Is Amanda Knox Innocent or Guilty?

March 9th, 2011 by ErinS

Amanda Knox claims she did not murder Meredith Kercher. She also stated Meredith was her friend and would never want to hurt her. Now that the evidence has been reopened for examination, the case has become present in the media’s eye once again. Really the confusion of the evidence is blocking the truth from being exposed.

The Evidence
Reports read Knox footprints were present in the hallway of their flat, but Knox’s footprints were nowhere to be found in the bedroom, where the murder occurred. Knox claimed she took a shower, so it would make sense for her footprints to be left in the hallway according to her account. It has also been said Knox’s blood was found mixed with Kercher in the bathroom and other areas in their apartment, but not the bedroom, where the murder occurred. The girls lived together, so it would be expected for Knox’s DNA to be present. Knox’s DNA was found on a kitchen knife’s handle with Kercher’s blood on the tip. Knox’s said she used knifes for cooking and it has been stated this particular knife does not match the knife that would have made the wounds on Kercher; however why was Kercher’s blood on the tip? Apart from that it has been stated there is no forensic evidence directly linking Knox to Kercher’s bedroom where she was murdered. The only blood and DNA confirmed 100% certain in Kercher’s bedroom is from Rudy Guede, who was charged with murdering Kercher.

Aside from the incomplete evidence, the startling question remains in Knox’s favor. How could a person commit a murder without any forensic evidence present at the scene of the crime? Guede stated two different accounts, one that Knox was not involved, and then he said she was. Guede’s imamate later reported Guede confided in him that Knox and Sollecito were not present, rather someone else was.

If Knox was innocent why would she change her alibi on multiple occasions? She said she felt pressured, and after an intense interrogation, she told the police what they wanted to hear.

It is clear Knox and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito agreed on stating the same account of their whereabouts. When Sollecito changed his story, Knox decided to change hers, which conveys they knew more than they were telling. Knox later admitted she was in the apartment when the murder occurred, and then changed that story multiple times, even pinning the murder on someone else, Diya Lumumba. If Knox was actually in the apartment uninvolved like she is admitting, and she heard her roommate screaming bloody murder, why wouldn’t she call the police or pound Kercher’s door down to check on her once the screaming stopped?

What doesn’t add up are these key questions:
•    Why lie if you have nothing to hide?
•    Why did you originally say you weren’t present in the apartment and then state you were?
•    Why blame the murder on someone else?

Even if the DNA was not collected properly like officials are claiming, Knox’s behaviors and actions suggest she is at least concealing something. The words straight from her mouth about where she was on the night of the murder changed multiple times. Since Knox finally said she was in the apartment when the murder occurred, she had to have seen the events that followed.  Is Knox lying out of fear or did she see more than she is saying? Only God and Meredith will ever know.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and the author alone, and do not reflect in any way the opinion of the web site or any of its affiliations or partnerships.  ErinS is a contributor for in the Legal Entertainment category.


2 Responses to “Is Amanda Knox Innocent or Guilty?”

  1. Harry Rag Says:

    The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming. They gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis despite three attempts each. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified. Innocent people don’t give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to the police. 

    The DNA didn’t miraculously deposit itself in the most incriminating of places. 

    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.

    According to Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci, Knox’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra. 

    Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade. Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he twice lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.

    There were five instances of Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage.

    Knox tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom, the hallway, her room and Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood was found mixed together in Filomena’s room, in a bare bloody footprint in the hallway and in three places in the bathroom. 

    Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. This means that he didn’t stage the break-in in Filomena’s room or go into the blood-spattered bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

    The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway. 

    It’s not a coincidence that the three people – Knox, Sollecito and Guede – who kept telling the police a pack of lies are all implicated by the DNA and forensic evidence.

    Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. After she was informed that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, she stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.

    Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite the fact she knew he was completely innocent. She didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007.

    The English translation of the Massei report can be downloaded from here:

  2. Fred Says:


    You picked an interesting topic. While I basically agree with “Harry Rag” that Amanda Knox was in the flat at the time of the murder, I have found that very few (if any) sources of information on this case are reliable. Every individual and every media source seems to be outrageously biased.

    Given the lack of unbiased information, it amazes me how certain so many people are as to Knox’s guilt or innocence. One of the many reasons I lean towards guilt is the undisputed fact that she lied to the police. She claims to have been forced to lie, but that makes no sense. Why would the police in Italy be interested in forcing her to lie (which she didn’t retract for several weeks and only because she was confronted with the undeniable truth)?

    The simplest explanation for something is usually the right one. She lied because telling the truth would put her in prison. Knox may be entirely innocent, but it’s unlikely we will ever know (even if she wins her appeal).

    Casey Anthony was found not guilty today. She was found not guilty because there was virtually no physical evidence against her. This doesn’t mean she is innocent, it just means that there was almost no proof of her guilt. Some people claim that there is a “mountain” of evidence against Amanda Knox, others say there is no evidence at all. The truth is somewhere in between.

Leave a Reply

Your Current Search




Blog Navigation