Amanda Knox

Lirange

This is an excellent read and demonstrates how the case was a farce from the beginning.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/11134/

Paparazzo

And here's a reason why the Daily Mail should be banned from AH

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/10/mailonline-makes-up-events-quotes-from.html

TL;DR:
Mail had a story ready for both appeal outcomes. However, on their website they accidently posted up the wrong one! Complete with quotes.

TheyKnowMyIP

I hope she can regain her reputation following this. It's crazy to think people will judge her based on nothing more than superstition. The onus of proof lies on these people to prove she killed her, not on her to disprove their wild claims.

Da Shins Kelly

Wibbs wrote: »

Something happened that night and a young woman was murdered. IMHO she and her ex BF know more than they've let on so far. Did she kill her housemate? I dunno, but I'm convinced she was more involved than she claims. Even if that extends to the attempted cover up afterwards.

She definitely knows something. The whole case stinks, there's something not right about it at all. She was definitely involved in some way.

TheyKnowMyIP

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

She definitely knows something. The whole case stinks, there's something not right about it at all. She was definitely involved in some way.

You can't prove it though. Therefore, the conviction does not stand. It's the best we have given the insufficient evidence. Don't forget, murder cases are indictable offences, so there is a possibility she could be reinvestigated at any point over the remainder of her life.

--Kaiser--

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

She definitely knows something. The whole case stinks, there's something not right about it at all. She was definitely involved in some way.

If you are so sure, then prove it. Or at least have some compelling arguments

--Kaiser--

Wibbs wrote: »

Against all that stands the lack of DNA evidence, the lack of murder weapon(there may have been two which is of concern as it suggests a second assailant) and the well dodgy interrogation by the Italian police without lawyers or translator.
.

There, you said it. All so-called 'circumstantial evidence' and questionable confessions (given under alleged duress) can be discarded because there is no evidence that Knox or her BF were there. It's not possible to remove DNA of two people and leave DNA evidence of another person. The original trial was a disgrace as she had been tried by the media beforehand. The whole prosecution case was a fairy-story cooked up by dodgy Italian police, no more

xalot

tiny_penguin wrote: »

I do feel a bit bad for Sollecito in all of this. All the focus is on Amanda and he has been just as wronged as her. All the hype is about poor her and he is always just mentioned in a sidenote. Also if they used his statement that he was unable to confirm her wherabouts then surely that would mean that the police believed him to be home all night? So why was he implicated?

His DNA was initially believed to be on Meridith's bra strap but this evidence was ruled out (because the bra wasn't bagged until 47 days later and could have been contaminated).

I feel sorry for him (if he's innocent) cos he's the one who is still living in Italy where I dont think he's very well regarded.

Tayla

previous user wrote: »

And doing cartwheels in the police station afterwards and sidesplits, what normal person acts like that after a murder, not a sane person thats for sure.

With all we know about people and their quirks and their reaction to shock you would think people would accept that sometimes people do inappropriate things, some people laugh when told about deaths of family members etc.

previous user wrote: »

I do feel a bit bad for Sollecito in all of this. All the focus is on Amanda and he has been just as wronged as her. All the hype is about poor her and he is always just mentioned in a sidenote. Also if they used his statement that he was unable to confirm her wherabouts then surely that would mean that the police believed him to be home all night? So why was he implicated?

They believed Amanda was involved, he was her alibi but then they were convinced that the bloody footprint belonged to him, they had no DNA evidence of Amanda being in the room where Meredith was killed but they thought they did with Raffaele, they believed between the 2 of them they would have enough evidence to convict them....(which they did at the trial) even though all the evidence was flawed.

jcf

Why would she accuse someone else of doing this ????


why ???


Imagine you were wrongly accused of murder, you would be so
busy protesting your own innocence you wouldn't think of implicating
someone else - unless they were involved - but to implicate someone
completely innocent ?? -- this is a huge clue for me.

Also how she originally reacted when she was convicted, she seemed too calm, if she really was innocent i can imagine she would have broken down..


Again like the OJ simpson trial, the actual murders weren't the issue during the appeal, it was how the cops handled it ...


a shame, cos most likely a murderer is walking free and will make a fortune in the US over this - still as i said before she needs to live with this..

Tayla

This has been mentioned a few times in this thread but worth another mention for the benefit of all those convinced Amanda must be guilty.

Since the war in Italy there has been over 4 MILLION judicial errors and unjust detentions.

50% of all convictions in Italy are overturned or greatly reduced on appeal.

Still have faith in the Italian judicial system?

Giblet

jcf wrote: »

Why would she accuse someone else of doing this ????


why ???

Coerced into doing so by dubious means

Imagine you were wrongly accused of murder, you would be so
busy protesting your own innocence you wouldn't think of implicating
someone else - unless they were involved - but to implicate someone
completely innocent ?? -- this is a huge clue for me.

That's a huge clue for you? what about all the DNA evidence? That's a small clue for you?

Also how she originally reacted when she was convicted, she seemed too calm, if she really was innocent i can imagine she would have broken down..

Amateur psychology hour it seems!

Again like the OJ simpson trial, the actual murders weren't the issue during the appeal, it was how the cops handled it ...

The cops handled the lack of evidence against so tried to throw a bunch of other crap into the fray.

a shame, cos most likely a murderer is walking free and will make a fortune in the US over this - still as i said before she needs to live with this..

It's more likely she didn't do anything, you know, given the actual evidence?

Tayla

jcf wrote: »

Why would she accuse someone else of doing this ????


why ???

This has been answered a hundred times, she said it under duress, she had no solicitor, no interpreter, she had been in Italy for 2 months and didn't really know much Italian, she was interrogated by dozens of officers at the one time for hours and hours, they hit her and told her she'd spend 30 years in prison for protecting Patrick Lumumba (they were the ones that suggested he was the killer first)

They then told her to imagine what would have happened if she had been in the house and Patrick Lumumba was there killing Meredith, she did this when she was exhausted and they took that portion and used it as a confession that she'd been at the house and that Patrick Lumumba had killed Meredith.

These officers are crazy, FBI agents would break under that pressure, these people are used to interrogating Mafia members, how could Amanda withstand that?

prinz

jcf wrote: »

Again like the OJ simpson trial, the actual murders weren't the issue during the appeal, it was how the cops handled it .....

OJ was innocent man. The victim of a withchunt and dodgy police.

Tayla

Paparazzo wrote: »

And here's a reason why the Daily Mail should be banned from AH

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/10/mailonline-makes-up-events-quotes-from.html

TL;DR:
Mail had a story ready for both appeal outcomes. However, on their website they accidently posted up the wrong one! Complete with quotes.

I accept that they already had the 2 stories made up, it's normal practice....they said they gathered the quotes in advance, now that's bull****, the quote from the prosecuter saying that it was sad that 2 young people would now spend a long time in jail was copied from something Merediths brother said after the first conviction! You're not fooling anyone Dailymail

sbsquarepants

prinz wrote: »

OJ was innocent man. The victim of a withchunt and dodgy police.

Off topic, but here goes anyway.....

OJ was originaly considered for the role of the terminator in the first movie, but the studio rejected him because they said he was too nice to be taken seriously as a cold blooded killer!
Foxy Knoxy for terminator 4 - you heard it here first folks:D

The girl is innocent, there's not a shred of hard evidence to say otherwise. Circumstantial evidence should be renamed "lack of evidence" To suggest a 19 year old girl, with an umblemished record and her equally unblemished boyfriend, slaughtered an innocent girl for sexual kicks, then forensicaly cleaned all traces of their dna from the scene but left their accomplaces to be found, apparently using some star trek level of technology, but then somehow forgot whose dna they had so miraculously left behind and pointed the finger at the wrong person, is nothing short of idiotic.
She's out and rightly so - she deserves to make millions from this, she was treated disgracefully.

Standard Toaster

Anyone see this...extraordinary media scrum as Raffaele Sollecito arrives home...jayus!

Wibbs

tiny_penguin wrote: »

Werent the computer hard drives wiped so that there was no evidence of any use and so they werent used at all in evidence? I cant remember where but I remember reading it.

Not according to testimony by computer experts at trial. They stated that in their opinion there was no computer activity between 9 PM and 5 AM on the night of the murder. They couldn't have made such a claim on a wiped PC. The defence didn't question this too much either(beyond a claim that his laptop may have connected for 4 seconds at midnight). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/4991577/Amanda-Knox-trial-police-cast-doubt-on-computer-alibi.html

Turing off your phone is not that unusual when wanting to be undisturbed for a night in with a new boyfriend, especially when she was originally meant to work, but her shift cancelled. She may have been worried her night would be interrupted if she was called back into work.

I'd agree with that alright.

Also as far as I recall, his statement just said that he could not confirm she stayed all night while he was asleep. Which is fairly accurate - if he was asleep he would not be able to guarantee that she never left the bed or the apartment. The question could have been posed to him that way which would mean he would have to say he couldnt confirm her alibi for the whole night.

First he said he couldn't be sure, then later claimed his memory was hazy from smoking the weed.

I do feel a bit bad for Sollecito in all of this. All the focus is on Amanda and he has been just as wronged as her. All the hype is about poor her and he is always just mentioned in a sidenote. Also if they used his statement that he was unable to confirm her wherabouts then surely that would mean that the police believed him to be home all night? So why was he implicated?

I suppose because they suspected they were in on it together when their story didn't seem to hold up on a couple of points.

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

There, you said it. All so-called 'circumstantial evidence' and questionable confessions (given under alleged duress) can be discarded because there is no evidence that Knox or her BF were there. It's not possible to remove DNA of two people and leave DNA evidence of another person. The original trial was a disgrace as she had been tried by the media beforehand. The whole prosecution case was a fairy-story cooked up by dodgy Italian police, no more

I'd go further back and say the original police forensic investigation was a disgrace. Contamination of evidence for a start and delays in collecting said evidence. A disgrace that means whoever was involved will never be fully known. Now that these two verdicts have been overturned it lays the path for Rudy Guede now serving 16 years AFAIR for the murder to launch another appeal(he's the far more likely primary suspect).

Tayla wrote: »

This has been answered a hundred times, she said it under duress, she had no solicitor, no interpreter, she had been in Italy for 2 months and didn't really know much Italian, she was interrogated by dozens of officers at the one time for hours and hours, they hit her and told her she'd spend 30 years in prison for protecting Patrick Lumumba (they were the ones that suggested he was the killer first)

Yet even after consultation with her solicitor and interpreter she lays the same story down in a 5 page deposition in english 12 hours later. Duress? Certainly a possibility, but it still seems worth questioning.

Personally I don't think she and her ex killed Meredith, but I do have the suspicion they know more than they've admitted to.

What I am 100% sure of is that the Italian police and justice system make our worst miscarriages of justice and highest levels of gobsheenism look like Sherlock Fcuking Holmes. Useless buggers. No wonder the Gomorra and Mafia have done so well over the years, never mind well dodgy governments. The corruption, gobsheenism and sheer criminality in that country on all levels of society can beggar belief at times. I've seen it for myself. Set against that are some bloody good and brave Italian men and women fighting agin it. Sadly too few of them.

Giruilla

Is it really necessary to have Jaguar in the poll? not that I wasn't in stitches laughing

prinz

Wibbs wrote: »

Set against that are some bloody good and brave Italian men and women fighting agin it. Sadly too few of them.

Even less when some of the best of them have been murdered themselves over the years, Falcone etc.

jcf

sbsquarepants wrote: »

The girl is innocent, there's not a shred of hard evidence to say otherwise. Circumstantial evidence should be renamed "lack of evidence" To suggest a 19 year old girl, with an umblemished record and her equally unblemished boyfriend, slaughtered an innocent girl for sexual kicks, then forensicaly cleaned all traces of their dna from the scene but left their accomplaces to be found, apparently using some star trek level of technology, but then somehow forgot whose dna they had so miraculously left behind and pointed the finger at the wrong person, is nothing short of idiotic.
She's out and rightly so - she deserves to make millions from this, she was treated disgracefully.

This is the problem , people see being acquitted as 100 % proof
of innocence.


So OJ is innocent too yeah ? just cos he was found 'innocent' when
as a witness at a trial for racism in the LAPD ...

:rolleyes:

Seachmall

jcf wrote: »

This is the problem , people see being acquitted as 100 % proof of innocence.

Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's not a problem in my opinion.

jill_valentine

Actually, the jury had the option to acquit based on lack of evidence. Instead, they rendered a verdict actively stating that Knox is innocent.

Innocent because the entire case against her was a crock of horse**** concocted by a lunatic prosecuter who has an obsession with satanism and form for planting evidence to railroad innocent suspects for the sake of his deranged conspiracy theories.

dr.bollocko

jcf wrote: »

This is the problem , people see being acquitted as 100 % proof
of innocence.


So OJ is innocent too yeah ? just cos he was found 'innocent' when
as a witness at a trial for racism in the LAPD ...

:rolleyes:

Is Hitler innocent?
Is superman a paedophile?
Does crap smell like roses on the moon?

Great questions all.

None of them got SFA to do with this thread though.

Thrill

Wibbs wrote: »

Not according to testimony by computer experts at trial. They stated that in their opinion there was no computer activity between 9 PM and 5 AM on the night of the murder. They couldn't have made such a claim on a wiped PC. The defence didn't question this too much either(beyond a claim that his laptop may have connected for 4 seconds at midnight). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/4991577/Amanda-Knox-trial-police-cast-doubt-on-computer-alibi.html I'd agree with that alright.

The italian computer forensic "expert" destroyed 3 out of four hard drives beyond repair while examining them.

The fact that there was no computer activity between 9 PM and 5 AM on the night of the murder only proves that there was no computer activity between 9 PM and 5 AM on the night of the murder and nothing else.

Edit: If it is a fact that is. The forensic "expert" merely says in his opinion it was not used between these times.

Just another example of putting something out there and allowing peoples imagination to run riot.

mcwhirter

Standard Toaster wrote: »

Anyone see this...extraordinary media scrum as Raffaele Sollecito arrives home...jayus!

Yes, it is interesting that he has not said much about it afterwards, unlike Knox who is a cool character by what I saw on the presser today

Tayla

Wibbs wrote: »

Not according to testimony by computer experts at trial. They stated that in their opinion there was no computer activity between 9 PM and 5 AM on the night of the murder. They couldn't have made such a claim on a wiped PC. The defence didn't question this too much either(beyond a claim that his laptop may have connected for 4 seconds at midnight).

I don't know a lot about the laptops but I had heard that the hard drives were fried when the police tried to copy them and then the defense couldn't test them independently because of that. I could be wrong there, going to look it up later.

Wibbs wrote: »

First he said he couldn't be sure, then later claimed his memory was hazy from smoking the weed.

My guess is that they convinced Raffaele that Amanda had done it and then intimidated him into admitting she might not have been there all night, I mean if you were asleep all night then you would have no proof that someone was definitely 100% there with you for the night and if the police are saying she's done it then wouldn't you think that there was a chance she did? Plus he would have known the stories about the notorious prosecuter.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yet even after consultation with her solicitor and interpreter she lays the same story down in a 5 page deposition in english 12 hours later. Duress? Certainly a possibility, but it still seems worth questioning.

But didn't she say she couldn't remember correctly and she may have imagined it, she said she couldn't ensure the validity of her statements and explained her treatment at the hands of the police, naively she thought that someone superior to them would have taken what she said in regards to her treatment into account.
She probably spoke to her solicitor but then by herself thought it would be a good idea to write a letter explaining herself, silly I know but wouldn't a guilty person have listened to her solicitors advice?

The fact that she said that she wasn't sure of what she'd said rather than just saying outright that it didn't happen was probably because her solicitor had warned her that when she made future statements not to say oh that 100% wasn't true because then they would call her a liar.

I know this is guesswork but considering she is innocent, I presume it's pretty close to what happened.

Wibbs wrote: »

What I am 100% sure of is that the Italian police and justice system make our worst miscarriages of justice and highest levels of gobsheenism look like Sherlock Fcuking Holmes. Useless buggers. No wonder the Gomorra and Mafia have done so well over the years, never mind well dodgy governments. The corruption, gobsheenism and sheer criminality in that country on all levels of society can beggar belief at times. I've seen it for myself. Set against that are some bloody good and brave Italian men and women fighting agin it. Sadly too few of them.

Completely agree, it is absolutely shocking!

Thrill

previous user wrote: »

And doing cartwheels in the police station afterwards and sidesplits, what normal person acts like that after a murder, not a sane person thats for sure.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/4863279/Amanda-Knox-did-cartwheels-and-splits-at-police-station-after-Meredith-Kercher-murder.html

A persons behavior is proof of nothing. This case in the US is a prime example....


http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2011/09/the_case_of_cynthia_sommer_ame.php

Amber Lamps

In regards to no computer activity at certain times. maybe the guy had downloaded amelie previously and watched it, thought, i bet amanda would like this movie i'll play it for her when she calls over for our date. they watch the movie on the computer which isn't connected to the internet at the time. not unheard of to do that. I know the second time i saw that movie i watched it with my other half.

or maybe she asked him to download it and he did in advance of their date.

Tayla

Amber Lamps wrote: »

In regards to no computer activity at certain times. maybe the guy had downloaded amelie previously and watched it, thought, i bet amanda would like this movie i'll play it for her when she calls over for our date. they watch the movie on the computer which isn't connected to the internet at the time. not unheard of to do that. I know the second time i saw that movie i watched it with my other half.

or maybe she asked him to download it and he did in advance of their date.

Maybe someone on here with some computer expertise could explain to us what they mean by no computer activity? Do they mean online activity? or do the experts have a way of tracking whether the computer was used offline?