I am neutral.
The following evidence has me in two minds about Amanda Knox' involvement in the murder of MK.
The DNA and blood evidence from the scene:
Footprints seem to suggest that either Amanda or RS was present at the scene, in MK's bedroom after she was murdered. There was not enough blood throughout the rest of the apartment to suggest that these footprints were made when Amanda claims she returned to the home on the morning of November 2nd. The combined DNA samples from blood evidence taken from the bathroom suggest that Amanda's DNA mixed with that of MK. I do not wholeheartedly believe that these samples were mixed before the murder - however Amanda claims she brushed her teeth in the bathroom where the blood drops were found. This could explain why her DNA was found mixed in with MK's. However, this does not explain the bloody footprint on the bathmat.
RG confessed to being present at the apartment at the time of the murder. He claims that MK was killed by Amanda and RS, that he tried to save MK and stop the bleeding - which is how he explains his bloody fingerprint on the pillowcase found underneath MK. He explains that he was in the bathroom with earphones on, listening to his music at full volume when he heard a scream. This, to me, may explain why there was faeces found in the toilet. I imagine that the scream startled him and he went to investigate. RG was already known to authorities which is why they already had his prints on file, and he knew this. He fled the country knowing that he could be connected with the crime.
I believe testimonies that state there was an overwhelming sample of RS' DNA evidence on the bra hooks found at the scene and being such a concentrated sample of his DNA, this could not have been the result of cross-contamination. There was no plausible reason for RS to ever enter MK's room before or after the murder, nor would he have reason to handle the piece of evidence before it was collected by forensics. MK took her studies very seriously. She was in Italy to further her education, not to party. She enjoyed the occasional night out and socialising with her new friends but was said to have judged Amanda for her party-girl attitude and promiscuity. I strongly doubt that MK would have been a willing participant in any sexual activity involving RS or Amanda Knox.
Forensic recordings of evidence collection:
I was gobsmacked as I watched snippets from the forensic recordings. Armed with cotton pads, forensics wiped up and effectively smeared samples to 'collect' evidence. This method would have cross-contaminated many samples. The modern method of 'swabbing' is much more effective. Perugia forensics teams literally wiped the makeup pads across large sections of blood spatter, which in effect, could have cross-contaminated separate samples. For example, Amanda testified that she'd brushed her teeth on the morning of November 2nd. The forensics team collected samples from the sink but in doing so, wiped the pad along a large section of sink and potentially contaminated the sample themselves. Forensics teams collect evidence. They are not there to clean up the scene. Most, if not all crime teams do absolutely no crime scene cleaning whatsoever. Their job is to collect evidence and nothing more. Therefore, it's safe to assume that from the footage available, we're seeing the method used to collect samples.
The murder weapon/s:
Officials claim that two knives were used to kill MK. It is my understanding that only one of these weapons was found - in RS' apartment of all places. It is plausible and understandable that Amanda Knox' DNA would be present on the handle of the knife. She had been visiting regularly at RS' apartment and testified that they'd made dinner on the night of November 1st. What is more difficult to explain is why a small amount of MK's DNA was found on the very same knife. Had the knife never left the apartment, it would be difficult to understand why this DNA evidence belonging to the victim was found on the knife. If RS and Amanda had killed MK spontaneously and impulsively, there would be no reason for them to bring the kitchen knife with them when they arrived at Amanda's apartment. This suggests that the knife may have originally belonged in the sharehouse kitchen at Amanda's apartment and was removed from the scene and cleaned. I'm also intrigued by the way the prosecutor described Amanda's reaction when she was presented with all the knives from the kitchen and asked if any were missing. She is said to have covered her ears and had a look of distress. Amanda describes that the situation was overwhelming and she became "hysterical". However, this is not consistent with her behaviour noted by witnesses at the station who say that she was seen "doing cartwheels, doing the splits, doing yoga and commenting "Of course she suffered. She had her *advertiser censored**ing throat cut.""
The arrival of police on the scene & the '911' call:
Depending on which documentary you watch, you'll get conflicting stories about how police were contacted and summoned to the scene on the morning of November 2nd, 2007. Some start with RS' call to police to report a break in and the locked bedroom door. Some add to this by revealing that a local woman found two abandoned cell phones in her garden which were traced back to the apartment, to which local authorities responded. It is only after this tech-savvy team was deployed to the residence that RS' call to police was made and the appropriate investigative (crime scene/forensics) team arrived on the scene. So far, I am unaware if the first team ever reported the nature of the scene to crime scene investigators before RS' call was made. Amanda Knox produced her cell phone to authorities. RS assumedly used his own cell phone when placing the call (although I do not know this for a fact). Who did the abandoned cell phones belong to? Did either one of them ring when Amanda supposedly tried to call MK's phone and was unable to reach her? Did one of those phones belong to RG? At least one of those phones was registered to an occupant who lived at the residence - so who did it belong to?
Amanda's 'inappropriate' behaviour:
Cartwheels. "The splits". Callous, insensitive comments about the victim and the nature of her murder. "Making out" at the crime scene. Buying lingerie the day after the murder. Covering her ears when presented with evidence. Wrongfully accusing her employer of murder. Being the first witness at the scene, yet ignoring the visible blood traces and failing to alert police. Simultaneously switching off phones at an unusual time. Inconsistencies in her alibi. And the constant inability to show any emotion for anybody other than herself. When grouped together, these behaviours paint Amanda Knox as a psychopathic narcissist with something to hide. I believe that above all, it's Amanda Knox' behaviour which has convinced most people of her guilt. And to some extent, it certainly makes me question her innocence.
However, there are some things to consider. Amanda was an immature, excitable 20 year old with absolutely no experience handling such a traumatic experience. None of us can truly predict how we might react and behave when in a situation like this one. It's unclear whether she was regularly smoking marijuana through these first few days - there's a possibility that she got stoned to deal with the overwhelming nature of the situation. However, I believe this would be part of her story now to explain why she'd acted so strangely if that were the case. "I was high. It was stupid but I wasn't in my right mind which is why I spoke so abruptly and did the splits in the waiting room at the police station." That's never been said. She readily admitted that she'd smoked a joint with RS the night of the murder, so I believe she would be upfront and honest if she'd also been high in the days and hours before her arrest. It would actually better explain why she acted so inappropriately.
Therefore, it's still rather inconceivable as to why Amanda Knox' behaviour changed so rapidly throughout those first few days. She likes to remind the public, "It could have been me." But my gut doesn't believe her. I'm not convinced by her portrayal of vulnerability. She may not be a very empathic person and therefore, MK's murder may not have affected her emotionally - but that doesn't necessarily excuse her behaviour and actions.
Let's try then, to rationalise some of her behaviours.
The kisses and affection shown at the crime scene, while seemingly unusual, was not note-worthy. She does look concerned and a little frightened. It looks to me like a young couple in a moment of comfort, not a public display of affection. The kisses are three short pecks as they hold each other close. They are not parading their affection for the cameras. They are not kissing passionately or feeling each other up. The prosecution deemed this moment 'inappropriate', and this may very well have been inappropriate in the eyes of their people and culture - however it must be considered that Amanda was a 20-year-old American girl and completely unaware of the reaction a few short kisses and a cuddle was going to have. Yes, it is unusual to see a couple in distress or grief sharing kisses - but she was barely an adult yet. Most people will cuddle and hold their partner in times of distress. It was just unfortunate that the cameras caught the three little pecks on the lips. She was young and immature and seeking comfort from her new lover.
However, the very next day, witnesses claim that she was lingerie shopping and talking about the sex the couple would enjoy that night. Could this just be another example of her immaturity? She wasn't particularly close to the victim - they were housemates and early acquaintances who were exploring the possibility of a friendship. Amanda had been seen alone at the classical music concert when RS met her - so it can be assumed that Amanda and MK were not quite considered "friends", certainly not close friends with hands in each others pockets. Amanda went by herself to meet RS and spent the rest of the night with him. "Friends" is also a term used loosely by young people to describe friendly acquaintances who they see regularly. It's used to save face. For a couple of students who had really only just met one another, Amanda's tendency to describe her as a "friend" may show that she was open to the formation of a friendship. However, it may also be used to cover up any animosity between the two, which was witnessed by and described to investigators by the other house mates and friends of the girls. After all, MK had no opportunity to describe what the thought of Amanda and whether she believed there was a friendship there.
Amanda says that after many gruelling, intimidating and even abusive hours in the interrogation room, and upon being presented with a text message she sent to her employer, she was "exhausted" and "reality started to blur". She made a statement which placed her at the scene at the time of the murder, and claimed that her employer was present and responsible. She claims that she put her hands over her ears as she stood in the bathroom, listening to the confrontation. It would later be proven that there was no way that her employer ever visited the apartment, and no possible way that he (or anyone else) could have acted alone when MK was murdered. Was she really just overwhelmed, exhausted and coerced into this confession, or was she attempting to cover her own culpability as an accessory (or worse yet, perpetrator)?
In the same way she described "covering her ears" in the kitchen, Amanda displayed the same behaviour when confronted with multiple pieces of evidence. Is this a habitual response to difficult situations; something Amanda has always done since childhood as some form of coping mechanism - or is she remembering details (particularly sound memories) that she's attempting to block out? Some people shake their heads, rock their bodies back and forth, jitter, hug themselves - there are many forms of self comfort. However, many of these behaviours are also compulsive reactions to guilt. It's hard to know either way whether this proves anything.
Amanda was the first known person to happen upon the scene after MK was murdered. She claims that she returned to the apartment to shower and to retrieve a mop that she intended to take back to RS' apartment. She claimed that his shower wasn't up to standard. RS and Amanda claimed that they awoke at 10am on November 2nd - however records supposedly show that his cell phone was turned back on at 6am. She claims that she noticed the front door wide open, but says that the latch was faulty and she attributed this to the wide open door. She says she got undressed, made her way to the bathroom and immediately noticed blood spots in the sink. She assumed that they'd been left by another house mate and thought little of it. She brushed her teeth and then showered. It was as she exited the shower that she noticed the "smudges" of blood on the bathmat, which were in fact, a partial bloody footprint. Then, she noticed the faeces in the toilet bowl. It was this discovery - the faeces - which "creeped her out" and she decided to return to RS' apartment to report her findings. RS and Amanda returned to the apartment where they discovered the broken window, the rock and MK's locked bedroom door. This is when RS contacted local authorities to report a break in and their concerns for the bedroom's occupant.
Maybe Amanda really was 'creeped out' and scared. Maybe she really didn't want to investigate any further for fear of stumbling upon an intruder. But why did an un-flushed turd in the toilet make her so uneasy? Was it the collection of abnormalities - the door, the blood and the faeces? Was it just immaturity that compelled her to run straight to her boyfriend? Did she doubt her instincts and want a second opinion before they contacted police?
Why were both Amanda's and RS' phones turned off at around 9.45 on the night of the murder, within minutes of each other? Authorities checked back and claim that on average, both regularly turned their phones off around midnight before the murders. Why was it different this night? Why did RS' alibi change? He first mirrored Amanda's alibi to claim that they'd watched a movie, made dinner, smoked a joint, had sex and went to sleep. Then later, he claims that she left his apartment and didn't return until 1am that morning. Was he covering for himself or admitting that he'd lied for her?
Amanda's Interviews:
I'm really interested in body language analysis and when considering any criminal case, I really like to pay attention to 'things unsaid' and the interviewee's choice of words. I've watched many examples where experts have done seminars and carefully deconstructed interview footage to shed light on typical and universal examples of telling the truth and blatant deception. I like to attempt to apply my amateur understanding of language and body language every time I delve into a case.
When analysing Amanda Knox's behaviour and her carefully selective responses in interviews, a few things stand out to me.
Firstly, it's said that as the viewer/listener, if you don't feel what the speaker is trying to convey, there's a likelihood that they are also not convinced of these feelings and it may be false. Words and body language are meant to 'sing' together as one. When someone is talking about fear they experienced, it should show in their facial expressions. When someone is professing to be speaking honestly, it should show in 'open' demonstrations of body language. When words and body language are conflicting, it can be an indication that the body is telling more truth than the words are.
Amanda has done countless interviews in the aftermath of her convictions and acquittals. She now uses her freedom to speak out as an advocate for the innocent who are wrongly convicted and accused of crimes they didn't commit. Not only does she agree to interviews, but she also has written several books in an attempt to tell her 'truth' to the world. She has hopes to clear her name and even wishes for MK's grieving family to read her story.
I have not read her books, but I have viewed several of her interviews. There are many to consider as she was convicted for a second time after returning to the US, and for a second time, acquitted upon appeal. Her story rarely changes these days. She maintains the story of the innocent student who fell into the vortex of drama and intrigue. She verbally denies any participation whatsoever in the murder of MK. However, in her interview with ABC's DS, her body language is... odd, to say the least. Amanda is asked a series of three very pointed, very direct questions. "Did you kill MK?" "Were you there that night?" "Do you know anything that you have not told police, that you have not said in this book? Do you know anything?"
She answers every question with "No". No surprises there. But it's Amanda's facial responses and body language which may tell another story. To the first question, "Did you kill MK?", Amanda responds with "No" but the corner of her mouth curls up for a split second - either showing contempt at the nature of the question asked, or even surpressing a "duper's delight" smirk. She's known to have laughed and smiled on several occasions when asked this very same question in other interviews. He head shakes weakly, no, in time with her answer. But the smirk is unmistakable. There is no furrowing of the brow as she replies "no". But she stares at DS from the moment she starts questioning her, and continues this unbroken eye contact as she answers. To the second question, "Were you there that night?" Amanda also replies "no". This time, we see her eyebrows raise, her head nods once very dramatically straight up and down, and the creases on her forehead remain in a sort of concerned, fearful way. Her mouth remains open after answering. Then DS continues, "Do you know anything that you have not told police," - Amanda purses her lips together and retracts her bottom lip at this point in the question. Some body language analysts suggest that this expression is regret, however I see an element of "I'm not saying another damn word about that. I don't want to talk about it. I'm hiding something and won't let it slip out. My lips are sealed." DS finishes her question, "that you have not said in this book. Do you know anything?" And Amanda replies, "No". There's a silence, so she offers, "I don't." And even more silence - which makes her uncomfortable. She shifts her eyes, shuffles in her seat and shrugs - a sort of "what more do you want me to say" as she answers "I wasn't there".
I noticed that despite the heavy story editing that cut this interview into sporadic clips of Knox, each segment gives us a view of the way Amanda Knox speaks. In some clips, she's animated, her sentences are flowing and answers come to her easily. She describes the open and honest relationship she has with her mother and reminisces about eating the food in their family kitchen when she'd visit. In another clip, DS shows her a video taken just weeks before she was set to leave for Italy and asks, "You look at the picture of the girl who arrived there. What would you want to say?" "I want to tell her," she replies, "not to be afraid." She tilts her head to the side and gives this knowing sort of side-glance with a tight lipped grin. "Of what's gonna happen." And again, she retains the side-look, raises her eyebrows and the grin deepens. "Because..." - instantly, her face falls and she goes dead-pan. "What happened to me... hit... hit me... like... like a train." And she shakes her head. She moves her mouth around as she tries to find more to say. "And there was nothing I could do to stop it." This could indeed just have started out as retrospective confidence she's now filled with knowing that she's free and can proclaim her innocence. She knows now what the overall outcome would be but when she reminisces deeper about what happened, she still experiences and relives the pain. However, she speaks slowly, pausing between a few words at a time, carefully answering the more pointed and direct questions that relate to her case.
DS asks her about RS - how she'd described him at some point as "a lightning strike". (She was a Harry Potter fan and saw a resemblance between RS and Harry Potter.) She takes a few seconds to construct her response in her head after translating the Italian words, and chooses to respond with "He writes about how taken he was with me, and I really liked him as well." She gives another side-glance very similar to the one mentioned above. In this context, the glance looks cheeky and suggestive. She's understating her attraction to him.
It makes me requestion my perception of that first glance. There was something hidden there. Something telling about the face she pulled when she said, "I want to tell her... not to be afraid... of what's gonna happen." Rather than depicting confidence, conviction and strength to tell herself not to be afraid - it feels like there's something more there. It's almost tongue-in-cheek, mocking, sarcastic. She didn't leave it at, "not to be afraid". She elaborated, as if there were two scenarios she was thinking about when she said it. It gets me wondering - did she add "of what's gonna happen" because she wasn't scared of the act of murder itself, in fact, maybe she actually enjoyed it. Perhaps the "of what's gonna happen" relates to the terror of not knowing whether she'd be caught or not, and now that she's back home and doing the interview, she can look back and realise there was nothing to be afraid of at all. Or maybe it's pure, innocent and genuine - not to be afraid because the truth will finally come out, so she'd give her younger self the advice to be brave, especially in the midst of accusations and interrogations. However, she doesn't show any remorse (at least not in this interview) for the false and misleading accusation against her employer. Maybe that's part of her answer here - that had she not been afraid, she may not have ever accused her employer of the murder.
