PDA

View Full Version : Amanda Knox's Appeal verdict on Monday


Pages : [1] 2

donniedarkofan
Oct 1st, 2011, 09:51 AM
Amanda Knox, US college student appealed her 2009 conviction of killing her British roommate, Meredith Kercher.

The presiding judge ordered two things to be re examined for the appeal and stated at the start that only one thing is for sure here - Meredith lost her life.

Judge Hellmann wanted to
- re examine original DNA tests that were the basis for the conviction
- hear once again a witness that said he saw Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito discussing something in front of the house the night the murdered occured

These are the results.

DNA evidence - the independent experts report (appointed by the judge, not by the defense) said that two crucial pieces of DNA evidence are unreliable and cannot be used. The knife and bra clasp most probably were both contaminated.

The witness - Antonio Curatolo - a homeless man said that for the past 7 years he was using heroine and o nthat night he was, as usual, high. He claimed he saw disco buses and kids in masks that night, apart from seeing Knox and Sollecito. What happened then? The disco's owners came for the defense and said that there were no buses that night. The busese were the night before, it was Halloween - people in masks also. The conclusion was that he confused Halloween with 1st of November. The murder took place on the first night of November 2007, there were no disco buses and people in masks. He was discredited.

Now, that there's n ocase left against the two, the prosecution is desperate to keep them in jail. They're saying how Knox had a vibrator and did not do enough around the flat.

The verdict is on Monday.

For more information visit:
www.injusticeinperugia.org
www.perugiashock.com

Marionated
Oct 1st, 2011, 10:28 AM
It's so funny to read the Daily mail reader comments on the articles. All the British believe she's guilty and want her put away for life, the Americans the complete opposite.

Even though her behaviour after the discovery was very questionable (instead of attending the memorial, she went lingerie shopping. WTF!) you can't prosecute somebody on that, and there is no actual DNA evidence linking her to the crime scene (correct?), so I can't see how she will not be freed.

donniedarkofan
Oct 1st, 2011, 04:07 PM
Yes, there is literally nothing that connects Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the room that Meredith Kercher was killed.

On the other hand, the third suspect, Rudy Guede left his shoeprints (made in Meredith's blood) in Meredith's room, he left his DNA on her purse, on her jacket, on her body and inside her body. In the same room there's nothing from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. There was a break in through a window(that the police say was staged) and guess who was caught few weeks prior to the murder when he broke in to some nursery in Rome? Yes, Rudy Guede. And how did he enter the nursery? Via a window. What the police found in his backpack? A knife.

I believe that Brits(and to some extent Italians) believe she's guilty mostly beacuse the early reports were very damning (and also untrue) for Knox, while in the US the majority of the media coverage was positive and pro innocence.

She went for lingerie shopping beacuse her house, where she actually lived was closed and declared a crime scene. She had nothing to wear, that included lingerie. Sure, she didn't act properly on some occasions but she was the one who stayed and helped the police. Only after a lenghty interrogation, with no translator and no lawyer(they never let her call a lawyer) she crumbled and said that maybe she was in the house and that her boss(that the police were putting so much pressure on )killed her, while she was in the kitchen. She retracted that statement the next morning but the police were already all over her and Sollecito. It was too late.

Marionated
Oct 1st, 2011, 04:34 PM
I didn't know that she had nothing to wear.

Rudy Guede's sentence is a complete joke. Should've been life without parole.

I've read about the initial interrogation. Is it true that lengthy = 12 hours, and they gave her no food or water?

donniedarkofan
Oct 1st, 2011, 05:20 PM
Well, all the housemates were rushed out of the house when the door to Meredith's room was broken down. No one could come in after that. On that night she also bought other things, but obviously only the lingerie shopping made the headlines.

From what I've heard lately, Guede can be freed as soon as 2014/2015 for good behaviour.

Here's a piece about the interrogation. Hopefully you will find it interesting:
Amanda Knox was interrogated repeatedly in the five days following the murder of Meredith Kercher. Amanda consistently told the same story over and over again. She repeatedly told the truth.

In the early morning hours of November 6, 2007, the questioning became much more aggressive. Amanda was in a situation that she had absolutely no control of. She was thousands of miles from home, In a country where she had a very limited knowledge of the language. She was confronted by aggressive police officers who were accusing her of a horrible crime that she didn't commit. Amanda was terrified.

Amanda did not have a lawyer present during her interrogation. She was told it would be worse for her if she did. Amanda was told that she was being questioned as a witness but she was clearly being interrogated as a suspect. Italian law is very clear, no suspect is to be interrogated with out the presence of an attorney. The interrogation of Amanda Knox was illegal.

Interrogators are known to use several techniques to manipulate innocent suspects into self-incrimination. Over long periods of time, interrogators play mind games to confuse the suspect. One technique is to ask the suspect to imagine hypothetical scenarios. The interrogators feed the information that they want the suspect to imagine. Over long a long drawn out interrogation, the suspect gets confused and starts trying to comply with the request being made to imagine the scenarios. This is exactly what they did to Amanda Knox.

Physical force was also used on Amanda and she was lied to intentionally to make her believe the police had evidence against her.

Amanda stated in court testimony that she was repeatedly slapped on the back of her head and called a stupid liar. The interrogator who slapped Amanda told her that she was trying to help her to remember. Amanda was told that they had proof that she was at the crime scene at the time of the murder. This was a lie. She was told that she was going to prison for 30 years and she would never see her family again.

Amanda was told that her boss, Patrick Lumumba was the man that attacked Meredith. She did not give Patrick's name to the police. His name was suggested to her.

The police took a text message on Amanda's phone out of context. The text from Amanda to Patrick, "see you later" was taken literally by investigators. In the US, this phrase, in the context that it was written, simply means goodbye. The police told Amanda the text meant that she planned on meeting Patrick on the night of the murder. The police also left out the second part of the message, "good night." When you put the phrase together, it explains the meaning even more clearly. Amanda had no intention of meeting Patrick that night. She was simply saying goodbye to Patrick in the text.

The interrogators told Amanda to imagine she was at the cottage. She was told to imagine that Patrick committed the crime. None of it seemed possible to Amanda. She tried to explain to the police that none of what they were saying made any sense. She knew that she was not at the cottage at the time of the murder. She had repeatedly told the interrogators the truth and now they wanted her to imagine something completely different.

The interrogators kept telling her over and over again to imagine that she was there. When she still could not imagine what they were saying, she was slapped across the back of her head.

Once again she was told to imagine that she was there. She still could not do it. She knew what they were telling her was simply not true. She was scared and confused. After many hours of interrogation, with nothing to drink, exhaustion started kicking in. Amanda was trying to remember, she was trying to help but it just did not seem possible.

Then came another slap across the back of her head! You stupid liar! You were in the cottage! You will spend 30 years in prison! You are protecting a murderer! You will never see your family again! You will imagine that this happened!

This abuse went on for hours until Amanda was finally broken. She was desperate to end the questioning. She was extremely confused and she could not take anymore abuse.

Suffering from extreme exhaustion with no food nor water, after a long and grueling interrogation, twenty year old college student Amanda Knox gave in to the interrogators demands by describing an imaginary dream or vision. In this vision, she was in the kitchen covering her ears to block out screams while the man she worked for, Patrick Lumumba, was in Meredith's bedroom.

This so called confession was typed out by the police. The confession was not written by Amanda Knox. At least 12* members of the police force interrogated Amanda. Why was it necessary for 12 people to interrogate a 20 year old female college student?

Why were so many members of the Italian police force available to assist in an all night interrogation?

Click here to read Steve Moore's professional opinion about Amanda's Interrogation.

In Italy, it is normal police policy to record interrogations. Amanda's interrogation was not recorded. Why wasn't the interrogation recorded?

Click here to read more about coerced false confessions.

The Italian supreme court ruled that the interrogation of Amanda Knox was inadmissible in the trial. The court stated that the interrogation was illegal because Amanda did not have an attorney present. The civil trial was running at the same time as the murder trial so the same jury had the results of the illegal interrogation read to them anyway.

Later in the morning of November 6th, 2007, Amanda hand wrote a letter explaining the interrogation.

Amanda Wrote: "In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make it clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion."

Amanda was very confused and she was scared. This did not seem to matter to the police. Amanda's illegal interrogation gave them the information they wanted.

As soon as they got Amanda to tell them what they wanted to hear, they went out and arrested Patrick Lumumba with no further questions asked. As it turned out, Patrick was innocent.

Amanda's statements about Patrick were completely unreliable. Amanda tired to explain to the police that her statements were made during a time of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion and she didn't believe them to be true. After all, she was only repeating what the Interrogators told her to say. At the time, the police simply didn't care. They arrested Patrick anyway. The police are responsible for Patrick Lumumba's imprisonment, not Amanda Knox.

I have included the full text of her letter below. But first, please listen to Amanda tell the details of her interrogation in her own words.
Keep in mind, The hand written note was written when Amanda was still suffering from extreme exhaustion. She wrote this just hours after her interrogation was completed. Some people have taken this note out of context and tried to say that it was a confession. Amanda in no way confesses to the murder in her note. In fact the note ends with this text.

"If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of."

This doesn't sound like a confession to me. I will let you come to your own conclusion.


Transcript of Amanda Knox's handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6, the day she was arrested:

This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else. I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.
I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:

On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.

Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember. I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.

However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time. In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.

One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock. After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).

The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:

1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.

2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true. I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.

Honestly, I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:

1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom. The truth is, I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered. I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

3. I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.

[illegible section]

I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:

1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.

I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.

If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.

End of Amanda's note.


Just to clarify, Amanda is asking herself the questions about Raffaele because she was told by the interrogators that Raffaele stopped covering for her. This simply wasn't true. Raffaele was told by his interrogators that it would be impossible for him to say for sure what Amanda was doing when he was asleep. He agreed with that fact. When he was sleeping, he couldn't say without a doubt, what Amanda was doing. The prosecutors used this information and twisted it to make Amanda believe that Raffaele had turned on her. As you can see from Amanda's note, she doesn't really believe it herself. She wrote "Did Raffaele lie?"

Amanda Knox was interrogated illegally. The interrogation should have never been heard by the jury.


And here's even more interesting YouTube clip, where Amanda says herself what happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_qaiMmfwk0&feature=player_embedded

Marionated
Oct 1st, 2011, 05:48 PM
Well, all the housemates were rushed out of the house when the door to Meredith's room was broken down. No one could come in after that. On that night she also bought other things, but obviously only the lingerie shopping made the headlines.

From what I've heard lately, Guede can be freed as soon as 2014/2015 for good behaviour.
Here's a piece about the interrogation. Hopefully you will find it interesting:


And here's even more interesting YouTube clip, where Amanda says herself what happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_qaiMmfwk0&feature=player_embedded


Oh Lord :facepalm:

Thanks for the article. Interesting read. If it reallu happened like that the interrogators are truly disgusting.

Londoner
Oct 1st, 2011, 05:58 PM
I read an interview with a Priest who was counselling Amanda and he painted a very poor picture of her - claimed she was manipulative etc. But all of these accounts are now so undermined by how Knox was treated she will no doubt be freed, sell her story and make a mint. a nice movie deal will also no doubt come her way.

Whatever happens, this is proof of what comes from bad legal practices and bad police work - the victim doesn't get justice.

If innocent then Knox is a victim too, but Meredith is dead, slaughtered in the most horrific way. Imagine trying to fight for your life as Meredith did. And her family have a life sentence of pain an injustice.

It breaks my heart and hope no one I know ever has to go through a similar ordeal.

Chris 84
Oct 1st, 2011, 06:01 PM
as a lawyer myself, i never make any judgements based on media reports, blogs, etc. i have absolutely no idea whether she is guilty or innocent. the only thing that i am sure of is that it was entirely classless for a movie to be made about the whole thing, especially when it is unresolved.

there seems to be certain dodgy things about the conviction, however, the fact that knox is a white american has played in her favour. the conviction of lockerbie bomber al megrahi had more holes in it and was "dodgier" than this, but i didnt see a massive american outcry against that conviction...

donniedarkofan
Oct 1st, 2011, 06:01 PM
Yeah, Guede really got away with it.

As to the police and prosecutors.

The independent experts report that was presented in the court in July 2011 showed that there were 54 mistakes made by the police during the collecting of evidence.

As to the interrogation - there are no tapes of that particular interrogation. However, the law in Italy says that every interrogation of a suspect, should be recorded. Supporters of Amanda and Raffaele say that the police destroyed the tapes, beacuse they didn't want anyone to know what went down that night at the questura. The police claims they didn't record it due to having low budget.

Also, amazingly, the police destroyed three laptops that belonged to Amanda, Meredith and Raffaele. Amanda said that on her laptop there were pictures of her and Meredith that showed how close they were. The cops said there was somethign with the energy and hard disks from three laptops were destroyed and no data could be saved.

I could go on and on, but most probably, you're bored. ;)

gentenaire
Oct 2nd, 2011, 09:28 AM
I said it before the first trial started that there's not enough evidence to say she's guilty 'without reasonable doubt'. I would have acquitted her first time around. The motive also seems way too far fetched.

And I can't help but feel there's also an element of "you Americans don't have to tell us how to perform an investigation" stubbornness.

gentenaire
Oct 2nd, 2011, 09:54 AM
Here's a piece about the interrogation. Hopefully you will find it interesting:

I was once robbed and then interrogated by the police. Before the interrogation, I was absolutely certain the car the robbers were driving was a gray Peugeot 207. But after the interrogation, I wasn't so sure anymore. They way they ask, "are you absolutely certain? " "How do you know it was a peugeot 207?" And I was the victim here.

So I can only imagine how it must have been for Amanda, 12 hours of interrogation, with police constantly questioning what you're saying. Soon you don't know anything anymore, haven't clue what's real and what isn't.

Also, I remember a TV documentary showing you can implant false memories. People were shown a picture of them as a child in a hot air balloon (photoshopped) and were asked what they remember of this event. After a while, about 50% started having clear memories of the hot air balloon ride, could even remember some details, etc....even though it never happened. But the picture showed that it must have happened so after some serious thought, the fake memories started flowing in.
The interrogators told Amanda they had evidence she was at the crime scene and forced her to think on it. I find it entirely plausible that false memories started flowing in.

http://www.examiner.com/cognitive-science-in-national/how-fake-pictures-can-create-false-memories

KournikovaFan91
Oct 2nd, 2011, 11:36 AM
The motive also seems way too far fetched.


Motive is irrelevant in Italy and the US also.

Lets not fool ourselves if she wasn't female, white and middle class the American media wouldn't give a shit about her being imprisoned in Italy.

She's innocent but Casey Anthony was automatically guilty. Strange how the media works, Knox's behaviour was definatly stranger than Anthony's ever was, I mean Casey wasn't cartwheeling around a police station.

I think this is the one issue I agree with Ann Coulter on, also Lisa Bloom has said the evidence to convict Knox would have been enough in the US as well even though she doesn't think there was enough evidence.

gentenaire
Oct 2nd, 2011, 01:07 PM
Motive is irrelevant in Italy and the US also.

Lets not fool ourselves if she wasn't female, white and middle class the American media wouldn't give a shit about her being imprisoned in Italy.

She's innocent but Casey Anthony was automatically guilty. Strange how the media works, Knox's behaviour was definatly stranger than Anthony's ever was, I mean Casey wasn't cartwheeling around a police station.

I think this is the one issue I agree with Ann Coulter on, also Lisa Bloom has said the evidence to convict Knox would have been enough in the US as well even though she doesn't think there was enough evidence.

I'd say there was far more evidence against Casey than against Amanda Knox.

We all have different ways of dealing with stress. I don't see how cartwheeling is a sign of guilt. Cartwheeling after killing someone seems just as weird as cartwheeling when you're innocent.

donniedarkofan
Oct 2nd, 2011, 03:48 PM
Motive is irrelevant in Italy and the US also.

Lets not fool ourselves if she wasn't female, white and middle class the American media wouldn't give a shit about her being imprisoned in Italy.

She's innocent but Casey Anthony was automatically guilty. Strange how the media works, Knox's behaviour was definatly stranger than Anthony's ever was, I mean Casey wasn't cartwheeling around a police station.

I think this is the one issue I agree with Ann Coulter on, also Lisa Bloom has said the evidence to convict Knox would have been enough in the US as well even though she doesn't think there was enough evidence.

I'm not sure if that's true what you've said about her. To have a girl convicted for a murder with no evidence is rather shocking, no matter who you are, how you look like and how much money you've got. Sure, her good looks, as described by some people, helped to get the attention, but I would say that lack of evidence and further conviction were much more attention grabbing.


Anthony, when compared to Amanda, is guilty as hell. There's literally nothing that ties Amanda Knox to the murder. She was caught saying weird things, she turned cartwheels in the police station, she went for pizza when her flatmate was just one day earlier killed, she liked sex, she had a vibrator, she didn't do much around the flat, she was noisy and played guitar all the time. Plus, there is some mixed DNA evidence, such as - in the bathroom that the two shared for 7 weeks police found Meredith's blood mixed with Knox's DNA. It was their bathroom for god's sake. There's nothing else.

Londoner
Oct 2nd, 2011, 10:13 PM
The motive also seems way too far fetched.

And I can't help but feel there's also an element of "you Americans don't have to tell us how to perform an investigation" stubbornness.

I disagree completely on the issue ofmmotive. She was on drugs and is a weirdo.

And there is definitely a huge element she's American somehow date they find her guilty and put her in jaill.

Londoner
Oct 2nd, 2011, 10:17 PM
I'd say there was far more evidence against Casey than against Amanda Knox.

We all have different ways of dealing with stress. I don't see how cartwheeling is a sign of guilt. Cartwheeling after killing someone seems just as weird as cartwheeling when you're innocent.

Please! Cartwheeling in a police station due to stress?!!!!!

Stop and think, what sort of person would do that?

Novichok
Oct 2nd, 2011, 10:46 PM
Please! Cartwheeling in a police station due to stress?!!!!!

Stop and think, what sort of person would do that?

What kind of person would cartwheel after they killed their roommate?:confused: It doesn't seem outlandish that stress can cause weird behavior. I don't know how I would react if I was accused of committing a murder that I didn't do.

KournikovaFan91
Oct 3rd, 2011, 02:52 AM
Knox also blamed someone else for the murder and said she heard the guy do it, and he was held by police for 2 weeks and she said nothing, in terms of lying to the police that is a fairly big lie and also a ridiculous one to tell if you had no involvement with the murder whatsoever.

Also Knox was not a suspect to begin with only a witness so when the cartwheeling took place she hadn't been accused of murder using stress as an excuse doesn't work and I know if my roommate was murdered I defiantly wouldn't go cartwheeling around the police station and no normal sane person would do that.

A psycho would cartwheel after killing their roommate. Which is what I have always thought this chick is.

Novichok
Oct 3rd, 2011, 03:11 AM
Knox also blamed someone else for the murder and said she heard the guy do it, and he was held by police for 2 weeks and she said nothing, in terms of lying to the police that is a fairly big lie and also a ridiculous one to tell if you had no involvement with the murder whatsoever.

Also Knox was not a suspect to begin with only a witness so when the cartwheeling took place she hadn't been accused of murder using stress as an excuse doesn't work and I know if my roommate was murdered I defiantly wouldn't go cartwheeling around the police station and no normal sane person would do that.

A psycho would cartwheel after killing their roommate. Which is what I have always thought this chick is.

Have you ever been questioned by police? I wouldn't say that it's stress-free. I would assume it's very stressful in a murder case especially if the murdered person is someone that you know/lived with (and you're also in a foreign country).

Is there any definitive physical evidence against Amanda or is the case based on conjecture and her "weird" behavior? I'm not saying that she's innocent and I don't know if there's enough evidence to convict her under Italian law. I just believe that it's morally unacceptable to imprison someone with flimsy evidence.

duhcity
Oct 3rd, 2011, 06:00 AM
as a lawyer myself, i never make any judgements based on media reports, blogs, etc. i have absolutely no idea whether she is guilty or innocent. the only thing that i am sure of is that it was entirely classless for a movie to be made about the whole thing, especially when it is unresolved.

there seems to be certain dodgy things about the conviction, however, the fact that knox is a white american has played in her favour. the conviction of lockerbie bomber al megrahi had more holes in it and was "dodgier" than this, but i didnt see a massive american outcry against that conviction...

Race might play a part, but Americans care because she's an American. The Lockerbie Bomber was not an American. Not saying we shouldn't care about dodgy testimony, but we would obviously care more about an American imprisoned abroad.

We've given plenty of media attention to the hikers in Iran, as well as the journalists that were in North Korea.

Plus, the media LOVES a spectacle, and this case really has been circuslike. Casey Anthony was some crazy shit too.

As for the case, I'm always struck by how almost everyone fled the country. The roommates also in the house, the girl's friends etc. Knox was the only one who stayed, and it was an incredibly stupid decision.

KournikovaFan91
Oct 3rd, 2011, 02:25 PM
Have you ever been questioned by police? I wouldn't say that it's stress-free. I would assume it's very stressful in a murder case especially if the murdered person is someone that you know/lived with (and you're also in a foreign country).


I wouldn't make a false random accusation against someone. What kind of person would do that?

donniedarkofan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 02:48 PM
I wouldn't make a false random accusation against someone. What kind of person would do that?

False random accusation?
It's obvious your knowledge about the case is at level zero at the moment, but I'll help you.

First of all, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had their phones taped since 3rd of November (they were arrested on 6th) and they were kept in bugged rooms while waiting for being interrogated (nothing incriminating emerged). It means the police did suspect them. Which means that they should record the interrogation and they should provide a lawyer for both of them. Neither happened.

Now, Amanda Knox had received SMS from her boss, Patrick Lumumba on the night of the murder. She replied with : Ok, see you later (in Italian). By which she meant, see you tomorrow or whatever. But, in Italian it meant a fixed appointment and the police thought she was covering for him for various reasons. They kept putting this phone infront of her eyes during the fateful interrogation and said : we know you left the house, we know. Try to imagine you met with Patrick. Maybe you are traumatized and you don't remember, try to imagine, even if it's not exactly what you think, happened".

So she did just that. Later that morning, she retracted the statements saying it's not what happened and she's confused and that she was hit in the head by the police and they said that she's going to jail for 30 years.

Let's move on. Imagine your a first time killer and the police is thinking you may have been involved. What would you do?

I know, I would try to keep a low profile, I would try not to gain any attention, I would try to behave as normally as an innocent person would behave(well there's another option - I would run away - wait a minute- didn't Rudy Guede ran?). What did Knox do? She again smoked marihuana, she had sex, she turned cartwheels at the police station and she ate pizza while candle light vigil was held for Meredith Kercher. She's clearly stupid or innocent. I go with the latter one. It's so obvious.

Londoner
Oct 3rd, 2011, 07:28 PM
False random accusation?
It's obvious your knowledge about the case is at level zero at the moment, but I'll help you.

First of all, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had their phones taped since 3rd of November (they were arrested on 6th) and they were kept in bugged rooms while waiting for being interrogated (nothing incriminating emerged). It means the police did suspect them. Which means that they should record the interrogation and they should provide a lawyer for both of them. Neither happened.

Now, Amanda Knox had received SMS from her boss, Patrick Lumumba on the night of the murder. She replied with : Ok, see you later (in Italian). By which she meant, see you tomorrow or whatever. But, in Italian it meant a fixed appointment and the police thought she was covering for him for various reasons. They kept putting this phone infront of her eyes during the fateful interrogation and said : we know you left the house, we know. Try to imagine you met with Patrick. Maybe you are traumatized and you don't remember, try to imagine, even if it's not exactly what you think, happened".

So she did just that. Later that morning, she retracted the statements saying it's not what happened and she's confused and that she was hit in the head by the police and they said that she's going to jail for 30 years.

Let's move on. Imagine your a first time killer and the police is thinking you may have been involved. What would you do?

I know, I would try to keep a low profile, I would try not to gain any attention, I would try to behave as normally as an innocent person would behave(well there's another option - I would run away - wait a minute- didn't Rudy Guede ran?). What did Knox do? She again smoked marihuana, she had sex, she turned cartwheels at the police station and she ate pizza while candle light vigil was held for Meredith Kercher. She's clearly stupid or innocent. I go with the latter one. It's so obvious.

I don't understand. If the interrogations werent taped how do you know what happened and what was said? There's also a 3rd option for Knox: a nasty piece of work. Going for pizza during a candle light vigil for Meredith is NOT the action of a friend, a stupid person or innocent one. It's a callous, nasty thing to do.

donniedarkofan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 07:44 PM
Well, good point. That's what she said happened.Her version is supported by the simple fact - tapes from interrogations from day earlier and day later are fine. All of them. Not one tape was made on NOV 6th 2007 at the police station in Perugia (incl other cases). Knox's supporters said that's beacuse the police destroyed the tapes.

As to pizza eating - no one from the roommates went to that candle light vigil. The police said they can't go. So they didn't go.

BTW, verdict in 45 minutes!

Londoner
Oct 3rd, 2011, 08:13 PM
Well, good point. That's what she said happened.Her version is supported by the simple fact - tapes from interrogations from day earlier and day later are fine. All of them. Not one tape was made on NOV 6th 2007 at the police station in Perugia (incl other cases). Knox's supporters said that's beacuse the police destroyed the tapes.

As to pizza eating - no one from the roommates went to that candle light vigil. The police said they can't go. So they didn't go.

BTW, verdict in 45 minutes!

Thanks. I don't know all the details of the case - but there's a lot about bloody footprints, change of story: some say Knox claimed she had been in the kitchen covering her ears from the screams, switched off mobile phones, no lie detector test etc. How much of that is true I don't know.

Anyway, as you say the verdict is due soon and we will all have to accept it! I have a feeling she will be cleared.

donniedarkofan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 08:17 PM
It was Knox who said she was in the kitchen while Meredith got killed by Lumumba. It's all part of the famous interrogation.

There's also no bloody footprints of Amanda. There were footprints, but tested negative for blood. They glowed after luminol, which reacts with blood, but also with some chemicals and fruit juice.

The verdict is in 15-20 minutes. It's broadcasted here:
http://www.ustream.tv/cbsnews#utm_campaign=synclickback&source=http://www.mediaite.com/online/watch-amanda-knox-appeal-decision-live-via-streaming-video/&medium=522594

and live on CNN and BBC.

Chris 84
Oct 3rd, 2011, 08:19 PM
Race might play a part, but Americans care because she's an American. The Lockerbie Bomber was not an American. Not saying we shouldn't care about dodgy testimony, but we would obviously care more about an American imprisoned abroad.

We've given plenty of media attention to the hikers in Iran, as well as the journalists that were in North Korea.

Plus, the media LOVES a spectacle, and this case really has been circuslike. Casey Anthony was some crazy shit too.

As for the case, I'm always struck by how almost everyone fled the country. The roommates also in the house, the girl's friends etc. Knox was the only one who stayed, and it was an incredibly stupid decision.

and just to clarify, it is the same the world over, im not singling america out and only mention them because of this specific case. the uk is the same. if anyone remembers the louise woodward case (a british au pair in america whose trial was 1997-98), well 99% of the uk thought she was innocent without knowing a thing about the case :lol:

gentenaire
Oct 3rd, 2011, 08:51 PM
Thanks. I don't know all the details of the case - but there's a lot about bloody footprints, change of story: some say Knox claimed she had been in the kitchen covering her ears from the screams, switched off mobile phones, no lie detector test etc. How much of that is true I don't know.

Anyway, as you say the verdict is due soon and we will all have to accept it! I have a feeling she will be cleared.

Guede's DNA is all over the place, bloody footprints, etc, but nothing clearly linking Amanda or RafaŽle to the scene. What they do have is tainted and therefore worthless.
There really isn't enough evidence to say they're guilty without reasonable doubt. The odds are too high that they're sending two innocents to prison.

gentenaire
Oct 3rd, 2011, 08:51 PM
and just heard she's to be freed.

Marionated
Oct 3rd, 2011, 08:52 PM
Expected verdict imo.

SloKid
Oct 3rd, 2011, 08:52 PM
Only part upheld was the Lumumba defamation for which she was sentenced to three years in jail I think, but since she's already been in custody for 4 years, she can walk free.

This could still go further on appeal though.

tennislover
Oct 3rd, 2011, 08:54 PM
Expected verdict imo.

true

Halardfan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 08:55 PM
The confession is the key. Guilty.

People seem to get freed more on technicalities these days.

What Knox should spare us is tears for the victim. Her actions after the crime were callous and indifferent to the crime.

BluÄ
Oct 3rd, 2011, 08:57 PM
I'll just say, :no:

tennislover
Oct 3rd, 2011, 08:59 PM
so one more murder will remaining a mystery

tennislover
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:00 PM
The confession is the key. Guilty.

People seem to get freed more on technicalities these days.

What Knox should spare us is tears for the victim. Her actions after the crime were callous and indifferent to the crime.


Not always, unfortunately....

and after Dna evidence was demolited....:shrug:

Chris 84
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:03 PM
The confession is the key. Guilty.

People seem to get freed more on technicalities these days.

What Knox should spare us is tears for the victim. Her actions after the crime were callous and indifferent to the crime.

is it a technicality when a confession is extracted by illegal means, for example? i'd say not. it is the technical stuff that must be observed that makes a legal system "fair" and able to function correctly.

if a million people see some guy commit a murder and then that guy is freed because the proscution totally botches its case, then fair enough. but i don't think that this case was ever a cut and dried one.

Ryan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:05 PM
I'm actually really, really happy for her and her family. Even if she did it, there was no way the prosecution proved it beyond a reasonable doubt.

LoveFifteen
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:09 PM
so one more murdering will remaining a mystery

It's not a mystery at all. Rudy Guede clearly broke into the house, raped, and murdered Meredith. Amanda and RafaŽle were the victims of an over-eager police investigation. This whole thing would never have turned into a circus if the police hadn't held Amanda for 12 hours without a lawyer or interpreter, slapped her over and over, lied to her, etc. They could have waited, gotten her an interpreter and a lawyer, and done things correctly, but they needed "justice" fast.

I used to believe Amanda was guilty when I first read about the case, but after reviewing things, I now believe she is innocent, and certainly there are way too many doubts to lock her away for 25 years.

gentenaire
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:10 PM
It's not a mystery at all. Rudy Guede clearly broke into the house, raped, and murdered Meredith. Amanda and RafaŽle were the victims of an over-eager police investigation. This whole thing would never have turned into a circus if the police hadn't held Amanda for 12 hours without a lawyer or interpreter, slapped her over and over, lied to her, etc. They could have waited, gotten her an interpreter and a lawyer, and done things correctly, but they needed "justice" fast.

I used to believe Amanda was guilty when I first read about the case, but after reviewing things, I now believe she is innocent, and certainly there are way too many doubts to lock her away for 25 years.

That's exactly how I look at the case too.

Halardfan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:13 PM
The guilt of the central crime trumps the rest of it.

Her alibi was full of holes which make her a liar. Fact. She lied when she pointed out the supposed killer. Fact.

She lied when she said she had nothing to do with it

tennislover
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:19 PM
It's not a mystery at all. Rudy Guede clearly broke into the house, raped, and murdered Meredith. Amanda and RafaŽle were the victims of an over-eager police investigation. This whole thing would never have turned into a circus if the police hadn't held Amanda for 12 hours without a lawyer or interpreter, slapped her over and over, lied to her, etc. They could have waited, gotten her an interpreter and a lawyer, and done things correctly, but they needed "justice" fast.

I used to believe Amanda was guilty when I first read about the case, but after reviewing things, I now believe she is innocent, and certainly there are way too many doubts to lock her away for 25 years.

I agree that there are too many doubts and I think it's fair to have freed them, but I still think the whole thing is not clear at all: it's not sure that they are guilty and at the same time it's not sure 100% they are innocent (or at least that they weren't in the crime scene).

Ryan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:22 PM
The guilt of the central crime trumps the rest of it.

Her alibi was full of holes which make her a liar. Fact. She lied when she pointed out the supposed killer. Fact.

She lied when she said she had nothing to do with it


:weirdo: Do you know anything about the law? A shitty alibi is hardly enough to convict someone for murder. The DNA evidence was inconclusive, there was nothing that said she did it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Thats what's key - they could not prove anything. Tied in with the shitty evidence collecting and interrogation by the police (not to mention LoveFifteen's point about being held unlawfully without a lawyer) there's no doubt she should go free.

Chris 84
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:22 PM
the daily mail clings to the belief she will rot in jail :haha:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2044583/Amanda-Knox-verdict-GUILTY-appeal-murder-conviction-rejected.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

watchdogfish
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:24 PM
I agree that there are too many doubts and I think it's fair to have freed them, but I still think the whole thing is not clear at all: it's not sure that they are guilty and at the same time it's not sure 100% they are innocent!

I agree. I feel sorry for Meredith Kercher's parents who will probably never know the truth of what happened.

Novichok
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:25 PM
I agree that there are too many doubts and I think it's fair to have freed them, but I still think the whole thing is not clear at all: it's not sure that they are guilty and at the same time it's not sure 100% they are innocent (or at least that they weren't in the crime scene).

Well if this is the case then they definitely don't need to be imprisoned.

Halardfan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:25 PM
:weirdo: Do you know anything about the law? A shitty alibi is hardly enough to convict someone for murder. The DNA evidence was inconclusive, there was nothing that said she did it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. Thats what's key - they could not prove anything. Tied in with the shitty evidence collecting and interrogation by the police (not to mention LoveFifteen's point about being held unlawfully without a lawyer) there's no doubt she should go free.

She confessed to being there, she claims under duress. That is disputed.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and whether one actually thinks she did it.

If you think she did it, but believe it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, then the verdict is no cause for happiness.

Novichok
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:27 PM
She confessed to being there, she claims under duress. That is disputed.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and whether one actually thinks she did it.

If you think she did it, but believe it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, then the verdict is no cause for happiness.

All I know is that I would rather a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to rot in prison.

donniedarkofan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:28 PM
Amanda and Raffaele are free. There was no evidence. Zero.

Thank you judge Hellmann.

tennislover
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:28 PM
All I know is that I would rather a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to rot in prison.

true

Halardfan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:29 PM
All I know is that I would rather a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to rot in prison.

I would rather neither occur.

Novichok
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:30 PM
I would rather neither occur.

Well we're human and justice systems throughout the world are not perfect.

tennislover
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:30 PM
Halardfan, yo uhave no idea about the case whatsoever.

Amanda and Raffaele are free. There was no evidence. Zero.

Thank you judge Hellmann.

I'd say there is not evidence enough.

LoveFifteen
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:31 PM
The guilt of the central crime trumps the rest of it.

Her alibi was full of holes which make her a liar. Fact. She lied when she pointed out the supposed killer. Fact.

She lied when she said she had nothing to do with it

How was her alibi full of holes? Her alibi was RafaŽle. They said they were together at his house the whole evening watching movies, smoking weed, and having sex. Neither one has ever denied that.

Your English media just wants to sell papers. Amanda Knox has been Foxy Knoxy from the get-go, and painted as a twisted, sex-addicted psychopath. All reports of people that know her in the USA say that's impossible. How likely is it that after just one month in Italy, she revealed herself to be a blood-thirsty psycho, and she met two other blood-thirsty psychos in the same small town (RafaŽle and Rudy)? That seems pretty laughable to me.

Way more likely that Rudy, who already committed other crimes (and fled to Germany right after Meredith's murder), broke into the house, raped and murdered Meredith (his DNA was inside her), and then fled to Germany.

Highly unlikely that Amanda kept all her psychotic tendencies completely hidden in the US, moved to a small Italian town, and within days found another murderous psychopath who wanted to sit around and watch Rudy perform a rape and murder. :unsure:

Ryan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:32 PM
She confessed to being there, she claims under duress. That is disputed.

There is a difference between the letter of the law and whether one actually thinks she did it.

If you think she did it, but believe it wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, then the verdict is no cause for happiness.


I'm happy because of exactly what Novichok says below. I'd rather a guilty person go free than someone innocent rot in jail (especially on a different continent). Even if she did it I highly doubt she's a danger to society, so yes, I am happy. Except for Kercher's parents, who are the victims in this. I'm sad for them.

All I know is that I would rather a guilty person to go free than an innocent person to rot in prison.

Halardfan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:32 PM
Halardfan, yo uhave no idea about the case whatsoever.

Amanda and Raffaele are free. There was no evidence. Zero.

Thank you judge Hellmann.

She slandered someone else, pointed the finger at them. Lied and was found guilty.

Why are people so eager to believe her version of the police interrogation? The word of a now PROVEN liar?

miffedmax
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:32 PM
I have always had, and continue to have, a "hinky" feeling about Amanda Knox. There are just too many holes in her story that don't add up, and she does come across as having exactly one of the sort of manipulative, self-centered personality disorders one expects murderers to have.

But I agree this case is one of the most badly bungled investigations this side of the OJ case. So much evidence was mishandled, lost, the bullied confession, etc. "Not guilty" isn't the same as "innocent." That's my feeling on the matter, but it's hard to disagree with the court's decision based on what they are required to go on.

Lena's bangs.

jefrilibra
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:33 PM
Thank God for the DNA evidence! Those independent forensics experts brought in by the court during this appeal sealed the deal. This should have been allowed in the 1st trial and could have prevented this drama.

donniedarkofan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:34 PM
Theres no holes in her story. There was a hole in prosecution's story. A Huge one!!!

Amanda is free and this is the only justice for her and for Meredith.

donniedarkofan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:35 PM
Thank God for the DNA evidence! Those independent forensics experts brought in by the court during this appeal sealed the deal. This should have been allowed in the 1st trial and could have prevented this drama.

Exactly.

Halardfan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:36 PM
How was her alibi full of holes? Her alibi was RafaŽle. They said they were together at his house the whole evening watching movies, smoking weed, and having sex. Neither one has ever denied that.

Your English media just wants to sell papers. Amanda Knox has been Foxy Knoxy from the get-go, and painted as a twisted, sex-addicted psychopath. All reports of people that know her in the USA say that's impossible. How likely is it that after just one month in Italy, she revealed herself to be a blood-thirsty psycho, and she met two other blood-thirsty psychos in the same small town (RafaŽle and Rudy)? That seems pretty laughable to me.

Way more likely that Rudy, who already committed other crimes (and fled to Germany right after Meredith's murder), broke into the house, raped and murdered Meredith (his DNA was inside her), and then fled to Germany.

Highly unlikely that Amanda kept all her psychotic tendencies completely hidden in the US, moved to a small Italian town, and within days found another murderous psychopath who wanted to sit around and watch Rudy perform a rape and murder. :unsure:

She is a proven liar, agreed on that at least? Not a sweet innocent by any means. She pointed the finger at an innocent man to save herself. At best she is pretty vile.

tennislover
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:37 PM
How was her alibi full of holes? Her alibi was RafaŽle. They said they were together at his house the whole evening watching movies, smoking weed, and having sex. Neither one has ever denied that.

Your English media just wants to sell papers. Amanda Knox has been Foxy Knoxy from the get-go, and painted as a twisted, sex-addicted psychopath. All reports of people that know her in the USA say that's impossible. How likely is it that after just one month in Italy, she revealed herself to be a blood-thirsty psycho, and she met two other blood-thirsty psychos in the same small town (RafaŽle and Rudy)? That seems pretty laughable to me.

Way more likely that Rudy, who already committed other crimes (and fled to Germany right after Meredith's murder), broke into the house, raped and murdered Meredith (his DNA was inside her), and then fled to Germany.

Highly unlikely that Amanda kept all her psychotic tendencies completely hidden in the US, moved to a small Italian town, and within days found another murderous psychopath who wanted to sit around and watch Rudy perform a rape and murder. :unsure:

Trust me: a girl who kartwheels and splits in the police station after a tragedy like that...has got at least one once of madness in her brain.....

Chris 84
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:37 PM
She slandered someone else, pointed the finger at them. Lied and was found guilty.

Why are people so eager to believe her version of the police interrogation? The word of a now PROVEN liar?

what people on an internet forum believe is irrelevant. today was about what the judges and jury believed, and i guess they had their reasons for it.

again i'll say, i don't understand why so many people are so adamant that she either did do it or that she didn't do it when all they know about the trial comes from biased media and dodgy blogs on the internet. if anybody sat through the initial trial and has a definite view, then fair enough, but arriving at a definite conclusion via the snippets of information that the press (which by the way, often fails to understand law entirely) decides to give us is mad.

Novichok
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:37 PM
She is a proven liar, agreed on that at least? Not a sweet innocent by any means. She pointed the finger at an innocent man to save herself. At best she is pretty vile.

Well it's a good thing that being vile isn't against the law. She already has time served for that false accusation.

LoveFifteen
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:37 PM
She slandered someone else, pointed the finger at them. Lied and was found guilty.

Why are people so eager to believe her version of the police interrogation? The word of a now PROVEN liar?

She didn't just randomly point the finger at him. The police kept hitting her and telling her to remember correctly, already saying they knew and had evidence. The interrogation was a HOT ASS MESS. That shizz is straight up THIRD WORLD! :lol:

If Amanda Knox were guilty of this crime, then the police are 100% to blame for this. You can't terrorize and manipulate a person during an interrogation. You can get people to say anything when they are scared.

ptkten
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:37 PM
She slandered someone else, pointed the finger at them. Lied and was found guilty.

Why are people so eager to believe her version of the police interrogation? The word of a now PROVEN liar?

It's not that I necessarily believe what she's saying, it's that there was not enough evidence that she did do it to convict her.

As others have said, I'd rather her go free even if she was guilty than have her be innocent and sit in jail and they just didn't prove that she was guilty.

Lying and making up stories is not strong enough evidence to lock someone up for 26 years. Who knows how any of us would react in a foreign country without a lawyer while being harassed for more than 12 hours.

donniedarkofan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:39 PM
Once again.

The interrogation was a joke. She was hit. She was yelled at. There was no lawyer.

She is innocent and always was.

SloKid
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:40 PM
She slandered someone else, pointed the finger at them. Lied and was found guilty.

Why are people so eager to believe her version of the police interrogation? The word of a now PROVEN liar?
But was only sentenced to 3 out of maximum possible 12 years due to mitigating circumstances (the nature of the interragion probably being one of them).

It's beyond me how you can talk in such certainty about some of the things regarding this case, when no one from the general public comes even close to knowing all the details.

Halardfan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:41 PM
She didn't just randomly point the finger at him. The police kept hitting her and telling her to remember correctly, already saying they knew and had evidence. The interrogation was a HOT ASS MESS. That shizz is straight up THIRD WORLD! :lol:

If Amanda Knox were guilty of this crime, then the police are 100% to blame for this. You can't terrorize and manipulate a person during an interrogation. You can get people to say anything when they are scared.

That is her version of the police interrogation which is disputed!

Here we have a proven liar, a convicted liar, and people automatically swallow her version of what happened in the police interrogation.

Why?

tennislover
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:42 PM
Amanda:
SURE: she is a vile liar - she is a bit mad
UNSURE: she is a murderer

SloKid
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:42 PM
Once again.

The interrogation was a joke. She was hit. She was yelled at. There was no lawyer.

She is innocent and always was.
There is no evidence whatsoever about her being hit, it's her word against that of the police, only definite thing against the rules was that there was no lawyer present during it.

LoveFifteen
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:43 PM
And remember, she spoke Italian poorly and there was no interpreter. It's completely unfair to use that interrogation against her as "evidence". And let's not forget RafaŽle, who has always maintained innocence and never seemed psycho whatsoever. I am sure Amanda's interrogation was a hot mess and there must have been tons of stuff lost in translation.

The woman who hit her has said she was "trying to help Knox remember".

Halardfan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:44 PM
Though people in here are very much on Knox's side, many outside the court shouted that the verdict was a disgrace.

jefrilibra
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:44 PM
Yes she's defamed that bar owner but that's just a legal strategy. She has to create doubt in the mind of the jurors. Nothing unusual in law and she paid the price for it and was found guilty. But they cannot convict her based on that sloppy and filmsy DNA evidence or lack thereof!

Funny how the other guy fled to Germany, was later apprehended and sentenced to 16 years I believe but Amanda and her BF chose to remain in Perugia after this murder. Something just dont add up.

tennislover
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:46 PM
Once again.

The interrogation was a joke. She was hit. She was yelled at. There was no lawyer.

She is innocent and always was.
your being 100% sure is amazing

SloKid
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:47 PM
Though people in here are very much on Knox's side, many outside the court shouted that the verdict was a disgrace.
I'm not on Knox's side at all, but I do believe that the court was in a better position to judge on this than any of us, who were only fed tidbits by the press that suited their agenda.

The crowd just wanted blood, I doubt they had much clue on the ins and outs of the case, just a mob mentality.

LoveFifteen
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:50 PM
There is a really interesting article on Slate.com by a woman who lived in Italy for a year, and was so bored that she attended the trial every day. She became obsessed with the case and is convinced of their innocence. It's a good read, and she doesn't have an agenda, unlike the English press which Halardfan surely reads, which is desperate to sell papers. Foxy Knoxy was guilty from day one in the Daily Mail. :lol:

Halardfan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:52 PM
Amanda:
SURE: she is a vile liar - she is a bit mad
UNSURE: she is a murderer

Fair point. But the fact of her being a liar does make it very hard/impossible to trust her version of the police interrogation.

If the confession wasn't made under duress then she = guilty.

swim4life227
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:53 PM
The outcries of people saying how the Kercher family doesn't have justice and don't know what happened is dumb. Are they forgetting that there is a man in jail for Mer's murder that is guilty as hell? The case was solved then and the rest of it was a fucking joke and injustice.

LoveFifteen
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:54 PM
Fair point. But the fact of her being a liar does make it very hard/impossible to trust her version of the police interrogation.

If the confession wasn't made under duress then she = guilty.

Dude, she never, ever "confessed" to the murder. Ever. You need to go read something that you can't buy in the Tesco check-out line. :hug:

Halardfan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:55 PM
There is a really interesting article on Slate.com by a woman who lived in Italy for a year, and was so bored that she attended the trial every day. She became obsessed with the case and is convinced of their innocence. It's a good read, and she doesn't have an agenda, unlike the English press which Halardfan surely reads, which is desperate to sell papers. Foxy Knoxy was guilty from day one in the Daily Mail. :lol:

Both sides media was biased...as a quick glance at Fox News today confirms. Barely a mention of the victim.

Halardfan
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:57 PM
Dude, she never, ever "confessed" to the murder. Ever. You need to go read something that you can't buy in the Tesco check-out line. :hug:

She confessed to being at the scene of the crime and pointed the finger at an innocent man.

Novichok
Oct 3rd, 2011, 09:59 PM
Both sides media was biased...as a quick glance at Fox News today confirms. Barely a mention of the victim.

Yes, because we're dealing with a woman who is alive and was wrongly imprisoned (Knox is a victim too). It's horrible that Meredith is dead but nothing can change that.

gentenaire
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:01 PM
She confessed to being at the scene of the crime and pointed the finger at an innocent man.

When you have people telling you for 12 hours that they have evidence that you were there, when they keep forcing you to think and think, after a while you'll start believing that you were there. After all, they have evidence, so you must have been there. Read what I wrote about the hot air balloon test. It's entirely plausible.

We don't know the context. The interview was either taped or the tape was destroyed. Why? That fact, along with the fact that there was no lawyer present, seriously discredits anything that was said in the interview.

Londoner
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:02 PM
I would rather neither occur.

This. And had the police done their job properly everyone would know for sure. This is bad for the 2 now freed defendants, but unbearable for Meredith's family. All I know for sure is that I would never recover if I were in their shoes. So often it is the victim and their loved ones who never gets justice.

One last thing: it would have been good for Knox's sister to have acknowledged Meredith and her family in her speech on the court steps.

Novichok
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:02 PM
She confessed to being at the scene of the crime and pointed the finger at an innocent man.

Being at the scene of a crime does not equal being a murderer. Blaming someone else for the murder does not equal being a murderer either.

gentenaire
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:03 PM
Why was the attention always on Knox when there were two others standing trial? Guede was clearly guilty, no doubt about that, his DNA was all over the place, blood, etc. Yet, he barely got a mention.

Novichok
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:06 PM
Why was the attention always on Knox when there were two others standing trial? Guede was clearly guilty, no doubt about that, his DNA was all over the place, blood, etc. Yet, he barely got a mention.

I assume it's because she's a beautiful, young woman. It makes for a more compelling story.

SloKid
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:06 PM
Why was the attention always on Knox when there were two others standing trial? Guede was clearly guilty, no doubt about that, his DNA was all over the place, blood, etc. Yet, he barely got a mention.
Guede's trial was over ages ago, was on trial separatedly from the other two, which might explain it in part at least. And I think it's quite obvious why all the focus was on Knox unfortunately, it's like Sollecito doesn't even exist.

LoveFifteen
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:08 PM
She confessed to being at the scene of the crime and pointed the finger at an innocent man.

Didn't you read the post in this very thread where the interrogators kept telling Amanda to imagine that she was there? They had the text message to bar owner and kept bringing him up. They kept saying they had evidence that the bar owner and Amanda had been there.

You are clinging way too hard to an interrogation of someone in a language they don't even speak well.

tennislover
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:09 PM
Anyway the case isn't still closed: I think prosecutors will appeal to the Supreme Court (Cassazione)

Londoner
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:12 PM
Meredith is dead but nothing can change that.

I know it's fashionable to say that about murder victims. But truth and justice can do a lot for their loved ones left behind.

When people say 'nothing can bring them back' I wonder how they would feel if it was their loved one.

Novichok
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:15 PM
I know it's fashionable to say that about murder victims. But truth and justice can do a lot for their loved ones left behind.

When people say 'nothing can bring them back' I wonder how they would feel if it was their loved one.

Well obviously I would want justice. I would also hope that I'm not so blinded by my feelings to want an innocent person to be imprisoned just so that I could get closure. There's a reason why loved ones of the victims don't get to decide guilt, innocence, or punishment.

Londoner
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:18 PM
Well obviously I would want justice. I would also hope that I'm not so blinded by my feelings to want an innocent person to be imprisoned just so that I could get closure. There's a reason why loved ones of the victims don't get to decide guilt, innocence, or punishment.

I agree. It's just the fashion to say 'nothing can bring them back' is a pet hate of mine!

Monzanator
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:35 PM
Watch her make millions of $$$ on selling her story to the media and book companies. Now it's money making time!!!

The fact she was lying to the police is suspicious as hell and doesn't make me feel any better about this case. First O.J. Simpson, then Casey Anthony and now Knox. The murderers do get away sometimes with a big paycheck in waiting :rocker2:

mykarma
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:49 PM
Being at the scene of a crime does not equal being a murderer. Blaming someone else for the murder does not equal being a murderer either.
To accuse an innocent person of murder is as bad as being a murderer IMO. If that person was in the U.S. they could have been legally murder by our justice system. If she did this she's a scank ass bitvch and needs to serve that persons time in full.

mykarma
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:54 PM
Watch her make millions of $$$ on selling her story to the media and book companies. Now it's money making time!!!

The fact she was lying to the police is suspicious as hell and doesn't make me feel any better about this case. First O.J. Simpson, then Casey Anthony and now Knox. The murderers do get away sometimes with a big paycheck in waiting :rocker2:
What money has OJ or Casey Anthony made frp, their case

swim4life227
Oct 3rd, 2011, 10:55 PM
Watch her make millions of $$$ on selling her story to the media and book companies. Now it's money making time!!!

The fact she was lying to the police is suspicious as hell and doesn't make me feel any better about this case. First O.J. Simpson, then Casey Anthony and now Knox. The murderers do get away sometimes with a big paycheck in waiting :rocker2:

No, this time a high profile case finally had a decision that rendered the truth.

People only though talk about the verdicts that don't end the way the court of public opinion views it at. There's been plenty high profile cases (Scott Peterson for example) that nobody talks anymore because the outcome of that trial was the "correct" one.

Absolutely ZERO of Knox's DNA was found in the bedroom of the crime scene whereas the actual killer's DNA was all over the room.

Infiniti2001
Oct 3rd, 2011, 11:27 PM
When you have people telling you for 12 hours that they have evidence that you were there, when they keep forcing you to think and think, after a while you'll start believing that you were there. After all, they have evidence, so you must have been there. Read what I wrote about the hot air balloon test. It's entirely plausible.

We don't know the context. The interview was either taped or the tape was destroyed. Why? That fact, along with the fact that there was no lawyer present, seriously discredits anything that was said in the interview.

This!!

Infiniti2001
Oct 3rd, 2011, 11:31 PM
Why was the attention always on Knox when there were two others standing trial? Guede was clearly guilty, no doubt about that, his DNA was all over the place, blood, etc. Yet, he barely got a mention.

Well she is an American citizen, and so the American media made it world news..

TheHangover
Oct 4th, 2011, 12:21 AM
that's disgusting how money/america/american media are able to change reality, i followed a bit the story on both italian and american media and americans should be ashamed for how they change the reality making amanda look innocent only because she is american, as if an american girl couldn't kill, i didn't follow the story in details but as an italian i know that justice here is careful with guilty! here a person get 20 years only if they find him with a smoking gun in his hands, so if they got so many years in the first sentence that means there were conclusive evidences!! but then america found a way to export their brillant justice system here in italy: THE CRIMINAL IS ALWAYS THE BLACK MAN. He is lucky that we don't fry pepole on electric chair

Monzanator
Oct 4th, 2011, 12:23 AM
No, this time a high profile case finally had a decision that rendered the truth.

People only though talk about the verdicts that don't end the way the court of public opinion views it at. There's been plenty high profile cases (Scott Peterson for example) that nobody talks anymore because the outcome of that trial was the "correct" one.

Absolutely ZERO of Knox's DNA was found in the bedroom of the crime scene whereas the actual killer's DNA was all over the room.

Forget the truth, it means nothing in court. From the outside point of view the truth is that Knox weaseled her way out of punishment on a technicality. Because she is American, no one in USA cares about the British victim or the country where the murder was committed. The fact she lied about the whole thing in first place is damn ugly and I don't buy her story one bit thereafter. I'm familiar with the Peterson story and I believe he is a scum that should be put away as soon as possible.

But then again, you can't get them all. The fact Guede only got sentenced 16 years for rape & murder is a joke. The fact Knox & Sollecito got away alltogether is beyond pathetic. I hope they both choke on the millions they'll make on this story and die slow & painful death sooner than later.

According to me all the three persons involved were guilty of murder regardless of who delivered the fatal stabbings. They are all scum and I have no sympathy for any of them whatsoever. Next time I'll see Knox it will be probably on Letterman or O'Brien crying some tears and telling how close friends she was with Kercher :fiery:

Heck, after this one all we need is Pat Krenwinkel and Leslie van Houten being paroled and that would be the icing on the cake.

Ryan
Oct 4th, 2011, 12:30 AM
Some of the people in this thread are morons. Learn something about the criminal justice system and the law before you spout off about Americans manipulating stuff to let a "guilty" person go free.

TheHangover
Oct 4th, 2011, 12:39 AM
Some of the people in this thread are morons. Learn something about the criminal justice system and the law before you spout off about Americans manipulating stuff to let a "guilty" person go free.

here we know this story since 2007, we even know how many hairs knox has on her head. lol america can do worst than this belive me

Ayumilover.
Oct 4th, 2011, 12:54 AM
Good verdict. The evidence was even weaker than the Casey Anthony trial. At least there wasn't a biased media :help:

Good bless this poor young women and her family and may she never suffer another awful event.

Ryan
Oct 4th, 2011, 01:02 AM
here we know this story since 2007, we even know how many hairs knox has on her head. lol america can do worst than this belive me



And yet, you didn't know enough to legally convict her of murder. So....you don't know everything.

Hurley
Oct 4th, 2011, 01:05 AM
LOL at this thread.

We will never know if Knox was a party to the poor British girl's death, and anyone saying anything definitive either way is ludicrous.

What we DO know is that there was not enough evidence for the conviction to stand. So it didn't. Welcome to Law. Anyone who thinks otherwise is possibly a Fascist.

Wouldn't have figured halardfan to be a Fascist (I mean, he's a damn vegan) but we learn something new every day. :eek:

Infiniti2001
Oct 4th, 2011, 02:17 AM
Forget the truth, it means nothing in court. From the outside point of view the truth is that Knox weaseled her way out of punishment on a technicality. Because she is American, no one in USA cares about the British victim or the country where the murder was committed. The fact she lied about the whole thing in first place is damn ugly and I don't buy her story one bit thereafter. I'm familiar with the Peterson story and I believe he is a scum that should be put away as soon as possible.

But then again, you can't get them all. The fact Guede only got sentenced 16 years for rape & murder is a joke. The fact Knox & Sollecito got away alltogether is beyond pathetic. I hope they both choke on the millions they'll make on this story and die slow & painful death sooner than later.

According to me all the three persons involved were guilty of murder regardless of who delivered the fatal stabbings. They are all scum and I have no sympathy for any of them whatsoever. Next time I'll see Knox it will be probably on Letterman or O'Brien crying some tears and telling how close friends she was with Kercher :fiery:

Heck, after this one all we need is Pat Krenwinkel and Leslie van Houten being paroled and that would be the icing on the cake.

Take a deep breath :help:

skanky~skanketta
Oct 4th, 2011, 03:41 AM
Lots of judgment being passed on in here. If she's innocent, I'm glad she's free. If she's not, I believe in karma.

swim4life227
Oct 4th, 2011, 03:57 AM
Good verdict. The evidence was even weaker than the Casey Anthony trial. At least there wasn't a biased media :help:

Good bless this poor young women and her family and may she never suffer another awful event.

Sweetie, don't even go there with me. People have a tendency to confuse the word weak evidence with circumstantial evidence. Just because there isn't a smoking gun or finger print on the murder weapon doesn't make the evidence any less if it all still points to the same conclusion. The jury in that trial was afraid to convict on circumstantial evidence despite the fact that it fit with every bit of common sense. Thankfully, the jury in the Scott Peterson case wasn't afraid to and they convicted his ass and put him to death with probably less circumstantial evidence (they didn't even have a cause of death or murder weapon in that case).

Anyways, Knox didn't get off on a technicality. The fact of the matter is: the real murderer's DNA was littered all the fuck over that room and clearly he made no effort to clean up his prints. Yet we're suppose to believe that Rafa/Amanda had involvement in the murder when there was NO DNA evidence or trace of them in the room. Apparently they must have been way more diligent about cleaning up their prints than the other dude.

hablo
Oct 4th, 2011, 04:32 AM
Poor murdered British girl. :(

Monzanator
Oct 4th, 2011, 04:47 AM
Take a deep breath :help:

Why? All the Americans here act like they don't care if she did it, all they care is that she walked away free.

pov
Oct 4th, 2011, 05:41 AM
Happy that she was acquitted. :)

Halardfan
Oct 4th, 2011, 06:49 AM
LOL at this thread.

We will never know if Knox was a party to the poor British girl's death, and anyone saying anything definitive either way is ludicrous.

What we DO know is that there was not enough evidence for the conviction to stand. So it didn't. Welcome to Law. Anyone who thinks otherwise is possibly a Fascist.

Wouldn't have figured halardfan to be a Fascist (I mean, he's a damn vegan) but we learn something new every day. :eek:

I'm Vegetarian not vegan...

Not a fascist.

Here is an example...there is this brilliant British lawyer hired by celebs called Nick Freeman, known in the press as Mr Loophole. He specializes in getting off celebs in speeding and drunk driving cases. He knows every loophole, every procedure police must follow. Invariably something will not have been done right. I honestly believe in all cases large and small you'd find something not done right.

He gets them off time and time again, despite their guilt.

Now, is that a good outcome? If one's priority is the strict letter of the law then yes. If the priority is that guilty people are punished, then absolutely not.

Rocketta
Oct 4th, 2011, 06:55 AM
I honestly don't know what's sadder... a girl losing her life only to have this circus happen or the posters in this thread crying about American and the American media... I mean really??? REALLY??? Did Americans or the American media have anything to do with the Interrogation, did they manage to have everything recorded the day before and the day after but not the day of? Did they have shitty DNA tests? :confused:

Think she's guilty all you want but at least blame the correct people for her release.. :rolleyes:

Also, if you ever expect Americans or the American media to think one of their citizens innocent and wrongfully incarcerated and to do or say nothing is really a waste of your time and energy. :shrug:

KournikovaFan91
Oct 4th, 2011, 07:31 AM
How long now before the countless TV interviews, publishing of her memoirs and heck Oprah might stick her on her own show on OWN so we can see how she is rebuilding her life :rolleyes:

BartoLiNa
Oct 4th, 2011, 09:51 AM
It's a shame a murderer has walked free due to the police not following correct procedures concerning the DNA evidence. They only have themselves to blame.

I believe in Karma. Foxy will get hers.

Now, is that a good outcome? If one's priority is the strict letter of the law then yes. If the priority is that guilty people are punished, then absolutely not.

The system is designed to make sure innocent people are not wrongfully convicted. If that means a few guilty people get through the net then it may be a price worth paying.

If Knox and her family have any respect for the family of the only innocent in all of this then they will keep a low profile and not whore themselves out to the media. But judging by what we have seen of them so far, class and dignity do not exist in the Knox family vocabulary.

I honestly don't know what's sadder... a girl losing her life only to have this circus happen or the posters in this thread crying about American and the American media...

The fact you don't know whether an innocent girl being murdered is 'sadder' than people complaining about perceived bad journalism speaks volumes about your attitude. You really aren't doing the Americans any favours :rolleyes:

CillyUltra
Oct 4th, 2011, 10:13 AM
flawed Italian judicial system >>>>>>>>>>>>>> American lynch law

fifiricci
Oct 4th, 2011, 10:25 AM
Foxy Knoxy has done very well for herself out of this:
* From convicted criminal (the slander conviction stands) to all American national heroine overnight (she's American right, so she can't possibly have done it and she was strung up by those pesky Eye Ties and their inferior justice system!).
* Soon to be a multi millionairess - not a bad return for 4 short years in the clink.
* Surely speaks fluent Italian by now?
* Her story no doubt soon to be turned into a vomit inducing film, in which the Americans will always be right and everyone else will always be wrong (wonder if they'll overlook the slander conviction in that epic).
Hey ho!

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 4th, 2011, 11:24 AM
It's fascinating to see the correlation between people's opinions and their flags/locations.

Most of the people who haven't been influenced by media and have no agenda or bias seem to believe there isn't enough evidence to convict her. And indeed, it seems to me there is no evidence at all to convict her.

Novichok
Oct 4th, 2011, 12:12 PM
flawed Italian judicial system >>>>>>>>>>>>>> American lynch law

Yes, we know. USA is bad. Europe is good. Americans like murderers.:rolleyes:

Shinjiro
Oct 4th, 2011, 12:31 PM
This reminds me of an episode of the Good Wife, one of the best to date without a doubt. Of course, it should have been the other way around...

Londoner
Oct 4th, 2011, 01:13 PM
Lots of judgment being passed on in here. If she's innocent, I'm glad she's free. If she's not, I believe in karma.

This.

Shvedbarilescu
Oct 4th, 2011, 02:29 PM
I'm Vegetarian not vegan...

Not a fascist.

Here is an example...there is this brilliant British lawyer hired by celebs called Nick Freeman, known in the press as Mr Loophole. He specializes in getting off celebs in speeding and drunk driving cases. He knows every loophole, every procedure police must follow. Invariably something will not have been done right. I honestly believe in all cases large and small you'd find something not done right.

He gets them off time and time again, despite their guilt.

Now, is that a good outcome? If one's priority is the strict letter of the law then yes. If the priority is that guilty people are punished, then absolutely not.

I have to say....I'm disappointed in you. I have always regarded you as one of those individuals who was as cynical of the press as I am. As such I don't buy into salacious details of murders in tabloid newspapers. I certainly don't buy into the way Amanda Knox has been portrayed by the British press.

Is Amanda Knox guilty or innocent? I honestly don't know. I do try to keep an open mind about things in which my only real source of information is what I get in the press. Common sense does however tell me that she is most likely innocent. It is hard to understand why a couple would pair up with a man they did not know and assist and join him in the rape and murder of young women who was the female's flatmate. The motive, which can only be vicarious excitement seems to be so greatly outweighed by likely consequences of such actions that only a psychopath or a complete fool would engage in such an activity. Amanda Knox does not appear to me to be either a psychopath or a fool and if she was the former I believe we would have much more history demostrating that fact.

For me it is much easier to believe one individual with a criminal record broke into the flat and killed a women and then escaped, running off to Germany. Rudy Guede's DNA was found all over the place where as very little DNA was found of the couple and even that came into question and dispute.

Of course this judgement is only my personal instinct, and is of no more relavence or significance than those of anyone else who, like me, hasn't been actively involved in the trial, whether they think she is guilty or innocent. The fact that the judgement of the court, who I believe should know better than either you or me, has come to the conclusion that at the very least there is hardly enough evidence to convict her or her ex-boyfriend with, does rather reinforces my personal instinct. Having said that, I do still keep an open mind, I think the couple were both innocent but I don't claim to be sure. It does seem to me there is neither the motivational reasons there or the evidence there to suggest that the likilihood is they were guilty though.

I am suprised that you, of all people, believe that you, on the other hand, know better than the courts based on what you have heard about this case in the media about the facts of this case. I had always thought you were more open minded. Oh well.

Halardfan
Oct 4th, 2011, 03:10 PM
I have to say....I'm disappointed in you. I have always regarded you as one of those individuals who was as cynical of the press as I am. As such I don't buy into salacious details of murders in tabloid newspapers. I certainly don't buy into the way Amanda Knox has been portrayed by the British press.

Is Amanda Knox guilty or innocent? I honestly don't know. I do try to keep an open mind about things in which my only real source of information is what I get in the press. Common sense does however tell me that she is most likely innocent. It is hard to understand why a couple would pair up with a man they did not know and assist and join him in the rape and murder of young women who was the female's flatmate. The motive, which can only be vicarious excitement seems to be so greatly outweighed by likely consequences of such actions that only a psychopath or a complete fool would engage in such an activity. Amanda Knox does not appear to me to be either a psychopath or a fool and if she was the former I believe we would have much more history demostrating that fact.

For me it is much easier to believe one individual with a criminal record broke into the flat and killed a women and then escaped, running off to Germany. Rudy Guede's DNA was found all over the place where as very little DNA was found of the couple and even that came into question and dispute.

Of course this judgement is only my personal instinct, and is of no more relavence or significance than those of anyone else who, like me, hasn't been actively involved in the trial, whether they think she is guilty or innocent. The fact that the judgement of the court, who I believe should know better than either you or me, has come to the conclusion that at the very least there is hardly enough evidence to convict her or her ex-boyfriend with, does rather reinforces my personal instinct. Having said that, I do still keep an open mind, I think the couple were both innocent but I don't claim to be sure. It does seem to me there is neither the motivational reasons there or the evidence there to suggest that the likilihood is they were guilty though.

I am suprised that you, of all people, believe that you, on the other hand, know better than the courts based on what you have heard about this case in the media about the facts of this case. I had always thought you were more open minded. Oh well.

Key point here...as far as I understand the current position of the Italian courts is that he acted in concert with other people, not alone. I think that's right? That is gonna have to be addressed.

What is Knox's motive for naming an entirely innocent man as the killer? People will say she did so under duress but we have only her word for that. The word of someone who has already offered a monumental lie and been convicted for it. I remain staggered at people's willingness to believe her version of the Police interogation.

Nobody is gonna convince the other. So let's drop it. But my opinion is not as isolated as it appears here, certainly not in Perugia apparently.

Novichok
Oct 4th, 2011, 03:16 PM
Key point here...as far as I understand the current position of the Italian courts is that he acted in concert with other people, not alone. I think that's right? That is gonna have to be addressed.

What is Knox's motive for naming an entirely innocent man as the killer? People will say she did so under duress but we have only her word for that. The word of someone who has already offered a monumental lie and been convicted for it. I remain staggered at people's willingness to believe her version of the Police interogation.

Nobody is gonna convince the other. So let's drop it. But my opinion is not as isolated as it appears here, certainly not in Perugia apparently.

That's circular. She blames the lying on duress so the conviction would be unwarranted.

TheHangover
Oct 4th, 2011, 03:21 PM
Yes, we know. USA is bad. Europe is good. Americans like murderers.:rolleyes:

you meant americans like to murder

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 4th, 2011, 03:22 PM
What is Knox's motive for naming an entirely innocent man as the killer?

How many times are people going to answer that question? :unsure: The motive is the same whether she is guilty or innocent, if the attention is put on another man then she's no longer the suspect. It doesn't constitute evidence. That's all you got?

Halardfan
Oct 4th, 2011, 03:36 PM
How many times are people going to answer that question? :unsure: The motive is the same whether she is guilty or innocent, if the attention is put on another man then she's no longer the suspect. It doesn't constitute evidence. That's all you got?

The fact that she admitted to being there, is evidence that stands for me.

That she tried to point the finger at an innocent man makes it more likely that she is guilty. Whatever happened in the interrogation it wasn't Guantanamo bay. They supposedly broke her...not enough to say she did it, but conveniently just enough to point the finger at an innocent man.

Their alibi is not supported by the facts e.g the computer they say they used was not used on that evening.

The Italian courts still say, to date, that it was done by more than one person. Which is not what most of Knox's supporters are saying.

njnetswill
Oct 4th, 2011, 03:58 PM
It's bizarre to me why everyone is so obsessed with Knox. Two people were acquitted, but no one gives a damn about the man because the media (in both Europe and the US) have only been transfixed on Knox.

It's also bizarre that everyone is acting like we don't have explanation for what happened now, no means for justice for Meredith's murder, when we have a man sitting in jail for committing the murder, with MUCH stronger evidence. Yes, we do have an explanation for the girl's murder but no, it is not as tabloid-friendly as "evil satanic nympho white American girl assisting in her flatmate's rape and murder."

Monzanator
Oct 4th, 2011, 04:04 PM
It's fascinating to see the correlation between people's opinions and their flags/locations.

Most of the people who haven't been influenced by media and have no agenda or bias seem to believe there isn't enough evidence to convict her. And indeed, it seems to me there is no evidence at all to convict her.

Well, if Knox & Solicito planned this murder during a sex orgy that's something completely different. They could have easily played with evidence and put a fall guy into their plans who never suspected of their intentions until it was too late. The fact they both gave each other alibi is ridiculous. The fact Knox was acquitted doesn't mean she isn't a murderer, it only means she wasn't punished for her crime.

As for Americans, yes they have a crack for serial killers, but this was obviously a standalone murder. Sometimes it happens that certain individuals want to enjoy the experience of taking someone else's life just for the sake of it. I have little doubt that Knox family won't keep it low-profile and will start making millions on this one very soon. In ten years time the name Amanda Knox will be used as a catch-phrase like Che Guevara's T-shirts.

I've read the CNN page yesterday and I was at least happy that they've written a couple of articles regarding some other aspects of this story (apart from the obvious Knox mojo). First one stated that the truth about this murder - at least seen by the letter of the law - will never be known. Second one described Meredith Kercher as the "forgotten victim" and I sadly agree. Some time ago I've watched a TV show on famous murder cases among next-door people. It was concluded that allthough the killer's names (or prime suspects anyway in the unsolved or overturned cases) will go down in history, no one will remember the names of the victims. I support that view. In ten years time the name Amanda Knox will still be on the agenda but who will ever remember the victim's name then? I suspect less than 5% of people familiar with Knox (after all who can name three or four of David Berkowitz's victims without using Google nowadays?).

The outcries of people saying how the Kercher family doesn't have justice and don't know what happened is dumb. Are they forgetting that there is a man in jail for Mer's murder that is guilty as hell? The case was solved then and the rest of it was a fucking joke and injustice.

Guede was sentenced for 30 years originally and then had this cut to 16 years after he admitted to "not coming to Kercher's rescue". Now that's a fucking joke. You have a guy convicted of murder having his sentence reduced by almost a half because of such a statement? He didn't even confess to the killing and only said he didn't prevent it from happening. Sure, that must have been a great relief for the Kercher's family. And now he will probably walk away on parole after 8-10 years. Some punishment for rape & murder! He will be only 32-35 years of age when that happens :fiery:

Shvedbarilescu
Oct 4th, 2011, 04:14 PM
The fact that she admitted to being there, is evidence that stands for me.

That she tried to point the finger at an innocent man makes it more likely that she is guilty. Whatever happened in the interrogation it wasn't Guantanamo bay. They supposedly broke her...not enough to say she did it, but conveniently just enough to point the finger at an innocent man.

Their alibi is not supported by the facts e.g the computer they say they used was not used on that evening.

The Italian courts still say, to date, that it was done by more than one person. Which is not what most of Knox's supporters are saying.

As virtually all the DNA was from one individual I really don't see what the problem is concluding it was one person. It does make for a much less salacious story but it also seems a far more believable and realistic explanation of what happened. I just don't see the motivation or reason for this couple to involve themselves with this person who they have no link with to support him murder someone they know. It just doesn't ring true to me.

miffedmax
Oct 4th, 2011, 04:24 PM
Well, I think regardless of how you feel about Knox, we can agree that Guede's sentence is a joke.

Lena's bangs.

ptkten
Oct 4th, 2011, 05:14 PM
Well, I think regardless of how you feel about Knox, we can agree that Guede's sentence is a joke.

Lena's bangs.

Yeah, it's interesting how European sentencing tends to be much less than in the United States.

Anyway, Monzanator and many Europeans on this board like to make large generalizations about the United States and its people. I think most of us do care a lot about whether she did it but if it wasn't proved by the court that she did it, most of us hope that she wouldn't be forced to stay in a foreign jail for most of the rest of her life. Talking about bias, I think if the roles were reversed and this was an American student who was murdered and it was a British girl who was accused there wouldn't be such an outrage among the Brits specifically and Europeans generally that Amanda was found not guilty.

Again, much of the "evidence" against her is character evidence which has nothing to do with whether she actually committed the crime. Just because she's a terrible person doesn't mean that should be used as evidence she committed this particular crime. I said the same exact thing in the Casey Anthony thread and feel the same way about this case.

Halardfan
Oct 4th, 2011, 05:30 PM
Yeah, it's interesting how European sentencing tends to be much less than in the United States.

Anyway, Monzanator and many Europeans on this board like to make large generalizations about the United States and its people. I think most of us do care a lot about whether she did it but if it wasn't proved by the court that she did it, most of us hope that she wouldn't be forced to stay in a foreign jail for most of the rest of her life. Talking about bias, I think if the roles were reversed and this was an American student who was murdered and it was a British girl who was accused there wouldn't be such an outrage among the Brits specifically and Europeans generally that Amanda was found not guilty.

Again, much of the "evidence" against her is character evidence which has nothing to do with whether she actually committed the crime. Just because she's a terrible person doesn't mean that should be used as evidence she committed this particular crime. I said the same exact thing in the Casey Anthony thread and feel the same way about this case.

It's obvious that the nationalities play a part, but that is at least as true for Americans and their media at it is for the British and their media.

Even supposing she is innocent, I don't want to see her giving tear stained interviews about the death of her 'friend'. This is the same girl who was happily carthwheeling around in the hours following the murder. It didn't hit her so hard, she shouldn't pretend it does, all these years later.

Novichok
Oct 4th, 2011, 05:33 PM
It's obvious that the nationalities play a part, but that is at least as true for Americans and their media at it is for the British and their media.

Even supposing she is innocent, I don't want to see her giving tear stained interviews about the death of her 'friend'. This is the same girl who was happily carthwheeling around in the hours following the murder. It didn't hit her so hard, she shouldn't pretend it does, all these years later.

In the USA, people are considered innocent until proven guilty (at least in theory).

Monzanator
Oct 4th, 2011, 06:32 PM
She was considered innocent by the court which doesn't mean she actually didn't commit the murder. It was only settled there was no evidence to confirm the alleged truth. And that's a big difference. Just ask O.J. Simpson who really killed his wife ;) The truth in court means nothing unless it can be backed up by evidence (which isn't then overturned on a technicality).

Yeah, it's interesting how European sentencing tends to be much less than in the United States.

Anyway, Monzanator and many Europeans on this board like to make large generalizations about the United States and its people. I think most of us do care a lot about whether she did it but if it wasn't proved by the court that she did it, most of us hope that she wouldn't be forced to stay in a foreign jail for most of the rest of her life. Talking about bias, I think if the roles were reversed and this was an American student who was murdered and it was a British girl who was accused there wouldn't be such an outrage among the Brits specifically and Europeans generally that Amanda was found not guilty.

Again, much of the "evidence" against her is character evidence which has nothing to do with whether she actually committed the crime. Just because she's a terrible person doesn't mean that should be used as evidence she committed this particular crime. I said the same exact thing in the Casey Anthony thread and feel the same way about this case.

You are wrong in your assumptions, sir. As far as the reversed roles go, Nathalee Holloway case begs to differ!

Besides all the comments from American people and those who actually know her back in the States say that Knox was a friendly and nice person and no one called her 'terrible'. The word can only be blamed upon some British tabloids and now you're saying she's actually a 'terrible person'? Thanks, but I'm not following you on this one :shrug:

And don't even bring me to Anthony who failed to report her little child missing for nearly a month in first place.

Talula
Oct 4th, 2011, 06:55 PM
I feel old saying this, but I started a thread on this just before the first trial's verdict.

I can think of nothing worse for me than what Meredith went through. And I despair for her family, and for all victims and famililies of victims of such hideous acts. I can think of numerous cases including Jamie Bulger, the Moors Murders, the Wests, etc. The desperation for justice and the righting of wrongs can be overwhelming.

But I have changed my mind. Yes, there are oddities in this case, but life is full of them. The truth is, there was nothing to link Amanda or Rafaelle to Meredith's murder, and neither should have been convicted in the first place.

It pains me to say it because of Meredith and my understanding of the desire to have justice and resolution for her and her family. But both Amanda and Rafaelle were unfairly convicted. And would NOT have been convicted in the UK on the evidence. In fact, it wouldn't even have gone to court.

The awful thing is, they and Meredith's family have this hanging over them forever.

People say 'if they are innocent'. But they HAVE been found to be innocent with no evidence to support otherwise.

I think it is time to commemorate Meredith, wish her family peace, and Amanda and Rafaelle peace too.

Talula
Oct 4th, 2011, 06:57 PM
In the USA, people are considered innocent until proven guilty (at least in theory).

And that is the crux. Both Amanda and Rafaelle were considered guilty from before the trial.

Talula
Oct 4th, 2011, 07:03 PM
LOL at this thread.

We will never know if Knox was a party to the poor British girl's death, and anyone saying anything definitive either way is ludicrous.

What we DO know is that there was not enough evidence for the conviction to stand. So it didn't. Welcome to Law. Anyone who thinks otherwise is possibly a Fascist.

Wouldn't have figured halardfan to be a Fascist (I mean, he's a damn vegan) but we learn something new every day. :eek:

No offence this is what is horrible.

Because they had things said against them and went to jail we say we will never know. That is like saying we will never know if you or I were involved.

I really did cry for Meredith and her family. But Amanda and Rafaelle are innocent. Period.

miffedmax
Oct 4th, 2011, 07:05 PM
Yeah, it's interesting how European sentencing tends to be much less than in the United States.

Anyway, Monzanator and many Europeans on this board like to make large generalizations about the United States and its people. I think most of us do care a lot about whether she did it but if it wasn't proved by the court that she did it, most of us hope that she wouldn't be forced to stay in a foreign jail for most of the rest of her life. Talking about bias, I think if the roles were reversed and this was an American student who was murdered and it was a British girl who was accused there wouldn't be such an outrage among the Brits specifically and Europeans generally that Amanda was found not guilty.

Again, much of the "evidence" against her is character evidence which has nothing to do with whether she actually committed the crime. Just because she's a terrible person doesn't mean that should be used as evidence she committed this particular crime. I said the same exact thing in the Casey Anthony thread and feel the same way about this case.

Well, there was the trade off where he took the "fast-track" sentence to get the 30-years, which I gather is a bit like copping a plea in that you trade off some time to avoid the expense and risks of going to trial. It was knocking the time off that 30 years that bothered me, since he's eligible for parole.

As far as Knox goes, even as an American I find her to be a somewhat unsavory character and I still suspect she knows more and may have been more involved than she's admitting. But the case was bungled badly, and as I've said before "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent." But it is the right verdict under the circumstances. No nation's laws and police are perfect, and the law is not always just. But it is still our best bet as a civilized society, whether you think the law achieved justice here or not.

Ip6czeTuNEU

Lena's bangs

Talula
Oct 4th, 2011, 07:11 PM
I am so eager to reply to all posts here.

Forget Nationality, gender and looks. Rafaelle is Italian. Meredith was (is) beautiful and
Amanda intriguing. Forget all that.

There is no evidence against them. The police have nothing on them. They have been proved innocent. How would you feel to be proved innocent to have people try and undermine that?

There is NO EVIDENCE against either.

It should never have gone to court.

I actually really feel for Rafaelle - and I'm sorry if I keep spelling his name incorrectly. He has been so overlooked in the hype.

Halardfan
Oct 4th, 2011, 07:45 PM
I am so eager to reply to all posts here.

Forget Nationality, gender and looks. Rafaelle is Italian. Meredith was (is) beautiful and
Amanda intriguing. Forget all that.

There is no evidence against them. The police have nothing on them. They have been proved innocent. How would you feel to be proved innocent to have people try and undermine that?

There is NO EVIDENCE against either.

It should never have gone to court.

I actually really feel for Rafaelle - and I'm sorry if I keep spelling his name incorrectly. He has been so overlooked in the hype.

You can make a reasonable case that there is not enough evidence against them. But you can't say that there is no evidence.

BartoLiNa
Oct 4th, 2011, 08:01 PM
I am so eager to reply to all posts here.

Forget Nationality, gender and looks. Rafaelle is Italian. Meredith was (is) beautiful and
Amanda intriguing. Forget all that.

There is no evidence against them.

Stopped reading here. Either educate yourself on the case or refrain from posting.

Monzanator
Oct 4th, 2011, 08:09 PM
Yup, the evidence was there but it was insufficient to get the conviction and that's something completely different then having no evidence at all. Part of the fact that evidence was judged to be insufficient was the way police and prosecution failed to get their fricking job right. They can be blamed for allowing the murderers escape punishment and to walk away free, but they can't be blamed for the actual killing. The responsibility for that lies with Knox, Solicito and Guede who might have been the perfect fall guy in the orgy-turned-murder deal. I'll never get rid of the feeling Knox got away with perfect murder the way this case unfolded.

Another point in Guede's reduced sentence is the fact back then he was considered as one of three culprits and since no one admitted to the killing and there were no witnesses, no one could have judged who delivered the fatal stab wounds. Now that Knox and Solicito are acquitted it leaves Guede as the lone killer and hence gets rid of all the doubts who actually stabbed Kercher and slashed her throat. Therefore it makes the original sentence totally valid and leaves no room for the subsequent reduction. Once again, the murderer get all the circumstancial good luck.

I strongly support miffedmax's point of view. Knox never told the whole truth about the murder and her involvement in it. Now that's she's been let go it's all pure hogwash. All I can wait for is Guede to be paroled before the decade is over to complete the misery.

miffedmax
Oct 4th, 2011, 08:25 PM
It would have been interesting to see if a Scottish court would have come back with a "not guilty" or a "not proven" verdict in this case. I'm not familiar enough with the law to know much beyond the fact the Scots have (or used to have) a not proven verdict.

I personally still feel Knox got away with something--it may not have been murder, but obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting, something and so did Solicito. But I also accept the fact that I don't have the evidence to tell you exactly what means they are "not guilty."

Lena's bangs.

Infiniti2001
Oct 4th, 2011, 08:28 PM
Yup, the evidence was there but it was insufficient to get the conviction and that's something completely different then having no evidence at all. Part of the fact that evidence was judged to be insufficient was the way police and prosecution failed to get their fricking job right. They can be blamed for allowing the murderers escape punishment and to walk away free, but they can't be blamed for the actual killing. The responsibility for that lies with Knox, Solicito and Guede who might have been the perfect fall guy in the orgy-turned-murder deal. I'll never get rid of the feeling Knox got away with perfect murder the way this case unfolded.

Another point in Guede's reduced sentence is the fact back then he was considered as one of three culprits and since no one admitted to the killing and there were no witnesses, no one could have judged who delivered the fatal stab wounds. Now that Knox and Solicito are acquitted it leaves Guede as the lone killer and hence gets rid of all the doubts who actually stabbed Kercher and slashed her throat. Therefore it makes the original sentence totally valid and leaves no room for the subsequent reduction. Once again, the murderer get all the circumstancial good luck.

I strongly support miffedmax's point of view. Knox never told the whole truth about the murder and her involvement in it. Now that's she's been let go it's all pure hogwash. All I can wait for is Guede to be paroled before the decade is over to complete the misery.

Do you know more than those who actually went over all the evidence to determine yesterday's outcome? :shrug: Get over it already:help:

gentenaire
Oct 4th, 2011, 08:32 PM
Even supposing she is innocent, I don't want to see her giving tear stained interviews about the death of her 'friend'. This is the same girl who was happily carthwheeling around in the hours following the murder. It didn't hit her so hard, she shouldn't pretend it does, all these years later.

Meredith's other friends in Perugia all immediately fled back to the UK after the murder. The other two roommates immediately lawyered up. Amanda stayed and thought she could help. Capital mistake.

gentenaire
Oct 4th, 2011, 08:44 PM
It's a shame a murderer has walked free due to the police not following correct procedures concerning the DNA evidence. They only have themselves to blame.

If the police had followed correct procedures, it's entirely possible Amanda and Raffaele would never have been accused in the first place.

Guede's DNA was all over the place, all they had on Raffaele was a bra clasp that was found more than a month later. So it's very likely that the sample was contaminated. Had they followed proper procedures, Raffaele's DNA might have not ended up on the bra clasp at all. It seems a bit odd that he'd only leave a trace on a bra clasp and nowhere else.

They went after Knox and Raffaele from the start. They claimed the bloody footprints were Raffaele's, You'd think that after it was clear they were Guede's, that would have cleared Raffaele. But no. They claimed the knife found in Raffaele's appartment was the murder weapon. When forensics showed that the knife didn't match the stab wounds, you'd think they would realise the knife wasn't used. But no, they simply came up with the idea that two knives were used. With this kind of evidence, they could have accused every single person who ever came into contact with Meredith.

Chris 84
Oct 4th, 2011, 08:51 PM
It would have been interesting to see if a Scottish court would have come back with a "not guilty" or a "not proven" verdict in this case. I'm not familiar enough with the law to know much beyond the fact the Scots have (or used to have) a not proven verdict.

I personally still feel Knox got away with something--it may not have been murder, but obstruction of justice, aiding and abetting, something and so did Solicito. But I also accept the fact that I don't have the evidence to tell you exactly what means they are "not guilty."

Lena's bangs.

we still have "not proven" but its history and use are all rather confusing. orginally the scottish system had only "proven" and "not proven", before some case or other introduced "not guilty" as well. the conception certainly is that a "not proven" verdict is returned when the jury is far from convinced about the innocence of the accused, but feels that the prosecution has failed to do enough to prove their case.

judging by the facts as we know them and by what has been written about this case, i would consider it highly likely that a "not proven" verdict would have been returned for knox rather than a "not guilty" one. but then again, our appeals process is very different from that of the italians, so really, who knows?

croat123
Oct 4th, 2011, 08:57 PM
How many times are people going to answer that question? :unsure: The motive is the same whether she is guilty or innocent, if the attention is put on another man then she's no longer the suspect. It doesn't constitute evidence. That's all you got?
actually it does. it's called consciousness of guilt. look it up

Helen Lawson
Oct 4th, 2011, 09:08 PM
Hi, I am new to this thread. I didn't follow the case that closely and never felt Europeans didn't like Americans.

What I can't get over is, what was her motive if she did do it? The sex ritual stuff seemed very far-fetched to me. I've had roommates in the past when I was poor/a student, you avoid each other and hang with other people. No murder, and certainly not like the way the girl was killed. It made no sense to me.

miffedmax
Oct 4th, 2011, 09:09 PM
we still have "not proven" but its history and use are all rather confusing. orginally the scottish system had only "proven" and "not proven", before some case or other introduced "not guilty" as well. the conception certainly is that a "not proven" verdict is returned when the jury is far from convinced about the innocence of the accused, but feels that the prosecution has failed to do enough to prove their case.

judging by the facts as we know them and by what has been written about this case, i would consider it highly likely that a "not proven" verdict would have been returned for knox rather than a "not guilty" one. but then again, our appeals process is very different from that of the italians, so really, who knows?

Thanks for your informative response. It always amazes me what you can learn on TF!

miffedmax
Oct 4th, 2011, 09:15 PM
Hi, I am new to this thread. I didn't follow the case that closely and never felt Europeans didn't like Americans.

What I can't get over is, what was her motive if she did do it? The sex ritual stuff seemed very far-fetched to me. I've had roommates in the past when I was poor/a student, you avoid each other and hang with other people. No murder, and certainly not like the way the girl was killed. It made no sense to me.

Please, Helen, you expect us to believe you never murdered a roommate and made it look like a depraved ritual sex murder in order to beat her out for a part?

http://blackdahliasolution.org/images/ES1a.jpg

We know you knew Betty.

Monzanator
Oct 4th, 2011, 09:33 PM
Do you know more than those who actually went over all the evidence to determine yesterday's outcome? :shrug: Get over it already:help:

I have my opinion on the case which obviously differs significantly from yours. I'm a strong supporter of the death penalty and some murder cases' verdicts made me very upset over the years, but the Knox case is possibly the most outrageous one where I personally feel all three alleged culprits weaseled their way out of true responsibility and punishment for their crimes (also with Guede having his original sentence reduced by 14 years).

Chris 84
Oct 4th, 2011, 09:39 PM
I have my opinion on the case which obviously differs significantly from yours. I'm a strong supporter of the death penalty and some murder cases' verdicts made me very upset over the years, but the Knox case is possibly the most outrageous one where I personally feel all three alleged culprits weaseled their way out of true responsibility and punishment for their crimes (also with Guede having his original sentence reduced by 14 years).

this is a case which shows how ridiculous the death penalty is. if these people had been executed when (if) 2 of them are innocent, then i don't see how anybody can justify supporting the death penalty.

you might have strong views in this case. you may be right, you may be wrong, but im sure you know that there are thousands of miscarriages of justice and thousands of mistakes made in every legal system. to risk executing innocent people makes no sense to me.

Helen Lawson
Oct 4th, 2011, 10:03 PM
Please, Helen, you expect us to believe you never murdered a roommate and made it look like a depraved ritual sex murder in order to beat her out for a part?

http://blackdahliasolution.org/images/ES1a.jpg

We know you knew Betty.

That was ONE time. She also slept with my boyfriend at the time. I did get a good part, though. Thank goodness the Hollywood police didn't ask too many questions then!

Viktymise
Oct 4th, 2011, 10:27 PM
The right verdict.

CiarŠn
Oct 4th, 2011, 10:45 PM
I am happy for Knox, I believe she was innocent.

I have my opinion on the case which obviously differs significantly from yours. I'm a strong supporter of the death penalty and some murder cases' verdicts made me very upset over the years, but the Knox case is possibly the most outrageous one where I personally feel all three alleged culprits weaseled their way out of true responsibility and punishment for their crimes (also with Guede having his original sentence reduced by 14 years).

'A life for a life' is such an awful phrase. Surely it is a bigger punishment to be stripped of your basic human right of freedom and forced to stare at the same four walls every single day for the rest of your life. Having the same boring things lined up for you every single day and being forced to endure them. You're even stripped of the basic freedom of being able to take your own life and being forced to live and endure your punishment. I think the death penalty is an easy and humane way of punishing someone and what most prisoners would want after a number of years. Life sentences are inescapable humiliation and currently being enforced by intellectual nations who understand the fragility of the human mind what real suffering is. You could argue it costs the Government money and whatever, it's an endless argument really :lol:

Infiniti2001
Oct 4th, 2011, 11:18 PM
I have my opinion on the case which obviously differs significantly from yours. I'm a strong supporter of the death penalty and some murder cases' verdicts made me very upset over the years, but the Knox case is possibly the most outrageous one where I personally feel all three alleged culprits weaseled their way out of true responsibility and punishment for their crimes (also with Guede having his original sentence reduced by 14 years).


Enough evidence was found to convict Guede--- and I will not get into his sentence. I am against the death penalty and I've stated my reason so many times over the years on this forum... There was no weasling on Knox's part--- She firmly believed she did not commit the crime she was accused of, and according to the law in Italy (and I hope all over the world) she appealed the sentence and it was overturned... Apart from her pointing the finger at the wrong individual, the authorities of the investigation did not find any evidence linking her to the murder... Why do you think she was involved? Were you a fly on the wall?

Rocketta
Oct 5th, 2011, 01:02 AM
The fact you don't know whether an innocent girl being murdered is 'sadder' than people complaining about perceived bad journalism speaks volumes about your attitude. You really aren't doing the Americans any favours :rolleyes:

oh really is that what people were complaining of with the American media bad journalism? :lol: Nothing worse than when jealousy rears it's ugly head in situations where there is no place for it except when said jealous individuals are so deluded they can't even see their actions for what they are.

Unfortunately for the world, innocent individuals lose their lives every day. We feel more strongly about the ones that effect us on a personal level than those that don't. That's reality. So honestly, I'm sorry for the deceased family that it turned into a circus but it doesn't effect me personally. I don't live in Italy nor is the dead girl a relative or friend of mine. The same goes for the Knox girl. I personally didn't feel anything other than 'I hope she really is guilty' when they convicted her and with this appeal I felt 'good, if she is innocent then she should be set free' ... but having no issues with Italy, England, I felt nothing for either nations or people unlike the crap posters have been spewing in this thread.

If you don't think using an unfortunate event to spew some deep seeded issues that have nothing to do with the event not sad or see the basic implications of how this behavior could cross over to many different issues and events then that's your issue. So yes, I don't know which is sadder the circus that followed the innocent girl's death or people who clearly care more about their useless feelings about a country and their people and are using that tragedy as a soap box. Oh and my goal is not to do Americans any favors as I don't speak for Americans but to give my opinion... just another example of how clearly you have a problem distinguishing between and individual and an entire population of a certain country.

dybbuk
Oct 5th, 2011, 01:28 AM
All I know if I'm tired as hell of all these internet lawyers who latch onto every new big case and circle like vultures around the defendents, because they obviously know more than the people who are stuck in a courtroom listening to all the evidence for hours and hours on end. I'm still recovering from the Casey Anthony trial and everyone's BS regarding that.

ťgalitť
Oct 5th, 2011, 02:10 AM
All I know if I'm tired as hell of all these internet lawyers who latch onto every new big case and circle like vultures around the defendents, because they obviously know more than the people who are stuck in a courtroom listening to all the evidence for hours and hours on end. I'm still recovering from the Casey Anthony trial and everyone's BS regarding that.

Yes :hearts: This "I watched Fox News last night so obviously I'm qualified to declare Amanda Knox and Casey Anthony guilty" mentality is incomprehensibly stupid.

Edward.
Oct 5th, 2011, 02:56 AM
I am sickened this awful little slut will profit and make millions from the death of her "friend".

Karma is a bitch and it will get you in the end, Madame Knox.

Novichok
Oct 5th, 2011, 02:59 AM
I am sickened this awful little slut will profit and make millions from the death of her "friend".

Karma is a bitch and it will get you in the end, Madame Knox.

Do you know her personally?:lol::tape:

She should make as much money as she can. She had to live through this and her family spent lots of money on her legal team.

Edward.
Oct 5th, 2011, 03:08 AM
Do you know her personally?:lol::tape:

She should make as much money as she can. She had to live through this and her family spent lots of money on her legal team.

Okay, the slut comment was a little harsh, though her penchant for sleeping around repeatedly, taking drugs and living a generally debauched lifestyle is well documented.

Knox's parents sent her abroad and got her back after 4 years.

Meredith's parents sent her abroad, they never got her back, and they never will. :(

And profiteering from the murder of a "friend" is a moral outrage, no matter what way you look at it. Her legal fee's will be refunded, so that is irrelevant.

Novichok
Oct 5th, 2011, 03:15 AM
Okay, the slut comment was a little harsh, though her penchant for sleeping around repeatedly, taking drugs and living a generally debauched lifestyle is well documented.

Knox's parents sent her abroad and got her back after 4 years.

Meredith's parents sent her abroad, they never got her back, and they never will. :(

And profiteering from the murder of a "friend" is a moral outrage, no matter what way you look at it. Her legal fee's will be refunded, so that is irrelevant.

She's profiting from HER trial and imprisonment.

Ryan
Oct 5th, 2011, 03:25 AM
Okay, the slut comment was a little harsh, though her penchant for sleeping around repeatedly, taking drugs and living a generally debauched lifestyle is well documented.

Knox's parents sent her abroad and got her back after 4 years.

Meredith's parents sent her abroad, they never got her back, and they never will. :(

And profiteering from the murder of a "friend" is a moral outrage, no matter what way you look at it. Her legal fee's will be refunded, so that is irrelevant.


:rolleyes: Because NO young woman sleeps with multiple dudes or uses drugs. Give me a fucking break dude.

Unless there's some other evidence out there, you have nothing that says Knox killed Kercher or was involved in the murder. How is she profiting (yet)? That's just speculation. And having your legal fees paid for when defending a murder charge/conviction is not at all out of the ordinary.

LeRoy.
Oct 5th, 2011, 03:37 AM
Can the media move on now that she is out and back home? Getting tired of the constant coverage across the news channels. :yawn:

Infiniti2001
Oct 5th, 2011, 03:38 AM
I am sickened this awful little slut will profit and make millions from the death of her "friend".

Karma is a bitch and it will get you in the end, Madame Knox.


I'm quite disappointed with this response , because you always seem like a reasonable poster... Slut or not her conviction was overturned and I personally believe she should be paid by the Italian government based on this .. All those who are not satisfied with the outcome should take the Prosecutor to task...

Bayo
Oct 5th, 2011, 04:00 AM
It's fascinating to see the correlation between people's opinions and their flags/locations.

Most of the people who haven't been influenced by media and have no agenda or bias seem to believe there isn't enough evidence to convict her. And indeed, it seems to me there is no evidence at all to convict her.

Yeah, the nationalism on display here is pretty telling.

I think it only goes to show the extent to which the media influences (what we imagine to be our own) opinions. American media on the whole thinks she's innocent, so do the majority of Americans. British media has decided she's guilty, so have most Brits.

And then there is the persistent anti-American element who will have their say regardless of the topic. We could be discussing organic farms.

Anyway, these courtroom dramas don't hold my attention, so I'm not up to speed on all the details here. I just think it's unfortunate that a young girl was brutally killed and it appears whoever did it is never going to receive any serious punishment.

swim4life227
Oct 5th, 2011, 06:24 AM
Guede was sentenced for 30 years originally and then had this cut to 16 years after he admitted to "not coming to Kercher's rescue". Now that's a fucking joke. You have a guy convicted of murder having his sentence reduced by almost a half because of such a statement? He didn't even confess to the killing and only said he didn't prevent it from happening. Sure, that must have been a great relief for the Kercher's family. And now he will probably walk away on parole after 8-10 years. Some punishment for rape & murder! He will be only 32-35 years of age when that happens :fiery:

None of which you mentioned has SHIT to do with the outcome of this appeal. Justice was served the day Guede was put behind bars and the family should have been able to begin the healing process then. The sentence is a joke but I don't think the original sentence was even proper, that too was a joke. Instead, this prosecutor sort of manipulated the family into feeling that there were additional culprits and understandably the family took the bait as they had faith in the system. It's sad that the Kercher family has been drug through the whole Knox fiasco as it wasn't necessary for either parties.

Whitehead's Boy
Oct 5th, 2011, 08:07 AM
When people say "there is no evidence against her" or "X doesn't constitute evidence", they mean that there is no good evidence to convict her. Not that there is literally zero evidence. Of course there is "evidence", any piece of relevant information for the case can be classified in the "evidence" folder.

Also, let's not compare her to Casey Anthony, shall we. Anthony's behavior was not logically consistent with being innocent, and plenty of experts agree there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict her. There is no logical inconsistency with Knox's behavior and being innocent. Plenty of innocent people have pointed fingers at other people and lied.

fifiricci
Oct 5th, 2011, 08:43 AM
In the USA, people are considered innocent until proven guilty (at least in theory).

OMG lol. Get off your high horse!
Unless you're in Guantanamo and held without charge for ever and a day ....

Rocketta
Oct 5th, 2011, 08:51 AM
OMG lol. Get off your high horse!
Unless you're in Guantanamo and held without charge for ever and a day ....

how is he on his high horse? :confused: When someone is on trial the presumption is suppose to be innocent until proven guilty? I didn't know the people in Guantanamo have been on trial? It's a sad course of events for those people and personally I don't feel it's appropriate or very 'American' to hold those people but what does that have to do with someone going to trial and what the presumptions going into that trial are? :confused:

fifiricci
Oct 5th, 2011, 10:50 AM
how is he on his high horse? :confused: When someone is on trial the presumption is suppose to be innocent until proven guilty? I didn't know the people in Guantanamo have been on trial? It's a sad course of events for those people and personally I don't feel it's appropriate or very 'American' to hold those people but what does that have to do with someone going to trial and what the presumptions going into that trial are? :confused:

If you can't see the elephant in the room, I'm not going to waste my time pointing it out to you.

Rocketta
Oct 5th, 2011, 11:01 AM
If you can't see the elephant in the room, I'm not going to waste my time pointing it out to you.

Maybe that's the problem seeing elephants in your room.... is his name Horton and he somehow by chance sees a Who? :o

Novichok
Oct 5th, 2011, 01:38 PM
OMG lol. Get off your high horse!
Unless you're in Guantanamo and held without charge for ever and a day ....

There's not need to be that aggressive.:rolleyes:

I never claimed that the American system of justice was perfect and obviously the USA has some human rights violations (that's why I qualified with "at least in theory"). My point wasn't even about the government considering people innocent until proven guilty, it was about most citizens considering people innocent until proven guilty.

Monzanator
Oct 5th, 2011, 05:33 PM
Enough evidence was found to convict Guede--- and I will not get into his sentence. I am against the death penalty and I've stated my reason so many times over the years on this forum... There was no weasling on Knox's part--- She firmly believed she did not commit the crime she was accused of, and according to the law in Italy (and I hope all over the world) she appealed the sentence and it was overturned... Apart from her pointing the finger at the wrong individual, the authorities of the investigation did not find any evidence linking her to the murder... Why do you think she was involved? Were you a fly on the wall?

"She believed she didn't commit the crime." So what? If every court verdict relied solely on the prosecuted's answer, we wouldn't have gotten any convictions because no one would admit to committing any crimes :tape:

The evidence was there but it was deemed to be contaminated and thrown out of court. That's one big difference than having no evidence to work with in first place. You seem to think that if evidence was thrown out of court then it didn't exist at all in first place. Well, the problem is that it did exist and allthough the jury couldn't make use of it, all the "Internet lawyers" as someone bravely called them can.

I am happy for Knox, I believe she was innocent.

'A life for a life' is such an awful phrase. Surely it is a bigger punishment to be stripped of your basic human right of freedom and forced to stare at the same four walls every single day for the rest of your life. Having the same boring things lined up for you every single day and being forced to endure them. You're even stripped of the basic freedom of being able to take your own life and being forced to live and endure your punishment. I think the death penalty is an easy and humane way of punishing someone and what most prisoners would want after a number of years. Life sentences are inescapable humiliation and currently being enforced by intellectual nations who understand the fragility of the human mind what real suffering is. You could argue it costs the Government money and whatever, it's an endless argument really :lol:

I support death penalty in the murder cases and there's no exception. "Eye for an eye, life for a life" is my way of seeing things and I don't care about the money. Besides, people spend 20 years on death row sometimes and the money is spend during that time as well, so it's not the case that death penalty saves public money. Moreover some murderers never feel any real suffering and do not feel sorry about their crimes. I don't know what Knox is feeling right now, it's possible that some time during her imprisonement she regretted the murder, but only because she was jailed and not because of the victim's life being taken away. I suppose she will act like a girl-next-door for the next couple of years before unleashing the money making campaign. It's only a matter of time before the cash starts to fill her pockets.

Also, I don't want anyone to feel like I'm anti-American or something. I still feel a lot of anger towards Joran van der Sloot and his case. It's beyond words that it must have taken another murder to finally get this guy behind bars but from what I understand if the conviction goes the best way for him (5 years for manslaughter) he could be eligible for parole within two years of conviction!

Infiniti2001
Oct 5th, 2011, 05:47 PM
"She believed she didn't commit the crime." So what? If every court verdict relied solely on the prosecuted's answer, we wouldn't have gotten any convictions because no one would admit to committing any crimes :tape:

The evidence was there but it was deemed to be contaminated and thrown out of court. That's one big difference than having no evidence to work with in first place. You seem to think that if evidence was thrown out of court then it didn't exist at all in first place. Well, the problem is that it did exist and allthough the jury couldn't make use of it, all the "Internet lawyers" as someone bravely called them can.



I support death penalty in the murder cases and there's no exception. "Eye for an eye, life for a life" is my way of seeing things and I don't care about the money. Besides, people spend 20 years on death row sometimes and the money is spend during that time as well, so it's not the case that death penalty saves public money. Moreover some murderers never feel any real suffering and do not feel sorry about their crimes. I don't know what Knox is feeling right now, it's possible that some time during her imprisonement she regretted the murder, but only because she was jailed and not because of the victim's life being taken away. I suppose she will act like a girl-next-door for the next couple of years before unleashing the money making campaign. It's only a matter of time before the cash starts to fill her pockets.

Also, I don't want anyone to feel like I'm anti-American or something. I still feel a lot of anger towards Joran van der Sloot and his case. It's beyond words that it must have taken another murder to finally get this guy behind bars but from what I understand if the conviction goes the best way for him (5 years for manslaughter) he could be eligible for parole within two years of conviction!

Amanda Knox is now enjoying the beautiful Seattle fall weather while you stew in anger... Get over it and concentrate on your own life, these people don't know you :shrug:

Infiniti2001
Oct 5th, 2011, 05:48 PM
Maybe that's the problem seeing elephants in your room.... is his name Horton and he somehow by chance sees a Who? :o

Stop it :lol:

Monzanator
Oct 5th, 2011, 06:30 PM
Amanda Knox is now enjoying the beautiful Seattle fall weather while you stew in anger... Get over it and concentrate on your own life, these people don't know you :shrug:

Being angry at this verdict doesn't harm my everyday life however the anger will remain deep in my heart forever. Last time I was so angry over a murder case was when Susan Atkins asked for a parole on "humanitarian" grounds :o

BartoLiNa
Oct 5th, 2011, 06:39 PM
oh really is that what people were complaining of with the American media bad journalism? :lol:

What they perceived to be bad journalism, yes.

Nothing worse than when jealousy rears it's ugly head in situations where there is no place for it except when said jealous individuals are so deluded they can't even see their actions for what they are.

So now the people who happen to disagree with your assessment are doing so out of 'jealousy'? You really do have a superiority complex :rolleyes:

Unfortunately for the world, innocent individuals lose their lives every day. We feel more strongly about the ones that effect us on a personal level than those that don't. That's reality. So honestly, I'm sorry for the deceased family that it turned into a circus but it doesn't effect me personally. I don't live in Italy nor is the dead girl a relative or friend of mine. The same goes for the Knox girl. I personally didn't feel anything other than 'I hope she really is guilty' when they convicted her and with this appeal I felt 'good, if she is innocent then she should be set free' ... but having no issues with Italy, England, I felt nothing for either nations or people unlike the crap posters have been spewing in this thread.

If you feel nothing for murder victims then that's your prerogative, but as I said in my previous post it reveals a lot about your attitude.

If you don't think using an unfortunate event to spew some deep seeded issues that have nothing to do with the event not sad or see the basic implications of how this behavior could cross over to many different issues and events then that's your issue.

Since I don't believe that that's what people are doing my feelings of your imaginary scenario are irrelevant to this discussion.

So yes, I don't know which is sadder the circus that followed the innocent girl's death or people who clearly care more about their useless feelings about a country and their people and are using that tragedy as a soap box. Oh and my goal is not to do Americans any favors as I don't speak for Americans but to give my opinion... just another example of how clearly you have a problem distinguishing between and individual and an entire population of a certain country.

I couldn't care less about your country or it's population. There's that superiority complex again. Oh and you might want to provide evidence of some of these so called examples, or is this just something else you pulled out of your backside?

You're making this way too easy :yawn:

mykarma
Oct 5th, 2011, 11:03 PM
I'm quite disappointed with this response , because you always seem like a reasonable poster... Slut or not her conviction was overturned and I personally believe she should be paid by the Italian government based on this .. All those who are not satisfied with the outcome should take the Prosecutor to task...

Amanda Knox sued by Patrick Lumumba
Amanda Knox, the American student on trial for murdering her British flat mate Meredith Kercher, is being sued for nearly half a million pounds by a man she wrongly accused of the crime.
Patrick Lumumba: Amanda Knox sued by Patrick Lumumba
Patrick Lumumba: He was cleared of any involvment in the murder Photo: GETTY

By Nick Squires in Rome

12:52PM GMT 06 Mar 2009

Diya 'Patrick' Lumumba, 38, a Congolese barman who is married with a child, spent two weeks in prison before being able to prove that he spent the night of the murder talking to a customer in his pub in Perugia, Umbria.

His lawyers say he is unemployed, after negative publicity forced him to shut his pub.

They also claim that he suffered psychological damage as a result of his arrest and imprisonment.

They are seeking 516,000 euros (£462,000) in compensation from the Italian state should Miss Knox be convicted of the murder, which took place in Nov 2007 in the house she shared with Miss Kercher and two Italian women in Via della Pergola, just outside the Umbrian hill town's historic walls.

And Knox is being sued personally for an undisclosed sum.
Related Articles

Bloodstained footprint found under Kercher's body
28 Feb 2009

Kercher trial: Knox back in court
28 Feb 2009

Knox 'hit in head' during Kercher interrogation
28 Feb 2009

"Everyone regarded him as 'the monster of Via della Pergola', even though he denied every accusation right from the very start," said his lawyer Carlo Pacelli.

"He is asking for damages for the consequences the unjust detention has had on his family and social and economic situations."

Miss Knox, 21, is already being sued for 20 million pounds by Miss Kercher's family, of Coulsdon, Surrey, who are entitled to seek compensation for the crime under Italy's legal system.

Perugia's Court of Appeal is expected to make a decision on Mr Lumumba's request for compensation by the end of the month.

Miss Knox, from Seattle, is on trial with her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, 24, from Bari, southern Italy.

Both are accused of killing Miss Kercher, a Leeds University student who was at the start of a year's exchange course at Perugia's University for Foreigners, during a group sex game which turned violent. They deny the charges.

The trial started in January and is expected to last many months, in part because the court in Perugia is only sitting two or three days a week, and some weeks not at all.

Last week the court heard that Miss Knox, who worked part-time as a waitress in Mr Lumumba's pub, pointed the blamed at him after police asked her to provide the names and telephone numbers of Miss Kercher's friends.

Scrolling through the contacts list on her mobile phone, she reached that of Mr Lumumba and allegedly started crying, telling a police officer: "It was him, it was him, he was crazy, he killed her."

He was arrested shortly afterwards, four days after Miss Kercher's body was discovered, half-naked and in a pool of blood.

IMO, she has ruined this man and his families life but she'll be celebrated and make all kinds of money. If she's innocent she shouldn't be in prison but as far as I'm concerned she's a vicious cold-hearted bitch who only cared about herself. Karma is a bitch and she'll pay for that act. That man's life will never be the same. If he was at home instead of with a customer his ass would most likely still be in prison. Sorry but Amanda gets no sympathy from me.

Helen Lawson
Oct 5th, 2011, 11:10 PM
Does anyone know if she was "gay for the stay?"

Corswandt
Oct 5th, 2011, 11:11 PM
Hi, I am new to this thread. I didn't follow the case that closely and never felt Europeans didn't like Americans.

What I can't get over is, what was her motive if she did do it? The sex ritual stuff seemed very far-fetched to me. I've had roommates in the past when I was poor/a student, you avoid each other and hang with other people. No murder, and certainly not like the way the girl was killed. It made no sense to me.

Correct - the public prosecutor had no plausible motive. That's why it had to fabricate all those lurid tall tales about how Knox was a vicious, amoral sex fiend so that it would make (some) sense that she'd randomly help murder someone just for kicks/instant gratification.

Knox and Sollecito were simply unfortunate to fall into the hands of a "star" prosecutor hungry for publicity - a sadly familiar feature of Southern European judicial systems.

mykarma
Oct 5th, 2011, 11:27 PM
Correct - the public prosecutor had no plausible motive. That's why it had to fabricate all those lurid tall tales about how Knox was a vicious, amoral sex fiend so that it would make (some) sense that she'd randomly help murder someone just for kicks/instant gratification.

Knox and Sollecito were simply unfortunate to fall into the hands of a "star" prosecutor hungry for publicity - a sadly familiar feature of Southern European judicial systems.

Innocent or guilty how do you know what type of sex life she and her boyfriend had?

miffedmax
Oct 6th, 2011, 02:49 AM
I am happy for Knox, I believe she was innocent.



'A life for a life' is such an awful phrase. Surely it is a bigger punishment to be stripped of your basic human right of freedom and forced to stare at the same four walls every single day for the rest of your life. Having the same boring things lined up for you every single day and being forced to endure them. You're even stripped of the basic freedom of being able to take your own life and being forced to live and endure your punishment. I think the death penalty is an easy and humane way of punishing someone and what most prisoners would want after a number of years. Life sentences are inescapable humiliation and currently being enforced by intellectual nations who understand the fragility of the human mind what real suffering is. You could argue it costs the Government money and whatever, it's an endless argument really :lol:

Actually, in the US it costs more to impose the death sentence than it does to put him or her away for life.

I'm the only person I know who opposes the death penalty on economic grounds, but there you have it.

Lena's bangs.

Philbo
Oct 6th, 2011, 09:33 AM
I think she is guilty as sin and a travesty of justice has occurred. I think the british media have some blame - its just another example of how money can buy you freedom. I feel for Meredith's family so much. This Knox girl is a white version of OJ Simpson.

Ashi
Oct 6th, 2011, 10:46 AM
I can't judge whether this girl is guilty or not. Don't know a whole lot about the case and it's history.

I can assure you, atleast in my country people have gotten off with a light sentence.

Case in point: Maria Susairaj. http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/neeraj-grover-killing-maria-susairaj-s-confession-116047

And yes, a movie was made based on this.

Helen Lawson
Oct 6th, 2011, 10:46 AM
I think she is guilty as sin and a travesty of justice has occurred. I think the british media have some blame - its just another example of how money can buy you freedom. I feel for Meredith's family so much. This Knox girl is a white version of OJ Simpson.

What do you think her motive was?

Halardfan
Oct 6th, 2011, 11:44 AM
What do you think her motive was?

It depends on the degree of her involvement, different motives would be necessary...

I would suggest she could have mental issues in some way...her cartwheeling, splits, and flirting with her boyfriend as she waited to be interviewed following discovering her 'friends' body are at best deeply weird and callous and suggestive that something is not right in her and her boyfriends heads.

Of course everyone is different and we react to extreme events in different ways, but even so their behavior was way out there.

Halardfan
Oct 6th, 2011, 11:56 AM
Reasons I believe she and her boyfriend were involved...

1. Evidence points to a staged burglary, e.g the glass, the shutters which points therefore heavily to her and her boyfriend as the one's who staged it.

2. The Alibi has holes in it that can't be explained, like the Computer that they were watching movies on, not being used at that time, according to test.

3 While it's reasonable to see the DNA evidence as questionable because of the way it was gathered, I still see it as having a limited value...the DNA evidence had both Knox and her boyfriend involved, and fits with the circumstantial evidence.

4. Their behavior prior to the police interview, was beyond the borders of expected behavior in that situation

5. She confessed in the most vivid terms to being at the scene. Her description was too vivid to be without foundation.

6. She pointed the finger at an innocent man, not the actions of an innocent person.

Corswandt
Oct 6th, 2011, 12:12 PM
It depends on the degree of her involvement, different motives would be necessary...

I would suggest she could have mental issues in some way...her cartwheeling, splits, and flirting with her boyfriend as she waited to be interviewed following discovering her 'friends' body are at best deeply weird and callous and suggestive that something is not right in her and her boyfriends heads.

Of course everyone is different and we react to extreme events in different ways, but even so their behavior was way out there.

Supposedly Knox was zonked out of her mind after smoking weed. Or did she just make that up later on as an excuse for her odd behaviour?

Halardfan
Oct 6th, 2011, 12:23 PM
Supposedly Knox was zonked out of her mind after smoking weed. Or did she just make that up later on as an excuse for her odd behaviour?

If she was as you suggest, zonked out of her mind, does that make it more or less possible that she had a part in the murder? I would suggest more?

Corswandt
Oct 6th, 2011, 12:36 PM
If she was as you suggest, zonked out of her mind, does that make it more or less possible that she had a part in the murder? I would suggest more?

http://www.cruiselawnews.com/uploads/image/ReeferMadness-4.jpg

Seriously: not necessarily more likely to commit a crime; certainly less likely to have a clear enough head to attempt an elaborate cover-up instead of just freaking out and running away.

Philbo
Oct 6th, 2011, 12:56 PM
What do you think her motive was?
I wouldnt presume to guess what the motive was, but in my opinion, the lack of a CLEAR motive doesnt rule her out as a suspect - it could have just been some drunken/stoned sexual game gone too far, someone may have panicked..Its too hard to say, but I dont think the lack of an obvious motive is somehow more of a factor than the things that Halardfan has posted which is pretty much why I think she's guilty.

For me it comes down to the admission and retraction that she was in the house at the time and pointing the finger at an obviously innocent man, hardly the actions of an innocent person.

Reasons I believe she and her boyfriend were involved...

1. Evidence points to a staged burglary, e.g the glass, the shutters which points therefore heavily to her and her boyfriend as the one's who staged it.

2. The Alibi has holes in it that can't be explained, like the Computer that they were watching movies on, not being used at that time, according to test.

3 While it's reasonable to see the DNA evidence as questionable because of the way it was gathered, I still see it as having a limited value...the DNA evidence had both Knox and her boyfriend involved, and fits with the circumstantial evidence.

4. Their behavior prior to the police interview, was beyond the borders of expected behavior in that situation

5. She confessed in the most vivid terms to being at the scene. Her description was too vivid to be without foundation.

6. She pointed the finger at an innocent man, not the actions of an innocent person.
Couldnt have said it any better.

THe way americans have reacted (cheering on the release of a probable murderer) reminds me of how australians got behind Schapelle Corby during her drug trial for being caught with a massive amount of marijuana smuggling it into Bali. Despite overwhelming evidence that she was guilty, all it took was her to claim that she was 'set up' by baggage handlers and her family paying for good lawyers to make a large % of the aussie public think she was innocent. I think its human nature - when you see the news and the narrative is largely 'she could be rotting away for something she didnt do' - its human nature to imagine yourself in that situation and hope she gets released and give benefit of the doubt to the actual perpetrator out of fear that you could somehow end up in the same position - as far fetched as that is.

I dont really blame the american media for acting as cheerleaders for Knox, but if I were family of Meredit Kircher I would be very angry at the british press - as a british citizen, i think the british press should have been way more vocal in calling for the appeal to be thrown out and for justice to be done for this british citizen, but what I saw was the british press basically parroting the narrative put out there by the Knox family and american press.

LoveFifteen
Oct 6th, 2011, 01:29 PM
How could her "confession" be vivid when her Italian was terrible? Gurl, please!

Philbo, read about the case from some non-British sources. The Italian researchers, for example, ruined all three computer hard drives that were being searched for use, making them useless. They can't say whether they were using the PC or not. How on earth could Amanda and Raffaele help Rudy commit such a bloody violent crime, and there is no DNA, fingerprints, hand prints, etc., but Rudy's DNA, fingerprints, footprints, etc. are literally everywhere, whereas for Rudy and Amanda there is absolutely nothing.

I used to think Amanda was guilty when I first started learning about the case, but if you read other accounts, you start to realize that she and Raffaele are innocent so stop acting like this is just an Americans vs. Europeans issue.

Philbo
Oct 6th, 2011, 01:52 PM
How could her "confession" be vivid when her Italian was terrible? Gurl, please!

Philbo, read about the case from some non-British sources. The Italian researchers, for example, ruined all three computer hard drives that were being searched for use, making them useless. They can't say whether they were using the PC or not. How on earth could Amanda and Raffaele help Rudy commit such a bloody violent crime, and there is no DNA, fingerprints, hand prints, etc., but Rudy's DNA, fingerprints, footprints, etc. are literally everywhere, whereas for Rudy and Amanda there is absolutely nothing.

I used to think Amanda was guilty when I first started learning about the case, but if you read other accounts, you start to realize that she and Raffaele are innocent so stop acting like this is just an Americans vs. Europeans issue.
Id probably agree with the fact that the defence did create reasonable doubt. So on that basis, I expected the aquittal and can see why she was released.

But my gut feel is that she was involved somehow. Whether she slit the girls throat herself or not is beyond my knowledge, but I just also question why people automatically believe her version of the police interrrogation given she is a proven liar.

Her supporters think she only confessed (to being home when Meredith was murdered) under duress, being slapped etc, but Ive also read that she repeated this account in a 5 page written version the day after the verbal confession. I dont believe she did this under duress. My gut feeling only.

Im willing to keep an open mind, but how about supporters of Knox address the most damming evidence against her, namely:

1) The confession.

Knox confessed that she was in the house on the night of the murder and that she heard Miss Kercher scream, identifying a Congolese bar owner, Patrick Lumumba, as the assailant. She told the court during the trial that the confession was made under duress but then repeated the entire account in a five page memorandum the next morning.

The false accusation.
The prosecution said the fact that Knox falsely accused Lumumba of being the killer was a sign of her own guilt and an attempt to throw them off her trail. He was arrested in a dawn raid by armed police and spent two weeks in jail. It was only by chance that a Swiss businessman read about the case and came forward to say he had been talking to Lumumba in his bar on the night of the murder ó offering him a rock-solid alibi. Lumumba says Knox nearly ruined his life and is suing her for defamation.

3) The alibi.
Sollecito could not back up Knoxís alibi on the night of the murder.
She claimed she spent the evening with him, smoking marijuana, watching the French film Amelie and making love. But Sollecito told police he could not remember if Knox was with him that evening or not.
Even assuming his memory was hazy because of the drugs, it seemed odd that a young man who had just embarked on a new relationship could not recall whether he had spent the night with his girlfriend or not

4) Computer and telephone records.
Sollecito claimed he used his computer to download and watch cartoons and Amelie. But computer experts told the court that there was no activity on his laptop between 9.10pm on Nov 1, and 5.32am the next morning ó the time frame in which the murder took place.
Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones on the night of the murder, from around 8.40pm, and turned them back on at around 6am, inviting further suspicion.
5) The staged break-in.
A bedroom belonging to one of Miss Kercherís Italian flatmates was ransacked on the night of the murder, with a window smashed with a rock. But police said the break-in was staged - broken glass from the window was found on top of clothes scattered on the floor, suggesting the window was broken after the contents of the room were messed up. Prosecutors accused Knox and her boyfriend of staging the break-in to make the killing look like a burglary that had turned into rape and murder.


So many lies told by both of them. Hardly points to a couple of innocent people.

LoveFifteen
Oct 6th, 2011, 01:58 PM
Did you read the statement she wrote hours after being interrogated for 12 hours? It's here in this thread. She states unequivocally that she is innocent and that she has no idea how the police have irrefutable proof that she was in the house that night (they lied to her) nor why Rafaele was saying that she was not with him that night (another lie from the police).

Go read that letter now. It's earlier in the thread. If you can't see a girl who has just been hammered for 12 hours by lies, deception and intense brutal questioning, then ...

Halardfan
Oct 6th, 2011, 03:20 PM
Did you read the statement she wrote hours after being interrogated for 12 hours? It's here in this thread. She states unequivocally that she is innocent and that she has no idea how the police have irrefutable proof that she was in the house that night (they lied to her) nor why Rafaele was saying that she was not with him that night (another lie from the police).

Go read that letter now. It's earlier in the thread. If you can't see a girl who has just been hammered for 12 hours by lies, deception and intense brutal questioning, then ...

But we have only her word that it was "brutal questioning".

I don't get why her version of the interrogation is automatically believed by people?

Even her biggest fan has to say her version events has wandered all over the place? Maybe her memory of the interrogation is a false memory, as she claims her memory of the murder was?

Apoleb
Oct 6th, 2011, 03:24 PM
But we have only her word that it was "brutal questioning".

I don't get why her version of the interrogation is automatically believed by people?

Even her biggest fan has to say her version events has wandered all over the place?

I think there's something fishy with her, but it's undeniable that the evidence is not good enough to put her in prison. If I were a prosecutor, I'd try to get at her, but there's a high bar for evidence for very good reason. Especially when a clear motive is not even established. If she's suffering from a psychiatric condition, it can be diagnosed.

We don't always have to embrace certainty: either guilty or innocent. (reminds me of the movie Doubt). But what we should do is that we could only convict people if the evidence is damning. And in this case, it isn't.

Halardfan
Oct 6th, 2011, 03:38 PM
I think there's something fishy with her, but it's undeniable that the evidence is not good enough to put her in prison. If I were a prosecutor, I'd try to get at her, but there's a high bar for evidence for very good reason. Especially when a clear motive is not even established. If she's suffering from a psychiatric condition, it can be diagnosed.

We don't always have to embrace certainty: either guilty or innocent. (reminds me of the movie Doubt). But what we should do is that we could only convict people if the evidence is damning. And in this case, it isn't.

Which is a fair point, though I disagree with it. But I would argue if the is the case, that they probably were involved but there wasn't enough proof to convict, then there is no cause for happiness in the verdict. Instead we should bemoan the sloppiness of the Italian police, that let the guilty get away with it, and the slickness of the PR campaign waged by the accused.

Apoleb
Oct 6th, 2011, 04:20 PM
Which is a fair point, though I disagree with it. But I would argue if the is the case, that they probably were involved but there wasn't enough proof to convict, then there is no cause for happiness in the verdict. Instead we should bemoan the sloppiness of the Italian police, that let the guilty get away with it, and the slickness of the PR campaign waged by the accused.

Again, you're acting like her guilt is established by the evidence. It isn't. At this point, there's still only mere suspicion. I wouldn't be "happy" about it either because I am not sure of her innocence, but at the end the right judicial decision was taken. Yeah, the Italian police were apparently sloppy and deserve some slack. But I think we have a tendency to go to the extremes and establish certainty, and we don't have to.

Monzanator
Oct 6th, 2011, 04:24 PM
In the murder cases things need to go to the extreme. It's not like the trail was for a robbery where no people were harmed or shall I say killed in the proccess :shrug:

miffedmax
Oct 6th, 2011, 04:30 PM
The other big issue for me is that, while I'm fairly certain she's guilty of something, I'm not entirely sure what. There are a great many ways that she could have been involved short of killing Karcher. My gut and the spotty evidence tells me she's more of an accomplice than murderer, but there's certainly not enough of it to accurately reconstruct what happened and convict her.

And, of course, I could be wrong. But that will be my theory on this case.

Lena's bangs.

ampers&
Oct 6th, 2011, 04:52 PM
Amanda Knox? :unsure: No seriously, why should I care about her appeal? Is this case something that will significantly change the judicial system? If not, why this fixation over her?

God I hate media culture and how easily people are influence by it. :o

gentenaire
Oct 6th, 2011, 05:01 PM
Reasons I believe she and her boyfriend were involved...

1. Evidence points to a staged burglary, e.g the glass, the shutters which points therefore heavily to her and her boyfriend as the one's who staged it.

2. The Alibi has holes in it that can't be explained, like the Computer that they were watching movies on, not being used at that time, according to test.

3 While it's reasonable to see the DNA evidence as questionable because of the way it was gathered, I still see it as having a limited value...the DNA evidence had both Knox and her boyfriend involved, and fits with the circumstantial evidence.

4. Their behavior prior to the police interview, was beyond the borders of expected behavior in that situation

5. She confessed in the most vivid terms to being at the scene. Her description was too vivid to be without foundation.

6. She pointed the finger at an innocent man, not the actions of an innocent person.

1. there's no evidence that it was staged, as far as I'm aware.
2. the computer did show activity up until 9pm. The Italian police failed to take Meredith's temperature so there's no clear time of death. It's possible Meredith died after 9 pm, it could have been earlier, we don't know. But the fact that they weren't using the computer at the time doesn't mean they were there at the time. And they didn't lie about it either, because it did show activity until a certain time.
3. How would you explain the fact that Guede's DNA is all over the place, on Meredith's body, while Raffaele's supposedly only a tiny bra clasp? There's no DNA of him anywhere else, not on the rest of the bra, not on Meredith, nowhere.
4. What is expected behaviour? These are such extraordinary circumstances that there is no normal behaviour. Everyone deals differently with stress. You should have seen some of my friends during exam periods in boarding school. Cartwheels is nothing to it.
5. read what I wrote earlier about memories and police interrogations
6. same as above. From what I hear, it's the police who brought up the name of Lumumba in the first place because of an SMS she sent to him. She'd finished it with "see you later" which the police took literally, that she was going to see him later that evening. We all know that "see you later" is simply "bye", nothing more.
If she's guilty and she did it along with Guede, why would she point the finger at Lumumba and not just mention Guede's name to the police?

The police initially had nothing to go on but their own conjecture. You'd think that once this Guede person appeared in their view, someone who's a stranger to Knox and Sollicieto, they'd realise they'd been after the wrong people. But no, they simply presumed they did it together then, as ridiculous as it may seem. You'd think that once it became clear the knife didn't match the stab wounds, they'd realise it wasn't the murder weapon. No, they simply said there must have been two knives then. Seriously, in that sense, they could have accused anyone. Perhaps if some of Meredith's friends hadn't fled to the UK straight away, they might have been the ones suffering the grueling interrogations. Their knives might have been considered a murder weapon as it would undoubtedly have their DNA and Meredith's on it from the time she might have cooked at their place. They could have been the ones sent to prison. But they fled the scene in time.

I'm with lovefifteen on this. I went from 'maybe guilty' but there's really not enough evidence to say guilty without reasonable doubt, to actually thinking she's innocent in all of this. The more I read about the case, the more I became convinced she's innocent. And I'm not American, have no bias of British or American press.

Apoleb
Oct 6th, 2011, 05:03 PM
Amanda Knox? :unsure: No seriously, why should I care about her appeal? Is this case something that will significantly change the judicial system? If not, why this fixation over her?

God I hate media culture and how easily people are influence by it. :o

If this was about two ugly guys from the same country, no one would've cared.

gentenaire
Oct 6th, 2011, 05:15 PM
I
3) The alibi.
Sollecito could not back up Knoxís alibi on the night of the murder.
She claimed she spent the evening with him, smoking marijuana, watching the French film Amelie and making love. But Sollecito told police he could not remember if Knox was with him that evening or not.
Even assuming his memory was hazy because of the drugs, it seemed odd that a young man who had just embarked on a new relationship could not recall whether he had spent the night with his girlfriend or not

4) Computer and telephone records.
Sollecito claimed he used his computer to download and watch cartoons and Amelie. But computer experts told the court that there was no activity on his laptop between 9.10pm on Nov 1, and 5.32am the next morning ó the time frame in which the murder took place.
Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones on the night of the murder, from around 8.40pm, and turned them back on at around 6am, inviting further suspicion.
5) The staged break-in.
A bedroom belonging to one of Miss Kercherís Italian flatmates was ransacked on the night of the murder, with a window smashed with a rock. But police said the break-in was staged - broken glass from the window was found on top of clothes scattered on the floor, suggesting the window was broken after the contents of the room were messed up. Prosecutors accused Knox and her boyfriend of staging the break-in to make the killing look like a burglary that had turned into rape and murder.


So many lies told by both of them. Hardly points to a couple of innocent people.

3. the alibi. Sollecito said they spent the night together. When questioned by the police and asked if it's technically possible Amanda might have left his side while he was sleeping and come back, he said yes. This doesn't mean Amanda left his side, nor does it mean that Sollecito ever thought she left his side. But police did use this to put Amanda on pressure, telling her that Raffaele told them she hadn't been with him the whole night, something Raffaele never said.
4. the time frame of the murder isn't know because the police failed to take Meredith's temperature. She could have been murdered before 9pm. They didn't lie about using the computer, it did show activity till 9pm.
5. Guede could have staged the break in. The Italian roommate could have been a bit messy. There are no DNA traces of Amanda or Raffaele in the room.

dybbuk
Oct 6th, 2011, 05:34 PM
Btw, am I the only one creeped out by the many posters in here and the people in general who were doing this same thing for Casey Anthony? They somehow make themselves apart of a situation they have nothing to do with and at best have a shaky grasp of. Some people seem like they would happily pull the switch if they could get the defendants in an electric chair. Seriously, am I the only one who has better things to do than obsess over some murder case in Italy?

gentenaire
Oct 6th, 2011, 05:38 PM
Btw, am I the only one creeped out by the many posters in here and the people in general who were doing this same thing for Casey Anthony? They somehow make themselves apart of a situation they have nothing to do with and at best have a shaky grasp of. Some people seem like they would happily pull the switch if they could get the defendants in an electric chair. Seriously, am I the only one who has better things to do than obsess over some murder case in Italy?

Some people might think watching a tennis match is a waste of time. Some people might think posting on message forums is a waste of time. "don't you have better things to do than post on online forums?"
We can't be working all the time. I find murder cases fascinating, sue me. I like watching murder mysteries on TV, love series like Wallander, Morse, etc.

Don't worry, I wouldn't hurt a fly.

dybbuk
Oct 6th, 2011, 05:41 PM
An overall interest in a particular murder case isn't really what I mean, I mean the people who obsess about them and start to have truly personal attachments to them. Like the people crying over Casey Anthony's daughter and condemning Casey Anthony to hell, or acting like some fanatical Southern preacher and calling Amanda Knox a depraved slut who deserves to die. There are people on this very forum and in this thread that have done similar things to that. They are who I mean. They are the ones who seriously need to sit back and look at how crazy they look.

Helen Lawson
Oct 6th, 2011, 10:33 PM
I still stand by my post, you don't murder someone without a motive, and certainly not like that.

Monzanator
Oct 7th, 2011, 05:18 AM
Murdering someone during a sex orgy isn't something that hasn't happened before, you know. Just because Kercher didn't want to take part in this orgy in first place doesn't make the motive unclear whatsoever.

Viktymise
Oct 9th, 2011, 10:58 AM
But what evidence is/was there that Amanda Knox was some sort of sex crazed maniac? You don't just wake up one day and decide to have a masochistic orgy with your boyfriend, a stranger and your roommate, and if somebody doesn't comply they get brutally murdered.

Even people who are vehemently for the beheading of Amanda Knox have to admit that it's a very senstional and fantastical way to look at it.

Monzanator
Oct 9th, 2011, 05:19 PM
No one over here, no matter if he/she supports the final verdict can have any knowledge about what Knox's sexual fantasies really are and completely rule out the fact she's had some murderous sexual obsessions! :shrug: You don't have to be a 40 yo male to have a sexual fantasies about killing someone! You might as well be a mid 20s woman to fulfill your desire especially when you find an accomplice like Sollecito.

Fuzzylogic
Oct 9th, 2011, 07:04 PM
I find the temporary celeb status that she'll gain out of all this slightly disturbing, it's just wrong imo, whether she was guilty or not.

Miranda
Oct 10th, 2011, 07:56 AM
yes, she did not have a clear motive, but it is not true that all murders have a definite motive. i think she did it accidentally, she was on drugs and she was not her normal self that night

if she is innocent and was with her boy friend the whole night, there is no need for her to make up so many different versions of events

Miranda
Oct 10th, 2011, 08:44 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher)


http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C378/ (http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C378/)

I have read these 2 links and its very confusing. The former made us think she is more on the innocent side while the latter the opposite.

Still, I believe even if she did not involve in the killing of the victim, she was the accomplice.

Miranda
Oct 10th, 2011, 08:57 AM
Some of the points of evidence
Consider as you read it what is your own possible explanation for each of the following:

the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom;
the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede;
the fact that Raffaele’s own father blew their alibi that they were together in Raffaele’s flat at the time of the killing with indisputable telephone records;
the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife in Raffaele’s flat which Raffaele himself sought to explain as having been from accidentally “pricking” Meredith’s hand in his written diary despite the fact Meredith had never been to his flat (confirmed by Amanda Knox);
the correlation of where Meredith’s phones were found to the location of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guedes’s flats;
the computer records which show that no-one was at Raffaele’s computer during the time of the murder despite him claiming he was using that computer;
Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s in five different places just feet from Meredith’s body;
the utterly inexplicable computer records the morning after the murder starting at 5.32 am and including multiple file creations and interactions thereafter all during a time that Raffaele and Amanda insist they were asleep until 10.30am;
the separate witnesses who testified on oath that Amanda and Raffaele were at the square 40 metres from the girls’ cottage on the evening of the murder and the fact that Amanda was seen at a convenience store at 7.45am the next morning, again while she said she was in bed;
the accusation of a completely innocent man by Amanda Knox;
the fact that when Amanda Knox rang Meredith’s mobile telephones, ostensibly to check on the “missing” Meredith, she did so for just three seconds - registering the call but making no effort to allow the phone to be answered in the real world
the knife-fetish of Raffaele Sollecito and his formal disciplinary punishment for watching animal porn at his university – so far from the wholesome image portrayed;
the fact that claimed multi-year kick-boxer Raffaele apparently couldn’t break down a flimsy door to Meredith’s room when he and Amanda were at the flat the morning after the murder but the first people in the flat with the police who weren’t martial artists could;
the extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox;
the fact that Amanda knew details of the body and the wounds despite not being in line of sight of the body when it was discovered;
the lies of Knox on the witness stand in July 2009 about how their drug intake that night (“one joint”) is totally contradicted by Sollecito’s own contemporaneous diary;
the fact that after a late evening’s questioning, Knox wrote a 2,900 word email home which painstakingly details what she said happened that evening and the morning after that looks *highly* like someone committing to memory, at 3.30 in the morning, an extensive alibi;
the fact that both Amanda and Raffaele both said they would give up smoking dope for life in their prison diaries despite having apparently nothing to regret;
the fact that when Rudy Guede was arrested, Raffaele Sollecito didn’t celebrate the “true” perpetrator being arrested (which surely would have seen him released) but worried in his diary that a man whom he said he didn’t know would “make up strange things” about him despite him just being one person in a city of over 160,000 people;
the fact that both an occupant of the cottage and the police instantly recognised the cottage had not been burgled but had been the subject of a staged break-in where glass was *on top* of apparently disturbed clothes;
that Knox and Sollecito both suggested each other might have committed the crime and Sollecito TO THIS DATE does not agree Knox stayed in his flat all the night in question;
the bizarre behaviour of both of them for days after the crime;
the fact that cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito’s flat but had left the flat at a time which is completely coincidental with Guede’s corroborated presence near the girl’s flat earlier in the evening;
the fact that Amanda Knox’s table lamp was found in the locked room of Meredith Kercher in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up;
the unbelievable series of changing stories made up by the defendants after their versions became challenged; Knox’s inexplicable reaction to being shown the knife drawer at the girl’s cottage where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head.:scratch:

Philbo
Oct 10th, 2011, 12:58 PM
I still stand by my post, you don't murder someone without a motive, and certainly not like that.
So how do you explain the thousands and thousands of homocides that had no apparent motive?

Bijoux0021
Oct 10th, 2011, 02:16 PM
I find the temporary celeb status that she'll gain out of all this slightly disturbing, it's just wrong imo, whether she was guilty or not.
This.

And don't forget millions of dollars she'll likely gain by selling her story.

Miranda
Oct 11th, 2011, 02:55 AM
This.

And don't forget millions of dollars she'll likely gain by selling her story.

its horrible, imagine if she is really the murderer, and even if she is not, how devastating the victim's family is going to feel, to continue to live under the spot light, to continue to live under pain, because of Knox and her story, its just like sticking a knife into their hearts

Miranda
Oct 11th, 2011, 02:57 AM
So how do you explain the thousands and thousands of homocides that had no apparent motive?

yes, you don't need a reason to kill people. Some people are just pyscho, enjoy killing and pick up random people to kill. Some did it accidentally just like being drunk. Do you think those who killed someone by car accidents have a motive?

delicatecutter
Oct 11th, 2011, 03:00 AM
Miranda, thank you so much for posting that truejustice link. I was convinced she was innocent until I read the actual evidence. Now everything is a blur in my head. I agree with everything Max has said in this thread. She definitely had something to do with it; maybe she was just covering for her boyfriend of all of one week. :hysteric: I do doubt that she directly killed poor Meredith, but there is so much fishiness going on there. I wouldn't be surprised if drugs stronger than hashish were involved.

Miranda
Oct 11th, 2011, 03:29 AM
Miranda, thank you so much for posting that truejustice link. I was convinced she was innocent until I read the actual evidence. Now everything is a blur in my head. I agree with everything Max has said in this thread. She definitely had something to do with it; maybe she was just covering for her boyfriend of all of one week. :hysteric: I do doubt that she directly killed poor Meredith, but there is so much fishiness going on there. I wouldn't be surprised if drugs stronger than hashish were involved.

You are most welcome. There still is a possibility that she is innocent. But I don't think the judges who unanimously voted her guilty in the first trial are all fools, uneducated and did not examine the evidence carefully before they made this decision:shrug:

delicatecutter
Oct 11th, 2011, 03:32 AM
You are most welcome. There still is a possibility that she is innocent. But I don't think the judges who unanimously proved her guilty in the first trial are all fools, uneducated and did not examine the evidence carefully before they made this decision:shrug:

The Italian court doesn't have a jury system? So strange.

Miranda
Oct 11th, 2011, 03:42 AM
The Italian court doesn't have a jury system? So strange.

I don't know, but i read that in the first trial, the jury was all judges? while for the re-trial, the jury were combined of common people? :confused:

delicatecutter
Oct 11th, 2011, 03:44 AM
There was a re-trial? I just thought they got acquitted via appeal. So confusing. :sobbing: I was hoping for more about the actual interrogations from Amanda, her Italian stud, and the African.

Miranda
Oct 11th, 2011, 03:59 AM
There was a re-trial? I just thought they got acquitted via appeal. So confusing. :sobbing: I was hoping for more about the actual interrogations from Amanda, her Italian stud, and the African.

sorry for my bad English, i thought appeal = re-trial? :tape:

yes, the African played the most important part in whether Knox and her boy friend are innocent. The strange thing is, if Knox and her boy friend really did help him to assault the victim, how come he did not shift all the faults to them in order to get less sentence? Or may be he thought his story was good enough since most evidences were against him, there is no denial that he had sex with Meredith since his DNA was inside the victim's body? (he said he went to the bathroom when the attack was taken place so he was not aware who were the murderers). I think we need more information about this:confused:

delicatecutter
Oct 11th, 2011, 04:03 AM
sorry for my bad English, i thought appeal = re-trial? :tape:

yes, the African played the most important part in whether Knox and her boy friend are innocent. The strange thing is, if Knox and her boy friend really did help him to assault the victim, how come he did not shift all the faults to them in order to get less sentence. I think we need more information about this:confused:

We need SO MUCH MORE information. :sobbing: And from what I read he did say he saw some man smaller than him hurting Meredith, or something. It's hard to make sense of any of it. Which makes me think drugs were involved. The fact the evidence shows Meredith had to have been held down by at least 2 people is a deal-breaker for me.

Miranda
Oct 11th, 2011, 04:21 AM
We need SO MUCH MORE information. :sobbing: And from what I read he did say he saw some man smaller than him hurting Meredith, or something. It's hard to make sense of any of it. Which makes me think drugs were involved. The fact the evidence shows Meredith had to have been held down by at least 2 people is a deal-breaker for me.

You are smart and observant :yeah:.

You are right, may be the drugs affected his memories and he did not remember what exactly was happening so he didn't shift the faults to Knox and her boy friend? :confused:

The fact that the murder was not committed by only one person made Knox and her boy friend even more suspicious :scratch:

And in the next day, when Knox returned to her house, found out the blood in the small bathroom and the door of Meredith was being locked, she still did not, at least, try to knock the door of Meredith, but went on to take a shower was rather unusual :shrug:

SloKid
Oct 11th, 2011, 08:29 AM
Well now the brain trust of this message board has arrived and the case will finally be cracked. :yeah:

Helen Lawson
Oct 11th, 2011, 12:08 PM
Unless she"s some kind of psychopath, she had no motive and she did not do it;

RenaSlam.
Oct 11th, 2011, 12:34 PM
I still think this thing is far from over, even if it gets through the courts.

ampers&
Oct 11th, 2011, 12:46 PM
Well now the brain trust of this message board has arrived and the case will finally be cracked. :yeah:
So true! You think maybe someone can forward a link of this thread to the prosecutors/defense council? With the collective murder solving capabilities of Tennis Forum posters, this case is definitely closer than ever to being solved!

It's like Twat Scene Investigator in here. :sobbing:

donniedarkofan
Nov 13th, 2011, 08:58 AM
You are most welcome. There still is a possibility that she is innocent. But I don't think the judges who unanimously voted her guilty in the first trial are all fools, uneducated and did not examine the evidence carefully before they made this decision:shrug:

She is innocent. There's no evidence.

Go visit:
www.injusticeinperugia.org

donniedarkofan
Nov 13th, 2011, 09:01 AM
Murdering someone during a sex orgy isn't something that hasn't happened before, you know. Just because Kercher didn't want to take part in this orgy in first place doesn't make the motive unclear whatsoever.

Were you ever involved in a sex game or did you had sex in your life? Is it possible to do it without leaving any sign of your presenece during that act?

Rudy Guede attacked and killed Meredith Kercher. He left his DNA on her body and inside her body, his DNA was on her jacket and purse, his shoeprints were left in her blood in the room where she was murdered, his feces were in the toilet.

On the other hand, we have nothing in that room from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The case is so simple.

donniedarkofan
Nov 13th, 2011, 09:04 AM
She confessed to being at the scene of the crime and pointed the finger at an innocent man.

Yeah, she was a foreigner, with no Italian, no lawyer, no food, no drinks, with 12 people around her saying she's covering for someone, she was apparently hit and yelled at. They suggested Lumumba, she confirmed.

donniedarkofan
Nov 13th, 2011, 09:06 AM
The fact the evidence shows Meredith had to have been held down by at least 2 people is a deal-breaker for me.

The court appointed expert, dr Lalli, did not rule out the possibility that MEredith was killed by only one person. That what he testified durign the first trial. He didn't rule out that possibility.

donniedarkofan
Nov 13th, 2011, 09:08 AM
Anyway the case isn't still closed: I think prosecutors will appeal to the Supreme Court (Cassazione)

The prosecutors said they will appeal. It's yet to be determined, as the report from judge Hellmann didn't come out yet and no one knows what he will say in it. It all depends. There's not much that they can appeal. The case is over. Even if it's not in the legal understanding.

donniedarkofan
Nov 13th, 2011, 09:13 AM
Forget the truth, it means nothing in court. From the outside point of view the truth is that Knox weaseled her way out of punishment on a technicality. Because she is American, no one in USA cares about the British victim or the country where the murder was committed. The fact she lied about the whole thing in first place is damn ugly and I don't buy her story one bit thereafter. I'm familiar with the Peterson story and I believe he is a scum that should be put away as soon as possible.

But then again, you can't get them all. The fact Guede only got sentenced 16 years for rape & murder is a joke. The fact Knox & Sollecito got away alltogether is beyond pathetic. I hope they both choke on the millions they'll make on this story and die slow & painful death sooner than later.

According to me all the three persons involved were guilty of murder regardless of who delivered the fatal stabbings. They are all scum and I have no sympathy for any of them whatsoever. Next time I'll see Knox it will be probably on Letterman or O'Brien crying some tears and telling how close friends she was with Kercher :fiery:


Wow, strong words. You wish them death?
They are both innocent. It wasn't a technicality. It was complete lack of evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that they were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

There's nothing that places them on the crime scene.

Your knowledge about the case is rather limited. Guede got 30 years in the first trial. Then, his sentence was reduced for choosing a fast track trial, not beacuse the judge wasn't sure if he killed. Guede is the sole killer. Knox and Sollecito had no idea whatsoever what was going on in the cottage at Via Della Pergola on the night of Nov 1st 2007.

donniedarkofan
Nov 13th, 2011, 09:20 AM
The guilt of the central crime trumps the rest of it.

Her alibi was full of holes which make her a liar. Fact. She lied when she pointed out the supposed killer. Fact.

She lied when she said she had nothing to do with it

You, obviously, have no idea about the case. But let me explain something - don't you think that if she would be guilty, then she would not point Lumumba? What's the point? Wouldn't it be better to point at Guede, since his DNA was all over the place? If she's saying that she was there, then it would be much more logical to point at Guede. Instead, she said Lumumba did it.

She had no idea who killed Meredith, that's why she pointed at Dyia Lumumba.

donniedarkofan
Nov 13th, 2011, 09:23 AM
Trust me: a girl who kartwheels and splits in the police station after a tragedy like that...has got at least one once of madness in her brain.....

Have you heard about PTSD? Not? Read about it and see how people react to tragic events.

Mynarco
Feb 14th, 2012, 04:01 PM
DRAMA: an appeal is launched against Knox's acquittal
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17030477

Monzanator
Feb 14th, 2012, 05:58 PM
Useless, Knox won't be send back to Italy no matter what happens, Uncle Sam will protect her to the end of her days :shrug:

King Halep
Feb 14th, 2012, 07:44 PM
Like the Italian govt has money to waste on this

Talula
Feb 14th, 2012, 11:00 PM
Like the Italian govt has money to waste on this

If it means the truth comes out, even in Knox can never be jailed, then yes it is worth it. I wonder how you would feel if someone said your loved one who was murdered wasn't worth spending money on.

The failure of any Govt is not Meredith's fault.

ptkten
Feb 14th, 2012, 11:26 PM
I don't know that much about the Italian justice system but how can the prosecutors appeal an acquittal? Wouldn't that be a violation of double jeopardy?