Amanda Knox Verdict at Midnight

Chucky the tree

wudangclan wrote: »

According to what I've read the standard of DNA evidence wouldn't be acceptable for most western countries legal systems.
I'm not sure but I think a recanted confession can't be used in this country (that may have changed with the recent criminal justice acts).
That it's a miscarriage of justice is imo.

Joe O'Reilly got done on less evidence. You can hardly say claims Ireland's legal system is flawless.

Seillejet

vinylbomb wrote: »

I understood that, but I was illustrating there is a vast difference between the cases, and hence how they are viewed by the media.

True I was deviating from the original point. I just find it galling at times how the US and British can cast aspirtions on other countries justice systems and the effectiveness of other countries police forces when their own have got it so wrong at times. I dont have my own agenda here btw.

Seillejet

Seillejet wrote: »

The difference between the British and US coverage is stark alright. I expect Fox to have a poll on how backwards Italy is after this similar to the way the British claimed the same of Portugal with the McCann incident.

Or the Louise Woodward case in 1997 - Sky made her out to be an angel.

Abi

This foxy knoxxy shyte does my head in, crap coined by the media. How's about a bit of respect for the dead girl? Of course she was guilty, there was nothing believably remorseful about her. The eyes and the smile coming into court. Who the fuck does that?

She instigated the whole scenario imo, and wanted Meridith in on it.

Flanzer wrote:

She's going down for 26 years....

Oh she'll be doing that alright.

Seillejet

Karsini wrote: »

Or the Louise Woodward case in 1997 - Sky made her out to be an angel.

I had forgotten about that case and when I read your post a chill went down my spine. That case never added up to me.

Chinafoot

It's always amazing how quickly the victims are forgotten here.

Just looking at some of the comments on Twitter and a huge amount are like the following:

carlyolson Can't imagine what Amanda Knox is going thru - semester abroad gone horribly wrong, ending in murder conviction after 2 yrs in foreign jail

What about Meredith Kercher...her semester abroad ended in her death.

Knox's behaviour after the murder just seem so far off for her to be innocent. I heard some mention of her having written a rape story before the murder. Not sure if thats true or not.

Seillejet

Abigayle wrote: »

This foxy knoxxy shyte does my head in, crap coined by the media.

Agree with the rest of your post but she coined it herself from what i remember reading. She reffered to herself in third person on facebook as foxy knoxy.

wudangclan

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Joe O'Reilly got done on less evidence. You can hardly say claims Ireland's legal system is flawless.

Again very little evidence but on the balance of probablities I'd feel she was guilty of murder.
Amanda Knox on the other hand ,again very little evidence, but I would be much less sure,with 2 other suspects also involved,that she had commited murder.

banquo

Strongest point the prosecution was that there was DNA of hers on the knife. A kitchen knife. That was used daily.


Anyone see a flaw?

Biggins

banquo wrote: »

Strongest point the prosecution was that there was DNA of hers on the knife. A kitchen knife. That was used daily.


Anyone see a flaw?

Yea, the murdering muppets forget to (a) get rid of it, (b) wipe it clean like they did with the rest of the whole place!

unkel

banquo wrote: »

Strongest point the prosecution was that there was DNA of hers on the knife. A kitchen knife. That was used daily.


Anyone see a flaw?

Ah, FFS. That Ivory Coast drifter guy told the police exactly what happened and how the three of them were involved in murdering Meredith. The three are murderers, the only flaw here is that he was the least involved, co-operated with the authorities the most, but got the biggest sentence.

Latchy

Knox's behaviour at the beginning was like that of a sociopath ,somebody removed from the reality of the situation and thinking it's all a game to be played out in public .A bit like the Fergies former personnel assistant who' s doing time for murder now .She has delusions of grandeur still .

Capt'n Midnight

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Also, the defense DNA specialist was apparently barred from giving evidence.

am reading Cracking Crim Jim Donovan
page 70 - comparing the Continental system to our Adversarial one

Experts simply submit reports that the legally rained public servants talk thorugh. In most continental countries forensic scienetists never go to court. Nor is the defence give the right to hire - at public expense - their own expert witness to challenge the independent findings. Expert witnesses have simply commercialised the business of forensic science. huge sums of money changing hands diverts the interest from the truth to the payment. After all, how often are you going to be retained by tha client if you have a reputation fo delivering evidence that the defendant doesn' t want to hear.

Haven't followed this case, but judging by the numbers of people who have gotten not guilty virdicts or lenient sentences in Italy over the years, it says a lot that there was a quick verdict and long sentences.

Abi

Chinafoot wrote: »

It's always amazing how quickly the victims are forgotten here.

Thats what annoys me about the whole thing. You get the odd flash of a very happy young girl, and the rest is all about sensationalizing Knox. You'd hear a brief mention of Rafeal (Sp?) even though he received a sentence only a year less than Knox. The mind boggles.

Knox's behaviour after the murder just seem so far off for her to be innocent. I heard some mention of her having written a rape story before the murder. Not sure if thats true or not.

I'd believe that, shes a fantasist amongst other things.

Orizio

Abigayle wrote: »

This foxy knoxxy shyte does my head in, crap coined by the media. How's about a bit of respect for the dead girl? Of course she was guilty, there was nothing believably remorseful about her. The eyes and the smile coming into court. Who the fuck does that?

She instigated the whole scenario imo, and wanted Meridith in on it.


Oh she'll be doing that alright.

:rolleyes: That was a nickname she had from high school.

Also, to suggest she is guilty because she couldn't care less about the other girl's death is absurd. Thats not to say she is guilty or innocent, neither of us are in a position to say, just that the above is a load of speculative bull****.

vinylbomb

Seillejet wrote: »

True I was deviating from the original point. I just find it galling at times how the US and British can cast aspirtions on other countries justice systems and the effectiveness of other countries police forces when their own have got it so wrong at times. I dont have my own agenda here btw.

BTW I agree. The English in general are notorious for stereotyping nationalities, and the press salivate at anything involving sex and/or female (American) teen.

It was all too predictable the way it would go.

Americans are outrageously protective of their own abroad too. However, I have no doubt that if the roles of the suspect and victim were reversed, the press would happily play the other role (England - harmless girl, America- moral outrage and sex game killer)

banquo

Just saying that the evidence wasn't nearly strong enough to convict anyone.

The cops slapped her around and starved her into a non-confession. Her DNA wasn't on the body, just the murder weapon that she would have used to butter bread anyway. The Italian media painted her as an American demon, but juries in Italy aren't sequestered so they take in all this stuff too regardless of truth. Imagine a country where every station is basically Fox news (i've been there)

They supposedly killed her and then went off somewhere, leaving her there for people to find her - rather than panicking and calling an ambulance, cops, or not murdering someone in the first place. It's either (a) random burglar murdered her in a panic, or (b) the above. I know how I'd vote...

baalthor

wudangclan wrote: »

One guy was already convicted for her murder.
As somebody already pointed out how can 3 people hold the knife.?

You don't have to hold the knife or pull the trigger to be guilty of murder ...otherwise terrorists or crime-gang leaders would never be found guilty


Wonder will Berlusconi take a personal interest in Amanda - er I mean this case?

Abi

Orizio wrote: »

:rolleyes: That was a nickname she had from high school.

If it was, fair enough. I personally couldn't give a ****. I mentioned the nickname because the media are glamourising it.

Also, to suggest she is guilty because she couldn't care less about the other girl's death is absurd.

Explain please.

Thats not to say she is guilty or innocent, neither of us are in a position to say, just that the above is a load of speculative bull****.

Are you by any chance high?

Killaqueen!!!

I've heard from everywhere that there wasn't any traces of Knox's DNA, no hair etc. found in the room on the night. How the fuck do they make a conviction on somebody without scientifically placing them in the room on the night?


I haven't a clue whether Knoxx is guilty or not - none of us do or will ever IMO. It's just such an awful tragedy that such a lovely girl like Meredith Kercher was murdered....such a waste of life.

And of course I feel sympathy for those convicted. They're so young..and now they'll spend 25-26 years in prison away from they're families. Awful...

Regardless of whether the two are guilty or not, I think the Italian police/courts were atrocious at handling it!

wudangclan

baalthor wrote: »

You don't have to hold the knife or pull the trigger to be guilty of murder ...otherwise terrorists or crime-gang leaders would never be found guilty


Wonder will Berlusconi take a personal interest in Amanda - er I mean this case?

Nor would you have to hold it to be guilty of ,say, manslaughter.

banquo

Aye. I don't honestly know if she's guilty or not, but she shouldn't have been convicted based on that trial. 6 jurors, pitiful evidence and a crazy media circus. No motive, forensic or murder weapon. The only 'witness' couldn't say she did it, just countered her alibi.

Latchy

Orizio wrote: »

Also, to suggest she is guilty because she couldn't care less about the other girl's death is absurd. is a load of

Which is a common trait of a sociopath .Not saying she is one but her behaviour suggests she might be one or borderline

Orizio

Abigayle wrote: »

If it was, fair enough. I personally couldn't give a ****. I mentioned the nickname because the media are glamourising it.


Explain please.

Its pretty obvious - your 'argument' for her guilt revolves around her smiling as she entered the courtroom - a sign of her not caring about the girl's death, a sign of her callousness etc - and in general you seem to think she is guilty becaue 'she isn't remorseful'. Mercifully, most of us live in such countries where not being 'remorseful' for the death of someone else makes us guilty of a crime.

Are you by any chance high?

Are you a moron by any chance? Because your post stinks of prejudiced gibberish, made the even more pathetic as you don't know these people you are so bitter over.

Orizio

Latchy wrote: »

Which is a common trait of a sociopath .Not saying she is one but her behaviour suggests she might be one or borderline

But again, her being a suspected sociopath or otherwise isn't relevent to her guilt - evidence is.

redout

Killaqueen!!! wrote: »

I've heard from everywhere that there wasn't any traces of Knox's DNA, no hair etc. found in the room on the night. How the fuck do they make a conviction on somebody without scientifically placing them in the room on the night?

ah come on. Forensics hasnt been around that long. They did work without it for many a year.

wudangclan

The evidence given as regards her character and sex life would and a perception of callousness would appear to have coloured peoples view of A.K. as presented by the media.
I wonder how many of the jury ,who had access to the media throughout the 11 months of the trial,also felt she was guilty ,despite the lack of evidence.

Killaqueen!!!

redout wrote: »

ah come on. Forensics hasnt been around that long. They did work without it for many a year.

Are you serious? You don't find it a little strange that there's not one single trace that connects her to the crime scene?

Do you know how advanced forensic science is? I'm not talking dramatised CSI here but if you think about it and put yourself in this position can you imagine how hard it is not to leave a trace on a crime scene. I mean experienced criminals can rarely even do it.

I'm not saying this makes her innocent but I just find it a little strange

dr.bollocko

Orizio wrote: »

Are you a moron by any chance? Because your post stinks of prejudiced gibberish, made the even more pathetic as you don't know these people you are so bitter over.

Banned.

redout

Killaqueen!!! wrote: »

Are you serious? You don't find it a little strange that there's not one single trace that connects her to the crime scene?

Do you know how advanced forensic science is? I'm not talking dramatised CSI here but if you think about it and put yourself in this position can you imagine how hard it is not to leave a trace on a crime scene. I mean experienced criminals can rarely even do it.

I'm not saying this makes her innocent but I just find it a little strange

Like it or not but Forensics are not a requirement to convict.