Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Amanda Knox Verdict at Midnight

Options
12467

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Abigayle wrote: »
    Are you by any chance high?
    Please attack the post and not the poster. Hot topic but please try and keep it on topic and ignore the personal attacks from now on.


  • Options
    #93
    wudangclan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭wudangclan


    redout wrote: »
    Like it or not but Forensics are not a requirement to convict.

    But forensic evidence has been used at times to acquit.
    As in evidence she wasn't at the murder scene.
    Depends how you look at it.


  • Options
    #94
    Killaqueen!!!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,026 ✭✭✭Killaqueen!!!


    redout wrote: »
    Like it or not but Forensics are not a requirement to convict.

    I don't like it :p

    Obviously I think a lot more elements than forensic evidence are and should be required for a conviction but you'd think hard facts which placed her at the scene would be a basic requirement


  • Options
    #95
    Abi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,058 ✭✭✭✭Abi


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    Please attack the post and not the poster. Hot topic but please try and keep it on topic and ignore the personal attacks from now on.

    Will do, and thank you.


  • Options
    #96
    redout
    Registered Users Posts: 11,435 ✭✭✭✭redout


    wudangclan wrote: »
    But forensic evidence has been used at times to acquit.
    As in evidence she wasn't at the murder scene.
    Depends how you look at it.
    Killaqueen!!! wrote: »
    I don't like it :p

    Obviously I think a lot more elements than forensic evidence are and should be required for a conviction but you'd think hard facts which placed her at the scene would be a basic requirement

    What has been established is that both her and the boyfriend had no alibi that could be confirmed by anyone, turned both their mobiles off in the time following the murder then both changed their stories once arrested. Their behaviour in the police station awaiting questioning for murder was down right bizarre (cracking jokes, laughing and doing handstands).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    wudangclan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭wudangclan


    redout wrote: »
    What has been established is that both her and the boyfriend had no alibi that could be confirmed by anyone, turned both their mobiles off in the time following the murder then both changed their stories once arrested. Their behaviour in the police station awaiting questioning for murder was down right bizarre (cracking jokes, laughing and doing handstands).

    I don't know why they turned off their mobiles but the rest could be down to shock.


  • Options
    #98
    Abi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,058 ✭✭✭✭Abi


    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?
    Well you won't fit the answer to that in one post. But Amanda Knox's DNA was found on the knife that was used on Meridith.


  • Options
    #99
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    redout wrote: »
    What has been established is that both her and the boyfriend had no alibi that could be confirmed by anyone, turned both their mobiles off in the time following the murder then both changed their stories once arrested. Their behaviour in the police station awaiting questioning for murder was down right bizarre (cracking jokes, laughing and doing handstands).
    ...Add to that a house that had tried to be wiped clean, a knife, a third testimony (which was given NOT in return for time off or other reward - please note) that matched up correctly with the known facts of the case that were discovered earlier.


  • Options
    #100
    wudangclan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭wudangclan


    Abigayle wrote: »
    Well you won't fit the answer to that in one post. But Amanda Knox DNA was found on the knife that was used on Meridith.

    Traces of her DNA were found on a knife that was consistent with being the murder weapon ( though not proven to be) which was a kitchen knife in the house where she lived.


  • Options
    #101
    banquo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,487 ✭✭✭banquo


    No forensic investigation is one thing. But when there is one and you can't find a single thing - not one thing - to place a suspect as murderer, then that's a different story. She might have done it, but there's no proof, motive or anything other than 'teenage girl acts unusually after being arrested for sex-driven murder in foreign country'.

    Seriously. The knife thing is bull. If it was a handgun or something, fair cop. But it was a regularly used kitchen utensil that may or may not be the murder weapon. That trial was bull.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    redout
    Registered Users Posts: 11,435 ✭✭✭✭redout


    wudangclan wrote: »
    I don't know why they turned off their mobiles but the rest could be down to shock.

    Hang on. If your in shock you wouldnt be expecting anyone to be cracking jokes, laughing and doing handstands whilst awaiting questioning for murder whilst sitting in a police station. I would expect someone in shock to be sitting there in silence and find it very hard to get a word out of them.


  • Options
    #103
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    banquo wrote: »
    ...but there's no proof, motive or anything other than 'teenage girl acts unusually after being arrested for sex-driven murder in foreign country'.

    Clearly you've decided already to throw out the statement of the already convicted third party then.
    redout wrote: »
    Hang on. If your in shock you wouldnt be expecting anyone to be cracking jokes, laughing and doing handstands whilst awaiting questioning for murder whilst sitting in a police station. I would expect someone in shock to be sitting there in silence and find it very hard to get a word out of them.

    Exactly. You can't claim shock then start behaving like a police station is like a school playground, laughing and jumping around.

    I suspect myself (without proof) that the murderess has mental issues that need to be addressed.
    I think she is living in her own twisted reality.


  • Options
    #104
    Prof.Badass
    Registered Users Posts: 2,931 ✭✭✭Prof.Badass


    http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-04-italy-knox-trial-friday_N.htm

    26 years. The boardsies will be pleased. Murder is one of the few crimes i don't dissagree with extremely tough sentencing though, so I'm not really complaining.


  • Options
    #105
    wudangclan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭wudangclan


    redout wrote: »
    Hang on. If your in shock you wouldnt be expecting anyone to be cracking jokes, laughing and doing handstands whilst awaiting questioning for murder whilst sitting in a police station. I would expect someone in shock to be sitting there in silence and find it very hard to get a word out of them.

    I don't know how I'd act in a state of shock as it affects everyone differently.


  • Options
    #106
    Abi
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,058 ✭✭✭✭Abi


    wudangclan wrote: »
    Traces of her DNA were found on a knife that was consistent with being the murder weapon ( though not proven to be) which was a kitchen knife in the house where she lived.

    I agree with you completely. But what we are told is one thing, and what has been found is another thing. You couldn't convict someone based on presence in an apartment and their DNA being on a knife they might have used to chops onions, for the want of an example.

    There might have been other elements that could have only been time consistant with the time-line of DNA with Meridiths blood on the knife (I'm merrrely guessing), which would lead them to believe it was consistant with her time of death. I don't want to go down that whole road, but my point is.. they don't convict someone on loose guess work. Thats the stuff we'll never know.


  • Options
    #107
    wudangclan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭wudangclan


    Biggins wrote: »
    Clearly you've decided already to throw out the statement of the already convicted third party then.

    Which one?
    The one where he said an Italian burglar did it?
    Or the second one?


  • Options
    #108
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    wudangclan wrote: »
    Which one?
    The one where he said an Italian burglar did it?
    Or the second one?
    Or the third one?

    The last one where upon the weight of the eventual evidence against him, he admitted that it was indeed him and the other two that did it.
    The previous statements being obvious attempts to escape from being blamed.


  • Options
    #109
    wudangclan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭wudangclan


    Biggins wrote: »
    The last one where upon the weight of the eventual evidence against him, he admitted that it was indeed him and the other two that did it.
    The previous statements being obvious attempts to escape from being blamed.

    This is his statement to the court.
    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/772388-rudy-guede-i-saw-foxy-knoxy-flee-meredith-murder-scene


  • Options
    #110
    banquo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,487 ✭✭✭banquo


    Biggins wrote: »
    Clearly you've decided already to throw out the statement of the already convicted third party then.

    touch, my bad. Not sure what to make of his statements, I honestly don't know enough about it.


  • Options
    #111
    4leto
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,940 ✭✭✭4leto


    Was this a case of the international media has their eyes on us convict someone no matter what, some of the forensic evidence would not have been permitted here because of contamination. But in saying that I still think they had some involvement in the crime. I don't know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    banquo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,487 ✭✭✭banquo


    The Italian prosecutor leaked false, scandalous information that never happened. She was tried for purported sexual activity that never existed. They brought her in and told her she had AIDS, which is not true. This is the kind of thing she had to fight from day one, and her lawyer had never fought a murder case.

    You don't hire a civil lawyer to fight a murder case, especially the largest murder case in Europe in the last 25 years.


  • Options
    #113
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    TBH for me there was enough questions about the evidence that this conviction was not a certainty.
    Even the DNA evidence wasn't conclusive. I hope to be convinced.


  • Options
    #114
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    wudangclan wrote: »
    This is his statement to the court.
    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/772388-rudy-guede-i-saw-foxy-knoxy-flee-meredith-murder-scene

    Correct. There were all there - he's tried to say (surprise-surprise) that he didn't do it but guess what, he was found guilty according to the evidence given by the way. The Italian police had to work out what parts was true and what parts were false by him in order to shift partial blame.
    Clearly they did this well.

    End of the day, the girl was convicted not just by his statement but on the weight of the whole case.

    There is two things we should also note.
    A. The case was so clear cut for the jury - who has been given all the evidence, not just the highlighted bits we got in the media - that they were quickly sure she was guilty.
    B. They were there. ALL three according to the jury.

    I know if I came across a murder - I wouldn't be switching off my phone (I'd be switching the darn thing on rapid to ring for police/ambulance, etc!), I wouldn't be wiping down the whole scene, I would have a damn good alibi, I wouldn't behave like I was attending a frat party and so on...


  • Options
    #115
    BQQ
    Registered Users Posts: 2,073 ✭✭✭BQQ


    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?

    I find that strange alright.
    She lived there. Her DNA should be everywhere.


  • Options
    #116
    banquo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,487 ✭✭✭banquo


    Guilty or not we may never know, but there just wasn't enough to convict someone. The victim's bra was left at the crime scene for weeks getting trampled on and couldn't be admitted as evindence, along with a bunch of other stuff. There wasn't enough to convict is all I'm saying.


  • Options
    #117
    wudangclan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,883 ✭✭✭wudangclan


    Biggins wrote: »
    Correct. There were all there - he's tried to say (surprise-surprise) that he didn't do it but guess what, he was found guilty according to the evidence given by the way. The Italian police had to work out what parts was true and what parts were false by him in order to shift partial blame.
    Clearly they did this well.

    End of the day, the girl was convicted not just by his statement but on the weight of the whole case.

    There is two things we should also note.
    A. The case was so clear cut for the jury - who has been given all the evidence, not just the highlighted bits we got in the media - that they were quickly sure she was guilty.
    B. They were there. ALL three according to the jury.

    I know if I came across a murder - I wouldn't be switching off my phone, I wouldn't be wiping down the whole scene, I would have a damn good alibi, I wouldn't behave like I was attending a frat party and so on...

    So he's given 2 separate and entirely different statements both of which exonerate him.His sperm was found inside Meridith Kercher ,putting him at the crime scene and he fled to Germany afterwards... but Amanda Knox killed her?


  • Options
    #118
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    BQQ wrote: »
    I find that strange alright.
    She lived there. Her DNA should be everywhere.
    Very strange. They did a hell of a wipe down job.
    Why would an innocent person do this COMPLETELY for the whole house when its easy to prove in their case that they lived there?
    Even as the murder was done in one room, everywhere was cleaned! Now thats strange and GIVEN THE TIME IN WHICH THEY HAD TO DO IT - it had to take more than one person!


  • Options
    #119
    qwertplaywert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,404 ✭✭✭qwertplaywert


    On the issue of the 'childlike behavior' at the police station, I can see it from a view different points of view:
    Knox and he were guilty. They didn't give a ****, because they thought they would get away with it.
    Knox and him were innocent, and just are ****ty people who didn't care someone was dead.
    Knox and he are/ or have been driven to a form of insanity by the whole thing- could apply to either guilty or innocent.....

    Tbh I would take any ruling with a pinch of salt, when its handed down in a country where Silvio Berlusconi has not yet been taken to justice.


  • Options
    #120
    banquo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,487 ✭✭✭banquo


    Biggins wrote: »
    Correct. There were all there - he's tried to say (surprise-surprise) that he didn't do it but guess what, he was found guilty according to the evidence given by the way. The Italian police had to work out what parts was true and what parts were false by him in order to shift partial blame.
    Clearly they did this well.

    End of the day, the girl was convicted not just by his statement but on the weight of the whole thing


    There is two things we should also note.
    A. The case was so clear cut for the jury - who has been given all the evidence, not just the highlighted bits we got in the media - that they were quickly sure she was guilty.
    B. They were there. ALL three according to the jury.

    I know if I came across a murder - I wouldn't be switching off my phone (I'd be switching the darn thing on rapid to ring for police/ambulance, etc!), I wouldn't be wiping down the whole scene, I would have a damn good alibi, I wouldn't behave like I was attending a frat party and so on...

    Some good points there I have to admit, I'm open to being convinced. I think most of those can be explained though. A couple spending time together alone would only have each other for alibis. And they might easily turn their phones off for some quiet time. There's no proof they wiped down the whole scene, just that someone wiped the knife. The housr could have been cleaned that evening. . Still, important questions...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Biggins
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 34,567 ✭✭✭✭Biggins


    wudangclan wrote: »
    So he's given 2 separate and entirely different statements both of which exonerate him.His sperm was found inside Meridith Kercher ,putting him at the crime scene and he fled to Germany afterwards... but Amanda Knox killed her?

    You must have over skipped the part where the sex acts between them was supposed to have been happening and one didn't wish to partake.

    I look forwards to hearing the appeal - if there is one.
    The defence had all the evidence that that the prosecution had and they clearly couldn't fault it enough.

    I wonder what new evidence they WILL have to produce will be used to try and get the murdering pair off?


Advertisement