Amanda Knox in the News Again: When is it Enough?

I think they should leave her alone. She has just emerged from a horrendous experience of a capricious police and judicial system. She may have just been guilty of indiscreet behavior after her roommate had been murdered, not of the murder itself.

I think the quiz coincided with lifetime's reairing of their movie about Amanda Knox and the murder of Meredith Kercher trial. The press should stop following her around let her have her life back.

Mary Jane, this is as embarrassing as your last article on this subject. 'in fun?' Are you actually serious? What is fun about the death of an innocent person and the wrongly imprisonment of two others? There is nothing fun about it, nor should anything be perceived to be considered fun. The Huffington Post quizz was in terrible taste, it was effectively trivialising death. Mary Jane, I hate to tell you this (I'm sorry it needs telling) but it is these type of articles that will not as you put it let a 'slain girl rest in peace'. When are we going to see some intellegent pieces on the matter? It seems one has to go to great lengths to seek them out. What a shame. You are young, but you have a brain. Use it and take time to research what you are writing about, and perhaps you might even engage with the people taking the time to comment on your articles.

Graeme, I'm just putting this information out there. I think it is in bad taste as well. Sorry, if you couldn't read between the lines and see that.

And if you don't like it, then don't waste your time on it? Doesn't take make sense?

I feel you could do a better job by taking the information and putting some serious thought in to it. I cdidn't miss the point and I never suggested you agreed with the quiz. I've followed this case with great interest to me this ties in with the trivial cold nature of other articles circulating on it. What are your opinions on the the murder of Meredith Kercher Mary Jane? This is what I am interested in. Your article asks for the opinion of the reader, so I'm not sure why you are questioning why I should bother commenting on it. If I liked it I would also comment. You've wrote on this topic before. It's clear you have an interest and I'd love to see that conveyed in your writing

I believe that Amanda Knox is innocent and I believe that everything that was portrayed about her acting unusual in the media after the murder was just her "unusual" way of acting out. However, my opinion is just another one of thousands of people. So sharing that I think she is innocent isn't important to me.

What interests me about her is actually people acting out, people who are having such strong reactions toward those who believe she is guilty. So this quiz is a perfect example for people to share their opinions; people who see her as guilty find this interesting because they don't feel she has cleared her name and those who find her innocent are upset. And that's what I find intriguing. Hence, why I turn the question onto the reader.

In other words, Mary Jane, you think Knox is guilty of being an idiot and as such none of her statements and none of her behaviors should be used against her. That's a cop-out. Especially since people who adhere to this belief usually apply it to Sollecito as well. Regardless, the forensic evidence shows Guede did not act alone. The break-in was definitely staged. There absolutely was a clean-up in Meredith's room: Meredith's bra was taken off after she was dead. Someone used Meredith's socks to pick up things and possibly walked around in them. Guede's footprints appear and disappear out of nowhere. Furthermore it's almost impossible to kill someone in a knife fight unless you have overwhelming force or the element of surprise. Surprise is highly unlikely because of the layout of Meredith's room. So if the motive wasn't robbery, was it a date gone bad and Guede staged the break-in himself? No because Meredith didn't mention the date to her friends. No because Meredith didn't decide to walk home until Sophie said she wanted to go watch a show at 9 pm. Guede only knew Meredith said she was tired at 8:30 because he read it in the newspaper. And why would Guede risk trying to stage a break-in when his footprints and DNA were all over the place? So no robbery and no date rape. What's the motive then? Drug-fueled escalation of violence between two roommates starts to sound a lot more plausible, with Sollecito and Guede along for the ride. It also happens to explain all the evidence.

B mull - On what evidence are you basing the staged break in on? Certainly there is no physical evidence to suggest the break in the was staged as investigators did not conduct even a minimal investigation of this room never mind a thorough one! So there exists no prints from either Guede or Knox or Sollecito. There exists no photographs of the supposed 'glass on top of clothes'. So all that is left is conjecture, which is pretty much the prosecutions whole case. Let me ask you this, why else do you think it was staged? Rudy Guede could have entered that window with little difficulty. Yes it wasn't the easiest entry point, but in the crime scene reconstruction videos you can see an investigator being in full reach of this window using the security grate on the window below. Also, why isn't it plausible that Guede staged a break in if this is a theory you are certain on.

The forensic evidence DOES NOT prove or show Guede could not have acted alone. Quite the opposite infact. He left a mountain of physical evidence at the crime, meanwhile not a single hair or trace of credible DNA for Knox & Sollecito at Merediths room. So they were either floating around the room in bio hazard suits or they staged the most miraculous clean up in crime scene history by somehow removing all traces of themselves but not Guede? Meredith's bra was taken off after she was murdered by none other than Rudy Guede hence his DNA being on the bra itself and not to mention on and inside the victims body. And again you talk of someone using Merediths socks to possibly walk around in yet you offer no supporting evidence or real insight, just words and conjecture.

Your theory on the knife is frankly ubsurd. And actually goes against much of your theory. If a drug fueled act of violence occured don't you think there would still exist the element of surprise when someone pulls a knife! Furthermore, why couldn't he carry out the attack alone? You don't offer anything substantial to support this. Rudy Guede was a strong athletic individual who could of course overpowered Meredith. The most plausible thing that people seemingly can't accept perhaps because it's not the soap opera they had hoped for is that Rudy Guede motivated by needing money broke in to the cottage. Not that this is unlike Rudy Guede who has a history of burglaries and was arrested mere days before after breaking in to a nursery overnight armed with a knife. So you see this is not behaviour unline Guede. Did he intend on killing her? No, doubtful it has all the hallmarks of a crime of passion, why would he stage a break in and risk leaving prints? What did it matter at that stage? Overwhelming evidence is already there.

Your drug fueled fantasy sounds like a fiction novel and thankfully the acquittal paved the way for independent forensic experts to re analyse and point out the dozens of frailties in the prosecutions case. There was not a single motive in the world for Amanda to kill her friend. The tabloid character 'Foxy Knoxy' was invented like some character in a fiction novel and it was forced down the throats of many through the tabloid media. Your last sentence is frankly ridiculous. It happens to explain all the evidence, yeah ok. So explain to me why there are no traces of Amanda or Raffaele at the scene. Dying to hear your response

According to the New York Times, DNA evidence is only found in 4.5% of murders. It's found in a much higher percentage of sexual assaults, hence Guede's DNA. Investigators did conduct an investigation of Filomena's room as you can see from the fingerprint dust and pictures and videos taken during the investigation. You have Filomena, a great witness, saying she left the outer shutters only slightly ajar and there was glass on the clothes. Two police officers corroborate the glass on the clothes. So what if they forgot to take a picture. The Sollecito attorney who tried to climb the window merely demonstrated that it was possible to reach the windowsill, not to climb inside. Follain said he "dangled helplessly". I don't see what advantage there would be to Guede staging the break-in, but even that would be much more likely than Hellmann's finding that the break-in was real. Rudy had no way of knowing there was money in the house. In any case what he really needed was proof of employment, not money. As for drug fueled escalation of violence being a fantasy--this was the prosecution's motive that was accepted by Massei as well the courts that heard Guede's case. In fact, two months ago a college student named Dominique Frazier was killed by her roommate in a situation just like this. It's not rare. What's rare is getting two companions to join you in the killing--but it happens.

I don't know if you can see this picture without registering, but these are bloody socks that one of the killers appears to have worn (Meredith was wearing white socks, which also have blood on them):

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=3959

Why is Filomena a great witness? She practicaly ransacked her room looking for items that may have been stolen which greatly compromised the crime scene. Not to mention walking in to the cottage after it was cordoned off to collect her pc. Also, the glass on the clothes is not going to fly with me. There are no pictures what so ever to support this. It was absolutely possible to climb inside, and that particular picure he isn't even standing on the top rung of the security grate. As I said, perhaps not the easiest point of entry, but that doesn't make it inplausible. I don't think Guede staged a break in, I don't think anybody staged a break in. I think Rudy Guede who has a history of this type of crime broke in. I posed the question to you about Rudy staging the break in because in reality it is no less plausible that Amanda or Raffaele staging it. No physical evidence at the scene for either so we can't work off glass being found on clothes when no pictures exist to confirm it.

I think Rudy felt there was a great likelihood of there being money in the house. Afterall, rent is due the next day for one. Secondly he probably assumes Amanda or Meredith (who can afford to go to Italy to live and study) have money lying around. Money was taken, as were two mobile phones, so for me that is a sound motive. There is no reason in the world why Amanda or Raffaele would be motivated by money. In fact there is no real motive.

Re: Dominique Frazier, sad to here but I am afraid to tell you it absolutely is rare, and if you look at the chances of those three individuals conspiring to kill another person it is trippled. They have no link to Rudy Guede. Raffaele has never met him. Amanda has met him in passing. The mere fact that Mignini just took Lumumba out of the fray and replaced him with Guede points at the ridiculous nature of the whole investigation. After Guede was arrested the investigators should have reevaluated abosolutely everything. Instead to save face for already gleefully shouting 'case closed' and convicting three people they just run with their original theory. Almost like forcing a round peg in to a square hole.

I can't see that photograph, but I know what PMF is all about. It's a website that assumes guilt. You talk about the bloody socks but give me facts about them. I don't deal in conjecture. Were they tested? I highly doubt it. In all my time following the case this has never arisen.

Whether Filomena altered the crime scene is unrelated to whether she's a great witness. She's very credible because her recall was very detailed, and she was able to be objective and criticize the police and admit that Knox and Kercher had no reason not to get along. But she also said that Knox's behavior was bizarre.

You say you need pictures confirming glass on the clothes, despite three corroborating witnesses. But when I offer you a picture of bloody socks and you say that you don't deal in conjecture. It doesn't make much sense.

There was no more likelihood of money being in the cottage than any other house in Perugia. Theft as a motive makes no sense in this case. I admitted, three people killing a roommate is rare but it makes sense in this case. It's not true Knox and Sollecito had no link to Guede. Knox admitted she had used drugs with him. Sollecito said he hadn't met him, but that's just his word. They were practically neighbors.

Mignini wasn't the one who said "case closed". That was the police. And even if it's true Mignini just took Lumumba out and slotted Guede in, that doesn't prove anything. The Guede role could have been played by anyone Knox knew who was game. She was the instigator in this.

Perhaps there needs to be a balance from the tabloid driven fervor. Gather is a place where people can discuss matters. Some may believe Ms. Knox to be innocent of the charges and the victim of a satanically deranged prosecutor. Others may believe she was guilty, even though there is only physical evidence of one person's dna inside the victim and around the crime scene. One question that has puzzled me about the case though, was why the attorney for the Kercher family blocked the prosecution from testing semen on the victims pillow. It just seems crazy not to analyze all the evidence at the crime scene.

Absolutely nail on the head Brian J. How outrageous was it not to test that semen stain? It seems inconceivable to any normal person. They blocked the testing of this stain so of not to make light of Meredith's sex life stating that it was likely to be her boyfriend who lived the level below. Funny because they spared no such detail with Amanda Knox, highlighting ubsurd things like the fact she had a vibrator.

The semen stain not being tested is beyond troubling. There is no plausible or excusable reason why this was not done. Plain and simple. It is one of the elements of the case that not many people know about either. It was the signature of Rudy Guede. The only person as you put it to leave a mountain of physical evidence at the crime scene

More unanswered questions And what about the missing wiretaps and 4 destroyed harddrives. Where these just a result of human error? Why where the police allowed to not tape Amanda's all night interrogation claiming she was not a suspect. When Giobbi has said in interviews Amanda was already a suspect. Why were many items including Meredith's bloody coat left at the crime scene for 46 days after the initial investigation? Why was the cottage ransacked during this 46 day period? What about Amanda's missing diary pages from before the murder. Why was Amanda's lamp found in Meredith's room?

I think the major premise of your article is incorrect, Mary Jane. I don't believe people are still interested in what Amanda Knox does. What you're seeing is a persistent media blitz that has not been overwritten by an even more sensational, sexy crime. I believe the fascination is on the part of the media, no longer on it's audience.

I did think the Huffington Quiz was of value, however. If you take that quiz you'll discover what you really know about the murder of Meredith Kercher. I've read ten books on the subject and I got all 7 questions correct. I'll bet your other commentator, b mull, would fail it completely. He still knows nothing about this case.

If you were really smart, you'd miss three because the answers to questions two, six, and seven are all wrong.

Like Mary Jane, your major premise is incorrect. You are NOT "really smart." Even in the face of no evidence, you cling to the fiction you've allowed tabloid magazines to etch in your brain. There is a psychological disorder that prevents some people from admitting their own errors. You are a victim of that disorder. You may not want my advice but I suggest you learn to apologize. I'm afraid you're going to find it a very useful skill.

The amount of people reading this article, and others written about Knox, proves your premise incorrect. Sorry.

Oh, don't apologize, but how many people are reading this article? Hope you're not judging just on these few comments because they prove my point. This is not a lot of people. Do you think the same number of people would not read the article if it were about someone else? I think my premise holds.

Obviously not the people here. I am looking at all of the page views this article has generated alone and it shows that people are more than interested.

Amanda Knox was in the wrong place at the wrong time, she then proceeded to act in a manner that was not appropriate for the situation. That fact alone suggests her innocence because she did not realize the severity of what had happened. The media is continuing this inappropriate behavior with their constant coverage of Knox and every mundane thing she does. Every time an article is posted about what toothpaste she bought and where she got dinner the other night it takes away from what this is all actually about. The only reason we know who Amanda Knox is, is because a young and bright college student got sexually assaulted and brutally murdered. I want whoever reads this to think about that the next time they read about what Knox is wearing and ask yourself – does this really matter in light of what happened? Knox should also not have to be in constant mourning either, she should be allowed to continue on with her life and hopefully the Kercher family will be able to as well.

1. She was at her boyfriend's apartment. How is that the "wrong place at the wrong time".

2. There was NO inappropriate behavior. It was all an invention of the police and the media.

As long as there are still people who insist on believing otherwise, this story is not finished.

Meredith had not taken off her coat when she was attacked. Of all the evidence or nonevidence, at the scene this is one that is a fact. She had not been home long enough to take off her coat.