Quote Originally Posted by ono View Post
She's not dealing from a full deck. Not that this makes her a murderer.

I understand that the Italian police completely fucked up with all the forensic evidence, so it's very difficult to prove she had a part in it.

However, other evidence is very, very sketchy. At best, it makes her out to be a complete maniac. At worst, it suggests she is a murderer or an accomplice.

Claiming she witnessed her boss carry out the murder is beyond sick and i don't understand how a grueling 14 hour interrogation (as bad as that may be) can lead you to making such an accusation.
I can understand a person being manipulated into telling half truths during an interview and i understand that police can give you leading questions so your version of events fills the gaps in their current theories. What i can't understand is how a person would lie to the point where they say they witnessed somebody kill somebody else. That's either one hell of a law breaking interrogation where the police have forced her to make that statement, or she is a complete and utter fruitcake. Or she knows what really happened and she's covering for herself or somebody else.

Then all of the other minor pieces of evidence where she and her then boyfriend tried to create an alibi. There's just too many lies in there. Pointless lies that wouldn't matter unless you were trying to cover your own back.

The staged break in. The fact that she was seen buying bleach the following morning, when she claimed to be in bed. The fact that she confirmed the cause of death to one of her British friends, when the actual cause hadn't been released yet. The fact that she blamed her vagueness of what happened on her smoking weed that night.

I'll stop short of saying she's done it, because i wasn't there. I didn't see it. But something doesn't sit well at all.

A lot of those claims against her might be innacurate or completely made up though. As I said above, go through some of the stuff about Joanna Lees that is still on the net, all the 'lies' and mistruths she told, everything that didn't add up, all the reasons why she must have been guilty, and then realise that a few years later she was completely and totally vindicated. The same with Colin Stagg, who had his life completely ruined and was totally innocent.

The point is Amanda Knox hasn't been able to give her side of the story or respond to any of the claims yet, everything is reported in the paper and given a malevolent spin.

This idea of her being satanic and diabolical because she liked to party and sleep around....really? Like 90% of student girls her age aren't doing the same

The stories about buying blach and talking to a friend about the murder just sound like bits of gosspi to me, that very well might not even be true.

Her boss Mr Lumumba I presume you agree was completely innocent. So why then did he delete a text message he sent to Amanda Knox on the night of the murder saying 'I will see you later'? And why was there a signal trace from his phone at the cottage shortly afterwards?

We know now he had nothing to do with it so these 'incriminating' actions are presumably entirely cooincidental, and that could just as easily be true of the majority of the strange events surround Knox...

At the end of the day we will likely never know what happened but as I understand they found no actual evidence that linked Knox to the murder at all. The break in, the buying of bleach etc have not been shown to have been by her either as I understand it.