Amanda Knox

jcf

Tayla wrote: »

I am absolutely delighted that she has been acquitted.

Why?

you like to see evil twisted cun'ts like that get away with Murder ?


fair enough so ...

enfant terrible

A Primal Nut wrote: »

I agree this is one I find difficult. According to her, the police wrote a statement implicating Lumumba and pressured her to sign it - it went on for hours and she says she was treated badly. Of course I think she shouldn't have given in - she was emotionally weak and assumed the police were telling the truth that Lumumba had committed the crime, which is why she didn't come forward in the following weeks; she thought she was helping the investigation. She was silly, naive and weak. I think there is nothing more to it than that.

Of course we don't know if she is telling the truth, but the complete lack of evidence (there is none) and the fact she was also later pressured into signing a confession; I'm gonna believe her over the police.

Did Raphael finger Lumumba too?

Tayla

I think the prosecution should be deeply deeply ashamed of themselves for negotiating a reduced sentence for the real killer Rudy Guede in order to save face for themselves.

Thanks to them he will now only serve 16 years for the brutal rape and murder of Meredith Kercher.

Giblet

jcf wrote: »

Why?

you like to see evil twisted cun'ts like that get away with Murder ?


fair enough so ...

What's your evidence of this?

A Primal Nut

Mazeire wrote: »

You know something? You can't vilify press coverage one minure and then use it to support your point the next. My theory your theory is all based on one thing: what the media has exposed us to. No one has met her none of us ever will (unless we are willing to queue up in Easons for the book signing in five years time.) I feel there was something wrong, you don't. If she had been asessed then we would know.However due to the Italians generally making a pigs ear of things we will never know.

Well if I see a video of them pecking I am gonna trust that more than the police saying they were all over each other. I am not gonna criticise the media - they reported both sides allowing me to make a judgement.

Much easier than assessing her would have been to measure the time of death in the first place.

There are no suspicious around her mental health apart from the Italian Prosecutor who has failed to win this appeal.

Mazeire

Yahew wrote: »

Yes, but your feeling there is something wrong is largely worthless nonsense based on hearsay and tabloid reporting which you didnt bother your arse to look into.

And there is media, and media. There is tabloid nonsense about her "snogging" her boyfriend, or "doing cartwheels" and all that assorted character assassination, and the - very few - broadsheet media, mostly American which reported the truth. With big words. And references to what actually happened.

Case in point: my twitter feed - largely English - is full of sorrow towards the Kercher family because they now dont know the killer of their child. The real victim was Meredith etc.

Nobody seems to know about Guede.

With respect, your evidence that she is innocent as the driven snow appears to also be based on media coverage and er...social networking. *cough*

Totally logical. However to follow your argument the that media coverage is flawed,m then I'm afraid your version of events based on the methods which you have used to gather them must also be treated with sceptism.

Yahew

Mazeire wrote: »

Where did you hear that?

It's in wiki.

The Italian Supreme Court later found that Knox's human rights were violated because the police did not read her her legal rights, appoint her a lawyer or provide her an official interpreter and that her signed statement was inadmissible for Knox's and Sollecito's criminal trial.[38][50][51] However, the court allowed the statement to be used in the concurrent civil, defamation trial in which Lumumba prevailed against Knox. Both trials had the same jury which heard Knox's confession.[52]

Mazeire

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Well if I see a video of them pecking I am gonna trust that more than the police saying they were all over each other. I am not gonna criticise the media - they reported both sides allowing me to make a judgement.

Much easier than assessing her would have been to measure the time of death in the first place.

There are no suspicious around her mental health apart from the Italian Prosecutor who has failed to win this appeal.

I agree. The judgement I have reached is different to yours, that's all. However earlier on you were focusing on the more negative coverage of Knox.

I agree the Italians totally totally messed this up. Well no one suspected Ted Bundy or Fred West either until a load of boodies were found in the basement.

Yahew

Mazeire wrote: »

With respect, your evidence that she is innocent as the driven snow appears to also be based on media coverage and er...social networking. *cough*

I said the social networking sites were so controlled by tabloid reporting that they hadn't even heard about Guede. I was using them as an example of how bad the reporting was.

Totally logical. However to follow your argument the that media coverage is flawed,m then I'm afraid your version of events based on the methods which you have used to gather them must also be treated with sceptism.

No, there is good media and bad. You apparently didn't know that the Italian supreme court disallowed Knox's testimony in the main trial but the prosecutors then used the same Jury to accuse Knox of slander - a slander they forced out of her deliberately. So the Jury was biased by her "slander".

( Apparantly if you are questioned illegally in Italy you can then be accused of slander, even if the questioning is illegal, by the very police who bullied you into making the slander in the first place, because they, not you, wanted to jail an innocent man ).

Not that I blame you too much. None of this was reported anywhere much.

Mazeire

Yahew wrote: »

It's in wiki.

The Italian Supreme Court later found that Knox's human rights were violated because the police did not read her her legal rights, appoint her a lawyer or provide her an official interpreter and that her signed statement was inadmissible for Knox's and Sollecito's criminal trial.[38][50][51] However, the court allowed the statement to be used in the concurrent civil, defamation trial in which Lumumba prevailed against Knox. Both trials had the same jury which heard Knox's confession.[52]

I see. Wikepedia, that can be altered by anyone, including her family. That's not reliable. At all.
If we are to use Wiki as proof then we may as well take the Daily Mail as gospel as well.

Yahew

Mazeire wrote: »

I agree. The judgement I have reached is different to yours, that's all. However earlier on you were focusing on the more negative coverage of Knox.

I agree the Italians totally totally messed this up. Well no one suspected Ted Bundy or Fred West either until a load of boodies were found in the basement.

lol. Guilt by association. Knox, Bundy and West.

Mazeire

Yahew wrote: »

I said the social networking sites were so controlled by tabloid reporting that they hadn't even heard about Guede. I was using them as an example of how bad the reporting was.



No, there is good media and bad. You apparently didn't know that the Italian supreme court disallowed Knox's testimony in the main trial but the prosecutors then used the same Jury to accuse Knox of slander - a slander they forced out of her deliberately. So the Jury was biased by her "slander".

( Apparantly if you are questioned illegally in Italy you can then be accused of slander, even if the questioning is illegal, by the very police who bullied you into making the slander in the first place, because they, not you, wanted to jail an innocent man ).

Not that I blame you too much. None of this was reported anywhere much.

According to you earlier the media, in this case especially was the work of the devil. Make your mind up. Again we know this how?

notwise

Miller Raspy Rambler wrote: »

I don't remember ever reading a single article that didn't mention her alleged promiscuity and present it as evidence that she was sick and twisted.

Yep, anybody who is even half following this case would know that the media had a party over her sex life. Also Izzy was merely saying that she thought it was ridiculous that the media were using this as evidence that she murdered Meredith Kercher. I don't understand why you pulled her up on that.

Yahew

Mazeire wrote: »

I see. Wikepedia, that can be altered by anyone, including her family. That's not reliable. At all.
If we are to use Wiki as proof then we may as well take the Daily Mail as gospel as well.

The "wiki" can be altered is always the catch cry of the crank. It is regulated strongly these days. The bit about the Supreme court - that has a citation. I quoted the numbers in the quote.

I really hope you are never on a jury. If ever asked, recuse yourself. Please.

A Primal Nut

Mazeire wrote: »

With respect, your evidence that she is innocent as the driven snow appears to also be based on media coverage and er...social networking. *cough*

Totally logical. However to follow your argument the that media coverage is flawed,m then I'm afraid your version of events based on the methods which you have used to gather them must also be treated with sceptism.

You can read both side's evidence and make a judgement.

Mazeire

Yahew wrote: »

lol. Guilt by association. Knox, Bundy and West.

A little hysterical there don't you think?

Mazeire

A Primal Nut wrote: »

You can read both side's evidence and make a judgement.

Which I have.

nagirrac

Mazeire wrote: »

I see. Wikepedia, that can be altered by anyone, including her family. That's not reliable. At all.
If we are to use Wiki as proof then we may as well take the Daily Mail as gospel as well.

I agree Wiki cannot be trusted for factual information. Read the 400 page report from the first trial instead. Her statements made the day before the interrogation were considered as were the handwritten note she wrote after the interrogation (when she was informed she was a suspect, but before she was arrested). The interrogation "confession" is not mentioned. Most of the public image of her guilt in Peruglia is linked to her "confession" regardless of the fact it was inadmissible in the murder trial.

Mazeire

Yahew wrote: »

The "wiki" can be altered is always the catch cry of the crank. It is regulated strongly these days. The bit about the Supreme court - that has a citation. I quoted the numbers in the quote.

I really hope you are never on a jury. If ever asked, recuse yourself. Please.

Likewise I hope you do the same. After all it would be very difficult for you to concentrate on a days trial after staying up all night reading about conspracy theories on Wiki.:D

Yahew

Mazeire wrote: »

A little hysterical there don't you think?

Yes, you are. Did you click the links on the wiki page yet. Do you agree that the Italian Supreme court said her rights had been violated, but the prosecutor used the same jury in the slander case to get around this road block?

J. Marston

Wow, who is the blonde?

nagirrac

Mazeire wrote: »

Which I have.

If you had read the judge's report from the first trial you would know the "confession" was not considered.

A Primal Nut

Mazeire wrote: »

Which I have.

So why do you think she is a sociopath?

Mazeire

Yahew wrote: »

Yes, you are. Did you click the links on the wiki page yet. Do you agree that the Italian Supreme court said her rights had been violated, but the prosecutor used the same jury in the slander case to get around this road block?

Sorry I don't do Wiki.

Thrill

Mazeire wrote: »

I see. Wikepedia, that can be altered by anyone, including her family. That's not reliable. At all.
If we are to use Wiki as proof then we may as well take the Daily Mail as gospel as well.

It was in the papers also.

Under Italian law they are supposed to tape suspects,either audio or Audio and video.

When asked for the tapes of the interrogation, the police said they did not exist.

Mazeire

A Primal Nut wrote: »

So why do you think she is a sociopath?

Read back over what I have previously said. Why do you think she isn't?

Mazeire

nagirrac wrote: »

If you had read the judge's report from the first trial you would know the "confession" was not considered.

Apologies but how long did you say that report was again?

darkman2

Has David Norris been sending letters to Perugia?

Mazeire

Thrill wrote: »

It was in the papers also.

Under Italian law they are supposed to tape suspects,either audio or Audio and video.

When asked for the tapes of the interrogation, the police said they did not exist.

As I said they messed it up.

Yahew

Mazeire wrote: »

Likewise I hope you do the same. After all it would be very difficult for you to concentrate on a days trial after staying up all night reading about conspracy theories on Wiki.:D

Lol. FFS the only conspiracy believer and well poisoner here is you.

The "conspiracy theory" is the fact of the Supreme Court judgement of her confession being forced, which you deny merely because it is in wiki. And which you clearly heard about for the first time today ( a peck on the cheek of her boyfriend proving her guilt in your tabloid mind).

nagirrac makes the same point. The confession was not admitted in Court.

However the same jury heard the slander trial. ( Which is absurd, of course).