Amanda Knox

x in the city

can somone elaborate what sex game involves a womans throat being cut and an orgy of at least 4 people involved....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15046562

Prosecutors have called for an appeals court to extend the sentences given to two convicted murderers of British student Meredith Kercher to life terms.

American Amanda Knox and Italian Raffaele Sollecito were found guilty in 2009 of murder in Italy and jailed for 26 years and 25 years respectively.

The pair, who deny any wrongdoing, are appealing against their convictions.

In summing up, prosecutors said evidence pointed to the pair's guilt and defended the original DNA evidence.

Independent experts had questioned the reliability of evidence - used in the original trial - from a knife and Miss Kercher's bra clasp.

Manuela Comodi, one of the prosecutors making closing statements, showed the jury how she believed the bra had been cut from Miss Kercher. She also showed jurors photographs from the scene.

The prosecution told the court the independent experts, appointed by a judge, did not have sufficient qualifications to be described as experts.

Biggins

I wish this case was over with. Its been done to death.
NO joke intended.

u_c_thesecond

x in the city wrote: »

can somone elaborate what sex game involves a womans throat being cut and an orgy of at least 4 people involved....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15046562

i have the book of this trial- i read it less than 4 months ago and it is in my bedroom atm. AMANDA KNOX is a sex addict and (according to the testominies in my book ) a slapper!!!!!! she tried to pin the murder on her boss who on cctv was in his bar at the time. :eek:

she killed Meriteth with her boyfriend- just because she is "pretty" doesnt make her innocent! :mad:

x in the city

out of 10 tho,

id give her 1

The Internet Explorer

Blast her with this

4leto

u_c_thesecond wrote: »

i have the book of this trial- i read it less than 4 months ago and it is in my bedroom atm. AMANDA KNOX is a sex addict and (according to the testominies in my book ) a slapper!!!!!! she tried to pin the murder on her boss who on cctv was in his bar at the time. :eek:

she killed Meriteth with her boyfriend- just because she is "pretty" doesnt make her innocent! :mad:

Don't think it was that clear cut, never trust one of those publishers books who tot up a few pages from a sensational news story.

She may have been a slapper or just a young girl away from home the first time, as I was a slapper when I first went away.

One thing is for certain, the Italian police made a hains of the investigation.

Yakult

Meh.

TheZohanS

Any report you're going to read on this case, with the exception of the US propaganda machine, will tell you exactly what happened. It's not rocket science.

u_c_thesecond

4leto wrote: »

Don't think it was that clear cut, never trust one of those publishers books who tot up a few pages from a sensational news story.

She may have been a slapper or just a young girl away from home the first time, as I was a slapper when I first went away.

One thing is for certain, the Italian police made a hains of the investigation.

TBH the book has quotes from old sex partners of hers, as well as her earlier life and rafelles( their parents too ) so im sure its legit!!

i doubt their parents would quote a book that was not legit !

and how do u explain that she said she knew her boss murdered Merdith when CCTV shows him in his pub at the time !!

4leto

I don't know and they do not have to be accurate quotes, they just misquote them, they get what the readers want and just go with a stint on the story that sells a book.

Publishers usually have ghost and agency writers that do the writing.

But your book might be legit. The best way to be certain thats if it was not ghost written is check out other works the author did.

Saila

I thought this was another porn star thread

LH Pathe

certainly paints the picture of one corrupted little whore.. so what exactly goes on at these sadomasochistic sex orgies?!

apart from intimidation violence sex rape and murder. coke?

Richard Hillman

Ya'd still ride her in fairness.

LH Pathe

No, she can go get fùcked I would not stick my wick In her. Holding out

alexpmgr8

So, a "sex orgy" It even looks daft sitting there on its own. Who came up with this idea in the first place ? And who determines what is involved by the term "sexy orgy"? How is a break in related to a sex orgy ? The spread of A & R's DNA takes them away from the scene, except one dot on a bra clasp inside the scene. Re-read that, it wasn't a mistake. I have read tonnes of released evidences, and i would say it is the obvious. As much of the scene is to a simpleton like me, in csi field, i can see alot of the Guede chaps DNA everywhere in the room. We can only conclude that A & R were near the outside of the door, orchestrating this "sex orgy". We have now reached a state of ridiculous i think, especially as a blob of R's DNA appears in the middle philomenas room ! I do think the matter of forensic procedures with video evidence is uncontestable in the contrary now.
Good luck A & R

RIP Meredith. uk alex

Zebra3

Knox is a little ride.

Free her.

LH Pathe

her name is Amanda Knox not opportunity knocks. let her whittle an iron rod down to a makeshift dildo with her nail file

either way she'll either choke on that or die of sex starvation

wolf moon

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Ya'd still ride her in fairness.

I'd defo ride her.

stovelid

Biggins wrote: »

I wish this case was over with. Its been done to death.
NO joke intended.

I'd do Amanda to death.

With an armed guard on standby just in case though.

On a serious note, I can't believe somebody is using the accusation that somebody is a 'slapper" as proof as anything. I was for years and never garotted anybody.

Scrappychimow

Shes innocent.

W.Shakes-Beer

x in the city wrote: »

can somone elaborate what sex game involves a womans throat being cut and an orgy of at least 4 people involved....

A good one. :pac:


I'll leave now.

py2006

I kinda feel sorry for her for some reason. I think she is innocent.

ToxicPaddy

Its almost impossible to believe whats truth and what's fiction in this case.

The Americans do what Americans do, go to the press and get the whole publicity thing going. Its their culture and thats what they think gets results. Stories are based on very loose facts, hearsay and then grow wings, legs and whatever else so the end story being released is rarely what was originally said and done. Of course there is always the poor little american girl being picked on by the nasty foreigner angle too.. also used.

The Italians made a mess of this. What could have and should have been a fairly clear cut case if what's being said about DNA evidence is true then they completely f*cked up, contaminated the scene, ruined evidence, never ran the investigation properly and basically have what is now close to 4 years of hard work resting on a jury's opinion with a serious chance of going down the drain.

So lets see what the jury comes back with.

As for Amanda Knox's behaviour, the girl is clearly not normal. She is someone who is clearly able to manipulate people, lost in her own world and far from the innocent little girl her deluded parents think she is. All one can do is wait and see. But even if this is all over this week, its not the last we will hear of it.

DarkJager

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Ya'd still ride her in fairness.

**** no. Face on her like a bucket of smashed crabs.

Biggins

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

Its almost impossible to believe whats truth and what's fiction in this case.

The Americans do what Americans do, go to the press and get the whole publicity thing going. Its their culture and thats what they think gets results. Stories are based on very loose facts, hearsay and then grow wings, legs and whatever else so the end story being released is rarely what was originally said and done. Of course there is always the poor little american girl being picked on by the nasty foreigner angle too.. also used.

The Italians made a mess of this. What could have and should have been a fairly clear cut case if what's being said about DNA evidence is true then they completely f*cked up, contaminated the scene, ruined evidence, never ran the investigation properly and basically have what is now close to 4 years of hard work resting on a jury's opinion with a serious chance of going down the drain.

So lets see what the jury comes back with.

As for Amanda Knox's behaviour, the girl is clearly not normal. She is someone who is clearly able to manipulate people, lost in her own world and far from the innocent little girl her deluded parents think she is. All one can do is wait and see. But even if this is all over this week, its not the last we will hear of it.

A lot of truth there.
I think personally, she is guilty as hell.

Cypher_sounds

I think she will be acquitted along with Sollecito, Guede did the damage.

sunflower27

Biggins wrote: »

A lot of truth there.
I think personally, she is guilty as hell.

I agree Biggins. Trying to frame someone else is pretty damning in my book.

Not to mention her behaviour the day after which is pretty chilling. If a flatmate of mine was found viciously murdered I don't think I'd be able to stand around laughing and smiling. It defies belief.

Saw a documentary on this earlier this year and her parents seem to have her on this pedestal as this naive little girl. Knoxy has done a good job on them. Unreal.

Jumpy

Can I place bets on whether she will go straight into the porn industry when she is released?


I wonder will it be some tasteful classy number like "John Wayne Bobbit Uncut" *shudder*

Helix

u_c_thesecond wrote: »

i have the book of this trial- i read it less than 4 months ago and it is in my bedroom atm. AMANDA KNOX is a sex addict and (according to the testominies in my book ) a slapper!!!!!! she tried to pin the murder on her boss who on cctv was in his bar at the time. :eek:

she killed Meriteth with her boyfriend- just because she is "pretty" doesnt make her innocent! :mad:

and just because you read it in a book doesnt make her guilty

Zebra3

Jumpy wrote: »

Can I place bets on whether she will go straight into the porn industry when she is released?

Fingers crossed. :cool:

Da Shins Kelly

The details of the case seem to be very mixed up, and the Italian police have a lot to answer for in that regard. Having said that, Amanda Knox doesn't appear to be an individual that seems very bothered about whether she goes down or gets acquitted. I reckon that girl is seriously f*cked up whether she killed the girl or not. Even if she didn't kill this particular person, I wouldn't be surprised if she had it in her anyway.

As for her parents - the definition of deluded.

I don't think her behaviour afterwards was all that shocking. People react to shocking/tragic incidents in different ways. A few years ago, one of my coworkers had a heart attack and died at work. It was awful, but there were jokes being cracked and people laughing before the end of the day. It would have been really judgemental for someone looking in to write us all of as sickos and freaks and accuse us of murdering the woman. We were just trying to get through the day and stay as 'normal' as possible. I don't know why the media loves to pretend that everyone reacts to a death or a terrible incident by crying and looking glum for weeks. It rarely happens like that.

Tayla

u_c_thesecond wrote: »

i have the book of this trial- i read it less than 4 months ago and it is in my bedroom atm. AMANDA KNOX is a sex addict and (according to the testominies in my book ) a slapper!!!!!! she tried to pin the murder on her boss who on cctv was in his bar at the time. :eek:

she killed Meriteth with her boyfriend- just because she is "pretty" doesnt make her innocent! :mad:

Wow you read it in a book so it must be true then....maybe if there were sworn testimonies from people claiming she became violent when they refused to participate in sex orgies you'd have a point :rolleyes:

Yep she implicated her boss, Did you forget the bit where she tried to take it back straight away? Where she said she said it under duress?

She said they were threatening her, putting words in her mouth and hitting her, they even do this in Ireland and all our interviews are taped, who knows what the police did or said to her over there, they didn't tape the interviews and if they did they have got rid of them.

There's a wonderful thing called evidence......you know the stuff they use to convict people, in the Knox case none of the evidence stands up so therefore she should be free. Would you really want to live in a world where someone has no evidence but they concoct stories and theories and convict you anyway?

Maybe you should read more on the matter instead of just reading one book about it, most of the books on the case are completely biased, some for and some against Amanda. Just because you read one book doesn't mean you know everything.....in fact you have mentioned twice that she implicated the boss and asked why, if you'd read anything about the case at all you'd already know the answer to that!

Biggins

Tayla wrote: »

Wow you read it in a book so it must be true then....maybe if there were sworn testimonies from people claiming she became violent when they refused to participate in sex orgies you'd have a point :rolleyes:

Yep she implicated her boss, Did you forget the bit where she tried to take it back straight away? Where she said she said it under duress?

She said they were threatening her, putting words in her mouth and hitting her, they even do this in Ireland and all our interviews are taped, who knows what the police did or said to her over there, they didn't tape the interviews and if they did they have got rid of them.

There's a wonderful thing called evidence......you know the stuff they use to convict people, in the Knox case none of the evidence stands up so therefore she should be free. Would you really want to live in a world where someone has no evidence but they concoct stories and theories and convict you anyway?

Maybe you should read more on the matter instead of just reading one book about it, most of the books on the case are completely biased, some for and some against Amanda. Just because you read one book doesn't mean you know everything.....in fact you have mentioned twice that she implicated the boss and asked why, if you'd read anything about the case at all you'd already know the answer to that!

Its funny you should mention evidence.

* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were threatening her?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were putting words in her mouth?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were hitting her?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove that ANY tapes if they existed, were got rid of?

Everything she has said was/is speculation from the mind of a possible murderer trying to escape punishment.
To be honest, I wouldn't expect anything less - and if she had ANY proof of ANY of the above, why didn't she produce it at her main trial?

Meanwhile, while she goes off on one trying to possibly spin more versions of her episode there to the multiple ones she has already told, the police have been doing their checking, their alibi investigations, their timing of who was where and with whom, their analysis of her groups transport (where and when it was seen and not seen), the search of it and the house, the cross-analysis of her statements with others - and you know what?

She has been found very wanting for a bit of truth - in fact not enough truth to actually find her innocent but convicted guilty.

Frankly, looking at this case since it started, in the limited stuff that we, the public do know or are allowed know, she is VERY much guilty in my mind according to actual produced evidence - not just her mind version of events with feck all evidence to back her case!

If memory serves me right, they even took her later back to court and she was found additionally guilty of lying too!
...And they proved that too in order to get that conviction!

Tayla

Biggins wrote: »

Its funny you should mention evidence.

* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were threatening her?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were putting words in her mouth?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove they were hitting her?
* Did she and her legal team produce evidence to prove that ANY tapes if they existed, were got rid of?

How would she have proof? There were no recordings of the interview, that's impossible for her to prove. In Ireland interviews are recorded but they make sure the cameras are switched off when they threathen you and put words in your mouth.

So much emphasis is placed on the fact that she implicated her boss but she tried to retract it soon afterwards, the police have no tapes, why don't they? If they were so convinced of her guilty behaviour then surely they would have wanted to record her? If they didn't have to record things then the police anywhere could get away with ANYTHING. Scary

Biggins

Tayla wrote: »

How would she have proof? There were no recordings of the interview, that's impossible for her to prove. In Ireland interviews are recorded but they make sure the cameras are switched off when they threathen you and put words in your mouth.

So much emphasis is placed on the fact that she implicated her boss but she tried to retract it soon afterwards, the police have no tapes, why don't they? If they were so convinced of her guilty behaviour then surely they would have wanted to record her? If they didn't have to record things then the police anywhere could get away with ANYTHING. Scary

W

Can you ACTUALLY prove the bolded above? Please do.
Every good solicitor in the country would love to hear/see your evidence.
Hell, I would too!

jonnyfingers

Biggins wrote: »

Frankly, looking at this case since it started, in the limited stuff that we, the public do know or are allowed know, she is VERY much guilty in my mind according to actual produced evidence - not just her mind version of events with feck all evidence to back her case!

What is the actual produced evidence? I read an article on this case in the Guardian a few months back and it seems like they had very little evidence. The forensic evidence, as questionable as it is, should not have even been admissible considering the amount of people who walked through the scene contaminating it. They had no motive. They had a sort of admission of guilt from Amanda Knox that was given behind closed doors without a lawyer present.

The Italian police have an awful lot to answer. Even if Amanda Knox is guilty they have cast so much doubt over it by their actions that she probably should be acquitted.

Tayla

Biggins wrote: »

Can you ACTUALLY prove the bolded above? Please do.
Every good solicitor in the country would love to hear/see your evidence.
Hell, I would too!

No I can't prove it but I have personal experience of it happening and that's about all I can base it on. That's the whole point, if civilians could record their own interactions with guards/police or guards were forced to record all conversations with people then it wouldn't happen.

Biggins

Tayla wrote: »

No I can't prove it but I have personal experience of it happening and that's about all I can base it on.

A' well... just because it might have happened to you, well that proves it happens all the time of course...

Tayla

Biggins wrote: »

A' well... just because it might have happened to you, well that proves it happens all the time of course...

It did happen to me and you only have to speak to people who were questioned by guards to know that sometimes they do do that and they do try to put words in your mouth.

To try and pretend it doesn't happen is just naive.

Biggins

Tayla wrote: »

It did happen to me and you only have to speak to people who were questioned by guards to know that sometimes they do do that and they do try to put words in your mouth.

To try and pretend it doesn't happen is just naive.

One or even a few possible case does NOT prove it happens all the time - don't be so equally naive!

I suggest others read a previous thread HERE before they take the half-cocked rantings of a convicted murderer as 100% truth.

Tayla

Biggins wrote: »

One or even a few possible case does NOT prove it happens all the time - don't be so equally naive!

I didn't say that it happens all the time........in fact in cases where they have actual real evidence those tactics aren't necessary....however when all they have to go on is a theory then that's when they bring out those tactics.

Wompa1

Tayla wrote: »

I didn't say that it happens all the time........in fact in cases where they have actual real evidence those tactics aren't necessary....however when all they have to go on is a theory then that's when they bring out those tactics.

They had enough evidence to convict her already. Not sure why you doubt it so much?

What would be the motive of the police to push her around in the interviews? You think they were protecting the 'actual' murderer or something? What's to be gained by pushing around this American student?

Also when/where did a police officer interrogate you in such a manner? Did you make any complaint to superiors? That's a pretty serious offence

Biggins

Well its been discussed at some very long length in a previous mentioned thread.
There are many points of contention that just do not do Knox any favors - in fact enough, each on their own to convince a court that she was guilty.

We will just have to agree to disagree as to if we think she is guilty or innocent.

Yahew

The hatred of Knox is a mixture of mysogony, sometimes female jealousy, anti-Americanism, and sheer taxi driver logic - cue Biggins.

She is about as guilty as me, and I have never been to Italy.

The obvious thing is Guede did it. He needed money, he broke in. His DNA is everywhere. He went for a fast track trial to reduce his sentence. Thats all you need.

To add some f3cking prurient sex fantasy involving strangers to Guede ( Knox and the boyfriend who join in a sex orgy with a vagrant, and then dont clear stuff up, and dont leave DNA anywhere except a kitchen knife and bra - which could have been handled form a washing machine) well thats the kind of fantasy some misogynistic Italian prosecutor would come up with.

Yahew

Wompa1 wrote: »

They had enough evidence to convict her already. Not sure why you doubt it so much?

What would be the motive of the police to push her around in the interviews? You think they were protecting the 'actual' murderer or something? What's to be gained by pushing around this American student?

Also when/where did a police officer interrogate you in such a manner? Did you make any complaint to superiors? That's a pretty serious offence

The DNA evidence was rubbished by independent experts. The rest is fantasy. If you dont believe that people get arrested wrongly, and that police will try and implicate someone innocent for career based reasons, you are extremely naive.

The Italian system is entirely politicised.

Biggins

Yahew wrote: »

The hatred of Knox is a mixture of mysogony, sometimes female jealousy, anti-Americanism, and sheer taxi driver logic - cue Biggins.

Frankly, you talking a load of bollox above!

Yahew

Biggins wrote: »

Frankly, you taking a load of bollox!

You need a argument, Biggins. But that's true of most posts.

Biggins

Yahew wrote: »

You need a argument, Biggins. But that's true of most posts.

So anyone that thinks her innocent must be in possession of "a mixture of mysogony, sometimes female jealousy, anti-Americanism, and sheer taxi driver logic" ???
I'm not even going to refute the crap above, you accuse me of -that logic is so stupid and blind, I would expect that crap from a brainless child.

Pure stupidity.

Yahew

Biggins wrote: »

So anyone that thinks her innocent must be in possession of "a mixture of mysogony, sometimes female jealousy, anti-Americanism, and sheer taxi driver logic" ???
I'm not even going to refute the crap above, you accuse me of -that logic is so stupid and blind, I would expect that crap from a brainless child.

Pure stupidity.

The pure stupidity is believing the nonsense that Guede breaks in unannounced, but everybody gets on swimmingly so he has rough sex games with Knox and her bf after just meeting them, killing the British girl who may or may not have been a willing partner, and all this happening with Knox and bf not getting any DNA anywhere except on readily available household implements.. Thats a middle aged fantasy..

The proof of Knox's guilt is that - discredited - DNA evidence and the fact that she "acted odd", and once wrote something about violent sex on a blog.

You need more evidence than that in most civilised countries.

Biggins

Actually read ALL the points of the previous thread.
The case and her conviction hinges not just on a piece of DNA from one item.
Whats also pure stupid, is to think so.