have understood how to not behave oddly and never been remotely suspected in the crime. She wouldn’t have been suspected because she didn’t do it. The evidence in this case is overwhelmingly strong that nobody but Rudy Guide took part in the crime.
The bottom line is that being weird does not mean you are a liar, and it most certainly doesn’t mean you are a killer either. You are wrong on this case. Knox would push your buttons if you had no idea who she was and you were talking about the weather. She’s just weird, and you are highly sensitive to weird.
Alan, you said: “your method is to evaluate a person’s responses and compare them to that of a normal person.”
This is a totally incorrect assessment as to what EFL does. Wrong on many levels.
EFL does not compare Amanda’s micro expressions, body language, and words to a “normal” person. She observes her to see if Amanda’s body language, and the expressions she unconsciously leaks out, are consistent with what AMANDA says.
And someone having “autism” would not invalidate the science that EFL uses.
You are entitled to your opinion, but this is an inexact art, nowhere near a science. I disagree with that assessment, and stand by what I said. Some people simply don’t react the same as others, consciously or otherwise.
You are wrong about it not being a science. It is. It’s been scientifically tested, to a higher degree of accuracy than “art.”
If it were a science as you say, she would not make mistakes. She does. So do you. You are making one right now in fact.
Explain to me how I am making a mistake, in stating that EFL’s level of accuracy in detecting deception in people is higher than “art.”
EFL and her high level of accuracy has been scientifically tested.
Because there is a difference between art and science that you apparently don’t grasp, and I don’t have time before bed to explain. The basic gist is that science is quantifiable, where art is more of a “know it when you see it” sort of thing. Her techniques are definitely not quantifiable.
Her accuracy is quantifiable. Again, her accuracy has been scientifically tested. In a lab. I recommend reading her about page.
Her accuracy is quantifiable, how she achieves it is not, and it’s not repeatable by most people. I’d like to make it clear I have great respect for her skill, but there are situations where it is not really applicable, and this is one of them.
Alan, I don’t feel compelled to defend myself, but I do feel the need to answer your question here. If you read the research that identified the “Truth Wizards” of which I am one, they ABSOLUTELY QUANTIFIED how we do what we do. They came up with measurable clues that people can identify to spot deception–that science validated. They used these to find the experts–measurable clues in deceit that are obvious to people with this ability. You are incorrect.
The mystery lies in why 99% of the people can’t see what these people do.
Thank you Eyes. This is what I was trying to say. I knew the studies were scientifically based, etc., but I didn’t know all the details in the measuring process.
I don’t know much about the tests themselves, because not that much was ever published before Dr. O’Sullivan passed away a few years ago. But I do know some basics.
3 types of deception had been identified by science, and I don’t remember exactly what they were off the top of my head now, but they came up with ways of eliciting those types of deception with high stakes involved, then video taped several subjects either lying or telling the truth in which the researchers knew which they were doing, in order to identify the “tells” of each of those types of deception. They spent hundreds of hours poring over the video tapes and precisely cataloging each of the identifiable clues.
Then they took 10 of the videos of each type of deception– 30 videos in total– and showed them to test subjects in the Wizards Project and asked them to identify whether each person was telling the truth or lying. They tested over 15,000 subjects and only identified 54 or so at last count who could accurately differentiate between honesty and deception.
And this is what’s key here, because if you were to give 3 tests of 10 questions each, and the questions were binary, like true or false, you’d expect A LOT more than 54 out of 15,000 people to pass that test. Surely some of them must have just guessed correctly, right? That would be true.
The reason that only 54 people passed the tests is that they had to do more than answer “honest” or “lying”. They had to be able to articulate WHY they believed the person was honest or lying. That means they couldn’t just “guess right”, they had to be using scientifically valid clues to deception in their evaluation for it to count as right.
If you’ve read any of the literature on deception detection, you’ll also probably be familiar with the concept that it takes more than one red flag to be able to reliably identify deception, because just one could be someone’s personal quirk (i.e., there is no Pinocchio effect, and any individual clue to deception in one person is not always a clue to deception in another person), two could be a coincidence, three gives you a pretty strong likelihood that something isn’t right, and more than three pretty much locks in your answer. From this, we can surmise that to pass the Wizards Test, the test subjects would have to have been able to identify AT LEAST 3 clues that someone was lying that were based on already verified clues that had been repeatedly demonstrated by independent research.
There are things that can throw a person’s accuracy out the window– even a truth wizard’s– because we’re all human and we’re all affected by things that affect humans. Things like emotional involvement, or personal biases, or a lack of high stakes. These are the things that cause anyone, even Eyes, to get a case wrong. And these have nothing to do with whether or not someone is weird or responds differently than someone else to a given situation.
Keith,
This is excellent, thanks for taking the time.
I’m sure you’re a fan like I am of “Lie To Me”. Lightman!!!!!
I’m not sure all of this is accurate as I participated in the study, but I was not the one who determined Truth Wizard status either.
I’m about 99.8% certain that Knox is not autistic. What people are seeing as “odd” etc. behavior by her are more likely explained by a personality disorder than autism.
There are tons and tons of autistic people who video blog on YouTube these days. Go do a search there and choose any 10 random females with autism and show me the similarities between what they talk about, the way they speak and act and what Amanda says and does. The similarities aren’t there at all. I’ve watched hundreds of videos of autistic people– male, female, adults, children– and I do not see any signs of autism in Amanda at all personally. It just isn’t consistent with any form of autism I’ve ever observed.
One of the most obvious signs to me is that Amanda is self-absorbed, and I’ve never seen an autistic person who was self-absorbed. They’re too busy being absorbed in whatever their interests are to notice themselves other than on an intellectual, self-observational basis.
I didn’t say she is autistic. I said she is in the autistic spectrum, which includes a very broad range of symptoms, the majority of whom would not be diagnosed as “autistic”. Asperger’s is one other label that falls under the broad label of autistic spectrum. The reality is that different people are affected in drastically different ways and the mechanism is not yet understood. Whatever label you choose to use though, Knox is innocent, and Guide is guilty. The evidence clearly proves it.
The evidence definitely points to Guede, I won’t dispute that. But the evidence also implicates Amanda in not having told the truth about what she knows or what her role was or wasn’t. The most likely reason for that is that the truth would implicate her and make her look guilty in some fashion, and possibly wind up in prison. It doesn’t mean she killed Meredith and it doesn’t necessarily mean she’s an awful person– it just means she’s someone who’s willing to lie or not tell the truth in order to avoid trouble. That describes quite a lot of people.
Keith D.
I agree, evidence up the wazoo pointing to Guede.
Could you tell me the top 2 or 3 pieces of evidence you see that, as you say:
– “implicates Amanda in not having told the truth about what she knows”
– “or what her role was or wasn’t”
(I’m sure you could list more, but could we start out small and get the top indisputable ones?)
The top one is that what she says doesn’t fit with who she is– who we know she is. She lied several times to the police when they were questioning her and we know this because she said she did after she changed her story again. From this, we know she is someone who will lie to protect herself.
Given that she is someone who will lie to protect herself, we have to take that into account when we watch her speak about the case even if we’re not truth wizards who can recognize it without her admission. It’s the physical evidence as to her personality type– physical evidence that ordinary people can recognize because there’s incontrovertible proof for it from her own admission to it and her changing stories. This means that we can’t pretend that we have no idea what kind of person she is, so that must be taken into account when we watch her talk.
It gets more complicated from there because I need to connect the dots with things that anyone can see as to how what we know from this is relevant and useful, and I don’t have time to do that just now, but I’ll try to come back to it later tonight or tomorrow night. I’ll try to pick out a couple other things then too.
Keith,
Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Personally I don’t think she is concealing anything at this point. She lost all privacy in the course of this case, and all of her secrets are out there. The timeline leaves extremely little wiggle room for her to have been involved, and the only “inconsistency” between her story and that of Sollecito for more than 40 plus hours of interrogation without a lawyer present was Sollecito’s eventual acceptance of the possibility that she could have left for a couple hours while he slept without his notice. The police then used this “confession” to pressure Knox into a confession that was bogus. It was bogus because she made the entire thing up.
Another inconsistency is that nobody, including Eyesforlies, is saying they believe Sollecito is sending up red flags, at least not that I have seen. Sollecito has been separated from Knox for many years now, so any influence she might have had over him is long since past. He would have turned on her in a heartbeat if he was guilty because the Italians would have believed him and it would have gotten him out of that jail, but his story always stayed the same. Why? Because it was and is the truth. Knox should be thanking her lucky stars that of all the people she happened to be involved with when this whole thing happened, she got lucky and it was an honest, and sturdy man. If Sollecito would have broken under the pressure and blamed her to take the weight off of himself, she would have been well and truly screwed.
Alan,
I’m also blown away with the fact that if Knox had anyone else besides Raffaele in solitary for 6 months being coerced to turn her in, she’d be shining Mignini’s boots till they found Atlantis.
I’m also blown away by all the inconsistencies in this trial, let alone that there are so many “facts” out there, I wish there were one site dedicated to verifiable truths about this thing. I can’t even make a rational choice.
The inconsistencies for me are like, OK, I see her lying her ass off, I’m uncomfortable watching this interview with Sawyers (which was a terrible disappointment to me) but there is NO DNA in the room. So to me, alright, she’s lying about something, but it’s not about being involved in being in the kill zone, the murder room.
I can go on …
Alan,
Interesting perspective. I just wanted to make sure I understood parts of what you said:
” A small % of the population just don’t have normal mannerisms. That’s why you are wrong a small % of cases.”
I assume you are referring to Eyes track record posted on her site: 95% (38 out of 40 people)???
Can I assume that what you are saying is that with Normal people, the 38, you believe Eyes to be 100% accurate?
And it’s only when she views Abnormal people, the 2 out of 40 (5%), that she is 100% wrong?
And by extension, whenever she’s wrong, it’s indicative that she’s been analyzing an Abnormal person?
I can’t say with 100% accuracy that every case where she has been wrong involves a level of abnormal personality, but I suspect that is the case. There is also the possibility that some people are for all intents normal, but have an unusual reaction to an extremely stressful situation such as being interviewed on national TV, and it affects their behavior strongly enough to send up red flags that would normally indicate concealment or lying. Her read might be different with some people if she could just speak to them in a non-stressed situation.
It’s hard for me when people randomly guess at what it is I do, or how I do it. It would be nice if people who are curious would ask. I can tell you exactly why I missed each case I did and I can assure you with 100% accuracy your assumption is incorrect. Its clear you don’t understand things, but ask people. It affords a better opportunity to learn.
With all due respect, I don’t need to understand your command of this subject to know that in this case, you are incorrect. I find your ability very interesting, but it has been proven that you are not infallible, and I personally believe that in this case, your win % is going to go down a bit. How long it takes you(and the Italian Justice system) to admit defeat in this case, well, I’m not a betting man.
I know she creeps you out, and I can’t say I blame you. The thing is, the reason she creeps you out has nothing to do with murder, besides the fact she happened to be nearby when one happened.
I agree with Eyes. You should ask instead of guessing.
I asked her on one of her misses once how she missed it because it was a really obvious one to me. Her explanation was so COMPLETELY different than what I would’ve guessed! It had nothing at all to do with an abnormal personality. But I asked her in private, so I’m not willing to share.
You should definitely ask though if you’re really interested! It was eye-opening. 🙂
Alan,
Thanks.
The words Amanda uses, ” I was taken over,” jumped out at me. I do know that she uses these words, seemingly, about Meredith’s murder, her interrogation, and her trial. I couldn’t help but wonder, if she is looking back about the events connecting her with her boyfriend and being swept up in a haze of drugs, new love, and finding herself connected to a murder. She may be wondering how it all happened.
I have heard investigators explain the difficulty of separating the victims DNA from the killer’s when there is a lot of blood on the scene.
I know…the words “I was taken over” jumped out at me, too. I was like, “Oh really”. It was ridiculous. Did aliens come?
While I believe 100% that people can falsely confess, there is a personality type that fall victim to pressure and Amanda is not one of them. She is one of the least likely people to do so by her personality.
I agree she was swept off her feet, was making poor choices, living free as a bird, likely tried drugs perhaps with Guede and she herself has one hell of a foggy memory that night. I suspect she has images she can’t shake, but doesn’t have much to tie them together, but I think they tell her enough she will never tell of them.
Amanda gives me the creeps in the same sort of way Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias give me the creeps. The way they say “aaaaannnnd” while trying to think of more stuff to say (because they’re trying to convince not convey.) She can’t get her face to really mimic the proper human emotions in the right places either. And I remain ever disappointed that some people’s pants don’t really spontaneously burst into flame….
Can people remain on topic please? Funny how the Fans Of Amanda Knox aren’t addressing the many facial tics that showed her guilt, but regurgitating the same old defense arguments that have already been so discredited by the Italian courts?
Which Italian court?
The one that found her guilty? The one that acquitted her? The one who has 90 days to tell us why they are retrying her? Or the one after that, Italy’s highest court?
Italy’s highest court. Which has just ruled, on the basis of the prosecution argument, and none other, that Knox and Sollecito must be retried.
manfromatlan,
Oh you meant court, (singular), not courts. You were only talking about Italy’s highest court.
What “old defense arguments” did Italy’s highest court just discredit?
The highest court did not rule on guilt or innocence. They only ordered a new trial based on procedural issues that were or weren’t followed during the previous trial.
They also are not ruling on arguments made by the defense (and by extension, they aren’t ruling on “the same old defense” that bloggers on this sight are bothering you with).
What you’re saying about old defenses and court(s) doesn’t make any sense.
I repeat: You keep raising defense arguments instead of discussing the topic at hand.
The defense arguments that have been discredited by many courts.
And the highest court (Cassazione) will soon be issuing a written ruling that will prevent them from influencing and delaying the appeals process as it did Hellmann’s.
I was there 🙂 as the defense ‘bothered’ Cassazione with the same old arguments about ‘evidence’ instead of procedure which went down like a lead balloon. .which the court rejected on march 26.
So I respectfully suggest you wait for their ruling, which will direct the Florence Appeals court to start from the Massei decision which rejected the defense arguments, which will stop the rabbits Giulia Buongiorno has pulled from her hat. She will not be able to produce Mafia grasses and child killers to confuse the court, nor will Conti and Vecchiotti be able to argue ‘contamination’ any more.
And the Florence Court WILL re- test the knife, just saying.
manfromatlan,
The important aspect of your comment was that people are not discussing the topic at hand. I hear that now.
What I’m still having difficulty with is what seems to me like multiple, contradictory comments you made:
1. “…been so discredited by the Italian courts”
To me that sounds like you were talking about courts, plural. NOT just the highest court. So I asked for clarification, to which you responded
2. “Italy’s highest court. Which has just ruled, …”
So now I’m convinced you did not mean multiple courts, plural, but ONLY the highest court. However your next comment says:
3.”The defense arguments that have been discredited by many courts.”
Which seems to confirm what you said in your first posting, that you were not talking about ONLY the highest court, but were talking about MULTIPLE courts “…discredited by the Italian courts” .
Nailing down just that detail alone would help promote a meaningful discussion.
Nodding while saying no isn’t necessarily an indication of lying. Read this article. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/t/story?id=97561&page=1&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dnodding%2520yes%2520when%2520saying%2520no%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%26ved%3D0CCwQFjAA%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fabcnews.go.com%252FTechnology%252Fstory%253Fid%253D97561%2526page%253D1%26ei%3Dt1iCUf_DFoei8ASKtIGYCQ%26usg%3DAFQjCNFdLs4Cxwf6nqktZsjMudC66EQ8jg%26bvm%3Dbv.45921128%2Cd.eWU
This is refreshing to see–to be honest with you. This is absolutely true (I was only able to read page one of the article, though)! Head shakes are very, very complex and one must understand human behavior at a deep level to accurate discern the meanings of head shakes, but I can tell you they are very, very, very reliable if you have an in depth understanding of human behavior like I do. But yes, just because someone nods their head and says yes, it is not always a contradiction. Thank you, Brigid.
I think this study is fascinating on another level. It shows just how powerful our mind/body connection is!! And our subconscious leaks out information that is very revealing if you know how to interpret human behavior!
That link forces it to load the tablet version of the site, so for those on a PC, try this link instead so you can read both pages. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=97561&page=1
Out of respect for the topic, I’ll just point out that there are many cases in America where accused have been found guilty on mostly circumstantial evidence, without any confirmatory forensics whatsoever.
However, my question for Eyes would be: when Rudy Guede accused Amanda Knox in open court of being there that night, was he telling the truth?
When Giulia Bongiorno denied bribing the witnesses?
When Giuliano Mignini gave his CNN interview, did he come across as honest and forthright, or evasive and unprincipled?
I honestly have no idea if she was involved… I think because her DNA was not at the “Kill Spot”it is hard to convict her …. And I think as Americans ( well I am ) we have to remember that the “innocent until proven guilty” and giving someone the benefit of the doubt and “beyond all reasonable doubt” is a luxury that we share … not every country abides by that …
What I have difficulty understanding is her “confessing” to being there and hearing the attack … and her blaming the black man ( sorry I am black and get really annoyed when whites blame us for things ) … LOL .. Look I remember being 20 and in college and working a full time job … everyone handles adolescents different … I can over look her being with 3 different men in her 5 short weeks in Italy … her going to bed with R.S after only knowing him for 7 days (even though this kind of behavior is reckless to me to say the least ) .. but for the life of me I would NEVER EVER EVER Admit to something I did not do … and I certainly would never send an innocent man to jail for a crime he did not commit … and have his name forever tainted by such a tragedy… I do not care what kind of things they did to her …. I would have NEVER admitted to a crime I did not commit or even say I was involved or even there if I was not … That is what I find hard to deal with when it comes to Miss. Knox …
I for one think people need to lay off the Italian justice system … America is not that much better see O.J Simpson and Casey Anthony … Mistakes happen and often times when the crime is so horrid we want to find a person so bad that we may do a sloppy job …
Like I stated at the beginning I do not believe she had a “hand” in the murder… but I do think she knows more than she says … and when a young woman’s life is taken so violently it is very infuriating to know that someone knows more than they are saying .. kinda like Natalee Holloway …. her attitude and personality sucks … not sure if that is due to being locked up in prison or what .. but she does not seem hurt that a person you call a “friend” (so much so that when others say you were not friends you get “upset”) was murdered in the same home you dwelled in … and it could have very well been you …
People are right we do all act different as different things occur …. However I find it so funny how every person who is accused of wrong doing uses that as an excuse .. they are always the exception to the rule … Every time some man is accused of killing his wife and is caught in a relationship right after her funeral it is ” well everyone grieves different ” .I could safely say at least 90% of the population would act the same way or similar if their spouse was murdered … so everyone who is accused is apart of the 10% who has no emotion and no normal response to tragic death … BULL …
I will continue to lift up in prayer Meredith K’s family .. as it must be so frustrating to not have all the answers about the murder of your loved one ….
Gloria,
I’d love to believe that I would be able to withstand the pressures of such interrogation sessions in a foreign country. And not concern myself with food, water, sleep, the bathroom, the threat of 30 years in jail, but rather hold true to my beliefs.
As sure as you are that you would never do it, I’m sure you would.
I know I’d crack, and I’m not as vulnerable as I would have been at 19 years old like Amanda.
I’m sure the Rugby team from Uruguay, 10 minutes after their plane crashed in the Andes, would never believe that within a few weeks they’d be eating their dead teammate passengers.
Holding yourself up above the rest of us humans is a fantasy. I think you need to study false confessions and then get back to the rest of us sell outs. Or take this year’s vacation at Abu Ghraib, and then count the seconds until you accuse your own mother of something.
“NEVER EVER EVER” … wow.
AGAIN I WOULD NEVER EVER … I did not make a mistake in saying that … and I am not holding my self to anything that what my mother raised me to be… an honest human being … who tries my best to live close to good morals and values … Comparing the Rugby team of people who were STARVING and freezing and ate already DEAD people as a means of survival is about the weakest argument I have ever heard …
I studied .. criminology in college and ALMOST ALL of my professors were ex cops and FBI agents .. so I know all about interrogations and coercion .. I have no need to further research it … please all they threaten her with was 30 years in jail ???? That is a cake walk compared to if she had been convicted here in the states … here in the US the federal punishment for breaking into a persons home and killing them is automatically DEATH ….
Please spare me this bogus BS science study about people being able to be forced to say things that are not true …
If she was not being tortured or water boarded.. or electrocuted .. or in a freezing cold climate like the rugby team .. I would say different .. she was interrogated just like they do here in this country …only difference is they forgot to video tape…. People in America are interrogated all the time for HOURS with no food or water …. and you really think some cop here has not assaulted a suspect to get answers???? Of course they have … but if you are innocent you will fight to the death for that … and you will not blame an innocent man
Gloria,
Had you not used the words “NEVER EVER EVER”, I would have heard a different message from you.
If you had said something like, “my relationship with my mother is the pillar of my life, and she has taught me about honesty, morality, and integrity, and it has been the one thing that I can count on in life, here at age 27, and fall back on when things get tough. And I can’t imagine betraying that in such a circumstance. And I’m really appalled by Amanda’s behavior, because it is so far from the moral roots and the way I was taught to live my life, that I am just repulsed by this person and think she deserves no quarter.”
But instead, by using “never ever” it sounded to me like you were holding yourself up to ANY circumstance, not simply AMANDA’S circumstance.
Believing that you can withstand ANY circumstance (NEVER EVER EVER) may make you feel safe, secure, close to your mom, and loyal to your upbringing, but speaking of weak and sheltered arguments …
I’ve got a tendency to curse like a sailor and I won’t claim that I am an innocent lass who is lacking in worldly experience(s)…that said I’m also without a doubt not a murderer, and if I heard anyone screaming bloody murder whether in the room next to mine in my apartment or down the block in an alley – and the events causing such screaming being out of my line of sight – there is nothing that could possibly prevent me from at a minimum contacting the appropriate authorities. The part where Amanda is talking about why she hopes that the Kercher family will “still read her book” is the part that I find most offensive. Maybe it’s the utter lack of feeling for the suffering of Meredith that ended in her death, or the fact that she thinks that the Kercher family would find anything she might say in her book even remotely comforting/worthwhile – of course they want answers, but Amanda would rather pretend that she feels something for anyone other than herself – she’s not even 30 and she’s written her memoirs! Give me a break. Not like I think she’ll have anything more worthwhile to say 50 years down the road, let alone something worth reading about…Of course, time can give a person some perspective, but only if they’re willing to be honest with themselves and honest about their choices and events – especially the ones that they’re not particularly proud of themselves about. Everyone makes mistakes, it’s what we do afterwards that defines us.
Well, hell’s bells I cannot count how many times I’ve fist pumped and screamed, “Yes!’ to Eyes’ assessment. And true that; Amanda creeps me out to the max. BUT… some part of me has to agree with the other poster in that creeping me out and noting something off or insincere or even lying about Amanda does not equal murder for me. She’s no Mother Teresa or Marie Osmond or what have you ,but I’m not getting a murder vibe. I will watch more clips because I have only seen two.
carol,
I can’t get there either. I agree, she can’t complete a frickin sentence, she’s lying her ass off, and I trust Eyes, but I just can’t get her in the murder room, or the murder house. I agree she knows something and is lying, but I just can’t get to either of those two scenarios.