Amanda Knox, Cancer, accused of murder in Italy

Do you guys think she did it?

Why or why not?

I don't think she did it.

Well, what do you think?

she def fuxkin did it.. look at that fuxkin face. that smirk is a dead giveaway.

No way, dude.

I think that the drifter (who accompanied Knox and her then boyfriend) did it.

glad to hear it, i think she's innocent. but knows something about who did it

yeah, i'd be interested to know what comes of this...the whole case is so dodgy

Posted by ellessque
oh, there is no doubt in my mind that she knows SOMETHING. maybe when she is safely back at home she'll speak.

just curious how did you get the individual's moon chart?? you don't have the time of birth.

I think she was involved. You don't go around changing your statement if you are innocent, you would have told the events as they have happened. Look into her eyes .. They lack emotions

Posted by AybLynk
she def fuxkin did it.. look at that fuxkin face. that smirk is a dead giveaway.

that's a sag moon smirk, if she has one

Posted by Reason
idk .. i googled her images .. she smiles all the time .. i find it strange in that situation .. regardless of her involvement

the cancer/sag is def a weird combi. No one knows what they are thinking

Posted by ellessque
Sun Cancer 17.03
Moon Sagittarius 27.41
Mercury Cancer 8.38 R
Venus Cancer 4.52
Mars Leo 1.59
Jupiter Aries 27.06
Saturn Sagittarius 15.47 R
Uranus Sagittarius 23.48 R
Neptune Capricorn 6.20 R
Pluto Scorpio 7.11 R
Lilith Cancer 25.30
Asc node Aries 5.53


didn't do it.

I wouldnt think so either. But one of my clients was this combi, and boy are they difficult..

Amanda Knox raffaele sollicito

Theres the word "killer" and "killed", but also "not"
So "not killers"

But ... Not sure 😛

Posted by Reason
idk .. i googled her images .. she smiles all the time .. i find it strange in that situation .. regardless of her involvement

it comes off as involuntary to me, like a nervous /awkward thing.

or it looks bitter/defensive

That girl is guilty

Wow, all involved are Cardinal signs.

So Cancer vs. Capricorn?

From what I've noticed, it's something about us Caps that drive Cancers crazy. My little niece is only three, but that little girl attacks me, and I'm not kidding. Even if she know she'll get in trouble she takes that risk and takes her little 3yr old rage out on me, and me only. My Cancer cousin, who is 15 now, would do the exact same when he was younger.

Then there's a Capricorn and Cancer friendship in high school. It was between two popular girls, who were best friends and right before graduation the Capricorn found out the Cancer slept with her boyfriend.

My grandmother, who is a Capricorn, drives my Cancer aunt crazy.

If there's fear, on the Capricorns end, and jealousy, on the Cancers end, this could definitely be the result, I believe.

Good fucking lord.... this reminds me of the Casey Anthony threads.... People screaming about guilt and such without any facts or any research.

The girl is fucking innocent. Like white as a lamb innocent.

Anyone want to challenge me on this? I'll get just as deep into all the factual evidence of this case as I did the Anthony case... if not feel free to rave on about what you "know" because you looked at some pictures, read the TITLES of aricles, or looked at a chart.

Pffftttt.... this place sometimes.

:::SMFH:::

Posted by PunkyBruiser
I don't think she did it but she def knows who did.

What gives you that idea? Specifically.

Posted by PunkyBruiser
I don't think she did it but she def knows who did.

What gives you that idea? Specifically.

Posted by everevolvingepithet

Posted by GemsRaGalsBestPal
Good fucking lord.... this reminds me of the Casey Anthony threads.... People screaming about guilt and such without any facts or any research.

The girl is fucking innocent. Like white as a lamb innocent.

Anyone want to challenge me on this? I'll get just as deep into all the factual evidence of this case as I did the Anthony case... if not feel free to rave on about what you "know" because you looked at some pictures, read the TITLES of aricles, or looked at a chart.

Pffftttt.... this place sometimes.

:::SMFH:::

I'll write something later when I'm off this shoddy slow work computer, I think 'white as lamb' innocent is stretching it a bit.🙂 You can't fault people for looking at the pics though, Harry Potter and Knoxy Foxy, y'know.

click to expand

Hi Bling! Come here you..... closer. Much closer.

Posted by everevolvingepithet
And Hi 🙂
So why do you think Knoxy's completely innocent ?
All the stuff with the hard drive going walkies as well as the smell/traces of bleach everywhere when the cops appeared on the scene ?
Both Knox and Solliceto turning there phones off for an hour the night of the death (yet evidence shows this was out of character with their usual phone usage, over time) ?

Hard drives - yes, it seems the prosecution, wonderful thorough chaps that they are, fried not one, not two, but THREE hard drives during "analysis". I'm not sure how that proves anything, other than the fact these dudes should probably give up their day job and start blowing peeps to put food on the table.

Bleach - There was no trace of bleach in Meredith's room, you know.... the kill site. Perhaps, though..... you can tell me, how someone can clean up two people's DNA completely, and yet leave behind another's? You know.... like the Rudy dude who even forgot to flush HIS SHIT DOWN THE TOlIET. Massive killer fail, I'll bet he gets made fun of behind bars for that one. I wonder if he has to sit at the nerd table during lunch. Not only did he leave his excrement behind he also left his DNA inside her, on her, his bloody fingerprints on the wall and in general a big flashing sign pointing to his photo.

I can't agree with you on there being no precedent for them not turning their phones off. They had only been dating a week. They are stoned and having sex. Fuck my friends, I'd turn my shit off too. (Not my shit like in the Rudy way, but more like in the I am totally here with you and this is how I'll prove it because I'm 20.)

Here's a few back to you:
1. How can we ever, like EVER, trust anything that comes out of Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini's mouth. LIKE EVER—?? Anybody know what I'm talking 'bout here? If not, look into his "spotless" history as a prosecutor and his CONVICTIONS. You know, like his PERSONAL convictions.... like when he, himself, was convicted and JAILED for abuse of office— I'm not questioning whether or not he ended up at the nerd table.
2. Got a motive for me? Like anything?
3. Trial by media much? Sound familiar?
4. Do we think anti-americanism had a smidge to do with this? You know, because the appeals judge basically said so?
5. Changing your story and interrogation under duress are two different things no?

Man...Knox did it. I'm not an 'allegator'. Hell, I thought Casey Anthony was innocent of murder (but not child neglect) from the get-go. In Knox's case, there are just too many odd things that point straight to her. If she were innocent why the hell did she change her story 3x about being present for the murder? Why did she try to blame the murder on some poor Black guy? Why did she randomly disorder her room and break her windows that same night? Why was she dating a guy fascinated with serial killers? What innocent person does that? The Ginny police screwed up cuz they tried to make the indictment as quick as possible so did questionable things with evidence. That was messed up, but it doesn't eradicate the mountain of anomalies that still stand. She's guilty.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44804992/ns/today-entertainment/#.To5_It4cSfQ

Not like anyone cares what Nancy Grace thinks but, her description of 'what happened' seems the most plausible. I don't think Knox slashed Kertcher's throat. I think her boyfriend and Rudy Guede probably did while she goaded them on. Either that or she was there, and didn't protest because she was scared shitless.

If you look at the whole Patrick Lumumba false accusation everything indicates that Amanda felt she had something to hide that she was guilty therefore had to pass the blame. Further her indicting him just shows and extremely vindictive and spoiled character. The testimonies of people who worked with her tho, show a jealous, vindictive, emotional and highly immature person.

Another day, another drama on DXP....

Listen, to those of you who are saying Amanda Knox killed her roomate, ya'll need to remember something...

The victim was sexually attacked before she was killed, and I doubt that Knox did that since 99.9% of sexual assaults on women tend to come from men.

I think some dude sexually attacked her, then killed her.

Does Amanda Knox know who did it? Maybe.

But, I don't think that she should have been convicted of murder since she didn't kill the roommate.

Posted by MoonBunny
Thing is they got NOTHING on Knox, except DNA on the knife which she possibly used to cook with.

This is another common misconception. There is no knife. The murder weapon has never been found. There was a knife in the boyfriend's apartment, but the DNA found on it was too low to even be indentifiable. Does anyone actually know how little DNA is needed to run tests? LIKE NOTHING. If there isn't enough on the knife to be properly tested..... Yeah.

Seriously guys..... does anyone even know why it was believed that Amanda and her boyfriend were even at the apartment—? BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR SAID SO. This is the same bastard who openly hates Americans, who has tried to suggest demonic Satanic rituals were responsible for previous crimes. Please re-read the last sentence, twice. HE IS FUCKING CRAZY.

Seriously, this kind of crap pisses me off on DXP. You all jump on the hate band wagon before you even bother to LEARN something. Read up on the dude. Read up on the case. Come back and have an intelligent discussion.

The ONLY reason that Amanda and her boyfriend were found guilty is because the crime was sensationalized by Mignini. Read. Learn.

Please, please..... read this website about Giuliano Mignini which I believe to be credible BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY LINK TO SUPPORtiNG EVIDENCE FOR ALL THEIR CLAIMS.

Well as I said, I don't believe Amanda Knox killed hKercher herself. Thus no DNA evidence. I think she was there and she goaded them on with her sick ass wierd friends. I mean just size the girl up, she was fired for being a manipulative drama queen from her job, dated a dude who was obsessed with serial killers and hung out with some super creepy African immigrant guy who had a history of selfish and wreckless behavior.

Both her and the boyfriend, were not online on any social media nor had their phones on the entirety of the night of the vent. Her story changed several times, the boyfriend and girlfriend's stories don't match. He said she wasn't with him, she said she was...strange.

There are too many things, they are all guilty as sin.

Posted by sikkario
I mean just size the girl up, she was fired for being a manipulative drama queen from her job

Seriously—? Ummn, why would her employer text her the day of the murder to tell her they were slow and she didn't need to come into work that day? Oh, right, because she doesn't work there? No. She was not fired.

Posted by sikkario
dated a dude who was obsessed with serial killers

Of course he was fascinated with serial killers. There was a HUGE case about a mass serial killer in the exact town he lived in. Besides that please explain to me how an interest in something equals partaking? You may be obsessed with football, but it doesn't mean you can throw one.

Posted by sikkario
hung out with some super creepy African immigrant guy who had a history of selfish and wreckless behavior.

Yeah, ummmn, not exactly. Rudy was friends with both Amanda AND Meredith, but it was because he was friends with men who lived in the same building as the girls.

Posted by sikkario
Both her and the boyfriend, were not online on any social media nor had their phones on the entirety of the night of the vent.

This drives me bananas. Off or on what fucking difference does it make? Do killers turn their phones off before killing? Ummn, ok? Yeah, they weren't on social media because they were smoking pot and fucking. Like people with real lives. Not everyone sits behind a computer screen all day like us dxpers.

Posted by sikkario
Her story changed several times, the boyfriend and girlfriend's stories don't match. He said she wasn't with him, she said she was...strange.

Ummmn, what? No. He said she could have left during the night when he was asleep. Under duress. She was also questioned for 14 hours straight, no food, no water, allegedly hit. Tell me how many crazy things you are going to say after being in an abusive situation for 14 hours....

Posted by sikkario
There are too many things, they are all guilty as sin.

click to expand

Yeah, ok, whatever. Still thi

cont....

Yeah, ok, whatever. Still think that? Maybe you should pull your head out the crazy and learn something before spouting off your "facts" and judgments.

Posted by GemsRaGalsBestPal
Please, please..... read this website about Giuliano Mignini which I believe to be credible BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY LINK TO SUPPORtiNG EVIDENCE FOR ALL THEIR CLAIMS.

Maybe you should have been their attorneys since your so sure of what happened just because you read yet another "article" of some more bullshit......You would have gotten them off scott free with your passion for their innocense.....

Posted by CrabbyTwins

Posted by GemsRaGalsBestPal
Please, please..... read this website about Giuliano Mignini which I believe to be credible BECAUSE THEY CLEARLY LINK TO SUPPORtiNG EVIDENCE FOR ALL THEIR CLAIMS.

Maybe you should have been their attorneys since your so sure of what happened just because you read yet another "article" of some more bullshit......You would have gotten them off scott free with your passion for their innocense.....

click to expand

You're right. I'd make a fucking fantastic lawyer. My mommy told me that growing up to!


Give me evidence that they are guilty. Come on now. You can do it.


I'll tear your opinions apart too, piece by piece. If you know anything about me and how I form my opinions you'd know I read A LOT, watch A LOT, and research A LOT. I linked to that article because it is a good read for people who don't want to do the work. You know.... like you.

too*

@ Gems - Read the statements. The boyfriend said he wasn't with her that night, Amanda says she was with him. He says he doesn't remember that. Does'nt really make sense at all. Someone who convinced of their innocence would not need to jumble up their story in some bid to conceal something. If she were with him and he were with her, and they weren't guilty, why did they not have the same story?

O noez questioned for 14 hours boo hoo...and this explains why she indicted an innocent man for the crime? What the hell kind of person does that? Are you saying if you were questioned for 14 hours you'd make up someone who did it? That shows a perosn with 0 conscience and a lot of guilt. To put an innocent man behind bars, especially one that was putting his ass on the line for her int eh first place by hiring her no worker's visa ass.

Come on now, wise up.

Posted by sikkario
@ Gems - Read the statements. The boyfriend said he wasn't with her that night, Amanda says she was with him. He says he doesn't remember that.

Wrong. They do have conflicting alibis, but not like you've stated. In his first statement she was with him, but in his second statement she left at some point and came back..... hmmmn, fitting for the prosecution no?

Here, because again you don't want to do the work, let me.....

Cute and paste from - http://ipt-forensics.com/library/coerced.htm

Kassin (1997) notes that "a confession is typically excluded if it was elicited by brute force; prolonged isolation; deprivation of food or sleep; threats of harm or punishment; promises of immunity or leniency; or, barring exceptional circumstances, without notifying the suspect of his or her constitutional rights" (p.221).

Here's the formal article:
Kassin, S. M. (1997). The psychology of confession evidence. American Psychologist, 52, 221-323.


Milgram's (1963, 1964) obedience studies suggest that, although most people may believe they personally would never succumb to pressure, their behavior in a coercive environment is to conform. Jury members may be unable to perceive how an innocent person could actually confess to something he did not do. Widespread overconfidence in personal ability to resist coercion may lead jurors to give undue and erroneous weight to a coerced confession. Expert testimony may be necessary to help jurors understand the circumstances that lead to nonvoluntary confessions, but trial courts have not always admitted such testimony.


Milgram, S. (1963), Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371-378.
Milgram, 5. (1964). Issues in the study of obedience: a reply to Baumrind. American Psychologist, 19, 848-852.


So darling, in a sense you are suffering from overconfidence. But, no, that's cool they TOTALLY did it because they lied, under duress.

@ Gem= Sorry I don't buy it. I an innocent person of good morales with nothing to hide does not point out an innocent men as the perpetrator of said crime. That shows both having something to hide and a vindictive character.

I don't think these Italian interrogators are the doofuses everyone'sn made them out to be. If the girl weren't bleeding inconistencies left and rigth in the first 2 hours they'd have let her walk. The reason they grilled her was because her story didn't make any sense. An innocent person of good morales would have broken down into tears, and crumpled up. A guilty person would try to pin it on an innocent black guy.

Sorry but she is not innocent.

@Gem - Also, noone was pressuring her to indict Lumumba. She came to that on her own, they were pressuring her to tell them 'what happened.' I don't see why you can't the glaring fact that Amanda Knox is a manipulative, and vindictive person.

Tell me how you know during a private interrogation that she wasn't intimidated? Also, during this said interview how do you know the hour in which she changed her story?

I know you don't think you would say something like that, but I've already posted statistically significant psychological studies proving the opposite in this thread. Science doesn't lie.

I was on another board and someone gave their idea of what possibly happened.

They said Amanda was spoiled, came from a rich famnily, entitled etc. She roomed with someone the complete opposite, a more quiet yet well liked girl. Amanda probably partied a lot while the other girl studied, and Amanda became a bit irritated and envious of her ways. One night Amanda had company and the other girl came out and asked if they could quiet it down a little, one of the guys asked Amanda about her friend, as if he was interested, which stirred jealousy inside of Amanda, and it came to a boiling point. She asked her to join them, they drugged her, sexually assualted her, then killed her. Amanda probably didn't technically do it, but she egged it on and watched it.

I would post everything the person wrote, but is too long. I left out a lot, but this is what they said in a nutshell. I thought their take on it was interesting.

@Gems - It is statistically proven that innocent people indict uninvolved others to prove their own innocence? You seem to be skipping around that point, if everything else said were to be true, that doesn't make sense. She was basically damning that man to death. If she woul ddo that there and think she could get away with it in front of the authorities...it says alot about what she would do elsewhere, and what else she would think she could get away with.

Colonel Mustard did it with the candlestick in the library. Duh.

i dont know what it is about this girl...i dont think she did it but something in the milk aint clean with her but i cant put my my finger on it

Posted by sikkario
@Gems - It is statistically proven that innocent people indict uninvolved others to prove their own innocence? You seem to be skipping around that point, if everything else said were to be true, that doesn't make sense. She was basically damning that man to death. If she woul ddo that there and think she could get away with it in front of the authorities...it says alot about what she would do elsewhere, and what else she would think she could get away with.

It has been proven that people will say ANYTHING under duress. ANYTHING. You have no idea what went on in that room. Nor do I. However, if his name came up during questioning and at that moment the police liked him for the murder they could have led her down that path. Considered that?

@Gem - Innocent people don't damn other innocent people to death. Sorry she's full of it. That's my last post on this. If you can't see the immorality of a person who uses the state to end another person's life because of a personal vendetta, and has the audacity to be believe they can GET AWAY WITH IT, then I don't think there's much more to speak about.

If Knox were truly under durress and had a conscience, she would not have just let Lumumba take the fall. She had ample time to lawyer up, and say she only indicted Lumbumba because she was forced to because of brutal questioning. Instead she just used it as a way to get off the hook.

She is a bad person, for sure.
Most probabky also an accomplice to murder, if not a murderer herself.
End of story.

She was framed! It's so obvious...a proper investigation was not even conducted.

Posted by GemsRaGalsBestPal

Posted by sikkario
@Gems - It is statistically proven that innocent people indict uninvolved others to prove their own innocence? You seem to be skipping around that point, if everything else said were to be true, that doesn't make sense. She was basically damning that man to death. If she woul ddo that there and think she could get away with it in front of the authorities...it says alot about what she would do elsewhere, and what else she would think she could get away with.

It has been proven that people will say ANYTHING under duress. ANYTHING. You have no idea what went on in that room. Nor do I. However, if his name came up during questioning and at that moment the police liked him for the murder they could have led her down that path. Considered that?

click to expand

I very much agree with Gems, if someone is hitting you over and over you'd most likely do anything to make them stop. She also could have been super worried the men would sexually abuse her (that were interviewing her). They did not treat her fairly and this reflects on the Italian court system.

I'm leaning towards sikkario and I love ewe....Something is not right about this girl, I don't see how anyone could have been in that apartment and not heard this woman getting killed, blood was everywhere and I mean the dude took a shit in the toilet afterwards (disgusting). She is a sociopath IMO or just an all out creepy weirdo, her Facebook page is weird, when I saw her eerily kissing on her boyfriend like he was an object after the whole ordeal, that whole interaction was riddled with creeeepiness, I swear some humans react so creepy after something so devastating, I would have been a total wreck, crying, shaking, hell they'd probably have to put me on oxygen after something so devastating.

I don't care how much pressure they put her under, if she didn't do it then why confess and implicate someone else that's innocent, ZERO CONSCIENCE and that's how socipaths behave (with little to no conscience), the story isn't adding up.

I'm glad people are seeing the light. She was interrogated for 14 hours straight btw, not 52.

All I am saying is even if she was made to believe that they wanted/thought Lumumba did it, and was pressured into that statement. I don't believe that was what happened but let's just say that was the case.

After she was freed, why didn't she call her Parents, tell them she made a false indictment under duress, lawyer up and free the man and go for justice?

Someone with a half functioning conscience cannot leave an innocent man to rot in a cell for the rest o fhis life for a false testimony on their part. I understand she was scared, but she could have told lawyer or Parents and explained the whole ordeal.

Instead, she just relished being off the hook, until by chance his alibi came through, and she was fukked.

She is a person with no conscience. It doesn't make her cut and clear guilty of the murder, but it definetely makes her an obvious sociopath thus fitting the profile. Stack that with every other anomaly and hole in her story AND....we might have ourselves a winner.

I'm sorry, when do you think she was freed— She was never freed and in her statemenr she not only "pinned" it on her boss she also pinned it on herself..... Ummmn, ok—?

Cut and paste from a CBS news article:

During 50 hours of questioning over four days, including an all-night interrogation involving 36 officers, Knox finally implicated herself, signing a statement saying she was in the house when her boss, local bar owner Patrick Lumumba, killed Meredith Kercher. Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba were all arrested.

This is the way it was spun and by the way it isn't the first time the prosecutor had tried to prove Satanic crap just to sensationalize shit....

When prosecutor Giuliano Mignini first theorized that Kercher had been murdered in a ritualistic, satanic sex orgy, the tabloid press in Italy and Great Britain went into overdrive. Damning photographs of Knox and Sollecito are discovered on the internet, spun to suggest a fascination with violence. Then there was Knox's MySpace nickname, "Foxy Knoxy," which authorities claimed was proof of her promiscuity.

Ok, then apparently Elle would be out killing people too. 😛

Also, the "poor black guy" who stayed in prison is not her boss, it's the career criminal Rudy Guede.

After Patrick Lumumba is released - he had an airtight alibi - an international manhunt leads to the arrest of Rudy Guede, a local hanger-on who once confronted a man with a knife. Guede's fingerprint and DNA were found in Kercher's room. He is tried first and convicted of murder in 2008.

What is wrong with you people—? READ. READ AGAIN. Just because someone comes here and posts something doesn't make it fact, not even my posts. GO READ FOR YOURSELF.

Posted by tiki33
I don't care how much pressure they put her under, if she didn't do it then why confess and implicate someone else that's innocent, ZERO CONSCIENCE and that's how socipaths behave (with little to no conscience), the story isn't adding up.

Psychological research has been conducted to say differently. I posted links to it here.

Again, read people!

Also, let me be VERY CLEAR.

Although she orignially implicated Patrick Lumumba, he was cleared shortly after as he had an airtight alibi. He never "took the fall for her". He was implicated yes, but do we have any idea why? What went on in an interrogation room for 14 hours straight? No.

The dude who is "taking the fall" is Rudy Guede who's DNA is the only one found at the scene. My god, his fingerprints are there in HER BLOOD.

I feel like the way some people are talking they don't realize these are two DIFFERENT black dudes. If that's the case.... do you really feel you have enough information about the case to make a sound judgement on her guilt or immocence?

It's so acinine.

Oh dear Lord.... forgive the ridic typos and spelling errors.... I'm soooooo half asleep.