Amanda Knox Verdict at Midnight

dynamopiev

I liked Amanda when she had that Beatles t-shirt on. I feel like writing to her or something. Don't know what to say like... good luck in jail or something.

wudangclan

Biggins wrote: »

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.

There's absolutely no mention of it in the link I posted.
In fact the statement there is in contradiction with the prosecution story.
You said Rudy Guede implicated all 3 of them but I'm having to find my own links and this is what I've found.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

This thread reminds me of an episode of Malcolm in the Middle where Lois winds up on Jury duty during a murder trial and Hal and Abe try and work out what happened independantly.

994

qwertplaywert wrote: »

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 are/ or have been driven to a form of insanity by the whole thing- could apply to either guilty or innocent.....

More likely, she decided to act bizarrely so she could later plead insanity; then later she decided not to.

jayteecork

CNN going crazy over it.

Had some "forensic specialist" on saying the Italians had no case against her.

enfant terrible

jayteecork wrote: »

CNN going crazy over it.

Had some "forensic specialist" on saying the Italians had no case against her.

In fairness to the much hated on here Fox News they are just reporting the guilty verdict

None of CNN's craziness

Mad_Max

Not really been following this at all but just seen the reports yhey've been ordered to pay in the region of 2+ mill??

Where in the name of sweet jebus are they going to get that type of money?

A Dub in Glasgo

It has been reported earlier in this thread that the compo award is to stop the guilty profiting from their crimes with books and film rights etc

lugha

While I do think the evidence against her is a bit light, one of the more compelling elements of the case is that she tried to falsely implicate a totally innocent third party, apparently and not surprisingly causing considerable difficulty for him and his business. If you had no part in the attack why would you be looking to frame someone? She deserved a good stretch in a cage for that alone.

wudangclan

Abigayle wrote: »

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.

The knife in question didn't have any traces of blood on it (which is harder to remove than DNA).
It was presented to the court as being consistent with the murder weapon (a knife was the murder weapon and this knife was consistent with being a knife) and as having both Amanda Knoxs' and Meridith Kerchers' DNA on it (but no blood).
Amanda Knox is alleged as having cleaned up the crime scene.Why not just get rid of the knife?

BurnsCarpenter

No idea whether she's guilty or innocent but it's plain wrong to judge her because of her behaviour after it happened.

She was smiling! Cartwheels! :rolleyes:

FFS, everybody gets the urge to laugh at a funeral occasionally. People are complicated.

stovelid

dynamopiev wrote: »

I feel like writing to her or something. Don't know what to say like...

Does your prison allows conjugal visits?

I think it's shocking that the girl was jailed for 26 years when there was basically no case against her. I don't doubt that she's guilty as sin, but you need proof, and there doesn't appear to be any, or even anything to link her to the crime, other than that Guede guy claiming she did it. The biggest factors in finding her guilty seem to be: the Foxy Knoxy nickname (who the hell cares? I went to school with a girl called Catherine Knox, her Bebo also said Foxy Knoxy for a while, it's just a silly nickname), the rape story she had on her Myspace (weird yes, but this girl was a creative writing student and I've seen far stranger things written by friends of mine) and the fact she was smiling and doing cartwheels in the police station - yes, it is strange behaviour, but people DO react differently to shock and I don't think it's particularly 'out there' for someone to react like this. Many people smile and joke at funerals - it doesn't mean they murdered the person or are happy they're dead. It's a sort of nervous reaction. Yes, it is extremely likely that she did it but all the jury had to go on was hearsay and speculation. She almost definitely wouldn't have been found guilty in the UK or Ireland.

lugha

[quote=[Deleted User];63349547]The biggest factors in finding her guilty seem to be: the Foxy Knoxy nickname (who the hell cares? I went to school with a girl called Catherine Knox, her Bebo also said Foxy Knoxy for a while, it's just a silly nickname), the rape story she had on her Myspace (weird yes, but this girl was a creative writing student and I've seen far stranger things written by friends of mine) and the fact she was smiling and doing cartwheels in the police station - yes, it is strange behaviour, but people DO react differently to shock and I don't think it's particularly 'out there' for someone to react like this. [/QUOTE]
Does the fact that she falsely tried to blame an innocent party not carry any evidential weight?

wudangclan

lugha wrote: »

Does the fact that she falsely tried to blame an innocent party not carry any evidential weight?

Does it prove she committed murder.?
No.
At what point in her interrogation did she blame someone else?
After she was being accused of murder herself?
I'd need more context to evaluate this as evidence,if at all.

A Dub in Glasgo

wudangclan: Do you have a crush on her as you seem to be taking this a bit too seriously? Her fella was also done and all I see is 'she' not 'they'.

They have been convicted by a jury and if the case is as flimsy as you state, the appeal will give that judgement

lugha

lugha wrote: »

Does the fact that she falsely tried to blame an innocent party not carry any evidential weight?

What wudangclan said. It's dodgy, yes, but does it mean she committed murder? No. People get off on murder charges every day with far more evidence against them than Amanda Knox had. The media decided she was guilty and that was that.

wudangclan

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

wudangclan: Do you have a crush on her as you seem to be taking this a bit too seriously? Her fella was also done and all I see is 'she' not 'they'.

They have been convicted by a jury and if the case is as flimsy as you state, the appeal will give that judgement

No, I don't have a crush on her.(I wouldn't apply that sort of emotion to someone I've never met and she does nothing for me sexually)
I would also contend there's an equal lack of evidence against Raphael Sollecito.
I have mentioned there were 3 suspects involved ,in previous posts, and I'm responding to posts about Amanda Knox not Raphael Sollecito (in a thread about Amanda Knox).

lugha

[quote=[Deleted User];63349662]What wudangclan said. It's dodgy, yes, but does it mean she committed murder? No. People get off on murder charges every day with far more evidence against them than Amanda Knox had. The media decided she was guilty and that was that.[/QUOTE]
No of course it doesn't mean or prove she committed murder. There is rarely enough in any one piece of evidence in any trial to secure a conviction. Different pieces contribute to the overall total. And for me, I cannot think of any reason why someone would false accuse another of murder (the fact that the judge directed that this party be financially compensated suggests that she did make such accusations), other than to shift blame away from themselves. At the very least it shows up a very sinister side to her, I wonder would a separate prosecution have been initiated for this if she had been cleared of murder? Telling any lies to police in a murder enquiry is a big no no for me (this is the reason I have no reservations about Joe O'Reilly being sent down). If you are ever a suspect in a murder enquiry, and you lie to the investigating police, you better hope I'm not on the jury.

wudangclan

lugha wrote: »

No of course it doesn't mean or prove she committed murder. There is rarely enough in any one piece of evidence in any trial to secure a conviction. Different pieces contribute to the overall total. And for me, I cannot think of any reason why someone would false accuse another of murder (the fact that the judge directed that this party be financially compensated suggests that she did make such accusations), other than to shift blame away from themselves. At the very least it shows up a very sinister side to her, I wonder would a separate prosecution have been initiated for this if she had been cleared of murder? Telling any lies to police in a murder enquiry is a big no no for me (this is the reason I have no reservations about Joe O'Reilly being sent down). If you are ever a suspect in a murder enquiry, and you lie to the investigating police, you better hope I'm not on the jury.

Again context would be required.
She blamed one black man when in fact a different black man was present.
I would need to see transcripts of the interview before deciding if it was seemingly sinister or not.

lugha

wudangclan wrote: »

Again context would be required.
She blamed one black man when in fact a different black man was present.
I would need to see transcripts of the interview before deciding if it was seemingly sinister or not.

Again I refer you to the directions of the judge. If he had felt this was simply an honest case of mistaken identity on her part then I don't think the judge would have ordered that she compensate the barman. And she, or anybody else, most certainly should not have definitively named someone unless she was sure, or at the least qualified her statement to this effect. Perhaps if I saw the transcript I might revise my view, but until then I am happy to trust the judge's ruling.

ejmaztec

I might be in RTDH territory now, but in a recent trial over the CIA's activities in Italy over an extraordinary rendition case, 22 (although 26 were originally on the list) US citizens were put on trial in absentia, and each sentenced to 5 years. They left Italy in a hurry when the case came to light a couple of years ago.

The length of the sentence handed out to Knox may well have had some political significance, then again I might be talking out of my hole (again:()

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/04/italy.rendition.verdict/index.html

What do they usually get in Italy for murder?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

ejmaztec wrote: »

I might be in RTDH territory now, but in a recent trial over the CIA's activities in Italy over an extraordinary rendition case, 22 (although 26 were originally on the list) US citizens were put on trial in absentia, and each sentenced to 5 years. They left Italy in a hurry when the case came to light a couple of years ago.

The length of the sentence handed out to Knox may well have had some political significance, then again I might be talking out of my hole (again:()

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/04/italy.rendition.verdict/index.html

What do they usually get in Italy for murder?

Ministerial positions.

ejmaztec

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Ministerial positions.

Yeh, Berlusconi gets good positions, the dirty old ram.

Spastafarian

I'd say she's a demon in the sack.

MagicMarker

Spastafarian wrote: »

I'd say she's a demon in the sack.

I would.

Spastafarian

MagicMarker wrote: »

I would.

Even if you knew she was going to slit your throat?

...

Yeah I probably would too.

ejmaztec

Spastafarian wrote: »

Even if you knew she was going to slit your throat?

...

Yeah I probably would too.

At least you'd die with a smile on your throat.

midlandsmissus

lugha wrote: »

Does the fact that she falsely tried to blame an innocent party not carry any evidential weight?

There is more to that story though, Amanda said the police confused and pressurised her with regard to the man she blamed.

She told the police that she hadnt left Sollecito's flat on the night of the murder.

They then took her phone off her, and found a text she had sent to her boss on the night of the murder saying something along of the lines of 'see you later'.

She said the police then kept saying to her 'you went out that night to meet Patrick didn't you', until she was convinced that she had and that Patrick was involved. Then she accused him.

On another note, she said that she can't remember things clearly on that night because she had been smoking pot all night with sollecito. Now I remember the one time I was smoking pot all night, if some-one asked me the next day to give a time line of events, there wouldn't be the slightest hope I'd remember when things happened and what time. Could this be why she was confused and lying?

There's a realy great site covering alot of issues of the case: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org

midlandsmissus

wudangclan wrote: »

The knife in question didn't have any traces of blood on it (which is harder to remove than DNA).
It was presented to the court as being consistent with the murder weapon (a knife was the murder weapon and this knife was consistent with being a knife) and as having both Amanda Knoxs' and Meridith Kerchers' DNA on it (but no blood).
Amanda Knox is alleged as having cleaned up the crime scene.Why not just get rid of the knife?

The knife wasn't found at the crime scene. Police took a knife out of sollecito's flat that they thought fitted Meredith's wounds, tested it and found small traces of M's dna on the blade and A's dna on the handle.

In the trial, specialists for the defense said that the knife did not fit M's wounds, that the dna was probably contaminated, and that DNA was too small to be conclusive.

So they were never sure if they actually had the murder weapon.