Amanda Knox

IzzyWizzy

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.

PK2008

Sounds a bit dubious alright....

BQQ

Yahew wrote: »

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.

There was no break-in. Glass was broken from the inside, indicating a badly staged break-in.

Knox lived in the appartment, so the fact that her DNA and fingerprints were not present is suspicious itself. There's no way you can live somewhere and not leave a trace of DNA or a fingerprint. It's reasonable to assume the place was thoroughly cleaned to remove any trace of her.

There's much more, but as Biggins posted, it's all in the previous thread.

nagirrac

If Knox was there and participated why did she finger Lumumba (who she worked for) and not Guede (who she barely knew)? Sounds a classic case of police suggestion, suspect confusion and disorientation during interrogation.
Both Knox and Sallicido told a consistent story for 3 days that they were together all night in his apartment. Their respective stories only changed after Lumumba's name was introduced by the police. It is common practice to turn suspects on each other, Sallicido was the first to break throwing Knox under the bus (she left the apartment for a few hours), and then Knox had her "vision" of hearing Lumumba kill Meredith.
The forensic evidence has all been discredited during the appeal. Anyone with a scientific background would nor accept this evidence, but the mere mention of DNA evidence to a jury is often enough.
If Guede did not act alone, why did he not finger Knox and Sallicido at his original trial but only later at his appeal to get his sentence reduced?
If in doubt, apply Occam's Razor

Jess16

The only concrete evidence is that the Italian authorities were grossly negligent in their treatment of the case. They're panicking now and are under pressure to get the case wrapped up to avoid further international embarrassment and scrutiny of their inadequacies.

A lawful result is of no importance in the homeland of the mafia whereas finding a deemed culprit for a heinous crime is -regardless of whether said 'culprit' is innocent or guilty

LH Pathe

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.

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.

They do. keep in mind such deranged sex games are perfectly normal amidst the freedoms of the west in the 21st century. particularly in the states as a social means so until she's proven guilty, in her parents' eyes she is an angel. and she is indeed innocent, until proven guilty.. and I'm not suggesting the little law abiding priviledged little american college girl tainted a corner of Italy with her culture, but the mind does wander.

Gives a whole new perspective to "I'm a good girl, but I can be bad too.. !"
of course you can love. But only in the confines of the bedroom. Where anything, clearly goes.

badabing106

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.

Gerry and Kate mcCann? ,Swap the "American" for the "rich British couple" and you would have a more contemporary example !


Amanda has nothing on The McCanns manipulation of the press. The mcCanns wanted a movie made! ,They had to make due with a best selling novel by Kate MccAnn

General General

She always reminds me of that joke:

Courtney Cox.

Does she?

4zn76tysfajdxp

LH Pathe wrote: »

They do. keep in mind such deranged sex games are perfectly normal amidst the freedoms of the west in the 21st century.

Gives a whole new perspective to "I'm a good girl, but I can be bad too.. !"
of course you can love. But only in the confines of the bedroom. Where anything, clearly goes.

Thanks for that. Saves me buying the Daily Mail in the morning.

Wompa1

Case Wonderful Refund wrote: »

Thanks for that. Saves me buying the Daily Mail in the morning.

Your so old fashioned! Women of this generation are sexual beings. I say let them explore their sexuality by murdering people..if you don't let them you are sexist!

LH Pathe

Case Wonderful Refund wrote: »

Thanks for that. Saves me buying the Daily Mail in the morning.

forgot to add anyone. anyone, and everyone. one big er - love-in but ts not hard to appear a culture snob in these times frada.. was interpreted as scum of the earth in 88 .. Before even Britain saw it fit to drop the word Great

or at least wonder where it's gone. To the dogs, I say, the dogs.