Probably yes. Before I explain why I think so, it’s worthwhile to explain what I mean when I assert that she is probably guilty. What I mean is that she was probably involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher, i.e. she either participated directly or was an accomplice. It seems that the prosecution argued that she physically stabbed Kercher in the course of the murder. This is a more narrow claim and it is necessarily less likely to be correct than the claim that Knox was involved.
Also, before I explain why I think Knox is guilty, I think it’s worthwhile to explain what I think happened, i.e. the basic outline of the crime. I suspect part of the reason people have such a hard time believing Knox is guilty is that it’s difficult to imagine a middle class white girl taking part in the rape and murder of another middle class white girl. In short, I think it’s worthwhile to show how it’s remotely plausible (even if very unlikely) that Knox took part in the murder.
I think what probably happened is similar to the murder of Janet Chandler in Michigan back in the 70s. Chandler’s roommate (a white girl) took part in (and perhaps orchestrated) a conspiracy to gang-rape Chandler. Apparently the roommate disliked Chandler who “thought a lot of herself” and wanted to “teach her a lesson.” In the course of the rape, Chandler was killed.
It’s interesting that in this case, Sollecito had taken a strong interest in deviant pornography. I think he would have been really turned on by the idea of setting up a pretty white girl to be raped by a black thug.
For Knox’s part, it seems that Kercher resented her promiscuous lifestyle. For example, Kercher objected to the fact that Knox kept a vibrator and condoms in their shared bathroom. Also, Knox had had numerous male visitors and Kercher had not. There would have been strange men using the shared bathroom and Kercher would have resented this. I would strongly guess that Kercher displayed her resentment by insinuating to Knox that Knox was a slut (which it seems she was.) Girls do this to each other all the time. I would guess that Kercher herself was a narcissistic bitch (did you know that she starred in a music video just a few months before she was murdered?)
It’s actually not super hard to imagine a conversation in which Knox mentioned to Sollecito how stuck up and annoying her roommate was and Sollecito proposed setting her up to get raped. Much like the rape and murder of Janet Chandler back in the 70s.
I would guess that the intention of Knox and Sollecito was for Kercher to be raped at knife-point. They expected her to submit just like girls presumably do in porn movies which depict rapes. When she resisted, Guede started stabbing her and Knox and Sollecito fled in panic shortly thereafter. Later, Knox and Sollecito decided that to avoid getting in trouble, they needed to pretend that they were not at the house at the time of the attack. Probably in large part this would have been out of a need to avoid having to explain to the authorities why they did not contact the authorities immediately.
Of course, none of the above is proof or even evidence that Knox was involved, it’s pure speculation and I would write it off if there weren’t such compelling evidence against Knox. Even with all of the evidence against Knox, I still think there is a decent chance — perhaps 5 or 10% — that she is innocent. The point is that there are levels of extraordinary. Claiming that Knox participated in her roommate’s murder is not like claiming that the president is actually an extra-terrestrial from Mars. It does happen that nice white girls (i.e. girls without a criminal history) murder other white girls.
Anyway, the main important evidence against Knox is that when you look at her statements and actions for the time period in question, they just don’t add up but are instead consistent with her having been involved in the murder. Even at trial, she was unable to provide a coherent account. (For his part, Sollecito apparently exercised his right to remain silent.) And we’re not talking about a few isolated inconsistencies — there are major problems with Knox’s story. And obviously if she is hiding something important, it’s pretty unlikely that it’s something besides involvement in the murder.
For example, consider Knox and Sollecito’s flurry of phone calls made between 12:50 pm and 12:55 pm on November 2. It started with Knox calling her mother; explaining that there had been a break-in to the apartment; that her roommate was missing; and asking what she should do. Sollecito made a similar call to his sister. And a few minutes later, the pair actually did call the police apparently on the advice of their family members.
The problem is that when these calls were made, the (postal) police were already there at the apartment. They recorded their arrival time as approximately 12:30 and Sollecito later admitted that he had not yet called the police when the (postal) police had arrived. Why would Knox and Sollecito call the police when there were already police at the apartment? Why didn’t Knox mention to her mother that there were police already there? None of this makes sense unless you consider the possibility that Knox and Sollecito were trying to set up some kind of alibi to explain their failure to contact authorities upon seeing blood and signs of a break-in.
Here’s another example: Shortly after the postal police arrived at the apartment on November 2, Knox advised them that Kercher normally kept her bedroom door locked even if she left the room for just a few minutes. This fact is confirmed by the testimony of Knox’s roommate and roommate’s friends who also arrived around that time and as far as I know, Knox never denied it at trial. However, the roommate also testified that Kercher pretty much never locked her bedroom door. So it seems that Knox lied to the authorities right out of the blocks. Again, this makes sense if you consider that Knox was setting up an explanation for her failure to immediately contact the authorities earlier that day.
Here’s another example: When Sollecito initially called the police to report the break-in into the roommate’s bedroom, he stated that nothing had been taken. This was true, but how did he know it? By his account, the roommate had not yet had a chance to go through her bedroom and verify that nothing had been taken. Again, this makes sense if you assume that Sollecito (and Knox) staged the break-in.
Another significant piece of evidence against Knox and Sollecito was the fact that a break-in was apparently staged at the house. Knox’s roommate — Miss Romanelli — apparently testified that upon returning to her room, she noticed that there was glass from the broken window on top of her strewn belongings. Assuming the testimony is correct, it seems likely that the window was broken after the room was ransacked. She also testified that nothing was taken and that whoever ransacked the room did not seem to have looked at obvious places where there might be valuables. This is decent (but perhaps not compelling) evidence that the break-in was staged. (Of course Sollecito’s statement to the police that nothing was taken is also decent evidence.)
Of course, it’s possible to explain away each piece of evidence against Knox in isolation. But the scenario where it’s all explained away is extremely unlikely compared to the admittedly unlikely scenario that she took part in the murder. My conclusion is that she was probably involved.
P.S. I am happy to debate this with people, but please keep a few things in mind:
First, I am going by what I have read in published accounts of the crime. I have tried to be cautious, but I admit there is a chance that my understanding of the facts is incorrect. So please feel free to correct me.
Second, please try to respond to the arguments I actually make. I can already imagine some joker saying “Sollecito’s interest in deviant pornography is not evidence that he was a murder!!!” Dude, that’s not the argument I am making. I have no tolerance for people who strawman me.