Amanda Knox

Haelium

Yahew wrote: »

There were three real victims. Kercher - killed by Guede. And Amanda Knox and bf, framed and locked up for 4 years. Two are no longer victims.

Considering the obscene performance of the Italian police, I would be sceptical of the ruling.

prinz

Yahew wrote: »

There were three real victims. Kercher - killed by Guede. And Amanda Knox and bf, framed and locked up for 4 years. Two are no longer victims.

No doubt the Kercher's will get the interviews and attention and bookdeals and film rights etc too. Oh wait no they won't.

They're already been forgotten about by some here as they celebrate the appeal verdict as if it was a soccer match. For all we know Knox and Sollecito were completely and totally innocent and had nothing to do with it, or they could have in effect gotten away lightly from their possible part in the crime because of the police investigation and prosecution. Let them slip away with dignity, just like Kercher's family have acted all along and stop trying to prolong the circus.

Creasy_bear

Knox got 3 years for slander, was it?

did she say the cops beat her when they didn't, or what?

Macha

Yahew wrote: »

There were three real victims. Kercher - killed by Guede. And Amanda Knox and bf, framed and locked up for 4 years. Two are no longer victims.

They may no longer be in jail but that doesn't mean their lives haven't been severely affected by 4 years in jail. Of course they're still alive and Kercher isn't but I wouldn't go so far as to say it'll be plain sailing for them both now.

What I can't understand is the Kercher family now saying the hunt continues to find her killer. The killer is behind bars. I understand the desire for justice on behalf of a loved one but the justice system is there to ensure it doesn't tip over into misguided vengeance.

prinz - if I were freed after being wrongly jailed for 4 years, I would be celebrating as well. Edit: Just realised you were referring to posters here.

charlemont

She should do some porn, She can go by the name Amanda Cocks.

She would be class at one of Berlusconi's Bunga Bunga parties.

Creasy_bear

Macha wrote: »

They may no longer be in jail but that doesn't mean their lives haven't been severely affected by 4 years in jail. Of course they're still alive and Kercher isn't but I wouldn't go so far as to say it'll be plain sailing for them both now.

What I can't understand is the Kercher family now saying the hunt continues to find her killer. The killer is behind bars. I understand the desire for justice on behalf of a loved one but the justice system is there to ensure it doesn't tip over into misguided vengeance.

prinz - if I were freed after being wrongly jailed for 4 years, I would be celebrating as well.

there was two killers it seems

prinz

Macha wrote: »

prinz - if I were freed after being wrongly jailed for 4 years, I would be celebrating as well.

I wasn't referring to Knox and Sollecito themselves.

Macha

Creasy_bear wrote: »

there was two killers it seems

The problem is now everything is hard to believe.The prosecutor seems a bit unhinged and the police messed up spectacularly. Why do they think there were two killers?

Tayla

prinz wrote: »

Yes, great. Christ on a bike. I can understand people thinking she should be freed and that but ffs let's try to keep things in perspective Kercher will never be at the airport to come home. Let her slip away back to her family and friends and her no doubt rewarding exclusives and bookdeals etc, but we should me mindful of who the real victims in all of this are and temper the weird triumphalism.

I've followed this story from day one, I've always been very interested in the case and convinced of her innocence so I'm allowed to be delighted to see her free, nothing weird about that.

Meredith is the victim but so were Amanda and Raffaele......Loads of people forget that, Meredith died a horrific death, having sympathy for Amanda aswell doesn't mean that people don't care about Meredith and after the first trial Amanda was supposed to be greatful that she only got 26 years because she wasn't the real victim......yes she was still alive but she was sentenced to to 26 years when she was innocent.

tightropetom

Creasy_bear wrote: »

Knox got 3 years for slander, was it?

did she say the cops beat her when they didn't, or what?

A slander conviction against Knox, for falsely accusing barman Patrick Lumumba of the murders, was upheld, but since that was a three-year sentence it was considered time served.

prinz

Tayla wrote: »

......yes she was still alive but she was sentenced to to 26 years when she was innocent.

So far. Don't forget her case could go to a higher court and she could potentially have the original sentence upheld. She'd be guilty again. Claiming to know for certain that she is 100% innocent, as opposed to having been found innocent because the prosecution couldn't present a proper case against her, are two very different things.

Wattle

prinz wrote: »

So far. Don't forget her case could go to a higher court and she could potentially have the original sentence upheld. She'd be guilty again. Claiming to know for certain that she is 100% innocent, as opposed to having been found innocent because the prosecution could present a proper case against her, are two very different things.

I'd be very surprised to see her extradited back to Italy. It's game over.

Monterrey

I didn't know much about the Amanda Knox case until last night, when my girlfriend was watching the verdict being read out on Sky News. But my first reaction was to ask her "Why does everyone care so much about this particular case?". Is it because she's a pretty, young, white, all-American girl? Surely there has been similar or worse cases in the past that haven't got a fraction of the amount of coverage that this one has? I would be grateful if anyone could provide examples of similar cases

Jess16

Tayla wrote: »

I've followed this story from day one, I've always been very interested in the case

For what it's worth, I skim over the contributions from bandwagon commentators. I'm only interested in reading the views of those who have shown interest in the case all along, yours included. It's easy to offer pearls of wisdom after the verdict has been given

prinz

Wattle wrote: »

I'd be very surprised to see her extradited back to Italy. It's game over.

Which is exactly my point. We could find out tomorrow that she was guilty as sin but she'd never really pay for it.

prinz

Jess16 wrote: »

For what it's worth, I skim over the contributions from bandwagon commentators. I'm only interested in reading the views of those who have shown interest in the case all along, yours included. It's easy to offer pearls of wisdom after the verdict has been given

You have no clue whatsoever about what interest anyone has shown in the case.

Tayla

prinz wrote: »

Which is exactly my point. We could find out tomorrow that she was guilty as sin but she'd never really pay for it.

That's the kind of system that we have to have though, you have to have evidence that stands up to scrutiny. The evidence in this trial didn't.

If you don't need solid evidence then can you imagine all the innocent people who would be locked up for crimes they didn't commit....which in turn would leave more guilty people free.

I think if she was guilty as sin then there would have to be evidence of that, How could she be guilty when none of her DNA is at the scene?

Tayla

prinz wrote: »

You have no clue whatsoever about what interest anyone has shown in the case.

Eh...how do you know?

prinz

Tayla wrote: »

That's the kind of system that we have to have though, you have to have evidence that stands up to scrutiny. The evidence in this trial didn't.

Agreed. Which is why she should head off into the sunset and live out her days and people should put it aside and remember that just as justice may have been done, it also may not have been done.

Tayla wrote: »

I think if she was guilty as sin then there would have to be evidence of that, How could she be guilty when none of her DNA is at the scene?

How could none of her fingerprints be at a scene in an apartment she supposedly lived in thats a better question. One set IIRC from the entire flat.

Wattle

Tayla wrote: »

That's the kind of system that we have to have though, you have to have evidence that stands up to scrutiny. The evidence in this trial didn't.

If you don't need solid evidence then can you imagine all the innocent people who would be locked up for crimes they didn't commit....which in turn would leave more guilty people free.

I think if she was guilty as sin then there would have to be evidence of that, How could she be guilty when none of her DNA is at the scene?

Investigating teams can start off on the wrong foot entirely and become convinced of a certain scenario. Maybe it's hard to turn back once you you get on the bandwagon. Maybe it's something to do with pride.

I wouldn't particularly pick on the Italian justice system. There have been enormous fcuk up's from other poilce forces in different jurisdictions. Example: The Barry George/Jill Dando case.

Jess16

prinz wrote: »

You have no clue whatsoever about what interest anyone has shown in the case

Posters here post in threads that are of interest to them. This has been a long-running thread frequented by very few posters. Forgive me if I favour their substantial views over sensationalist reactions

prinz

Jess16 wrote: »

Posters here post in threads that are of interest to them. This has been a long-running thread frequented by very few posters. Forgive me if I favour their substantial views over sensationalist reactions

LOL, maybe it's time you put the internet down and noticed the rest of the big wide world out there.

Jess16

prinz wrote: »

LOL, maybe it's time you put the internet down and noticed the rest of the big wide world out there.

Are you on drugs? You have 12,485 posts, I have 424 -maybe you should take your own advice!

prinz

Jess16 wrote: »

Posters here post in threads that are of interest to them. This has been a long-running thread frequented by very few posters. Forgive me if I favour their substantial views over sensationalist reactions

So you are basing your opinion of what somebody's interest in or knowledge of the case is by using one nine day old thread?

Tayla

prinz wrote: »

Agreed. Which is why she should head off into the sunset and live out her days and people should put it aside and remember that just as justice may have been done, it also may not have been done.

Amanda was demonised in books and stories, so many people fabricated stories and made a quick buck without suffering at all. Amanda has spent 4 years in jail, her lifes path has forever been changed. It is up to her what she wants to do.

prinz wrote: »

How could none of her fingerprints be at a scene in an apartment she supposedly lived in thats a better question. One set IIRC from the entire flat.

A better question....? No I don't agree, it is impossible that she could have cleaned up her own prints and DNA and left Rudy's there...IMPOSSIBLE....

Maybe Meredith had cleaned her room expertly the day before and there were zero prints in it at all until Rudy and the 2 mystery prints ended up there?

Wattle wrote: »

Investigating teams can start off on the wrong foot entirely and become convinced of a certain scenario. Maybe it's hard to turn back once you you get on the bandwagon. Maybe it's something to do with pride.

.

It is definitely to do with pride, such a pity that Mignini's pride has now allowed Rudy to receive a much lesser sentence.
Mignini was also desperate to save his career.
I posted a video a few pages back of one of the officers who said they had the case solved before they even had any evidence. He was bragging about this.

Once they realised they were wrong they wouldn't back down and they have disrespected Merediths memory by not seeking the real truth from Rudy.

prinz

Jess16 wrote: »

Are you on drugs? You have 12,485 posts, I have 424 -maybe you should take your own advice!

Except, unlike you, I am not basing my opinion of others on how many posts they have on a certain thread, am I?

prinz

Tayla wrote: »

A better question....? No I don't agree, it is impossible that she could have cleaned up her own prints and DNA and left Rudy's there...IMPOSSIBLE.....

That's IMPOSSIBLE, but apparently it's possible to live in an apartment and leave no fingerprints anywhere? Did Meredith clean up the bloody footprints the day before too?

steve9859

Wattle wrote: »

I'd be very surprised to see her extradited back to Italy. It's game over.

Its not game over and I really hope they do appeal. Personally I believe that the police screwed up and she is as guilty as hell.

If the guilty verdict is reinstated she wont be extradited, sure, but it will certainly mean that she wont be able to make quite as many millions from book sales and celebrity appearances. I'm not sure that publishers will be quite so keen to touch a convicted murderer, and sales certainly wouldn't be as high. And she would spend the rest of her life looking over her shoulder.

Tayla

prinz wrote: »

That's IMPOSSIBLE, but apparently it's possible to live in an apartment and leave no fingerprints anywhere? Did Meredith clean up the bloody footprints the day before too?

If her fingerprints are not there and Rudys and Merediths are then the apartment must have been cleaned before the murder.

Which footprints are you referring to? The actual bloody footprint which was on the mat? or the footprints which showed up under luminol? Luminol results can be inaccurate and can be the result of loads of other things, not just blood.

dr.bollocko

Jess16 wrote: »

Are you on drugs? You have 12,485 posts, I have 424 -maybe you should take your own advice!

prinz wrote: »

LOL, maybe it's time you put the internet down and noticed the rest of the big wide world out there.

Cut out the sniping lads. We can discuss just as easily without the personal stuff.