Amanda Knox innocent?

cc-offe

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/06/09/2010-06-09_amanda_knox_is_innocent_jailed_italian_mobster_says_his_brother_killed_meredith_.html


A mafia grass is claiming his brother did it? What do ya reckon?

IvySlayer

Looks like a man :eek:

A-man-duh

stovelid

Of the crime of non-hotness, certainly.

Biggins

I wonder if the mobster got paid?
Its a possability some will say.

prinz

cc-offe wrote: »

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/06/09/2010-06-09_amanda_knox_is_innocent_jailed_italian_mobster_says_his_brother_killed_meredith_.html
A mafia grass is claiming his brother did it? What do ya reckon?

I reckon he's looking to get something in return.

Should be relatively simple to verify the story.

Mr.David

No not a chance - she's as guilty as she is hot

Yer man is probably some loon - he claims he wrote to the court during the trial. Surely if he had any credibility he would have been taken seriously and interviewed.

She is really hot though....:P

walshb

Amanda Knox? About as innocent as OJ I would say.

Biggins

He can say what ever the hell he wants but if he can't prove a thing, he will possibly be dismissed as irrelevant as any random person and probably of trying to exploit a situation too!
"I will give evidence to this case if you do the following for me..."

I think she is guilty.

IvySlayer

Have they found the knife yet?

And who'd take the word of an Italian gangster...

cc-offe

I for one never thought she got a fair trial and the evidence was flawed to say the least, of course she could be guilty but the thought of getting locked up for 26 years on the basis of that evidence :eek: scary thought!

00112984

stovelid wrote: »

Of the crime of non-hotness, certainly.

I wouldn't cum on my shoe and kick her in the gee.

Mr.David

cc-offe wrote: »

I for one never thought she got a fair trial and the evidence was flawed to say the least, of course she could be guilty but the thought of getting locked up for 26 years on the basis of that evidence :eek: scary thought!

The evidence couldn't have been any more conclusive. The american media may have protrayed it as otherwise but i think its a really clear cut case. Have a look at truejustice.org there's lots of objective data there that makes for good reading.

ejmaztec

IvySlayer wrote: »

Looks like a man :eek:

A-man-duh

Prison makes a man of you, so I'm told.:eek:

orourkeda

There was a documentary broadcast recently and this made the conviction appear very shaky.

The evidence on which she was convicted would appear very shabby indeed.

orourkeda

walshb wrote: »

Amanda Knox? About as innocent as OJ I would say.

In fairness to her, It would appear to me (an untrained eye) that it would be fair to argue that her case was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt as all murder cases should be.

Again to the untrained eye it would appear that OJ got off on little more than a technicality.

Banned Account

orourkeda wrote: »

In fairness to her, It would appear to me (an untrained eye) that it would be fair to argue that her case was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt as all murder cases should be.

Again to the untrained eye it would appear that OJ got off on little more than a technicality.

Meredith Kercher was killed by OJ Simpson:eek: oooh, he's a monster, a monster I tells you.

orourkeda

IvySlayer wrote: »

Have they found the knife yet?

And who'd take the word of an Italian gangster...

Wasnt the prosecutor in this case prosecuted himself. If I'm correct (and I'm open to correction) then why should we trust anything he has to say over that of an Italian Gangster

Wazdakka

Who???

What the hell is with all of these threads?
Can we have a "completly obscure people stories" forum or something?

smellslikeshoes

The short hair doesn't suit her at all, when she had longer hair she was definitely suitable for some crazy murderer chick sex.

JustAddWater

Mr.David wrote: »

No not a chance - she's as guilty as she is hot

she's not hot, therefore she's ..... not guilty

smellslikeshoes

Wazdakka wrote: »

Who???

What the hell is with all of these threads?
Can we have a "completly obscure people stories" forum or something?

Eh what? Her murder trial was massive news around the world. Maybe we need a "people who don't keep up with the news" forum.

orourkeda

Mr.David wrote: »

No not a chance - she's as guilty as she is hot

Yer man is probably some loon - he claims he wrote to the court during the trial. Surely if he had any credibility he would have been taken seriously and interviewed.

She is really hot though....:P

She is kind of hot but her conviction appears shaky. No murder weapon. Come on. How shaky can you get.

Now I stopped following this case a while ago and there may be some new evidence that i'm not aware of but the initial conviction seemed outrageously shaky.

Nodin

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

The short hair doesn't suit her at all, when she had longer hair she was definitely suitable for some crazy murderer chick sex.

Maybe she's going for the "Cell Block H" look
for a bit of Caged Heat

cc-offe

Mr.David wrote: »

The evidence couldn't have been any more conclusive. The american media may have protrayed it as otherwise but i think its a really clear cut case. Have a look at truejustice.org there's lots of objective data there that makes for good reading.

I don't find that website objective at all sorry, I read through many websites....some for and some against amanda and i still don't think the evidence is conclusive.

Wazdakka

smellslikeshoes wrote: »

Eh what? Her murder trial was massive news around the world. Maybe we need a "people who don't keep up with the news" forum.

Probably..

I don't really pay attention to that type of news,
Just intercountry relationships / wars / technology / various civil rights / economies..

Ya know, the boring stuff

prinz

orourkeda wrote: »

Wasnt the prosecutor in this case prosecuted himself. If I'm correct (and I'm open to correction) then why should we trust anything he has to say over that of an Italian Gangster

What about the jury?

Carlos_Ray

"An italian mobster jailbird" grass. Hmmm... why shouldn't we believe him?



She's guilty no doubt in my mind. The mobsters story doesn't even fit in with the accounts given by Amanda and the other two. Obvious bs that the American media will jump on and blow out of all proportion.

The americans keep banging on about the standard of European justice system, however, if she was convicted in parts of America she could be sitting on death row as opposed to a cell in italy.

Many americans like amanda feel that their nationality gives them a "get out of jail free card." Hence these middle class psychos are more likely to commit such crimes abroad. Fair play to the italians for sticking it to her.

Also I still am baffled why people have described her as good looking. She's a tiny eyed rat faced weasel. Ugly inside and out.

orourkeda

prinz wrote: »

What about the jury?

What about them?

prinz

orourkeda wrote: »

What about them?

Should we not trust what all of them had to say either? Jury > Mafia grass IMO.

orourkeda

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

"An italian mobster jailbird" grass. Hmmm... why shouldn't we believe him?



She's guilty no doubt in my mind. The mobsters story doesn't even fit in with the accounts given by Amanda and the other two. Obvious bs that the American media will jump on and blow out of all proportion.

The americans keep banging on about the standard of European justice system, however, if she was convicted in parts of America she could be sitting on death row as opposed to a cell in italy.

Many americans like amanda feel that their nationality gives them a "get out of jail free card." Hence these middle class psychos are more likely to commit such crimes abroad. Fair play to the italians for sticking it to her.

Also I still am baffled why people have described her as good looking. She's a tiny eyed rat faced weasel. Ugly inside and out.

She may very well be guilty. However, I'm very surprised that the case got to court let alone obtained a murder conviction on the basis of the evidence provided during the trial. After all, arent convictions supposed to be based on the relative strengths of the evidence. The nationality of the suspect and reporting in the U.S media should have no bearing on this.

fungun

even the american commenters think this is ridiculous

orourkeda

prinz wrote: »

Should we not trust what all of them had to say either? Jury > Mafia grass IMO.

Absolutely. I certainly didnt question the Jury. Nobody else did until you brought it up.

Someone asked why we should trust an Italian gangster (their words) who in some way supported her. I'm suggesting that as the Prosecutor has been convicted himself why dont we invalidate his involvement in the case too. After all, he's the one who put her in prison. After all he's a convicted criminal just like the other guy. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Carlos_Ray

orourkeda wrote: »

She may very well be guilty. However, I'm very surprised that the case got to court let alone obtained a murder conviction on the basis of the evidence provided during the trial. After all, arent convictions supposed to be based on the relative strengths of the evidence. The nationality of the suspect and reporting in the U.S media should have no bearing on this.

It didn't have any bearing on the verdict. Lets not forget that her ex boyfriend, an Italian from a rich and influential family was also convicted. Thats rarely mentioned in the American media becuase it doesn't fit in with their anti-american conspiracy theory.

orourkeda

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

It didn't have any bearing on the verdict. Lets not forget that her ex boyfriend, an Italian from a rich an influential family was also convicted. Thats rarely mentioned in the American media becuase it doesn't fit in with their anti-american conspiracy theory.

Based on the same SHAKY EVIDENCE the american.

Again, the forensic evidence provided in the court case was pathetic. Again if anyone can show me stronger that has come to light since then fair enough but if I was convicted for murder on that basis I'd be appealing.

As a matter of interest do the Italian media comment on the rich Italian boyfriend.

smellslikeshoes

Wazdakka wrote: »

Probably..

I don't really pay attention to that type of news,
Just intercountry relationships / wars / technology / various civil rights / economies..

Ya know, the boring stuff

Well to be fair the only reason why it was news is cause she is a woman and was moderately attractive before her hair was cut, in that crazy murderous hot sort of way :pac:

Carlos_Ray

orourkeda wrote: »

Based on the same SHAKY EVIDENCE the american.

Again, the forensic evidence provided in the court case was pathetic. Again if anyone can show me stronger that has come to light since then fair enough but if I was convicted for murder on that basis I'd be appealing.

As a matter of interest do the Italian media comment on the rich Italian boyfriend.

The evidence was sufficient. Even the teams of expensive laywers couldn't win the trial or the subsequent appeals. Forget about those hyped up emotive bs documentaries.

Of course Solicito is commented on in the Italian press. A quick google will bring up plenty of information about him. However, the point was, that his conviction showed it wasn't just an anti-American scenario. Furthermore, such was the evidence, that his rich and influential family couldn't prevent him from being locked up.

It annoys me that so many people have lept to Knoxs defence. She was involved in the murder of a young girl and she then tried to frame a bar owner! (again something thats no often reported in American press.) She also has a law suit pending against her for falsely stating that a police officer abused her. The girl is vile, and I hope she rots in prison.

bonerm

No doubt he'll take the credit for the murders of Virgil Sollozzo & Capt. McCluskey next.

orourkeda

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

The evidence was sufficient. Even the teams of expensive laywers couldn't win the trial or the subsequent appeals. Forget about those hyped up emotive bs documentaries.

Of course Solicito is commented on in the Italian press. A quick google will bring up plenty of information about him. However, the point was, that his conviction showed it wasn't just an anti-American scenario. Furthermore, such was the evidence, that his rich and influential family couldn't prevent him from being locked up.

It annoys me that so many people have lept to Knoxs defence. She was involved in the murder of a young girl and she then tried to frame a bar owner! (again something thats no often reported in American press.) She also has a law suit pending against her for falsely stating that a police officer abused her. The girl is vile, and I hope she rots in prison.

The evidence was absolutely not sufficient. You dont need hyped up bullsh*t documentaries to point that out. As an aside why do you dismiss an alternative viewpoint as hyped up and emotive and then describe Amanda Know using the emotive language of the last sentence.

I'm not leaping to her defence. I'm suggesting that the evidence on which her conviction is based is not strong enough and would force me to question why her defence lawyers didnt do a better job in defending her but thats for another day. Frankly the press reporting in this and all murder cases is irrelevant. It would be fine if it were restricted purely to the facts but there are far too many armchair psychologists working for the gutter media that this will never happen. The problem for the boyfriend was that if one party was convicted then they all had to be convicted.

prinz

orourkeda wrote: »

The evidence was absolutely not sufficient.

According to yourself. It was sufficient for the people to whom it mattered.

dr.bollocko

Guilty: I would.
Innocent: I still would but I'd feel cheated out of murderer sex.

orourkeda

prinz wrote: »

According to yourself. It was sufficient for the people to whom it mattered.

It was sufficient for the people that mattered.

Does this make it wrong to question it?

Carlos_Ray

orourkeda wrote: »

The evidence was absolutely not sufficient.

It was...she's in jail.

orourkeda wrote: »

You dont need hyped up bullsh*t documentaries to point that out. ..

Were you at the trial so?

orourkeda wrote: »

As an aside why do you dismiss an alternative viewpoint as hyped up and emotive and then describe Amanda Know using the emotive language of the last sentence..

Because Im not so arrogant to believe that I know more than the teams of lawyers and the jury that were involved in the trial on a daily basis. I descirbed her as vile, because she is a convicted killer, and a girl that knowingly attempted to finger an innocent man for the crime. My assesment is perfectly logical.

orourkeda wrote: »

I'm suggesting that the evidence on which her conviction is based is not strong enough and would force me to question why her defence lawyers didnt do a better job in defending her but thats for another day.

Thats an extremely arrogant stance to take. Maybe she should have hired you as her lawyer. Unless you sat in on her trial every day, I don't think you're in a position to make such a judgement.

orourkeda wrote: »

Frankly the press reporting in this and all murder cases is irrelevant.

So were did you get your "facts" from? Could it have been... the media?

orourkeda wrote: »

The problem for the boyfriend was that if one party was convicted then they all had to be convicted.

How do you make that out? They all had seperate trials.

orourkeda

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

It was...she's in jail.




Were you at the trial so?



Because Im not so arrogant to believe that I know more than the teams of lawyers and the jury that were involved in the trial on a daily basis. I descirbed her as vile, because she is a convicted killer, and a girl that knowingly attempted to finger an innocent man for the crime. My assesment is perfectly logical.



Thats an extremely arrogant stance to take. Maybe she should have hired you as her lawyer. Unless you sat in on her trial every day, I don't think you're in a position to make such a judgement.



So were did you get your "facts" from? Could it have been... the media?



How do you make that out? They all had seperate trials.[/QUOTE]

She's not in Jail because of the evidence. She's in Jail despite the evidence.

I wasnt at the trial and I doubt you travelled to Italy for it either.

I never suggested that I knew more than any Lawyer. I've never studied or practiced law. I've never suggested otherwise at any point during this thread and to suggest that I have is unfair. I suggested that in my opinion this case was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt as is the burden of proof in all criminal cases and to ask questions on this basis is not suggesting that I am more knowledgable that qualified legal practitioners.

I've suggested in a previous post that if the reporting was restricted to the reporting of the facts and the facts only then fair enough. Some "opinion" pieces are written by know alls that know nothing and influence some peoples judgement and are unhelpful. An example was in last Sundays Sunday times that tried to second guess what the motives for Derrick Birds killing spree were less than a week after it happened.

If the BF had escaped punishment what would the reaction have been.

moonpurple

amanda knox murdering bitc.h

hot?

at maximum voltage on the electric chair maybe:pac:

prinz

orourkeda wrote: »

It was sufficient for the people that mattered. Does this make it wrong to question it?

No. As long as you qualify your remarks that you are giving personal opinion.

orourkeda

prinz wrote: »

No. As long as you qualify your remarks that you are giving personal opinion.

That's what I was doing as everyone else here was doing too. I though that went without saying.

Carlos_Ray

orourkeda wrote: »

I wasnt at the trial and I doubt you travelled to Italy for it either.

But I'm not questioning the integrity of the trial, you are.

orourkeda wrote: »

I never suggested that I knew more than any Lawyer. I've never studied or practiced law. I've never suggested otherwise at any point during this thread and to suggest that I have is unfair. I suggested that in my opinion this case was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt as is the burden of proof in all criminal cases and to ask questions on this basis is not suggesting that I am more knowledgable that qualified legal practitioners..

Aside from the jury and the lawers. Meridith Kirchers family attended the trial. They more than anybody on this planet wanted the real killers convicted. They expressed satisfaction with the verdict and once again, unlike me or you, they attended the trial. Thats good enough for me. I trust the judicial system, and I trust the judgement of the family.

orourkeda wrote: »

I've suggested in a previous post that if the reporting was restricted to the reporting of the facts and the facts only then fair enough. Some "opinion" pieces are written by know alls that know nothing and influence some peoples judgement and are unhelpful. An example was in last Sundays Sunday times that tried to second guess what the motives for Derrick Birds killing spree were less than a week after it happened.

I agree, but thats the nature of the beast. Media infiltrates everything. Bearing this in mind, it probably wasn't the best idea for knox to appear in court for a sex murder, smiling and wearing an "all you need is love" top on valentines day. Its was sick (thoughtless at best) considering the vitcims family were there. Like all spoiled kids (and most killers), she won't take responsibility for her actions. She showed no remorse, or sympathy for the family and Im glad she's in prison as opposed to appearing on Oprah and siging book and movie deals in America.

Justice was done, and I support the court and the victims family.

prinz

orourkeda wrote: »

That's what I was doing as everyone else here was doing too. I though that went without saying.

Yeah, yeah carry on. It gets murky when we talk of absolutes.

walshb

orourkeda wrote: »

In fairness to her, It would appear to me (an untrained eye) that it would be fair to argue that her case was not proven beyond all reasonable doubt as all murder cases should be.

Again to the untrained eye it would appear that OJ got off on little more than a technicality.

Lets not beat around the bush here, OJ was never getting convicted. The trial was a race trial, and with 9 or ten black jurors on the panel he was never getting convicted. Even with video evidence he was clear.

Every murder trial no matter how convincing will always throw up a defence, and most times, a shambolic and utterly ridiculous defence that some people will swallow. I watch a lot of true crime and see it all the time.

walshb

orourkeda wrote: »

She is kind of hot but her conviction appears shaky. No murder weapon. Come on. How shaky can you get.

Now I stopped following this case a while ago and there may be some new evidence that i'm not aware of but the initial conviction seemed outrageously shaky.

No murder weapon? You know, sometimes there is no body, but that does not mean a person walks free. Rachel O'Reilly's murder never produced a weapon either. I followed this trial as much as I could and IMO Knox is guilty, at least complicit and part of the team that
killed Meredith. They got the right people.

IM0

who cares? someone died, someone took the blame, the truth is out there but we'll never know