Extended interview: Amanda Knox on new trial, helping those falsely convicted 

Welp she’s been reconvict by the Italian courts.

@@Devghost Hello. What do you mean?

She already has on at least two occasions.

They convict convict her again

I never want to step inside Italy after Amanda.

She was lucky she killed somebody while in Italy. If that happened in America she would have been dead by now

It was awful. We put up a lot of bond money. Our family did. We ran fundraisers paying Seattle Prep back. We were all just a bit traumatized but she needs to get home.

Omg prison? My boobs got enormous lol.

I’m I am swollen because this is worst food in history of food.

No Amanda Knox is a killer and deserves to rot in prison!

It really is, and I think it will continue to be talked about for quite some time.

There's nothing bizarre about it, Except the fact that these two people in their twenties were imprisoned without one shred of evidence. Besides, Sollecito is a very sweet and romantic man, so one really needs a lot of imagination and creativity to think he could be compatible with a the profile of pervert loving murderous orgies with strangers. He had never met Guede. She barely knew Guede, the perpetrator.

@@CapcoorIt absolutely will. It's yet another reminder of what can happen when an investigation gets tunnel vision. The case itself was very straight forward. The evidence of Guede committing the crime was overwhelming, was consistent with his behavior in the weeks prior (i.e., burglaries) and his recent assault on another young women proves he has is capable of being violent. The case only went "bizarre" after Mignini and Giobbi decided Amanda was involved and proceeded to fabricate a case against her. Fortunately for her and Raffaele the Supreme Court saw through it, but not until it cost the two of them four years of their lives.

@@TheTruthCalls Do you know Amanda met with Mingini recently?

@@CapcoorAs far as I know, they last met in late 2022, so I'm not sure I'd call that "recently", but yes, I am aware they have established a relationship. Why?

@@AdMaiora2 And this is part of being badly wired at 20.....that you are also blind to this fact.

You are an example of total imbecility, ignorance and gullibility.

Amanda was mature for her age. She was studying abroad and learned a couple of languages. I remember she said that she was reading Harry Potter in German. Even at 20 years old with a not fully developed frontal lobe, Amanda definitely showed signs of being mentally and intellectually mature

@@dominikabanel340 BREAKING: Amanda Knox (@amandaknox ), who falsely accused Patrick Lumumba, a Congolese man, of the murder of British exchange student Meredith Kercher in Italy in 2007, has been re-convicted of slander. Lumumba had been kind to her, giving her a part-time job. However, she deliberately lied about him to exonerate herself and later blamed police pressure. The court has just reconvicted her. lol

@@TheVAULTofHORROR in German becaue she is partly german. her aunt lives in Germany and her pal Rudy Guede was running away to Germany

Interestingly, those who actually did know them, such as those living with them or socializing with them daily, all acknowledge they were friends with a normal relationship. Further, their actions, such as twice going to the chocolate festival as well as the classical concert a week before the murder are all indicators they were friends who enjoyed their time together. That you, despite this, would conclude they weren't friends proves you lack knowledge of the case. Perhaps you should learn the facts before forming opinions.

what would your motivation be to study abroad in another country as a 20 yr old and after 5 weeks decide to murder your roomate?

True to form...no answer.

@@starlightmckennah5241 Exactly. The prosecution changed the motive multiple times as they couldn't support any of them with evidence and some evidence actually disproved them. The most popular motive that we see repeated among the uninformed is that Amanda was 'jealous' of Meredith. Only one person who knew the girls claimed this: Patrick Lumumba. In a (six figure) paid for interview (I Fired Foxy Knoxy) just after his release from jail he wrote "'Meredith was sparkly and she lifted your spirits...Amanda was jealous," "Amanda tried much harder, but was less popular. I didn't realise it at the time, but now I see that she was jealous," and "I knew then she was extremely jealous of Meredith." However, under oath in court, his testimony was very different. This is taken directly from Lumumba's testimony (April 3, 2009): "QUESTION - And how were Amanda’s relations with Meredith? ANSWER - And... QUESTION - Do you know? ANSWER - No, no. QUESTION - You don’t know. ANSWER - I don’t know, I knew they were friends, friends and that's all." In that article he also told many lies including that he'd 'fired' Amanda. Again, in court, he never once claimed he had or was planning to fire her. He also claimed Amanda came to hate him, but in court, he said they got along just fine.

@@TheTruthCalls yea but her lack of empathy shows she didnt like meredith. i mean she only bawled out crying when she was acquited the first time.

John Kercher's book, although a loving tribute to his daughter, basically just repeats the prosecution's claims when it comes to the evidence pretty much without question. This isn't unusual as it's normal for the loved ones of a murder victim to believe the police when they tell them they've got the person or persons responsible. It's also not unusual for the family of victims to continue to believe in the accused's guilt even after they've been acquitted. If they accept that person's innocence, they have to accept that the killer is still out there and may never be caught... they 'got away with it'. That is understandably impossible for some becomes it means they have no closure. The problem with the 'cold hard initial evidence' is that the really critical evidence was shown not to be scientifically supported (Meredith's alleged DNA on the knife and Amanda's 'blood' mixed with Meredith's), or highly likely to be the product of contamination (Raffaele's DNA on the bra hook), or just downright wrong ( Amanda's alleged footprints were in Meredith's blood). Other claimed evidence was also shown to be unsupported or disproved: that no one could have climbed in through Filomena's window, that the rock was thrown from inside, that glass was only on top of items in Filomena's room. The myth that Amanda changed her story multiple times is just that: a myth repeated by those who don't know the case very well. Her description of what happened was the same before and after the interrogation of Nov. 5/6 . It's only during that unrecorded, lawyer-less interrogation that her story changed...and which she recanted twice in writing within hours. False confessions are not rare at all. Also remember that even in the 1:45 and 5:45 statements, she never confessed to being involved in the murder and never mentioned Raffaele at all. The two statements also contained events that were proved to never have happened but which the Chief of Police proudly declared that same day that Amanda had "buckled and made an admission of facts we knew were correct," ...only they weren't. There is no evidence that she was involved in any way whatsoever. Your last claim that she was never acquitted is patently false. This is the final verdict of the 2015 SC: "According to article 620 lett. a) of the code of criminal procedure, it is annulled without appeal the challenged sentence in relation to the crime of paragraph b) of the rubric for being extinct for prescription; according to articles 620 lett. I) and 530, chapter 2 of the code of criminal procedure, in relation to the crime of slander, annuls without appeal the challenged sentence in relation to the crime of paragraph a), d) and e) of the rubric for having not committed the act." To be clear: crime 'a' is the murder charge, 'b' is the theft of € 300.00, two credit cards, and two cell phones, and 'e' is simulating a burglary. These three charges were annulled under Art. 530, chapter 2 of the code of criminal procedure which is an ACQUITTAL. From the Code of Criminal Procedure: "Art. 530. Acquittal." "2.The court shall give a judgment of acquittal even if there is no proof, insufficient evidence or contradictory evidence that the fact exists, that the accused has committed it, that the fact constitutes a criminal offence or that the offence was committed by a person liable." Notice the last part of the Court's ruling: "... for having not committed the act". To claim this is a 'loophole' is factually false and intellectually dishonest as is your claim that "she didn’t get convicted for murder twice by two different judges for no reason." You ignore the inconvenient fact that she was also ACQUITTED TWICE , once by two judges (Hellmann and Zanetti, 2011) and definitively by five judges of the SC (2015).

Totally hear you, however, I’m more than aware of the case having read all the transcripts of every trial .There were two convictions and yes in your opinion rightly so, legally ‘two acquittals’, but with conflicting information in the final ruling .I’m not a legal expert just someone giving an opinion. The ‘trace-DNA’ evidence that was used formed a major part of the evidence against her. However, couldn’t prove there was a plausible motive for the murder is all I’m saying .

@@sonic1192 The conflicting information in the final ruling is based on a pre-existing 'judicial fact' regarding Knox being in the cottage the night of the murder. In Italy, a 'judicial fact' is not necessarily an 'actual fact', meaning it's a 'fact' that has been made definitive by the Supreme Court. Once that happens, it cannot be considered anything but a fact and cannot be overturned or disagreed with by any following court in a related case.* Marasca-Bruno could not, by law, say that Amanda was not at the cottage the night of the murder, did not hear Meredith scream and did not commit calunnia. That's because the calunnia conviction, which included those events, had already been made definitive by the Chieffi SC in 2013. *The reason Knox's calunnia conviction was able to be annulled last October is due to a new law in Italy after 2015 ( CPP Art. 628 bis). It permits the annulment of a definitive conviction if the ECHR subsequently finds the conviction unfair due to the violation of civil rights. In Jan. 2019, the ECHR found Knox's calunnia conviction was 'unfair' due to her right to a lawyer and to an impartial interpreter being violated. Yes, the "trace DNA' was crucial to the finding of guilt in the first trial. But during the appeal trial, that 'trace DNA' was found to be unreliable as evidence. It's refreshing to find someone who has actually read the court transcripts. Most people base their opinions on misinformation posted on YT videos or guilt-biased websites. Or worse, on 'body language'.

She assisted in the commission of the crime y cleaning the murder scene. She should be convicted as an accessory.

​@@mytrip6991that's garbage and libel

She has no other book deal.

@@mytrip6991 yet.

@@melgrant7404 Why keep suggesting she'll write another book when there is no evidence of this? It's been 11 years since her book was published.

@mytrip6991 high time she had another then.

@@mytrip6991 Her husband says she’s working on a new one.

I agree. Italy has paid millions of euros in compensation to tens of thousands of people who were unfairly arrested or convicted: "According to official data from the Ministry of Justice, in 2019 the total expenditure for compensation in cases of wrongful detention on remand amounted to approximately €43.5 million, while with reference to compensation for wrongful conviction under Article 643 CCP, the total amount incurred in 2019 was about €5.2 million.7 In total between 1992 and 2021, the number of cases of wrongful detention on remand amounted to 30,017, for a total public expenditure of approximately € 819 million, compared to 214 cases of wrongful conviction arising from judicial review, for a total of approximately €76 million" (Compensation for wrongful convictions in Italy* Simone Lonati) Amanda Knox was paid 18,400 euros ($20,000) in damages, costs and expenses by Italy as ordered by the ECHR in Jan. 2019.

Hanno due possibilità : o condannarla di nuovo e coprirsi d' infamia , o assolverla e risarcirla ! Caso politicamente interessante !

Nonsense, Knox, it is not yet annulled. Better not go to Italy, they will eat you alive.

@@sertorio1040 Vero. Ma in questo nuovo processo, le sue due dichiarazioni firmate prese illegalmente durante l'interrogatorio non sono ammissibili in tribunale perché i suoi diritti sono stati violati.

@6991 In teoria ha già vinto , ma a Firenze niente è sicuro !

@@peterquennellnyc I don't know if you're the real Peter Quennell or just a troll using his name. Either way, you're one sick person. As for your claim, you're also a liar: "By AFP - Agence France Presse October 13, 2023 Italy's highest court Friday overturned a slander conviction against Amanda Knox, the American jailed and later acquitted of the 2007 murder of her British roommate, and ordered a new trial." "Daily Mail, 25 February, 2024 Amanda Knox is due to make a sensational return to Italy, where she was initially found guilty of murder before being cleared, in order to fight a long standing slander charge. Officials have set a date for the hearing of April 10 and she is expected to fly in from the United States to the Italian city of Florence for the proceedings."

Not quite. Rudy Guede opted for a 'fast track trial' which was his right in 2008 (murder defendants can no longer opt for this). This a non-jury trial but is heard by only a judge. There's basically no defense presentation and is quickly concluded. The 'reward' for not having a long, drawn out jury trial is an automatic reduction of the sentence by 1/3. He was originally sentenced to 30 years but that was reduced to 24 on appeal. A 1/3 reduction of 24 is 16. He served 13 of those 16 years. Very soon after completing the parole last year, his former partner accused him of beating her up and repeatedly raping her. He's now awaiting trial for these charges.

@@mytrip6991 Thanks a ton for a more thorough understanding of what happened!! Greatly appreciated!

@@neologian1783 You're welcome. It's refreshing to see someone who actually wants to know the facts rather than just have their opinions confirmed or spew ignorant hatred.

@@mytrip6991 You are most welcome. And thank you for the gentle correction! It was appreciated.

Yes and it stinks! This case was handled horribly.

No you have to act in order to get the person you are interviewing to thing you are on their side so they will answer your questions.

On what basis?

I hear that a lot but no one ever gives me a reason why they think that.

There are multiple reasons for her possible involvement, hence two convictions of murder , read Meredith Kerchers father’s book on the case or the original court transcripts , it’s there in black and white, but understandably open to debate.

@@sonic1192 Those two convictions were annulled by two acquittals. In the motivation reports from the two acquitting courts, it's carefully explained why those convictions were overturned. John Kercher's book is hardly an unbiased source. It's basically just a repetition of the prosecution's claims. I've also read the original court transcripts which is what I base my arguments on and why I often quote and cite them. Can you explain what evidence places Knox or Sollecito in Kercher's bedroom or even in the cottage that night?

100% she did it it's written all over her face even though she has mastered lying no innocent person acts like she has or tells a huge web of lies. She has the motive she didn't like Meredith and they got high and killed her. Who else did it like wtf? Can't believe so many gullible clowns actually believe she is innocent

You mean by leaving Guede's bloody shoeprints in the hallway, his feces in the toilet and his bloody footprint on the bathmat? And point the last two out to the police? That's some job of "covering it up"!

She was totally innocent

@@beaubloomer4426 Wrong

@@beaubloomer4426 No she belongs in prison!

What is bizarre to me is that she remembers all including ‘interrogation’ not interviews and how they implicated her, I find it quite bizarre as when you are stressed and sleepless it’s very difficult to have a balanced view that you can then discuss all these years later. No empathy thoughts for the murdered Meredith and keep in mind she knew all these people had a full on relationship but also says she’d just arrived and was navigating her way around. We won’t ever know will we.

She's a murderer only got away with it because female American and good looking. She's a liar and apart from all the lies it is written all over her dam face how guilty she is.

@@hellothere-mx6wu Well, now... those are quite some claims made with no supporting evidence. What actual evidence supports her guilt? It seems you hold the Italian judicial system in such low regard that they acquitted a murderer because she's "female, American, and good looking." What 'lies' specifically has she told? Please give examples of "all the lies". And remember, in order to be a lie, the person must know it's not true. Since you think you can see guilt "written all over her dam (sic) face", perhaps the courts should just hire you rather than have a judge/jury trial. You can take a look at the defendant's face and declare guilt or innocence. That would save a lot of time and money.

Um....you're mixing up Rudy Guede with Patrick Lumumba. Guede was convicted of murder and spent 13 years in prison. He was released in Nov. 2021. Currently, he is charged with beating up and raping his former girlfriend and awaiting trial. He was deemed dangerous enough for the court to order him to wear an ankle bracelet with special supervision. Lumumba was her boss at the bar she worked at. Scrolling through Knox's phones, interrogator Rita Ficarra saw Knox's text to him acknowledging his text not to come to work that night. She answered, in Italian, "Sure. See you later. Good night." Ficarra admitted under oath in court she believed "See you later" meant Knox was planning on meeting him later the night of the murder. If you think her 'memories/ flashback/ trauma' story is insane then I suggest you do some research on "coerced/internalized false confessions", starting with this: "We spoke with Saul Kassin, Psychology Professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Williams College, who has researched false confessions for over thirty years, to find out more about the Central Park Five case, why people confess to crimes they did not commit, and how certain interrogation techniques can promote or limit the incidence of false confessions." "Over the years, I have found that lay people have an easier time understanding why someone would kill themselves - they understand suicide and the motivations for it - than they do why someone would confess to a crime he did not commit." "Years ago, my colleague (Larry Wrightsman) and I identified two types of false confessions that come from police interrogation. One we called coerced-compliant false confessions. These are cases, like the Central Park jogger case, where innocent people, who know they are innocent become so stressed, so broken down, and so confused as to what their best means of escape is that they confess fully knowing they’re innocent. In these cases they typically recant the confession almost immediately as soon as the pressure of the situation is lifted. The other type of confession is what we called coerced-internalized false confessions, and these are the cases where individuals actually come to believe in their own guilt as a function of the lies [by police] and their own suggestibility." "Interestingly none of them actually confessed to raping the jogger. Each one implicated the four others and each one stated that he himself played a minimal role. So collectively there were five confessions, but in fact each defendant pointed a finger at the others." (Coerced to Confess: The Psychology of False Confessions, Evan Nesterak, October 21, 2014) Kassin then goes on to describe the Reid Technique, which produces many false confessions, and is what was used on Knox. Her description of her interrogation, written within hours, checks almost every box of the technique. Kassin also believes that Knox falsely confessed due to how she was interrogated and that she is 100% innocent.

Rudy Guede was the sole murderer

Wow that was long. Kassin can’t know if she was coerced, it’s her allegation of ‘gas lighting’ modern term. We don’t know, I doubt we will ever know the full truth. Was it wrong time wrong place!

@@lizroberts1569 Kassin knows the red flags of false confessions and he saw multiple classic ones in her description of the interrogation.

Well, you're in the minority. It's clear she is innocent.

Really? And you were there to see her?

Probably because she was fighting for her own life from second one.

what do you want to see? she bawling her eyes out and post a selfie to Facebook? 🤣

She only knew the girl for 2 wks of course she not gonna be balling her eyes out as if she knew her for yrs I mean come on use your common sense people!🤦🏽‍♀️

@@CyberneticOrganism01 Exactly. It's been 17 years and she didn't do anything wrong. I think some people just like to criticize.

On what evidence is she guilty? If you can't provide that evidence here, then your opinion she's 'STILL guilty' is irrelevant.

@@mytrip6991 Rudy ha pure lavato il pavimento prima di uscire e Meredith ha chiuso a chiave la porta della sua camera prima di stendersi a terra e morire. La tua teoria è brillante, davvero.

@@Clodovicus I never said either of those happened. In fact, no one washed the floor which is why the prosecution never presented any evidence of it. As for your silly quip about Meredith, it's just plain stupid. Try and stick to the evidence and not to things you've invented in your head.

@@Faust1169 Hi, are you referring to my short comment in Italian or the long one in pseudo-English?

@@mytrip6991 people report murders in the rooms they are eating or staying in immediately when innocent.

1) "You were 20 year old KID? Amanda you travelled from America to Italy as a KID?" In American English, "kid" is often used to describe young college students: "college kid n, US, informal (university-age student)" "Kid" is also commonly used for adult children as in "My kid just got married." 2) "You tried to imagine the memories you did not have? why? " She told you why: "The only thing I could think to do as a 20 year old kid was to believe them and to try to just give them what they wanted. So I, I tried to imagine memories that I didn't have and then they 'Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.' When I didn't remember correctly, they would hit me in the back of the head and you know, not enough to leave a mark, but enough to startle me. And um and enough to convey to me that when I gave them something that they didn't like, they would not accept it." 3) "are you doing it still to show that you are innocent?" She doesn't have to "show" anything; she was acquitted in a court of law. She's explaining what happened during the interrogation. An interrogation that was found to have violated her rights which “irreparably undermined the fairness of the proceedings as a whole” according to the ECHR. This resulted in her defamation conviction being annulled in Oct. 2023. She was granted a new trial for the defamation charge which starts April 10. 4) "if you did not know Italian language was not better to don't use it and wait until comes the person that can help you to talk with the police?" You're speaking from hindsight which is always 20/20. She spoke a very basic Italian and was trying her best to answer the questions being asked of her by police. 5) " why in all her interviews nobody has sympathy for Meredith? because Amanda does not like it? why everyone just say poor Amanda but not Meredith that was murdered in that horrible way?" Your claim is just plain wrong. I suggest you watch other interviews.

She is innocent! She was framed.

its typical for sociopaths. THEY TAKE THE WHOLE ROOM.

@@mytrip6991 oH MY.....you think we dont know???? Using the word "kid" is not random: she justifies her stupidity wih her young age, but mind you: nobody from all flatmates was kissing passionaltely next to a bloody murder scene in their HOME. NOBODY hung at the police station UNINVITED. Nobody was "stretching", singing, "helping" which can only be seen as fishing at what the police knows. She is sto stupid....she thinks she can floood the public with her endless talking. THis fact only shows that something is wrong with her. Im not even mentionning her incriminTING AN INNOCNT PERSON AND NEVER APOLOGISING FOR IT.

@@Ali-gb7mf and this is why she framed Patrick Lumumba?

I'll just leave you with this right here: You're being dishonest about that quote as it comes from an article written in Oct. 2011 which was a review of John Follain's book. As the article also says, but which you left out: " Witnesses were shown to be confused." Oh, they were shown to be more than "confused". Every single witness who "came forward to place Guede, Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime," was discredited for various reasons. One claimed he saw Knox and Sollecito together the previous summer before Knox had even arrived in Perugia and months before they had met one week before the murder. Another, Antonio Curatolo, claimed he saw Knox and Sollecito (not Guede) watching the cottage for several hours. But when questioned in court, her said he was sure of the date because he saw students in costumes getting onto busses going to the discos for the holiday. That would be Halloween. The night BEFORE the murder. Another witness ,Hekuran Kokomani, an Albanian immigrant serving prison time, was the prosecution’s “super-witness.” The convicted drug dealer claimed that Amanda and Raffaele jumped out of trash bags on Halloween and threw olives at him. He claims that Amanda had a gap between her teet (she didn't). Kokomani was finally dismissed from court when the judges realize that he was lying to get a ‘vacation day’ away from jail. "the fact that the young lovers had bought bleach the following morning" proved NOT to be a fact when it was revealed in court that the store owner, Marco Quintavalle, who claimed over a year after the murder that he saw Knox waiting outside his store the morning after the murder had 1) never claimed she bought anything, much less bleach, 2) store receipts showed nothing had been sold by the store that morning, 3) the store cashier said she never saw Knox, and 4) policeman Oreste Volturno's records showed he had interviewed Quintavalle several days after the murder and had shown him photos of Knox and Sollecito. Quintavalle recognized them as customers but made no mention of having seen Knox at his store the morning of Nov. 2, only before and always with Sollecito whose apartment was just up the street. Oreste had specifically asked Quintavalle about any bleach sales and the shop owner never said anything about Knox or Sollecito buying bleach or anything else. There was no "technicality", which is a claim often made by those who just don't know the facts. The pair were acquitted because there was NO evidence placing either of them in Kercher's bedroom or to the murder. I suggest you read the final report before posting on the case again.

She didn't get off on a technicality, and saying she did doesn't make it so. The prosecution tried to claim Knox cleaned her DNA up from the crime scene, leaving behind only Meredith's and Guede's. That premise should have been laughed out of court, yet was taken seriously in Italy. You say sympathy for Knox is sick, but all you're repeating is what the tabloids printed, based on information provided to them by the bizarre prosecutor, who built a case against Knox based mostly on his own twisted fantasies. I think that's pretty sick!

@@williamanthony9090 It doesn't take a brilliant mind to question the possibility of how two people can remove ONLY the INVISIBLE fingerprints and INVISIBLE DNA of themselves while leaving those of two others.

​@@williamanthony9090 What is sick is your total misinformation on this case. That the crime scene was washed is objective and established, it should be obvious even to a brainless idiot - like you -. How can an individual leave a single bloody foot in another room? Did he fly to get to the other room and put his bloody foot on the mat? (A footprint which, among other things, according to some reports does not coincide with Guede's foot.) The floor has been washed, in fact the footprint is not complete, the heel is missing, although it is evident that the person placed the entire foot on it . That aside, there is scientific evidence and luminol to prove it. AK's DNA was not found on the victim's body, but Rudy Guede's was not there either, since the skin does not retain the DNA of others, unless it is in large quantities (like spit), or under the nails. Only her own DNA was found under Meredith's nails, while in her vagina there were traces of Guede's saliva. Furthermore, if AK's DNA had been under Meredith's body, it would not have been found because there was too much blood and since they were both females it was much more difficult to detect it, while the male DNA, having a y chromosome, was more detectable. Despite this, the two women's DNA were found, mixed in several places, such as the bathroom sink and the bloody light switch in Meredith's room, but Amanda lived in that house, so this evidence has less value than that of Guede. it is amply demonstrated and clear that she locked Meredith's room to delay the discovery of the body, and moved around the house freely for hours before calling her Italian roommate (who was in town at her boyfriend's house and could have returned at any moment) to say that there was something strange and therefore raise the alarm; if that door had been wide open, as Rudy had left it (proven by the shoe prints), she wouldn't have been able to tell that story about taking a shower and everything without having any inkling, premonition, fear or worry. A story which however is far-fetched even like this, because there is no human being in the world who would not worry about their roommate and a locked door, after seeing traces of blood in the house. Furthermore, no one would have had any reason to stage a robbery except someone who had the keys to the house.

@@mytrip6991 Yes they can. They know what they touched that night. No one buys bleach who isn't guilty PERIOD.

I don't apart from her lies about a million facial expressions to me say she is guilty as hell, a decent actress but she did it or was involved. The motive was there jealousy , they obviously done it when they were high. Somebody innocent does not make up a pack of lies over and over again guilty 100%

What a pile of BS!!!!! Guy who has 400 cases a month, is projecting something into a random drug addict ? Perugia is full, too full of Americans, of foreigners in general!! Why would the old experienced prosecutor even pay attention to Amanda? She isnt special at all! She is arrogant liar. She hung at the police station UNINVITED, and then made a victim of herself, claiming- and notofying falsely all media - that she was "interrogated for 56 hours!!!!" The prosecutor WAS RIGHT FROM THE START. Just the same as the prosecutor in McCanns case. And both were ridicluled and mocked. The prosecutor isnt new to this town. For 800 years in Perugia, the students do shennanigans, especialy around Haloween- not called like that obviously This is American invention but nothing new around that time of year, there were murders in that time too- all alcohol an drugs related. All students life and party related. You are projecting this case on your own ignorance and simplicity. And by the way: have you seen Italian women? Amanada looks like the broom stick next to the ugliest of them. They are the real beauties.

​@@hellothere-mx6wuHave you ever even been to the US? Looks like you totally lack any international communication experience to realize how different the facial espressions of americans may be from the facial expressions of some europeans, in particular italians. Exactly like that crazy elderly procecutor.

@@zyvezet yeah nice probably we have her personal friends and family defending her here. When they ask her if she killed Meredith she says no but nods her head at the same time. She tried to shift the blame and frame an innocent man. So much of her behaviour screams guilty I have never seen a wrongly convicted innocent person act this way. She was convicted twice for a reason no random burglar killed Meredith they did and nothing will change my mind . You can see her soul is destroyed by the guilt she is loving with , her lying has gotten better before it was obvious something was very wrong when she spoke but you can still see through her if you know what to look for.

@@hellothere-mx6wu Nothing screams guilty in her behaviour, it's all biased presumptions. And as a foreign woman living in Italy (who has also lived in the US) and knowing how conservative and inflexible provincial italians still are regarding behaviour, habits, fashion and any ways of self-expression, I've never for a second believed she could be guilty. Just completely misunderstood by an elderly man who didn't know what "mentality" differences are.

What makes you think they were indifferent?

@@mytrip6991 Good question! I don’t know and i wonder why so much crime appears everywhere!

@@mistieblue9 A question you asked but didn't answer. Why makes you think they were "indifferent" to Meredith's death?

@@mytrip6991 All the story was so strange!

@@mistieblue9 Not if you know the facts. It was a simple burglary that escalated into a rape and murder by Rudy Guede. Only the idiot police and prosecutor turned it into a salacious girl on girl murder.

Your first two sentences are nothing but armchair psychology. She had nothing whatsoever to do with Meredith KerCher's death so she has nothing to apologize for.

@@mytrip6991 i never believed that...she was more involved then she claims to be, i would not be surprised if she knew in advance it was going to happen.

​@@mytrip6991wtf is the matter with you are you employed full time to kill any argument that anyone writes against her? get a life, seriously 😅

@@glutamin111 Based on what exactly? You're making claims not based on any evidence. Your last comment is particularly unsupported by any evidence.

Never once did AK mention Meredith's suffering, or that of her family, it is all about AK. Does she seriously think one is supposed to feel sympathy for her? Meredith lost her life in a brutal and horrific manner, and her family was totally heart-broken. Yet they remained gracious throughout the trial, no small feat considering the grief and pain they were in. Now, both Meredith's parents are dead, and never lived to see justice. Surely, Meredith's siblings deserve closure to enable them to go on with their lives.

No. The crime scene shows fight of more than 2 people.

You're ignorant.

Il nome è noto : GUEDE !

the evidence shows that more that 2 people were in that room. The wounds show that poor Meredith was held and someone else attacked her. She was held, raped and killed, and evidence shows that this wasnt done by one person. And check out Knox novel about rape, that she wrote at very young age.

@@dominikabanel340 La polizia , dopo l'enorme GAFFE ( caso chiuso ! ) vuole riabilitarsi e inserisce AeR sulla scena del delitto . Ma allora ci dovrebbero essere le impronte di 3 aggressori in un piccolo spazio : numerose , mescolate , sovrapposte ....Invece NO ci sono solo quelle di GUEDE pulitissime !

What evidence proves guilt BARD?

So you don't think that someone rinsing off the bottom of their bloody trouser leg would remove their shoe first and then put their dry shoe back on? They'd just stick their foot with a shoe in the water? Guede even wrote in his prison diary, " I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt." Guede also admitted he was in the bathroom twice. NO bloody FOOTprints were found anywhere in the cottage with the exception of ONE on the bath mat so obviously no one was walking around with bloody feet. When people clean up blood visible to the naked eye, luminol will still reveal the swirls marks left behind because minute traces of blood still remain. No such marks were found anywhere in the cottage. Logic and rational thinking tell us that Knox and Sollecito would NOT have deliberately pointed out the footprint on the bathmat to the police if it belonged to Sollecito. They had a minimum of 12 hours to clean the scene before Knox started the discovery process by calling Filomana and Sollecito called the police to report the break-in and blood in the bathroom.

​@@mytrip6991guede "using his sweatshirt to cover his wet trousers" would mean that the top half of his trousers were wet. Rinsing a bloody trousers leg in a bidet is not easy,and allows only the very bottom to be rinsed. Even if he had rinsed it thus,wouldn't it be logic that the blood rinsed off would be very diluted? But the print on the bathmat is clear,as though it were hardly diluted at all. Also rinsing does not logically lead to almost the entire sole to be wet,however stepping into (slightly diluted) blood easily does Furthermore there are the measurements,which on almost all measure points point it to be sollecito's. Yes,I know the defence has found a theory to make it seem guede"s,cause they NEED it to be guede's,otherwise they have lost the entire case. The measurements however do not lie,and point strongly to sollecito. This leaves them deliberately pointing out the bathmat. The bathmat was lying in amanda's room,they probably forgot about it,and when the found out they did,the best thing to do was tell about it,otherwise they were f***ed. Ps,why was a bloody bathmat with footprint doing in amanda's room in the first place?

@@-draigh 1) "guede "using his sweatshirt to cover his wet trousers" would mean that the top half of his trousers were wet.Rinsing a bloody trousers leg in a bidet is not easy,and allows only the very bottom to be rinsed. " False. The bidet had a faucet that would have allowed water to rinse from the knee down by simply bending his knee and turning the leg to the side under the running water. The fact remains that he wrote in his diary (pg.2) "I had wet trousers and tried to cover it with the sweatshirt. There were a lot of people in the street, in Piazza Grimana." Trying to cover it with his sweatshirt was an attempt to hide his wet trousers. No one said it was a successful attempt. 2. "Even if he had rinsed it thus,wouldn't it be logic that the blood rinsed off would be very diluted? But the print on the bathmat is clear,as though it were hardly diluted at all." Have you even seen the photos or video of the footprint ON the bathmat? The footprint is not "clear". Its edges are blurry which shows it WAS made with diluted blood, not blood alone. This is a major reason the experts came to very different conclusions as to its measurements and who left it. 3. "Also rinsing does not logically lead to almost the entire sole to be wet,however stepping into (slightly diluted) blood easily does." That has got to be one of the most nonsensical things you've said. His FOOT was rinsed in the bloody water in the bowl after he rinsed the trouser leg. How do you put your foot in the water without getting he sole wet? Upside down? 4. "The measurements however do not lie,and point strongly to sollecito." Once again you reveal your very limited knowledge of this case. The measurements taken by the police experts (Boemia and Rinaldi) were very different from those taken by Prof. Vinci, the defense expert. B & R failed to take into consideration Sollecito's hammertoe and only used photos of the bathmat. Vinci used both the photos and the mat itself. Additionally, he used a forensic lighting tool called Crimescope that allows photos to be enhanced by using different colors revealing more detail and clarity. 5. "The bathmat was lying in amanda's room,they probably forgot about it,and when the found out they did,the best thing to do was tell about it,otherwise they were f***ed. Ps,why was a bloody bathmat with footprint doing in amanda's room in the first place?" OMG. You think the bathmat was found in Amanda's bedroom? The bathmat was found in the bathroom in front of the sink and shower as photographed and videotaped by the police! Honestly, try and do some research before commenting on something you obviously know very little about.

@@mytrip6991 you said: "simply bending the knee and turning the leg to the side" This would mean that the water diluted blood would not have reached his footsole(iit falls vertically,not horizontally). And definitely not almost the entire coverage of the sole. Also! rinsing means that the blood is almost turned to water,why else rinse? The footprint as clear as it is would not have appeared after a good rinsing The whole "guede rinsing' story is very far fetched,BUT you need it,or else you lose the entire debate!

@@mytrip6991 also! If guede's pant leg was completely wet (from top to bottom),he would not have thought about only covering the top half...why bother!

She was probably guilty and young, immature & in a foreign country.

You seem to think that because she expresses how she's rebuilding her life that she's not being empathetic to the fact that Meredith doesn't have that chance. So what do you expect her to do? Curl in a ball, hide away and waste the rest of her life for something that RUDY GUEDE did? sheesh

@blueemoonlady Sigh. Here we go again. I wish I had a nickel for every time some accuses me of being Amanda, a family member or a friend. I'm none of those. You are spouting the same misinformation I read from those who clearly do not know this case. 1) "explain why she lied so much and changed her story" EXACTLY what lies did she tell? Be specific. The only time her story changed was the one the police wrote up and she signed during the Nov. 5/6 interrogation. Her story was consistent before that interrogation and she told the same story after that interrogation. Within hours of that interrogation, during which they kept telling her she had 'traumatic amnesia', she told the police in writing (Memoriale 1) that they could not rely on what she'd said during the interrogation as being true because she wasn't sure if it had even happened. She said she had been so exhausted, scared, and confused by what they were telling her had happened, for which they had "hard evidence", and what she remembered. The next day, she wrote another "memoriale" to them in which she said, "This is what happened [that she'd been at Raffaele's apartment all evening and night] and I could swear by it. I’m sorry I didn’t remember before and I’m sorry I said I could have been at the house when it happened. I said these things because I was confused and scared. I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house." 2) "her blood was found mixed with kercher's in multiple places" This reveals how little you know about the facts of the case. In fact, as proven IN COURT by testimony in 2009, Knox's BLOOD was NOT found mixed with Kercher's blood ANYWHERE IN THE COTTAGE. The forensic tests conducted by Patrizia Stefanoni proved that the ONLY place Knox's DNA, NOT BLOOD, was found mixed with Kercher's blood was in 3 places in the bathroom. As they shared that bathroom, Knox's DNA could have been from pre-deposited saliva, buccal cells (mouth), or skin cells that Kercher's blood was deposited ON TOP of or NEXT to. When the swab was taken, it would have picked up not only Kercher's blood, but also that innocent DNA left previously by Knox from simply using her own bathroom. I suggest you read the court testimony instead of repeating provably false claims and maybe learn how mixed DNA works.

@blueemoonlady Why are you so invested in her guilt? All the physical evidence pointed to the actual killer. The misconduct of the prosecutor is the real story, seeing as it ruined the reputations of two innocent people, after throwing them both in prison for years, and added to the pain of Meredith's family, by making them believe two innocent people had gotten away with murder. The tabloids beat the drums of hysteria without regard for the truth, in the face of indisputable evidence which clearly pointed to the actual killer, and which eventually led to Knox and her boyfriend being acquitted. Besides the rapist/killer, who fled the country the day after Meredith's murder, the other bad guy connnected with this case is the twisted prosecutor, who made up an elaborate, ridiculous, story against two innocent people, and basically got away with it until higher courts in Italy finally said: "Enough!"

She only knew the girl for a few weeks yea they became friends but I wouldn’t be balling my eyes out over someone I only befriended after 2 wks of knowing them yall just want to see her as guilty because the media painted a picture for you… use your own brain for once

@@jarricah7920 They knew each other 6 weeks but you're absolutely correct about the rest. The ironic thing is that, if Knox did ball her eyes out, these same people would be claiming they were crocodile tears. For some people, Knox is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

Your are wrong. She's sick. there was ample motive. The reason she threw her boss under the rug and he was arrested and put in jail for 2 weeks but he finally got out because he had a rock solid alibi by luck a Belgian man happened to see the newspaper article stating that he was arrested and came forward to state that know he was working all night at the bar. Amanda was pissed that she was going to lose hours at her work to meredith. In addition, they couldn't stand each other nor could Filomena. Amanda was a known slob and she never did her signed chores. The reality is, the most damning piece of direct evidence is the fact that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith blood lit up under luminol in filomena's bedroom. That bedroom is particularly important because that is where the stage breaking occurred and the glass was on the floor from the window being broken. There is no way that Amanda's DNA could have mixed with Meredith blood being found under luminol unless she was actually present during the murder. Never mind the fact that her DNA was also on the handle of the knife that killed Meredith. And funny enough, early morning after the murder Amanda decided to go buy a big bottle of bleach which she attempted to conceal all the blood but thankfully the police had luminol. There are so many other details of circumstantial evidence as well such as her changing her story again and again, when she found out so that Solecito was no longer her alibi then she threw Patrick Lamumba under the bus. There is both strong direct and circumstantial evidence against her. She did it. Read the case details for yourself and stop listening to the pr campaign

@@primalcritters blah blah blah... you think repeating this over and over is making it any more intelligent? Learn the facts of the case for Gods sake!

I agree

She still looks pretty good. Notice she now has freckles though.

Not surprising. She's almost 37 and the mother of two small children.

@@mytrip6991 37 is not old.

@@Capcoor True. But having two small ones to chase around is enough to age anyone! LOL.

Of course it has. She did it and has to live with it. It is of course even though she is a complete psychopath.

1) "Her actions were suspicious how her boyfriend and her were acting right after they found the body." Vague claims are very difficult to address. What actions exactly are you talking about 'right after they found the body"? 2)"Thought it was appropriate to do cartwheels while waiting to be talked to at the police station." Now, that's a specific claim so I can address it. First, Knox was not waiting to be interviewed/interrogated. She had not even been asked to come to the police station that night. She and Sollecito were at a friend's place having dinner when the police phoned Sollecito at 10:00 PM and asked him to come in. As Knox was with him, she came with him instead of going back alone to his apartment. Second, When Sollecito went with the police to be interviewed at 10;30, Knox waited for him in an area by the elevator and did some Italian grammar drills in her notebook. A policeman came by and started asking her some question. Tired and stiff, she stood up and started doing some yoga stretching while talking to him. He noticed now limber she was and asked her what else she could do so she did a splits . Monica Napoleoni came out to of the elevator just at that time and had a fit. It was Napoleoni who claimed Knox did a cartwheel. The same Napoleoni who was later sentenced to over 3 years in jail for abusing her police powers to get revenge against her ex-husband and a court child psychologist who recommended she not get custody of her son. Several of her underlings, including some involved in the Kercher case, were also found guilty of helping her. Both Napoleoni and they lied to protect themselves. 3) "And im sorry but she points the finger at her boss as he was one of them knowing that was a lie." Yes, she signed two statements written up by the police at 1:45 AM and 5:45 AM. She started being questioned about 11:00 PM according to the police. So almost 3 hours after she being interrogated, with no recording or record of what was said, and with out a lawyer, she signed what the police told her was 'the truth'. Why? Because they'd already decided what they thought had happened and any time Knox denied it, they yelled, threatened, called her a liar and, according to Knox, slapped her on the back of the head. As she wrote within hours of signing those two statement, she told the police she had only done so because she was so exhausted, scared, and confused she couldn't differentiate her memories from what seemed like dreams. The next day, she wrote again telling them that she could now think more clearly and she knew what she had signed wasn't the truth. She said, "I can't know who the real killer is because I never went back to the cottage." They ignored her recantation. 4) "Shes saying what the cops said to her but thats heresay." What the cops say is also hearsay as they failed to record or even write down what was said doing that interrogation as was required. So what we have are cops just as likely covering for themselves as not. Do you think they'd ever admit to smacking or threatening her, which is against the law? 5)"She may of not been the one to kill her roomate" But that is exactly what she was charged with and twice convicted of doing despite there being NO evidence of her at all in Kercher's bedroom where she was killed. And NO motive was ever established (which is why they kept coming up with new ones). 6) "...but i think she knew about the death before the body was found." Why? Logic says she didn't. If she had, she and Sollecito would have done the following to cover for themselves and Guede: a)Cleaned the bathroom (likely with bleach), especially any visible signs of blood, b)Removed the bathmat with the bloody footprint, c)Washed the bathroom, hallway, and kitchen floors and most certainly the visible bloody shoeprints, d)Flushed Guede's feces in the toilet But none of that was done as the evidence proves. Remember, Kercher was attacked most likely when she arrived home at 9:00 PM but even if we accept the prosecution time of 11:00-11:30 PM, all this could and would have been done during the dark of night and finished well before dawn. Also remember that it was Knox who started the discovery of the body when she called Filomena to tell her that she found the door open, blood in the bathroom, and feces is Filomena's toilet. Sollecito also called the carabinieri to report the broken window, blood, and Kercher's lock door and inability to find her at 12:51. A guilty person most likely would have cleaned up anything they thought would connect them to the murder. After allegedly having all night to do so, a guilty RS and AK would have gone to Gubbio as planned (and which RS's father could attest to) and let Filomena come home to find the front door open. 7) "She doesnt take any accountability for the actions she did do." And what actions were those exactly? If you're talking about Lumumba, I suggest you google "Amanda Knox Nov. 6 memoriale and Nov 7 second memoriale. And you might want to read her apology to Lumumba in court. Here, I'll provide it for you: Dec. 11, 2010: “Patrick? I don’t see you. But I’m sorry. I’m sorry, because I didn’t want to wrong you. I was very naïve and not remotely courageous, because I should have been able to endure the pressure that pushed me to wrong you. I didn’t want to contribute to all that you suffered. You know what it means to have unjust accusations imposed on your skin. You didn’t deserve what you went through. I hope you’ll succeed in finding your peace.”

@@mytrip6991 You forget to mention the police brought the boss into the discussion because of the text Knox had sent him the night before, in regard to not having to go to work, ending with "See You Later." The police were convinced that meant she met with her boss the night of the murder, not realizing, or not caring, that "see you later" is a common American phrase meaning goodbye.

@@williamanthony9090 True. Actually, the text ended in "Good night" which is not something one says if they're seeing you later on the same night.

because they didn't realize that they would later be implicated

@@lynnhubbard844 What question is that in answer to? I don't know what you're referring to.

there was ample motive. The reason she threw her boss under the rug and he was arrested and put in jail for 2 weeks but he finally got out because he had a rock solid alibi by luck a Belgian man happened to see the newspaper article stating that he was arrested and came forward to state that know he was working all night at the bar. Amanda was pissed that she was going to lose hours at her work to meredith. In addition, they couldn't stand each other nor could Filomena. Amanda was a known slob and she never did her signed chores. The reality is, the most damning piece of direct evidence is the fact that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith blood lit up under luminol in filomena's bedroom. That bedroom is particularly important because that is where the stage breaking occurred and the glass was on the floor from the window being broken. There is no way that Amanda's DNA could have mixed with Meredith blood being found under luminol unless she was actually present during the murder. Never mind the fact that her DNA was also on the handle of the knife that killed Meredith. And funny enough, early morning after the murder Amanda decided to go buy a big bottle of bleach which she attempted to conceal all the blood but thankfully the police had luminol. There are so many other details of circumstantial evidence as well such as her changing her story again and again, when she found out so that Solecito was no longer her alibi then she threw Patrick Lamumba under the bus. There is both strong direct and circumstantial evidence against her. She did it. Read the case details for yourself and stop listening to the pr campaign

And you are foolish to believe that deals don't happen even when somebody is guilty? Happens all the time. Look at the Memphis three. Look into the details of that case. Really look into it don't just watch the movie or listen to Hollywood. They were never exonerated but they were let out of jail on an Alford plea. Roberta glass is a very good source she has several videos on both the Memphis Three and on Amanda knox. The one for the Memphis Three listen to the one with that author that wrote the book on them. He has very comprehensive details of the case. And as for Roberta glass covering Amanda knox, she has several videos on it. You need to look at Filomena's bedroom

@@primalcritters Are you really going to continue to prove how little you know of this case. Meredith was not going to work at Le Chic, and Amanda was very happy with the Tues/Thurs rotation her and Lumumba agreed to. All of the girls in the cottage liked one another, as was testified to by Laura and Filomena. Filomena said neither Amanda or Meredith were doing what they should, cleaning wise, so a rotation was drawn up and everyone was following it. No blood was found in Filomena's room. The kitchen knife was not the murder weapon. And funny enough, Amanda did not buy bleach that morning. Her account of the evening of the murder never changed, except during the interrogation of 5/6 Nov, the one where her rights were violated and the results of which are inadmissible. Good advice to read the case details, but it's too bad you didn't actually do this or you wouldn't be getting so much wrong. It was also good advice to stop listening to the PR, but unfortunately you're not taking your own advice as you admit you think Roberta Glass is a good source of information when in fact she is a complete hack.

@@TheTruthCalls You are correct on every single point and I have repeatedly quoted and cited testimony from the court records proving those points. Yet, people like primalcritters continue to repeat falsehoods out of ignorance. Sadly, what I've found is that people rarely have the ability and intellectual honesty to admit they are wrong even when presented with evidence from the court records that they are, in fact, wrong.

@@mytrip6991 So true, though I'm thinking primalcritters just likes to read his/her ramblings. I mean, my God, the same crap how many times? Sometimes I wish copy/paste didn't exist.

Do you think the police and the police's translator would admit that she was hit on the back of the head? Doing so would be admitting to breaking the law and result not only in her two signed statements being thrown out as evidence, but charges brought against Ficarra and the others for not reporting it. Sheesh.

Was Patrick the Black Italian guy?

She already apologized to him in court on Dec. 11, 2010.

@@AntiMasonic93 Patrick Lumumba was her boss at the bar she worked at. Rudy Guede is the black guy who killed Kercher and spent 13 years in prison for it. He is also awaiting trial under charges of raping and beating up his former girlfriend after he got out of prison.

@@mytrip6991 Amanda the millionaire must pay him 20k, not say "sorry" in court on lawyer demand

which media?

The media manipulation of the American people is why she is free today.

So your opinion is all that matters ,how arrogant of you

@@OLDSKOOLRAVER1 Some opinions are based on knowledge of the topic and some are not. The two are not equivalent in value. "People are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts." "“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” ― Harlan Ellison Most people who declare the pairs' guilt demonstrate an abysmal lack of knowledge of the evidence including repeated disproven nonsense like 1. they cleaned up the murder scene (usually with bleach bought by Knox), 2. Kercher's DNA was on the knife, 3. Knox's footprints were in Kercher's blood, 4. Knox lied and lied and lied.... 5. An innocent person doesn't accuse someone else, 6. Knox's blood was mixed with Kercher's blood, " 7. Sollecito's bloody footprint was on the rug, 8. Knox was jealous of Kercher, 9. Knox and Sollecito bought drugs from Guede and used cocaine, 10. Knox accused Lumumba to cover for Guede. And a host of others.

@@levdavid2412 Italian and British tabloids, for two.

How?

I didn't think you'd answer.

You say the first dumb thing that pops in your little brain all the time or nah… What proof did you gain from this interview pea brain?

No it doesn't

How so?

"Most people know she is guilty." Really? And you know this how? Exactly what evidence convinces you that "Knox is so guilty"? Is it her DNA and fingerprints found in Kercher's bedroom? Her bloody foot-or shoeprints? The credible witnesses placing her outside the cottage that night? The CCTV footage? Buying bleach? Her jealousy of Kercher? Her need for money? None of which existed. As for the new defamation trial, the ECHR ruled her conviction for defamation "unfair" due to violations of her rights. They fined Italy about $20,000 which has been paid to Knox. The SC of Italy also annulled that conviction and nothing Knox signed during the interrogation could be used as evidence against her due to those violations.

guede was wearing shoes and his shoeprints,outside Kercher's room,show him walking straight to the exit. However,there is one barefoot bloody footprint in the bathroom on the mat... Someone was barefoot with blood on the sole of their foot (feet?). The probable other bloody barefoot prints seem to have been wiped away. WHO was there besides guede?

@@-draigh Guede was wearing shoes when he committed the murder and when he left. But the bloody footprint on the bathmat was left after someone rinsed their foot in the bidet and then stepped onto it. Guede admitted his trouser leg was wet when he left. In order to rinse it, he'd remove his shoe, rinse it and the bottom of his trouser leg in the bidet, and then put the shoe back on. Logic says that footprint is Guede's and not Sollecito's. There were, at a minimum, 12 hours between the murder and Knox's call to Filomena starting the discovery process. If that bloody footprint belonged to Sollecito, Knox would not have pointed it out to the police. They had plenty of time to remove the rug or wash it. They did not. ALL of Knox's footprints in the cottage tested NEGATIVE FOR BLOOD with TMB as revealed by police Scientific Officer Stefanoni's RTGIF. Circular swaths and wiping marks are typically revealed by luminol when blood is cleaned up. Luminol revealed NO signs of a clean up.

@@mytrip6991 the footprint on the bathmat let's us conclude that basically the entire footsole was covered in blood. For a barefooted person,a puddle of blood on the floor would suffice. However for a person wearing outbreak 2 shoes,his shoe must have been drenched in blood. And not only the front,or the side,but not just the front,or the side,but the entire sole needed to be reached! No,obviously it was left by a barefooted person!

@@mytrip6991 you said: "they had plenty of time to remove or wash it" That's probably what they thought. After they were done,to call the police... But they didn't expect the postal police to surprise them...!

@@-draigh Sollecito left NO shoeprints or footprints anywhere in the cottage. The fact that INTACT, invisible to the naked eye footprints of Knox were found in the hallway indicates no clean up was performed. Other evidence that no clean up happened is the fact that visible blood remained in the bathroom which Sollecito told the police in his 112 call and Knox pointed out to the police when they arrived. They had no way of knowing what the blood could reveal, so if they had been there that night, AK and RS would certainly have cleaned the bathroom thoroughly and removed/washed the rug.

So, tell me: what exactly do you think she's lying about. Specific examples.

Yeah, I didn't think so.

Well, she IS older. It's been 17 years since Meredith was murdered by Rudy Guede. I beg you look older than you did in 2007, too. But I find you comment that "It's kind of off putting" very odd.

Definitely. She looks older than my mother who is 59.

Based on what evidence?

Yes, she did.

@@Persefone94 Based on what evidence? Unless you and @agaaga8616 can answer that question, your opinions are irrelevant due to having no evidentiary support.

YES YES YEASSS

The word is pathological, and no she isn't.

Care to discuss the evidence you think supports that she 'got away with murder"?

@@mytrip6991 Like blaming some black man owner of a bar withxa bullet proof alibi of been the murderer ? like making cartwheels at the moment the body of her victim was lifted by the Italian police ? like not having an alibi ?

@@mytrip6991 ... and like taking a shower after the murder ?

@@mytrip6991 While she took a shower still were traces of blood in their bathroom and a huge turd at the John left by their third partner in crime that she even wasn't bother to flush.

@@mytrip6991 That as far as i remember. All this circunstantial evidence though, although very compelling. As in the OJ Simpson case no link was ever found that connected her directly with the victim at the time of the murder hence she was set free.

Amen

Hmmm...and were you forced to seek out and watch this video and then comment on it?

@@mytrip6991 What difference does that make?

@@jodylancaster8706 You say to "stop giving her attention, then you do exactly that.

@@mytrip6991 Blame the media. My commenting to them is not giving attention. Only in your world.

With being acquitted of the murder charge and the annulment of the defamation conviction, she IS no longer a "convict". That you think her emotion releasing laugh is "all that (you) need to hear in order to proclaim her a sociopath and guilty says far more about you than her. Please, don't ever sit on a jury. The defendant might let out a nervous laugh at the wrong time and convince you they're guilty despite the evidence.

People are cattle and you're an excellent example.

People have different reactions when stressed/uncomfortable. An uncomfortable laugh does not make someone guilty.

@@CoolHandLukeDuke Exactly.

@@mytrip6991 - She's a brilliant actress if she's guilty. Truly Academy Award worthy.

Why? What exactly makes it sound 'distant'?

No, it doesn't.

Sociopath

@@kybardi11.11 What evidence can you present that Knox is a 'psychopath' other than your opinion she's guilty? Throwing that word around is commonly done by those who have very little knowledge of the case. It's a lazy "go to" for the uninformed.

She is a liar

LOL. Hardly.

She's just 36 years old!

Barely looks out of her 20s.

wow...because she isn't wearing makeup? she looks barely older than 28

She looks so much older

Meredith wasn't black. She was half Caucasian and half Pakistani and beautiful. Claiming racism in this case is an easy and lazy excuse to use and not founded on any evidence.

@@mytrip6991 in the eyes of everyone else she is black.

@@chrisx1197 So you speak for everyone else? I'd bet you know very little about this case if you have to resort to the race card. What evidence supports guilt?

@@chrisx1197 I didn't think you answer.

@@chrisx1197 So now we get to 'pretend' someone is black so we can 'pretend' an innocent person wasn't convicted because a non-black 'pretend black' person was the victim? Just when I thought I had heard the last of idiotic racial claims in this case, you come along and introduce a whole new level of ignorance. And I noticed @mytrip6991 asked you what evidence you thought supported guilt and like so many others, the cat went and got your tongue. Incredible how you people can come onto a public discussion board and accuse someone of being a murderer and you can't even cite any evidence that led you to conclude that. How disgraceful!

1) Where did you get the "shopping spree on Meredith's credit card" nonsense from? Her credit cards were never used and never found. And it was Guede's DNA in Meredith's blood found on her purse. 2) "Meredith’s DNA On a knife in Raff’s kitchen" Do try and keep up. Conti and Vecchiotti Report regarding the alleged Kercher DNA on the knife blade (sample B): "The hypotheses formulated by the Technical Consultant [Patrizia Stefanoni] about the nature of the material analyzed [sample 36 B[ are wholly arbitrary in that they are not supported by any scientifically objective confirmation." "- regarding the nature of the material collected, there is no scientifically conclusive evidence to support the possible blood nature of sample B (knife blade) in that both the generic blood test and the human species test were negative. The existence of presumed exfoliated cells on the samples taken from the knife handle is equally lacking in scientific basis. Therefore we repeat that the theories formulated by the Technical Consultant about the nature of the material removed from Exhibit 36 are wholly arbitrary in that they are not supported by any objective confirmation." IOW: Kercher's DNA was not on the knife. 3) and his DNA on her bra clasp when ostensibly he didn’t know her…? He had met her a few times at the cottage when he was there with Amanda. Amanda and he had been at the cottage with her the afternoon of the murder when she left to go to her friend's place for a movie and dinner. From Conti and Vecchiotti's Report: Relative to Item 165B (bra clasps), we find that the technical analysis is not reliable for the following reasons: 1. There does not exist evidence which scientifically confirms the presence of supposed flaking cells on the item; 2. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile of the autosomic STRs; 3. There was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic profile relative to the Y chromosome; 4. The international protocols for inspection, collection, and sampling of the item were not followed; 5. It cannot be ruled out that the results obtained derive from environmental contamination and/or contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling of the item. In other words, it was Sollecito's DNA on the bra hook, but it was most likely deposited by contamination and not directly by him.

She isn't guilty fgs

They didn’t go on a shopping spree with MERIDITH’s credit card. Either you are a troll spreading lies or just HIGHLY MISINFORMED. Amanda used her own money to buy ONE pair of underwear because she home was a crime scene and all she had was what she was wearing. She bought a pair of cotton undies with a cartoon animal on them. Look up the actual court documents instead of repeating rumors and adding falsehoods to them.

@@Lysa622003 I refer you to the documentary The Murder of Meredith Kercher on FreeVee, which asserts that the pair, while under surveillance by LE prior to their arrest did in fact use Meredith’s credit card at a boutique where a number of items of clothing where purchased.

@@marywenzel3199 I suggest you watch it again because it never says that at all. It never says anything about a shopping spree or the credit cards. The prosecution charged them with stealing two credit cards and Meredith's rent money, but they never claimed the cards were ever used, much less by AK and RS, because they were never found. They were acquitted by the first court in 2009 of stealing the credit cards and the rent money. You're claim is 100% false.

What evidence makes you so sure she killed Meredith Kercher? Like I said above, unless you can give that evidence and defend it with facts from the court records, you're just blowing putrid hot air.

I didn't think you would answer.

I agree!

@@ruvolubleSince MVN9 can't, or won't, present any evidence that Knox is guilty of murder, perhaps you can?

You can read all the documentation. You will find it in internet, you can use chat GPT to translate. Before reading it, only basing my opinion on press materias, I also thought she did it. After going through documentation I don't think so anymore.

Misogynistic much?. Your post says more about you than Knox.

She did it. there was ample motive. The reason she threw her boss under the rug and he was arrested and put in jail for 2 weeks but he finally got out because he had a rock solid alibi by luck a Belgian man happened to see the newspaper article stating that he was arrested and came forward to state that know he was working all night at the bar. Amanda was pissed that she was going to lose hours at her work to meredith. In addition, they couldn't stand each other nor could Filomena. Amanda was a known slob and she never did her signed chores. The reality is, the most damning piece of direct evidence is the fact that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith blood lit up under luminol in filomena's bedroom. That bedroom is particularly important because that is where the stage breaking occurred and the glass was on the floor from the window being broken. There is no way that Amanda's DNA could have mixed with Meredith blood being found under luminol unless she was actually present during the murder. Never mind the fact that her DNA was also on the handle of the knife that killed Meredith. And funny enough, early morning after the murder Amanda decided to go buy a big bottle of bleach which she attempted to conceal all the blood but thankfully the police had luminol. There are so many other details of circumstantial evidence as well such as her changing her story again and again, when she found out so that Solecito was no longer her alibi then she threw Patrick Lamumba under the bus. There is both strong direct and circumstantial evidence against her. She did it. Read the case details for yourself and stop listening to the pr campaign

@@primalcritters STOP copy/pasting the same long and wrong post of yours. You're wasting bandwidth. You claim there was ample motive, but you've yet to mention what that might have been. You claimed Amanda was losing hours at Le Chic, but Meredith was not working there, nor was she offered a job, and Amanda had settled in on a Tues/Thurs schedule which she was happy with. And Amanda and Meredith were friends... everyone who knew the two of them testified to their good, normal relationship. Soo... still waiting for that motive.

@@TheTruthCalls "Soo... still waiting for that motive." Your motive was pure jealousy coupled with probable cocaine use (as Sollecito's lawyers said at trial). You stank of cat pee the morning after, a sign of cocaine use. And you caused your dealer to be put away, the one you were shagging.

@@TheTruthCalls And, too, a. PR campaign wouldn’t affect the judges’s decision.

@@blueemoonlady Care to cite the passage? Personally, I don't really care much what Follain has to say, he was not there. He would have to go by others, and NO ONE ever claimed they had argued. Maybe you should do a little research yourself instead of reading what others have to say. All depositions and testimonies are available online. I challenge you to find one instance where someone claimed they were arguing.

Did what? Lol. What a knee jerk comment there. You don’t even know what “she did.” Lol

If she looks older, it's because she has been stressed out. Being falsley accused of murder will do that. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The fact that you think she's guilty, when everyone knows very well the man who actually committed the murder is laughable. Even people who knew him think he's guilty.

She doesn't look older than she is. She's nearly 40 and not wearing any makeup.

You are delusional to the point where you need psychological help. Amanda is a sociopath... she is not capable or remorse... remember she LIED and sent an innocent man to jail for 30 days

Something?

It had nothing to do with her choice of apartment.

@@mytrip6991 well, it did. That apartment caused her to cross paths with the boys downstairs who were acquaintances of Guede.

@@baccy81 That's not the point. It had nothing to do with "choosing her apartment more wisely" as that suggests she is somehow at fault for not being able to anticipate who the boys downstairs were acquainted with and that person would then decide to break-in to that apartment a couple months later. You might as well say that Meredith should have chosen "more wisely".

@@mytrip6991 yeah, I guess it's just pure bad luck. However, she took the first apartment she found without doing a bit of research on the city. She could have found out that the cottage was in a bad area that was infamously used by junkies. At that time Perugia had a widespread heroin consumption problem

@@baccy81 Most of the old center of Perugia is where the universities and, thus, the students are, had junkies around. She took the apartment because she ran into Laura who was putting up the for rent notice and was able to talk with her about the apartment. It met her needs perfectly as she could afford the rent, it was a short walk to her university, she liked the Italian girls, and she liked the cottage and its views over the Sant'Angelo park. I've been there.

And you know this how?

@@olig4699 Well, of course it doesn't, but it's a standard tactic of the pro-guilt to try to create a rift between them - I guess it makes it easier to argue she wanted to attack Meredith. If you acknowledge they were friends (not 'best' friends, but friends) then to argue she killed Meredith is more difficult, as friends generally don't kill friends unless there is a known problem between them... something that did not exist with Amanda and Meredith.

(a) have you ever lived with someone you disliked? (b) did you kill them?

So apparently you had no problem making a false claim, but you can't be bothered coming back here to justify the claim. I'd be very curious why you did that. If you were aware of evidence to support such a claim, then you should have been able to cite what it is, but you didn't. You make a false claim and then run away. Why would anyone do that? Why do that to an innocent person?

​​@@olig4699 I think you actually need to look at the details of the case and the evidence in the other Filommina's room. The evidence is undisputed, it was Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood. It lit up under luminol. Amanda tried to cover it up with the bleach she purchased the morning after the murder of very early in the morning, but they still found it. That is the single most damning piece of direct evidence there is along with the fact that her DNA was on knife handle. And then of course it was her story changing and changing. She was not kept for 10 hours at the police station that is b******* and that has been disproven. There is absolutely no way to explain this. Anytime this evidence is brought up her defense to flex because it's so damning. The only reason the convictions were overturned was because Amanda Knox had hired a multi-million dollar PR firm, and Italy was sick of having to deal with that pressure. But Amanda knew special knowledge of the crime, there was no way to scale the wall as she alleges, and when they show video of the wall now it has since been renovated so you can scale it now, but at the time it was impossible. Most of the world believe she is guilty because she is. This girl is sick and she's a narcissist. If you review the evidence, I don't know how you could claim otherwise except if your dazzled by her PR campaign

"Well, respectfully, please consider her lies. She was a SERIAL LIAR.. " "Here we have not heard some facts." Let's consider what you claim are lies or facts: "1) Amenda and her 7 days old boyfriend were drug addicts." False. Hair tests taken of them both on the day of their arrest showed no traces of narcotics (police records). Unlike blood and urine, hair never loses its trace of narcotics. "2) She belonged to a broken family" So? Meredith Kercher's parents were also divorced. Both Knox's parents were involved in her life. " and behaved extremely strange at the police station by doing yoga when her friend was murdered and she was being interrogated." False. She was not doing yoga while being interrogated. She did some stretches while waiting for her boyfriend who was being questioned. "3) She had found her Italian boyfriend within weeks after reaching Italy and was suspected to be a sex addict and was suspected to have had sex with multiple guys. " LOL! Meredith also "found her Italian boyfriend, Giacomo Silenzi" within weeks of reaching Italy and was sleeping with him. Knox had intercourse with exactly 3 men in Italy: Ellis (1X), Daniel (1X) and then Raffaele. She was not suspected of being a sex addict; you seem to be the one with a sex hang up. "4) She changed her sentences and kept giving different versions of what happened making everyone wonder whats the truth.." False. Her story before and after the interrogation of Nov. 5/6 where she was illegally coerced into making statements with a lawyer were consistent. "5) The thief still says that he is innocent and blames Amanda .. " LOL! The 'thief'? He's a convicted murderer and has just been arrested AGAIN for beating up and raping his partner! "6) Amanda DID NOT behave empathetically or like a normal person who would grieve over a death of a roommate. She did have all the ingredients that would make her a suspect brcause of het Psychopathic personality. ... " REALLY? And you make this claim based on what? Your intimate knowledge of how she felt, when she cried, etc? How does one "properly" grieve over a roommate of six weeks? Wear sack cloth? Take to her bed? Thanks for your diagnosis of her psychopathy, Doctor. Exactly where did you get your degree? "TO TOP IT ALL , SHE LIED... She lied by putting the blame on her empliyer, bar owner who was ,100% innocent.. She was a liar for sure if not a murderer as she tried to defame and put the blame on her 100% innocent employer." Ah, yes... that go to "fact" by people who obviously get their information not from court records and experts like Saul Kassin on coerced false confessions but from whatever they read on the internet.

@@aurora.andromeda5687 Such ignorance. You know who made up the lie that Meredith invited Guede over that night? RUDY GUEDE. The only people who believe him are people who need to believe he was only convicted because he's black and not because his story was proved to be an outright LIE by the EVIDENCE.

@@aurora.andromeda5687 Get help: 988

All of this is circumstantial. What is her motive to have some dude rape some woman? She just gets her rocks off knowing women get raped and murdered? Seriously what’s her motive. There’s no motive and no evidence.

@@justinabajian1087 Exactly. No court was able to establish a motive supported by evidence which is why they changed the alleged motive more often than people change their underwear. Nencini even rejected the prosecution's motive and injected their own unsupported motive.

Oh she has aged terribly

@@rainbowwarrier1469 And looks older than your 59-year-old mother, right? LOL!

Now, THAT'S a convincing argument.

Because you ignore everything about it

@@Clodovicus hmm, maybe it is because I am an experienced legal fact finder with victories unlike many who cannot distinguish evidence from proof!

Mi pare ovvio : hai mai partecipato ad una " ORGIA SATANICA ? "

What she looks like doesn’t matter. People aren’t here to have their looks judged by random people on the internet. But since you brought it up, she’s 36 and the mother of two. She “looks” fine. In fact, when you think of all the stress she went through, she looks amazing.

@Lysa622003 don't take that easy. Actually, her good look is what got her in trouble.

@@mluna9cr nope.women’s looks are used against them no matter what. If she wasn’t “pretty”, then they would say that she did it because she was jealous of how beautiful Meredith was. What got her in trouble was that the police and prosecutor made a mistake and were too embarrassed to admit it thus allowing mass media to go wild.

amazingly done@@Lysa622003

@@Lysa622003 amazingly done

That's a common claim, yet few ever answer on what they base that claim. On what evidence do you base that claim?

@@mytrip6991 many different things which come up when you read everything.. for example: - communication AK & MK before the crime, tensions, fights (also about money), it is obvious that Amanda was very jealous of her - AK told different stories throughout the first days - AKs behavior in the first days after crime (shocking recordings and phone calls!) - AK knew Rudy Guede better - AK brought a mop to the house in the morning - Both switched off phones the same time and on at the same time - CCTV footage - witnesses who saw them - …..

@@um5565 You're being very general and most of what you listed either disproven or was found not credible. You make claims but provide no examples of any of them, much less evidence supporting them. 1) "- communication AK & MK before the crime," Like what? Not a single text showed any kind of disharmony between them. Have you read their texts? I have as they're in the court records. The prosecution could produce NO texts or any other communication between them showing animosity or even being upset. Can you? 2) tensions, fights (also about money)" Again, not true. The only "problems" were minor such as Meredith talking to Amanda one time about making sure the toilet had flushed and keeping things clean. Giacomo Silenzik, who live downstairs and had a sexual relationship with Kercher, testified that "Between the girls there were no particular problems, only a few complaints about the cleaning of the house. Between Amanda and Meredith there was a normal relationship of friendship. Sometimes they had dinners and were all together."(Massei) He never said Meredith had complained to him about Amanda or vice versa. Roommate Filomena Romanelli testified that the only problems were normal ones of people learning to live together like cleaning the apartment, so they set up a schedule. She never reported knowing of any fights or arguments between the two. Neither did the other roommate, Laura, who testified "I thought the relationship between the girls was good." When asked if either had complained about the other, Laura replied "No." There is no testimony whatsoever that they ever had money issues between them. That comes strictly from Rudy Guede's attempt to cover for the missing money that he stole. After all, Knox had over $4200 in the bank and it was Guede who was unemployed, broke, and whose DNA in Kercher's blood was found on Meredith's purse. 3) "it is obvious that Amanda was very jealous of her " Obvious to whom? It certainly wasn't to anyone who testified in court because not one witness said that. Not even Patrick Lumumba who is the source of this lie. He's claimed this repeatedly to the media, but IN COURT, UNDER OATH he made NO such Claims. In fact, when asked what he knew of the two girls' relationship, he said under oath in court "They were friends and nothing more." 4) "- AK told different stories throughout the first days" No, she didn't. Her story was the same before and after the interrogation on Nov. 4/5. Other than the coerced and false statements signed then, how did her story change? Example of the change? 5) "- AKs behavior in the first days after crime (shocking recordings and phone calls!)" Behavior like buying underwear (not a "g-string" and "lingerie" as reported in the media) because she only had the pair she was wearing on Nov. 2 due to the police sequestering the cottage. Or not attending the memorial service? Which neither Laura nor Filomena attended either? What other examples can you give of this alleged behavior? There were no "shocking recordings and phone calls!" If there were, how about quoting and citing a few? 6) " AK knew Rudy Guede better" There is no evidence of this whatsoever and none was ever presented in court. 7)- AK brought a mop to the house in the morning" No, she TOOK a mop from the cottage to Raffaele's, used it to wipe up a water spill, and then TOOK IT BACK to the cottage. It was tested for blood and Meredith's DNA: neither was found. 8) "- Both switched off phones the same time" Yes, after Amanda found out she didn't have to go to work and didn't want her boss to text her later and tell her to come in to work if things picked up. Raffaele had just found out that he didn't have to take a friend to the bus station after all later that night so turned his off, too. Can't imagine why two young lovers of a week wouldn't want to be disturbed on a night they both were free. (9)" and on at the same time" That is 100% false. Their phone records show Raffaele's phone was turned on at 6:02 AM while Knox's phone wasn't turned on until 12:07 PM, 6 hours later. 10) "- CCTV footage" There is no CCTV footage of the pair around the time of the murder. There was a media claim that a woman walking in the parking garage across the street was Knox but it was very grainy and no identification could be made. 11) "- witnesses who saw them" LOL! Not one witness who claimed to have seen them was found to be credible. Fabio Giofreddi claimed he saw Sollecito, Guede, and Knox together on Oct. 30. He said Knox was wearing a red coat with big buttons "60's style". She owned no such coat. Another, Kokomani, claimed Guede, Knox, and Sollecito were throwing olives at him and concocted some weird birthday cake story that made no sense. He also claimed to have seen Sollecito and Knox together before Knox had even arrived in Perugia. Another, Curatolo, said he was sure he saw them the night students were dressed in costumes and getting on disco busses. That was Halloween, not the night of the murder. Sorry, but your claims are not supported facts or evidence.

This is literally the dumbest list of evidence on the face of the universe

@@Roobearlilibee It's very typical of the 'evidence' listed by those who are ignorant of the case facts.

What did she do and on what evidence do you base that belief?

@@blueemoonlady Look in a mirror. Exactly what evidence places her in the cottage the night of the murder? Go on, explain it to us.

@@aurora.andromeda5687 What a stupid statement. Knox had no control over who donated money to her defense and who didn't. Knox does not and has never supported Trump.

@@aurora.andromeda5687 You are so ignorant of this case it's pathetic. You can't explain how Knox could be involved in this murder and leave no DNA, no fingerprint, and no bloody shoeprints in that bedroom while Guede left all that and more. Go on...explain how that happened.

@@aurora.andromeda5687 Not according to the ISC, and not according to the facts. That you're gullible enough to think that is embarrassing.

@@aurora.andromeda5687 You should actually learn the facts of this case instead of looking at it through the eyes of ignorance.

@@mytrip6991here you are again..

@@sassycassie86 mytrip really gets around. First class know it all.

I bet you can't explain how she left zero forensic evidence of herself in the bedroom where Kercher was violently attacked and assaulted while Rudy Guede left his DNA, bloody fingerprints, and blood shoeprints. Put up or shut up.

I didn't think you could.

Yes she did! She still won't explain why her blood was mixed with Meredith in filomena's bedroom the bedroom that had the staged breaking and was lit up with luminol and they found it of course after she tried to clean it with the bleach she bought that early morning after

@@primalcritters Probably because the sample tested negative for blood. There is no evidence of a staged break-in. In fact, the vast majority of the evidence supports a real break-in, which should come as no surprise since someone who had been linked to multiple B&E's in recent weeks is confirmed to be in the cottage when he had no credible reason to be there. Finally, there is no evidence of a cleaning, nor did Amanda purchase bleach that morning. You've been reading too many tabloids or pro-guilt hate sites. You should learn the facts before commenting.

@@primalcritters Your ignorance in this case is gob smacking. Absolutely unbelievable. I have personally quoted and cited court testimony disproving your claims above, yet you continue to repeat it over and over again. You are a classic example of someone so insecure that you'd rather BE wrong than ADMIT BEING WRONG.