Quiz Answers..famous People Closes...
Crosswords0 min ago
Amanda Knox: The Untold Story on tonight.
59 Answers
8.00pm Ch.5. Do you think we'll learn anything new by watching it? The blurb says it features unseen footage from the crime scene, top forensic and expert analysis. This documentary unravels the case against Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend. Hmmm do I want to see any more of AK? Not sure. Anybody going to take a look?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ladybirder. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
i couldn't bring myself to watch it.
but the reasons are that i suspect as with a typical c5 documentary it will be ful of speculation and non-conclusion/what if's. it will also have adverts every 12 minutes with 5 minutes of 'what you have seen' and 5 minutes of 'what you are about to see' segments either side, providing very little content and nothing 'new'.
but the reasons are that i suspect as with a typical c5 documentary it will be ful of speculation and non-conclusion/what if's. it will also have adverts every 12 minutes with 5 minutes of 'what you have seen' and 5 minutes of 'what you are about to see' segments either side, providing very little content and nothing 'new'.
I watched it, and agree with Ladybird & Ankou, the quality of the 'documentary' was rubbish, and it didn't reveal anything that we didn't already know. Having read the Messai report on this, I am convinced that both AK & RS are guilty, and they've walked free due to the incompetance and inconsistencies in the case and initial evidence. I've heard and read very little on Guede though; I know he opted for a fast track trial, but very little seems to be written about his evidence. If anyone can point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it.
I hadn't seen this programme until this morning. I've just watched it online.
I was surprised that Barbie Latza Nadeau was asked to give commentary. Her book "Angel Face" was, by some way, the worst of the "anti Amanda" books. She repeated each of the lame brained fantasies dreamed up by Prosecutor Mignini, hook line and sinker. The conclusion in her book was based on the evidence which, according to the appeal court, proved absolutely nothing of what the prosecution had alleged.
In other words ... Barbie Nadeau can hardly be described as an "expert" and is certainly not independant, or open minded.
Was she hoping to get her name recognised, in the hope of selling more copies of her book? If so, I have one piece of advice ... do NOT buy Angel Face. It's a laughable work of fantasy fiction.
=0)
I was surprised that Barbie Latza Nadeau was asked to give commentary. Her book "Angel Face" was, by some way, the worst of the "anti Amanda" books. She repeated each of the lame brained fantasies dreamed up by Prosecutor Mignini, hook line and sinker. The conclusion in her book was based on the evidence which, according to the appeal court, proved absolutely nothing of what the prosecution had alleged.
In other words ... Barbie Nadeau can hardly be described as an "expert" and is certainly not independant, or open minded.
Was she hoping to get her name recognised, in the hope of selling more copies of her book? If so, I have one piece of advice ... do NOT buy Angel Face. It's a laughable work of fantasy fiction.
=0)
JJ, which ONE of the books you have read on this subject would you recommend for others who are not convinced of RS and AK's innocence to read? And did this book influence you or had you already made up your mind about there guilt/innocence beforehand? By what you have said previously on here it sounds as if Senor Mignini had a great deal to do with your decision.
Hi, LB.
I've previously mentioned about eight books I've read about this incident.
Since then, Ive read another one, and I'm currently reading the first book to be released since the acquittal ... but which was already partly written during the appeal.
The one I'm reading at the moment is Death In Perugia by John Follain.
As to a recommendation ...
It would be silly of me to recommend a blatantly "innocent" book, like The Framing Of Amanda Knox, or Injustice In Perugia.
So, I would suggest, as a "balanced" book ...
"The Fatal Gift Of Beauty" by Nina Burleigh
This book is so named because it recognizes the fact that Amanda's appearance, as an attractive young student, was such a significant factor - one which counted both for her, and also against her.
And you're right. The fact that Mignini was involved instantly made my wary.
Here's my conspiracy theory - and one which I think could well be correct.
I'll take it step by step.
1. Fact: Amanda and Raf were arrested before any evidence was collected.
2. Fact: After six weeks of investigation, the Police had found Rudy Guede's DNA all over the room. Everywhere. On the floor, on the bed, on the body, on Meredith's clothes. Everywhere. But, they had found none of Amanda or Raf's DNA. None. Absolutely none whatsoever.
3. Conclusion: There was only one possible conclusion. Amanda and raf were not there. They were not involved. They were innocent.
At this point, the Police should have released them, and they could have helped to nail the real killer. But:
4. Problem: Mignini was facing charges of professional misconduct. He had spent the previous year prosecuting 40 innocent Italians over an imaginary sex ritual. Now, he had two innocent victims in custody, and had publicly said, yet again, that there was a sex game involved. Mingini was in trouble. He was going to be publicly exposed as an incompetent bungler, with a head full of sex rituals. He HAD to produce some evidence.
5. My theory: He tells his investigators - go and bring me something from the room with Amanda's DNA on it.
6. Why do I think this? Because, contrary to the required procedure, the investigator goes to the flat, and finds the bra clasp. He doesn't bag it up. Instead, he goes around the flat, goes into Amanda's room, handles items belonging to Amanda, which would have Amanda's DNA on them - and THEN he goes and picks up the bra clasp, with his BARE HANDS !!! ... and gives it to the lab.
Hey presto ... it has Amand's DNA on it. Miniscule amounts, of course. And several other sets of DNA. But ... Mignini has his "evidence". It takes another four years before the evidence is exposed as a total sham.
But six weeks after the arrest (step 3, above), it was clear to me that, during Mignini's press conferences, he was continuing to rely on strange, unsupported theories. I knew, at that stage ... they've not found any evidence. Amanda and Raf were not involved.
I've previously mentioned about eight books I've read about this incident.
Since then, Ive read another one, and I'm currently reading the first book to be released since the acquittal ... but which was already partly written during the appeal.
The one I'm reading at the moment is Death In Perugia by John Follain.
As to a recommendation ...
It would be silly of me to recommend a blatantly "innocent" book, like The Framing Of Amanda Knox, or Injustice In Perugia.
So, I would suggest, as a "balanced" book ...
"The Fatal Gift Of Beauty" by Nina Burleigh
This book is so named because it recognizes the fact that Amanda's appearance, as an attractive young student, was such a significant factor - one which counted both for her, and also against her.
And you're right. The fact that Mignini was involved instantly made my wary.
Here's my conspiracy theory - and one which I think could well be correct.
I'll take it step by step.
1. Fact: Amanda and Raf were arrested before any evidence was collected.
2. Fact: After six weeks of investigation, the Police had found Rudy Guede's DNA all over the room. Everywhere. On the floor, on the bed, on the body, on Meredith's clothes. Everywhere. But, they had found none of Amanda or Raf's DNA. None. Absolutely none whatsoever.
3. Conclusion: There was only one possible conclusion. Amanda and raf were not there. They were not involved. They were innocent.
At this point, the Police should have released them, and they could have helped to nail the real killer. But:
4. Problem: Mignini was facing charges of professional misconduct. He had spent the previous year prosecuting 40 innocent Italians over an imaginary sex ritual. Now, he had two innocent victims in custody, and had publicly said, yet again, that there was a sex game involved. Mingini was in trouble. He was going to be publicly exposed as an incompetent bungler, with a head full of sex rituals. He HAD to produce some evidence.
5. My theory: He tells his investigators - go and bring me something from the room with Amanda's DNA on it.
6. Why do I think this? Because, contrary to the required procedure, the investigator goes to the flat, and finds the bra clasp. He doesn't bag it up. Instead, he goes around the flat, goes into Amanda's room, handles items belonging to Amanda, which would have Amanda's DNA on them - and THEN he goes and picks up the bra clasp, with his BARE HANDS !!! ... and gives it to the lab.
Hey presto ... it has Amand's DNA on it. Miniscule amounts, of course. And several other sets of DNA. But ... Mignini has his "evidence". It takes another four years before the evidence is exposed as a total sham.
But six weeks after the arrest (step 3, above), it was clear to me that, during Mignini's press conferences, he was continuing to rely on strange, unsupported theories. I knew, at that stage ... they've not found any evidence. Amanda and Raf were not involved.
All the experts agree that Guide could not have acted alone.
The break in was staged. Why would an outsider want to make it look like an outsider?
Amanda Knox had the motive. She resented Meredith and her former boss whom she blamed for the murder. She changed her story several times. Her blood was mixed with Amanda blood. She was seen buying cleaning fluids hours after the murder. She went shopping for sexy lingerie the following night and was completely detached from reality when she was at the police station. She still doesn't have a proven alibi for the night of the murder and has given several different stories about what she was doing at the time.
The break in was staged. Why would an outsider want to make it look like an outsider?
Amanda Knox had the motive. She resented Meredith and her former boss whom she blamed for the murder. She changed her story several times. Her blood was mixed with Amanda blood. She was seen buying cleaning fluids hours after the murder. She went shopping for sexy lingerie the following night and was completely detached from reality when she was at the police station. She still doesn't have a proven alibi for the night of the murder and has given several different stories about what she was doing at the time.
"Amanda Knox had the motive. She resented Meredith and her former boss whom she blamed for the murder."
Syas who? Prosecutor Mignini? Must be true then, ha ha ha.
"She changed her story several times."
Yes, because the Police would not accept her first (correct) statement, and held her in custody until she agreed to change her story, to incriminate Patrick, whom the Police had tried, unsuccessfully, to nail in the past.
"Her blood was mixed with Amanda blood."
According to Prosecutor Mignini, it was.
According to the forensic experts, it wasn't.
"She was seen buying cleaning fluids hours after the murder."
Aah, yes ... I forgot. She cleaned the room, and removed all her own DNA, and left all of Rudy Guede's DNA.
You must see that, of all the daft arguments, the "cleaning fluid" story is the one which makes the prosecutors look most ridiculous.
"She went shopping for sexy lingerie the following night."
Yes. That was her being normal. If she had just committed a grizzly murder, she would not have behaved so normally.
"... and was completely detached from reality when she was at the police station."
That was her normal personality. If she had just committed a grizzly murder, she would not have behaved so normally.
"She still doesn't have a proven alibi for the night of the murder."
Nor do most of the other 10,000 people who were in Perugia that evening.
... "and has given several different stories about what she was doing at the time."
But her first statement, before she was forced to change it by the Police, remains the accurate one.
As to people who have changed their statements ...
Why does anyone think Guede did not act alone?
Because he says he didn't??
In his first statement, he said he acted alone.
In his second statement (when Mignini had told him he would get a reduced sentence if he was NOT acting alone), he miraculously "remembered" that he had acted with others, but did not say that it was Amanda.
In the final version of his statement, when Mignini had told him that the court would be VERY lenient if it turned out to be Amanda and Raf whom he had acted with, then he "suddenly remembered" that they were there, after all. Funny that!
Guede's final statement, which led to the Prosecution agreeing to such a lenient sentence, was a complete and utter work of fiction, planted by Prosecutor Mignini who, by that time, was hell bent on trumping up a case against Amanda and Raf, and had completely lost any interest in bringing Meredith's real killer(s?) to justice.
=0) ... (smiley face)
Syas who? Prosecutor Mignini? Must be true then, ha ha ha.
"She changed her story several times."
Yes, because the Police would not accept her first (correct) statement, and held her in custody until she agreed to change her story, to incriminate Patrick, whom the Police had tried, unsuccessfully, to nail in the past.
"Her blood was mixed with Amanda blood."
According to Prosecutor Mignini, it was.
According to the forensic experts, it wasn't.
"She was seen buying cleaning fluids hours after the murder."
Aah, yes ... I forgot. She cleaned the room, and removed all her own DNA, and left all of Rudy Guede's DNA.
You must see that, of all the daft arguments, the "cleaning fluid" story is the one which makes the prosecutors look most ridiculous.
"She went shopping for sexy lingerie the following night."
Yes. That was her being normal. If she had just committed a grizzly murder, she would not have behaved so normally.
"... and was completely detached from reality when she was at the police station."
That was her normal personality. If she had just committed a grizzly murder, she would not have behaved so normally.
"She still doesn't have a proven alibi for the night of the murder."
Nor do most of the other 10,000 people who were in Perugia that evening.
... "and has given several different stories about what she was doing at the time."
But her first statement, before she was forced to change it by the Police, remains the accurate one.
As to people who have changed their statements ...
Why does anyone think Guede did not act alone?
Because he says he didn't??
In his first statement, he said he acted alone.
In his second statement (when Mignini had told him he would get a reduced sentence if he was NOT acting alone), he miraculously "remembered" that he had acted with others, but did not say that it was Amanda.
In the final version of his statement, when Mignini had told him that the court would be VERY lenient if it turned out to be Amanda and Raf whom he had acted with, then he "suddenly remembered" that they were there, after all. Funny that!
Guede's final statement, which led to the Prosecution agreeing to such a lenient sentence, was a complete and utter work of fiction, planted by Prosecutor Mignini who, by that time, was hell bent on trumping up a case against Amanda and Raf, and had completely lost any interest in bringing Meredith's real killer(s?) to justice.
=0) ... (smiley face)
I might have to change my mind here.
Although I have always been convinced that the Italian police had no real evidence, I've just read a statement from Edgardo Giobbi, head of Rome's Special Services Organization, who were called in by the Perugia police to investigate the murder.
Sr Giobbi's statement lists the three bits of "evidence" which persuaded him to agree with Amanda's arrest.
(these are unadulterated statements from Sr Giobbi)
1. We asked [Knox] to put on a pair of shoe covers. She struggled to put them on, but then she said "voila".
2. When she was putting on her shoe covers, she wiggled her hips a bit. My suspicions were aroused.
3. Only two days after the murder [Knox] was eating pizza.
And here is the punchline ... a verbatim quote ...
"We were able to determine guilt without the need for analyzing evidence."
I wonder how many times I need to retype that before it sinks in?
Amanda and Raf were arrested ..
"without the need for analyzing evidence."
"without the need for analyzing evidence."
etc.
So if you say "voila", wiggle your hips, and eat pizza (in Italy!) then the Police profile you as a murderer without ... (here's that Giobbi quote again) ...
... "without the need for analyzing evidence."
So the evidence used to justify the arrest was, officially, according to the Italian Police ... none.
Still, she did order that pizza.
Who, in Italy, would order a pizza? except a murderer!
Maybe they are guilty, after all.
Although I have always been convinced that the Italian police had no real evidence, I've just read a statement from Edgardo Giobbi, head of Rome's Special Services Organization, who were called in by the Perugia police to investigate the murder.
Sr Giobbi's statement lists the three bits of "evidence" which persuaded him to agree with Amanda's arrest.
(these are unadulterated statements from Sr Giobbi)
1. We asked [Knox] to put on a pair of shoe covers. She struggled to put them on, but then she said "voila".
2. When she was putting on her shoe covers, she wiggled her hips a bit. My suspicions were aroused.
3. Only two days after the murder [Knox] was eating pizza.
And here is the punchline ... a verbatim quote ...
"We were able to determine guilt without the need for analyzing evidence."
I wonder how many times I need to retype that before it sinks in?
Amanda and Raf were arrested ..
"without the need for analyzing evidence."
"without the need for analyzing evidence."
etc.
So if you say "voila", wiggle your hips, and eat pizza (in Italy!) then the Police profile you as a murderer without ... (here's that Giobbi quote again) ...
... "without the need for analyzing evidence."
So the evidence used to justify the arrest was, officially, according to the Italian Police ... none.
Still, she did order that pizza.
Who, in Italy, would order a pizza? except a murderer!
Maybe they are guilty, after all.
Latest Posts
Crosswords1 min ago
Crosswords2 mins ago
Crosswords10 mins ago
News12 mins ago
Am I Right To Be Feeling This Way?
Family Life13 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.