Amanda Knox

It's Kercher's own fault that she was killed, and the world is a better place without her.

Digging up the dead whore's corpse and feeding it through a wood chipper is so fitting.

And oh yeah, while I'm at it: BUMP!

And maybe a good few laxatives.....

Kercher is a "whore" for what? Doing the same as Knox was doing?

For letting people hump her up her rear (for lack of a more delicate way to put it) in exchange for drugs.

"Sex for commodities" is the traditional meaning of prostitution is it not?



Amanda wasn't screwing people to support a drug habit.

This is a very complex subject you have embarked upon.

Elizabeth Taylor? Catherine Zeta Jones? Ivana Trump?

I doubt that.

I notice you've departed from vile insults again though. That's certainly welcome.



I've vaguely heard the names of the first and last, but not the middle.

What of them?

Full report: Who is Amanda Knox?

That's not too bad of an article, but it makes some pretty serious factual errors.



For instance:

"The cartwheel she turned in the police station became a whoop of insouciant joy."

In reality, she never did a cartwheel. She did a split, after an Italian police officer asked her about her gymnastics ability.



"And, guilty or not, Knox made a series of terrible decisions – from her false confession, to implicating an innocent man, to failing to attend a vigil for Kercher."

The first two were the result of the Italian police hitting her in the head until she said what they told her to say. She didn't have time to attend the vigil because she was too busy having false statements beaten out of her. None of this is the result of any decision by Amanda or Raffaele.



"agreed to be interviewed for four days by police in a language she was just beginning to get to grips with, and without a lawyer."

Amanda wasn't given much choice in that matter.



"the prosecution found that a knife in Sollecito's apartment had a trace of Knox's DNA mixed with Kercher's"

The prosecution never tried to claim the DNA was mixed. And what the Italians did was draw a copy of Meredith's DNA results on a sheet of paper and then pretend that it came from a test of the knife. No such test was ever conducted. (The knife, it should be added, is not even the same size as the murder weapon.)



"Sollecito's DNA was detected on a clasp torn from Kercher's bra."

No test has ever managed to detect any such thing. However, since the Italian police made it pretty clear that they planted his DNA there, it seems likely that a competent test might have found such, had a competent test ever been conducted.



"The jury did not believe [Guede] and he was sentenced to 30 years – reduced to 16 years after he named Knox and Sollecito. Guede could now be released in a couple of years."

Guede has received three sentence reductions, and none of them are related to anything he said about Amanda or Raffaele.

Because he opted to be tried in an abbreviated hearing in front of a judge instead of by a full-dress trial, Guede received an automatic sentence reduction according to the following:

a) any sentence of LIFE with Daytime Solitary Confinement is reduced to LIFE

b) any LIFE sentence is reduced to 30 years

c) any other sentence is reduced by a third


Guede's second sentence reduction is the result of the persecution of Amanda and Raffaele. Because of the confusion that created, Guede was not convicted of stealing Meredith's money, and was not even charged with breaking and entering. This led to him being sentenced according to line "B" above, instead of according to line "A" as he would have been if properly charged and convicted.


Guede's third sentence reduction is the result of Amanda and Raffaele's original conviction. They received mitigating circumstances leading to a light sentence of 24 years. The courts then gave Guede the same mitigating circumstances and 24 year sentence, solely for the reason of bringing his sentence in line with theirs. Then, according to line "C" above, that was reduced by a third.

You really should talk with Amanda Knox since she authorised that report.

I saw no unedited video of her certifying that everything said by that reporter in that article is accurate.

In any case, I am here on A2K. And I've made sure that the facts are correctly represented here on A2K. That's good enough.

So when you read something else, reported somewhere else and on a different topic - you only believe it, if you get an unedited video certifying the accuracy of the report. Respect!

Actually, could you include a video in your next post? I really have doubts that it is you who's writing here!

No. When I see a claim that "Amanda or Raffaele said something", I only believe that they really said it, if there is good proof that they really said it.

Especially when it is a claim that they "approve" of something that isn't true.

I'm making the article sound worse than it was. Overall it wasn't too bad. But it did contain all the factual errors that I identified.


It is true that Amanda feels guilty over being forced to name Lumumba. However that is an unreasonable guilt, as she had the false accusation beaten out of her by the Italians. And Lumumba's behavior since that time makes him unworthy of even a bit of sympathy. He deserved to lose his bar.




A2K doesn't seem to have many problems in that regard.

Okay. I agree: the writer really could have changed her writings and additionally misquoted her in the published report while showing Knox the unpublished correct form.

Who says they showed anything to Amanda at all?

However, I'm pretty sure that all the factual errors that I corrected did not come from anything quoted from Amanda, but rather came from the narrative that the reporter wrote in his own words.

You mean, such a long report with quotes from personal letters is published in a paper, which Knox is quoted as having said that she liked it, just out of the blue?

Fine, doctor know-it-all.

Does anyone know the difference between Oralloy and an arse?

I don't either.

The media has been doing stuff like that all along. Why would you think they'd stop now?



My expertise does not extend to all possible subjects. But on those subjects that I do have a mastery of (especially when it involves defending an innocent person from an atrocity), it is a positive thing when I speak up and ensure that the truth has a voice.

An arse has a useful function.

Do you have some sort of objection to me correcting falsehoods so that the truth is presented fairly?

Actually, I am really good at being a jerk, but I tend to only do that when it is necessary. For instance, when someone refuses to consider any facts and they just launch horrendous attacks against innocent people, it's time for me to start being a total dickhead.

What I was doing above though was not ruthless name-calling, but was instead a case of me politely pointing out facts. What could be wrong with that?