Amanda Knox

Giblet · 06-10-2011 4:31pm

jcf wrote: »

Again people see lack of evidence as 100% PROOF of innocence !!!

You see the same as 100% proof of guilt apparently...

jcf · 06-10-2011 4:33pm

humanji wrote: »

Guilty until proven innocent and then probably guilty anyway?

of course not,

do you think OJ was innocent too ?

or MJ ?

humanji · 06-10-2011 4:45pm

jcf wrote: »

of course not,

do you think OJ was innocent too ?

or MJ ?

Are either of them Amanda Knox?

jcf · 06-10-2011 4:55pm

humanji wrote: »

Are either of them Amanda Knox?

Yes actually they both are ....

**** off you twat

mod: poster banned.

jonnyfingers · 06-10-2011 4:56pm

jcf wrote: »

Proven how ?

Knox was not present at the crime scene before 9:30pm Cell phone towers logged phone calls at her boyfriends house. There was computer activity also.

I just read the conclusion of the report. It really is worth a read. The decision is purely based on speculation about what could have happened. Nearly all evidence is circumstantial and could be interpreted either way. What's more the time of deat is very inaccurate and could have occurred as early as 9:30pm which would all but rule out Knox as complicit.

There are definited questions and incosistencies in her story but at the same time I can't see enough evidence to definitely prove she's guilty. I'm amazed they were willing to take a chance on the evidence and give her 26 years in prison.

It's a complex case of which only Rudy Guede looks really guilty. I'm glad she got aquitted but it should have been due to lack of evidence. There isn't enough to prove of disprove her guilt from what I can see.

KeithM89_old · 06-10-2011 5:01pm

jcf wrote: »

Yes actually they both are ....

**** off you twat

Watch your potty mouth young man...

Banned

nagirrac · 06-10-2011 6:00pm

Giruilla wrote: »

I wonder how many people who have commented in the thread and voted in the poll have read the full judges report from the first trial, and not just the information supplied to them by the media? ie short, easy to understand, concise paragraphs that don't take 10 pages or so to read through.

Thats not true. In the Italian appeals process, only the weakest evidence is treated, not the whole case.

Sorry, I believe you are wrong. The appeal court reviews the entire case. I believe I read they reviewed 10,000 documents, many of which are not public. They review and discuss the case as they go along, they had plenty time for this as the appeal started in December.

The judge decides what evidence is "re-examined" at the appeal, this would typically be the strongest evidence not the weakest evidence. In this case the judge chose the eyewitnesses who "saw" Knox and Sallicido and the DNA evidence. This was the only "hard" evidence from the original trial, the rest is speculation. Both eyewitness and DNA evidence was rubbished at the appeal, I am sure this led the jury to think long and hard about the other "evidence" in the Massei report.

Giruilla · 06-10-2011 6:33pm

nagirrac wrote: »

Sorry, I believe you are wrong. The appeal court reviews the entire case. I believe I read they reviewed 10,000 documents, many of which are not public. They review and discuss the case as they go along, they had plenty time for this as the appeal started in December.

The judge decides what evidence is "re-examined" at the appeal, this would typically be the strongest evidence not the weakest evidence. In this case the judge chose the eyewitnesses who "saw" Knox and Sallicido and the DNA evidence. This was the only "hard" evidence from the original trial, the rest is speculation. Both eyewitness and DNA evidence was rubbished at the appeal, I am sure this led the jury to think long and hard about the other "evidence" in the Massei report.

I'm not gonna lie.. I'm only saying that based on what I read on bbc news, and a few other news websites. They seemed pretty sure that that was the case.
Do you have any links to back up what you say about the judges deciding what evidence is to be re-examined and also that the entire case from the first trial was re-reviewed in the appeal court?

nagirrac · 06-10-2011 6:51pm

Giruilla wrote: »

I'm not gonna lie.. I'm only saying that based on what I read on bbc news, and a few other news websites. They seemed pretty sure that that was the case.
Do you have any links to back up what you say about the judges deciding what evidence is to be re-examined and also that the entire case from the first trial was re-reviewed in the appeal court?

I have to admit I base my opinion on what I have also read, mainly from bloggers who have covered the appeal in detail and have been inside the courtroom, and appear to understand the Italian system well. I have read pro and anti guilt blogs and websites.

I am open to correction but what strongly leads me to defend my position is the decision on the "staged break-in". This was not re-examined in the appeal, but the jury still found that no such crime (interfering with a crime scene) existed. IMO they could not reach this conclusion without a thorough review of the evidence from the first trial.

Thrill · 06-10-2011 7:25pm

KILLER OF MEREDITH KERCHER'S CRIMES WERE IGNORED

Amanda Knox was found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher
Monday April 19,2010

LAWYERS appealing against the murder conviction of Amanda Knox have been told they can’t use shocking new evidence.

It reveals the third person convicted of killing British student Meredith Kercher had committed six serious crimes over 33 days before the killing.
But robberies carried out by small-time drug dealer Rudy Guede were ignored by Italian authorities, raising suspicions that he was a police informer.

Even Giuliano Mignini, who prosecuted Knox, 22, and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 25, says Guede should have been in jail when Meredith, 21, from Coulsdon, Surrey, was killed in Perugia, Italy, in November 2007.

But he will still ask the Appeal Court to raise jail terms Knox and Sollecito received of 26 years, four months, and 25 years to life.

Chris Mellas, Knox’s step father, said Italian law regarded Guede’s crimes as “part of a separate case”. He added: “It is bizarre because it is an important aspect of the overall story.”

Instead, the defence will focus on the accuracy of forensic tests, in particular the contentious DNA and methods used by police to obtain a confession from Knox.

Guede’s 30-year jail term was cut on appeal to 16 years after he apologised to the Kercher family.

He originally denied Knox and Sollecito had been involved, but later changed his story to point the finger of blame at the pair.

Ellie2008 · 06-10-2011 10:07pm

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

jcf wrote: »

Again people see lack of evidence as 100% PROOF of innocence !!!

You obviously don't understand how this works. Innocent until proven guilty, if you are not proven guilty, then you are innocent.

Same basic concept of judicial systems all over the world

That's legal speak though the standard is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which is avery high standard as it should be, doesn't mean you re not guilty it means the high standard hasn't been satisfied. I'm not really sure of anything in this case but AK has a lot of questions to answer. I though the way she was welcomed in America lacked any sensitivity for the victim's family. I hope she stays out of the limelight the Kerchers have enough to deal with.

Tayla · 06-10-2011 10:31pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I though the way she was welcomed in America lacked any sensitivity for the victim's family. I hope she stays out of the limelight the Kerchers have enough to deal with.

What do you expect, the Americans are convinced of her innocence, if she wants to be in the limelight then she should be allowed to be.

Her parents are practically bankrupt, she could be traumatised after her experience, countless people have written completely fabricated and malicious stories about her. She always loved writing herself anyway so it's inevitable that she will write a book.

Her lifes path has forever been changed due to this, she will probably receive abuse for the rest of her life for something that she didn't do.

She's not a criminal so she shouldn't have to hide herself away like one.

Ellie2008 · 06-10-2011 10:58pm

Tayla wrote: »

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I though the way she was welcomed in America lacked any sensitivity for the victim's family. I hope she stays out of the limelight the Kerchers have enough to deal with.

What do you expect, the Americans are convinced of her innocence, if she wants to be in the limelight then she should be allowed to be.

Her parents are practically bankrupt, she could be traumatised after her experience, countless people have written completely fabricated and malicious stories about her. She always loved writing herself anyway so it's inevitable that she will write a book.

Her lifes path has forever been changed due to this, she will probably receive abuse for the rest of her life for something that she didn't do.

She's not a criminal so she shouldn't have to hide herself away like one.

She did however accuse a man of murder which landed him in jail and led to the closing of his pub a crime which had a three year sentence what about him in all this? I don't think the compensation he was awarded would cover that loss.

Ak s family have some very wealthy supporters including Donald Trump,
Who can afford such fees.

I don't think anyone can say for certain if AK is guilty or innocent but she certainly didn't help het own case by the amount of times she changed her story.

The Kerchers are the most important people in this story and they have said what they referred to as the American PR machine wad difficult to deal with, at this stage wouldn't it be better they were left alone.

Tayla · 06-10-2011 11:07pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

She did however accuse a man of murder which landed him in jail and led to the closing of his pub a crime which had a three year sentence what about him in all this? I don't think the compensation he was awarded would cover that loss.

Under duress...... she accused him under duress, she was a 20 year old, who didn't speak the language very well, she had no interpreter and the Italian supreme court said that it was illegally obtained, why is that not good enough for people?

Ellie2008 wrote: »

Ak s family have some very wealthy supporters including Donald Trump,
Who can afford such fees.

Clearly he hasn't offered them anything so far because the family have mortgaged everything they own and were relying on family members to help, also why should she ask him for help? Her whole life will never be the same again, she should embrace the good along with the bad (which she will inevitably get) and decide what she herself wants to do.

Ellie2008 wrote: »

I don't think anyone can say for certain if AK is guilty or innocent but she certainly didn't help het own case by the amount of times she changed her story.

How many times was that then?

Ellie2008 wrote: »

The Kerchers are the most important people in this story and they have said what they referred to as the American PR machine wad difficult to deal with, at this stage wouldn't it be better they were left alone.

Are you serious???....what about the media campaign against Knox where prosecuters leaked lies to the papers over in Italy throughout the original trial, If the American PR machine got her out, well it was the Italian PR machine which got her locked up.

There are pictures of the prosecuters in the first trial sitting with newspaper reporters DURING the trial, laughing and joking, followed by leaks throughout the trial about her sex life etc. They tell her she has AIDS and make her list out all her partners and then they leak it to their buddies in the press and pretend she's writing sex diaries because she's a sex crazed murdering maniac!

Ellie2008 · 06-10-2011 11:22pm

I tried quoting but it's hard on the phone. The phrase the American PR machine is a phrase used by the Kerchers not me. If that is the way they feel would it not be the decent thing to do especially as the Knoxs claim the girls we friends.

I understand that there is the possibility of duress but she also changed her alibi two or three times.

You seemed 100% sure of her innocence but there are a few things that don't make sense eg when police called to the cottage they found Ak and RS standing outside and they told them they had already called the police they actually placed the call after that, the taking a shower in a bathroom with blood stains, saying she called Merideth s phone until it rung out when in fact she called it for about three seconds. I'm not saying that means she murdered the girl but how can we be certain she s told the full truth she says she was at the boyfriend s all night he says he can't be sure, how stoned would you have to be??

Lirange · 06-10-2011 11:32pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

She did however accuse a man of murder

The statement written by Italian police that she signed during the interrogation did not accuse Lumumba of murder. It simply placed him at the scene. This is what the police wanted from her at the time because they were the ones that were attempting to build a case against him. He was already a suspect before they interrogated Knox. This was before DNA testing linked the body/crime scene to Rudy Guede and before Lumumba was able to confirm an airtight alibi. There are also other bits of information floating around here that might be misleading to some that are just now familiarising themselves with the case. Amanda's "confession" during interrogation was not a confession for involvement in the murder but rather a confused confession about her whereabouts over the course of the entire night. It's also important to remember that her defence has always contended that all this came about through coercion and deprivation during interrogation. None of this was recorded which was illegal under Italian law. They attempted to subvert this by labelling it an "interview" with a possible witness (for 15 hours!) rather than questioning of a suspect ...

Tayla · 06-10-2011 11:33pm

Ellie2008 wrote: »

You seemed 100% sure of her innocence but there are a few things that don't make sense eg when police called to the cottage they found Ak and RS standing outside and they told them they had already called the police they actually placed the call after that, the taking a shower in a bathroom with blood stains, saying she called Merideth s phone until it rung out when in fact she called it for about three seconds. I'm not saying that means she murdered the girl but how can we be certain she s told the full truth she says she was at the boyfriend s all night he says he can't be sure, how stoned would you have to be??

You're completely wrong about all those so called facts.

A) They did call the police before they showed up, Raffaele first called his sister who works for the police and then the actual police.
It was the postal police who showed up while Amanda and Raffaele were outside, they were trying to return the phones that had been found in another persons garden.
Then the real police (who Raffaele had called) showed up and kicked the door down because the postal police wouldn't do it.

The amount of blood in that bathroom was miniscule

C) About the phone calls i'll have to check that up, but she did make several phone calls after, not just one.

D) The police asked Raffaele was Amanda there all night, they probably told him that they had proof that she had went home, he obviously thought that there was a reason for them thinking that, he said they were asleep so how would he know if she was there all night? How could he be 100% sure? He couldn't have...He'd known Amanda for a week, he'd been asleep, there is no possible way you can know someone is with you for the whole night if you are asleep

LH Pathe · 06-10-2011 11:36pm

longest episode of The Amanda Show I'll ever have to endure

Lirange · 06-10-2011 11:43pm

LH Pathe wrote: »

longest episode of The Amanda Show I'll ever have to endure

You would not have to "endure" anything if you would just ignore the thread. Rather for some inexplicable reason you can't help but click on it to tell the rest of us how much agony you're in from merely seeing it as a discussion topic on the AH board.

enfant terrible · 07-10-2011 12:52am

Tayla wrote: »

What do you expect, the Americans are convinced of her innocence, if she wants to be in the limelight then she should be allowed to be.

I have been surprised at the coverage actually CNN and Fox have said she should have been freed but probably was in the apartment and knows what happened to Meredith.

I thought Fox especially would be roundly supporting her.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/nancy_graces_miscarriage_of_justice_observation_goes_viral_with_alread/

nagirrac · 07-10-2011 1:45am

enfant terrible wrote: »

I have been surprised at the coverage actually CNN and Fox have said she should have been freed but probably was in the apartment and knows what happened to Meredith.

I thought Fox especially would be roundly supporting her.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/nancy_graces_miscarriage_of_justice_observation_goes_viral_with_alread/

Why in the name of God would Fox support her, they wouldn't know the truth if it punched them in the head.

truejustice.org is a scary site run by scary hateful individuals. Go to PerugliaShock.com, a blog by an Italian journalist who followed the case closely in the courtroom. He was originally netral but became more convinced of innocence as the first trial and later appeal trial went on.

Nancy Grace is a discraced former prosecutor who thinks everyone is guilty. She is where she deserves to be now on "Dancing with the Stars". She claims she has "facts" to prove Knox is guilty. Should she not share those facts with the Italians? Does she not think the appeals court consideried the "facts" before there ruled that there were no facts supporting guilt?

LH Pathe · 07-10-2011 1:47am

Lirange wrote: »

LH Pathe wrote: »

longest episode of The Amanda Show I'll ever have to endure

You would not have to "endure" anything if you would just ignore the thread. Rather for some inexplicable reason you can't help but click on it to tell the rest of us how much agony you're in from merely seeing it as a discussion topic on the AH board.

and I generally do, just can't resist a wee pokey

enfant terrible · 07-10-2011 2:00am

nagirrac wrote: »

Why in the name of God would Fox support her, they wouldn't know the truth if it punched them in the head.

truejustice.org is a scary site run by scary hateful individuals. Go to PerugliaShock.com, a blog by an Italian journalist who followed the case closely in the courtroom. He was originally netral but became more convinced of innocence as the first trial and later appeal trial went on.

Nancy Grace is a discraced former prosecutor who thinks everyone is guilty. She is where she deserves to be now on "Dancing with the Stars". She claims she has "facts" to prove Knox is guilty. Should she not share those facts with the Italians? Does she not think the appeals court consideried the "facts" before there ruled that there were no facts supporting guilt?

Bill O' Reilly is very different to Sean Hannity.

nagirrac · 07-10-2011 2:35am

enfant terrible wrote: »

Bill O' Reilly is very different to Sean Hannity.

The problem is O'Reilly had a judge on who had superficial knowledge of the case and stated that Knox was probably at the crime scene. O'Reilly concurred and said that Knox knew what happened that night.

Seriously, how do these people "know" what the court does not know? Intuition? the kind of intuition the Italian police had?

I agree O'Reilly is not as bad as Hannity but he can be a pompous ass and is frequently wrong, has guests on that are wrong, and never admits it or corrects it.

LH Pathe · 07-10-2011 4:00am

Well it's a god think Knox' box is not the crime scene in question becise it would be also difficult to ascertain the overlapping DNA of so many

Amber Lamps · 07-10-2011 4:18am

LH Pathe wrote: »

Bump

FYP

LH Pathe · 07-10-2011 4:23am

Amber Lamps wrote: »

FYP

If you were amanda knox, your username would represent people pissing on your tìts

Amber Lamps · 07-10-2011 4:43am

LH Pathe wrote: »

I love amanda but i'm just a child so i only know how to show it by being mean to her

FYP

Ellie2008 · 07-10-2011 9:04am

When she was freed I was happy for her but then I became bemused by the Kercher s press conference, they still appear to think she s guilty so I did a bit more reading of various sites and I came across the testimony of the Italian housemate amongst other things and I'm starting to think AK still hasn't given any clear answers about her whereabouts that night. All the other housemates & boys in the flat below were able to and by all account they re quite fond of weed as well. So now she says she was at RS the whole eve but he says she wasn't and he never claims to have been asleep. She also keeps referring to the victim as her friend maybe that's just her being American but the flatmate & Meredith s mother say they weren't close.

It's a bit unreasonable to say the Italian police and the forensics and the courts are all corrupt. Of course the prosecutor had a history and seems like he has a wild imagination. If Amanda had been accused in the US I'm not sure the cops there would have handled her with kid gloves.

jonnyfingers · 07-10-2011 10:16am

Ellie2008 wrote: »

When she was freed I was happy for her but then I became bemused by the Kercher s press conference, they still appear to think she s guilty so I did a bit more reading of various sites and I came across the testimony of the Italian housemate amongst other things and I'm starting to think AK still hasn't given any clear answers about her whereabouts that night. All the other housemates & boys in the flat below were able to and by all account they re quite fond of weed as well. So now she says she was at RS the whole eve but he says she wasn't and he never claims to have been asleep. She also keeps referring to the victim as her friend maybe that's just her being American but the flatmate & Meredith s mother say they weren't close.

It's a bit unreasonable to say the Italian police and the forensics and the courts are all corrupt. Of course the prosecutor had a history and seems like he has a wild imagination. If Amanda had been accused in the US I'm not sure the cops there would have handled her with kid gloves.

There are inconsistencies in her story alright. But there is also very little evidence that puts her at the crime scene or any evidence of a motivation to commit the crime.

It might not be right, or fair, but she doesn't have to prove her alibi, the prosecution have to disprove it and prove she was involved in the crime. The conviction was overturned because the prosecution could not actively do this.

Now if a crime is committed and the authorities do their job properly there should have been more than enough evidence linking her to the crime. But first off they didn't examine the body fast enough to get an accurate time of death. That's a big question mark as an accurate time of death really narrows down the search for the killer. The DNA evidence was inconclusive, the medical examination of the body did not prove beyond doubt that more than one person was involved in the murder. The eyewitness accounts that suggested Amanda Knox was lying about her alibi were also not totally reliable and still didn't place her at the scene of the crime.

Even in the court report about how they believe the murder went down they believe that Amanda and Rafael locked the door after the murder, with Amanda leaving footprints covered with blood from the bedroom to the bathroom. They then went to Rafael's house and on the way dumped the mobile phones. In the morning they went out, bought cleaning supplies and cleaned the blood-stained footprints of Amanda, but missing the one in the bathroom, and then staged a break in before calling the police. The problem is they found very little evidence to prove any of this. Surely two panicked people who had never committed a serious crime before would have made plenty of mistakes along the way for parts of this story to be proved true, yet very little was found.

So either the investigators were bad at their job, or this evidence just does not exist. Either way you can't uphold a guilty verdict without the evidence to prove the guild.

Amanda Knox

Comments