Amanda Knox

Mensch Maschine

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?

Did she produce any evidence that the evidence was destroyed?

Fixed

Yahew

* 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?

Lord, you would be a prime apologist for a police State. The whole confession was illegal, as decided by the Supreme Court. If Knox has decided from the beginning to implicate her boss she would have done it lawyered up at the start. She signed the illegally obtained confession at 5AM. Clearly she was bullied, and didnt really know what she was saying. I believe the confession also implicated her.

The prosecution wanted to arrest that guy, when it didn't work and the DNA didnt match, they went for Guede. On him there was no detective work at all, his DNA was everywhere and was on record. In a world without DNA, Guede would not even have been a suspect, and Mignini - who has been jailed already for for abuse of power ( and shouldn't be working in my view) would have found some occult practice in someone else had Knox had an cast iron alibi.

There was no DNA from Knox in the murder room. She wasn't there. The middle-aged fantasy of Evil Twenty Year old Witches in Sex OCcult Murders with Evil Eyes, that needs to stop now.

Thrill

Mensch Maschine wrote: »

Did she produce any evidence that the evidence was destroyed?

Fixed

It's the police themselves who say the tapes do not exist.

jill_valentine

Good Guardian piece on the portrayal and perception of Amanda Knox:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/amanda-knox-facial-expressions

A Primal Nut

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?

Most of the evidence got from police interviews is not used against her in the judges report so it seems they dismissed it. The fact that nothing was recorded and the fact that they released lies to the media (things which have been proven to be lies) removes any doubt about the police's behavior.

1) They told her she had AIDS and encouraged her to make a list of her sexual partners for medical reasons. They then gave this list to the media and told them she is a sex-crazed maniac. I believe her regarding this - why the hell would anyone make a random list of their sexual partners and show the police?

2) They took all her clothes for forensic purposes (they don't deny that) and then she went with Raffaele Sollecito to buy underwear. The police told the media they were buying sexy lingerie in the aftermath of her friend being murdered. Therefore they said she is a sex-crazed maniac.

3) Its also known the interrogations were up to 12 hours at a time. The police haven't denied that. Interrogating for 12 hours at night counts as sleep deprivation in my book - what else are they capable of?

4) If they had nothing to hide they would have recorded the confessions as required by law.

5) With regard to the Lumumba accusation she wrote a note the very next day (before Lumumba's alibi was known) saying that the story she signed seemed unreal to her. She alleges that the police told her that Sollecito told them she left the apartment (Sollecito denies this he said this) and that they had evidence that she and Lumumba were at the house (again not true). She believed the police and so starting doubting her own memory and is clearly very confused but ultimately she says it is unreal to her. It reads like someone who is exhausted, confused and psychologically broken down by hours of tough questioning. The fact she wrote that the Lumumba story was unreal to her before Lumumba's alibi became known about, shows she wasn't covering her own tracks.

6) The police said that Knox and Sollecito were happy and smiling while kissing. The video proves otherwise - they are a young couple in love consoling each other:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0sgA8xWXQc8

Inappropriate and immature, yes but they are aged 20 and 23. It's nothing to be suspicious about.

These are all reasons to trust her over the police in my opinion. Many, many more to go along with that.

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?

If escaping punishment was her end goal, she would have flown back to America when her parents advised her to. Instead she stayed because she wanted to help with the investigation. She hasn't got any evidence the police did these things - what kind of evidence would you expect? The fact police repeatedly lied to the media (as I discussed in the six points above) is enough for me to believe her.

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?

The police lied to her, she panicked, and under duress she changed her story to accommodate these "facts" (which were actually lies told by the police). The police used every trick in the book to convince her to change her story and then used the fact she changed her story against her. This is a good example of why even innocent people should exercise their right to remain silent.

She has been found very wanting for a bit of truth - in fact not enough truth to actually find her innocent but convicted guilty.

There is nothing to contradict the story her defence gave in the trial.
Her original statement made in the aftermath of the murder has mostly being backed up by evidence except for a minute details regarding the time she ate dinner, etc. Something few people would remember. Given that the police are clearly a joke, I will believe her over them when it comes to her accusations of cruel interrogations.

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!

Actually the evidence proves she wasn't at the crime scene. The prosecution alleged that a sex orgy took place followed by multiple stabbings. Thus there should be plenty of skin, blood, sweat, fingerprints, etc at the crime scene. Guede's was found all over the crime scene. What was found belonging to Knox? Absolutely nothing.

Common sense says it is impossible to engage in a lengthy sex orgy followed by stabbing someone to death with the victim's blood everywhere and not leave any forensic evidence behind. Its also impossible to clean up your own DNA and leave somebody else's.

The evidence proves she wasn't at the crime scene during the alleged sex orgy and stabbing; so she was released. Everything else is irrelevant once you know she wasn't at the crime scene. She didn't get off on a technicality.

All this stuff about conflicting evidence, etc only seems suspicious if you come from the assumption she is guilty. If you come from the assumption that she is innocent it seems normal behavior for a naive, immature 20 year old caught up in an awful situation which very few people here know what its like to be involved in.

All this circumstantial evidence and co-incidences seem like a lot - but really they can be summarized as immaturity on behalf of Knox and Sollecito; and terrible police work on behalf of the police.

parker kent

jill_valentine wrote: »

Good Guardian piece on the portrayal and perception of Amanda Knox:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/amanda-knox-facial-expressions

I was going to mention that article as well. Some really good points in the article about trial by media and the role her looks and nationality played.

The best parts are these:

Little about Knox's behaviour during that time matched how the investigators imagined a wrongfully accused woman should conduct herself. She appeared too cool and calm, they said – and yet also, it seems, oddly libidinous. One policeman said she "smelled of sex", and investigators were particularly disturbed by a video that first appeared on YouTube, shortly after the investigation began, which showed Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in each other's arms outside the cottage in which Kercher was murdered, as the investigation proceeded inside.

In fact, the video is anything but sexy. Knox, looking wan and dazed, exchanges chaste kisses with Sollecito, who rubs her arm consolingly. But the police professed shock. "Knox and Sollecito would make faces, kiss each other, while there was the body of a friend in those conditions," tutted Monica Napoleoni, head of Perugia's murder squad. A detective said he complained to Knox when she sat on Sollecito's lap, describing her behaviour as "inappropriate". Knox later explained to Rolling Stone magazine, via an intermediary, that she had been pacing up and down when Sollecito pulled her on to his knees to comfort her. The only strange thing about this is that an explanation for simple physical affection became necessary.

The Italian police's overheated interpretation of Knox's behaviour was a particularly pungent manifestation of a universal trait, one that frequently leads criminal investigators and juries astray: overconfidence in our ability to read someone else's state of mind simply by looking at them. This is not a uniquely modern error, born of pop psychology books. Shakespeare was wary of it. In Macbeth, he has Duncan remark how hard it is "to find the mind's construction in the face". It's a warning that law enforcement officers often seem unable, or unwilling, to heed.

Amanda Knox wasn't able to communicate her thoughts and feelings directly, either to the police or to the wider public. Her Italian, at the time of the murder, was poor, and her arraignment meant that she couldn't speak to the media. But there were plenty of pictures to go on. There was, therefore, an even greater emphasis on her expressions and physical behaviour than there would normally be in such a situation, right from the beginning.

This focus on the superficial shaped not just Knox's fortunes in the original trial, but her reputation around the world. Italian prosecutors were quick to leak stories about Knox doing cartwheels while in custody, because they knew the image, even if only imagined, would lead people to conclude that she was guilty. When the press published pictures of Knox with a smile on her face, readers around the world reacted the same way: no innocent person accused of a crime would behave like this. An Italian friend of Kercher's, Giacomo Silenzi, was widely quoted: "Her eyes didn't seem to show any sadness, and I remember wondering if she could have been involved." The tape of Knox embracing Sollecito was played over and over, often with a commentary suggesting there was something odd or distasteful about it.

It is astonishing how quick we are to draw conclusions about how a person ought to look or behave in circumstances we haven't ourselves even come close to experiencing. How many of us have returned to our home after a night away to discover that our flatmate has been brutally murdered? How many of us can know what it feels like to be at the sharp end of a punishing interrogation, in a foreign country, carried out by men in uniform who seem absolutely convinced that they know what happened, who are as certain as we are confused, fearful and exhausted? None of us. And yet we feel free to blithely pronounce, from a great distance, on whether someone in this situation is "acting weird" or not.

Our unwillingness to devote much effort to understanding how others might actually think or feel is exemplified by the popular assumption that Knox's initial admission to police that she had been present at the scene of the murder, and her false implication of the bartender, Diya "Patrick" Lumumba, revealed a guilty conscience. "She lied!" declared her critics, slamming the collective gavel in condemnation. But of course we know, empirically, that under the extreme duress of an intense interrogation, a terrified person will say almost anything the police want them to say. Quite apart from falsely implicating others, people will falsely implicate themselves.

The Innocence Project is an American organisation devoted to exonerating those wrongfully convicted of serious crimes, frequently murder, by using DNA evidence. Of the 250 people they have successfully exonerated, a quarter had confessed under interrogation (Knox has indicated an interest in working for the Innocence Project, now she is free). Because we find it hard to imagine that we might do the same, we assume that others wouldn't do it either: a confession is still regarded by lawyers as the nuclear weapon of evidence, the one thing that, even in the absence of physical evidence, can guarantee conviction.

AudreyHepburn

I'm not sure what to make of Amanda Knox to be honest.

Some of the things she said and did during the investigation just don't add up. Why for instance would she implicate a completely innocent man. And how could have had a shower and missed the blood all over the apartment...not to mention Meredith's body?

I know there is no admissable evidence to implicate her but I still think she knows more than she let on.

Yahew

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not sure what to make of Amanda Knox to be honest.

Some of the things she said and did during the investigation just don't add up. Why for instance would she implicate a completely innocent man. And how could have had a shower and missed the blood all over the apartment...not to mention Meredith's body?

I know there is no admissable evidence to implicate her but I still think she knows more than she let on.

We've been through all of this. Read the thread. None of what you said is accurate.

AudreyHepburn

Yahew wrote: »

We've been through all of this. Read the thread. None of what you said is accurate.

Isn't it? Did she not accuse her boss of killing Meredith? Did she not claim to have had a shower and not noticed anything amiss? Did she not behave oddly in the days after the murder?

Am I not allowed to give my opinion just because it's been said already?

Yahew

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Isn't it? Did she not accuse her boss of killing Meredith? Did she not claim to have had a shower and not noticed anything amiss? Did she not behave oddly in the days after the murder?

Am I not allowed to give my opinion just because it's been said already?

You are supposed to read the thread. Thats in every forum charter. Otherwise threads go in circles.

AudreyHepburn

Yahew wrote: »

You are supposed to read the thread. Thats in every forum charter. Otherwise threads go in circles.

Yes teacher :rolleyes:

Look instead of cocky and dismissive why don't you help me by linking me to posts which explain the points I raised?

A Primal Nut

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'm not sure what to make of Amanda Knox to be honest.

Some of the things she said and did during the investigation just don't add up. Why for instance would she implicate a completely innocent man.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/08/amanda-knox-facial-expressions

The police; who were used to interrogating mafia suspects, broke her down until she signed off that Lumumba killed Meredith. She withdrew the allegation in a confused note the next day. I would like to see you withstand that interrogation and not sign. It shows more about the police's determination to convict based on their instincts rather than anything to do with Amanda Knox. Lumumba is lucky he had a watertight alibi or we would have also found himself wrongly convicted and in prison.

And how could have had a shower and missed the blood all over the apartment...not to mention Meredith's body?

Sorry to be mean, but you obviously haven't done even the most basic research. Its accepted by all sides that Meredith's body was found in her locked bedroom.

Also, there wasn't blood all over the apartment. Only in Meredith's room and a small amount in the bathroom sink. She noticed it after the shower as far as I remember and that's why she started to be suspicious, although she initially thought it might be related to menstrual problems.

Tayla

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Isn't it? Did she not accuse her boss of killing Meredith? Did she not claim to have had a shower and not noticed anything amiss? Did she not behave oddly in the days after the murder?

Am I not allowed to give my opinion just because it's been said already?

You said that 'some of the things she said and did don't add up' that's what you're basing your opinion on, those things do add up.

The prosectution and media during the first trial would have had every believe that Amanda had a shower in a bathroom which was full of blood, blood everywhere, it wasn't true...most people would miss it.

She didn't behave oddly as far as I'm concerned, the police said she did but I don't think what they described is odd at all. Loads of people would react the way she did. What's normal behaviour exactly in times of grief and stress? some people don't take it in and act like nothings changed, some people are hysterical, some people go into self descructive mode, Bare in mind that one of the investigators said that he knew without a doubt that Amanda and Raffaele had did it when he saw them 3 days later eating a pizza....yes eating a bloody pizza.....wow that's strange behaviour alright!!

Amanda didn't do anything that odd at all. The way some people go on about her 'strange' behaviour you'd swear she was going around stapling her ears to the walls and painting her windows......:rolleyes:

nagirrac

A more interesting question now is why do so many people still believe Knox and Sallicido are guilty. Over 40% of the respondents to this thread's survey believe she is guilty of murder (not that there is doubt).
This is known as "confirmation bias" where we only accept data that confirms our original view and cannot consider data that contradicts it. It is an interesting human trait, proven over and over again. It is very difficult for people to change their viewpoint regardless of how much contradictory evidence is produced.

youcrazyjesus!

After seeing her choice of Halloween costume I'm leaning more towards guilty. There is something very seriously and deeply wrong with you if you are her and think it'd be fun to dress as a burglar on the 4th anniversary of the murder 5 minutes after you're released from prison. There is something very sociopathic about that choice. Very, very odd. Particulary if you can accept that somebody close to her would have warned her in advance about the costume. It might seem like a small thing to some people but to me it's an utterly insane choice to make. It's deliberately provocative...why?

Millicent

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

After seeing her choice of Halloween costume I'm leaning more towards guilty. There is something very seriously and deeply wrong with you if you are her and think it'd be fun to dress as a burglar on the 4th anniversary of the murder 5 minutes after you're released from prison. There is something very sociopathic about that choice. Very, very odd. Particulary if you can accept that somebody close to her would have warned her in advance about the costume. It might seem like a small thing to some people but to me it's an utterly insane choice to make. It's deliberately provocative...why?

Oh, well that just proves it then.

I dressed up as Sally from The Nightmare Before Christmas for Halloween; doesn't mean I'm about to start stitching and un-stitching my own limbs.

To be honest, it's not a very cat burglary costume. Looks more like a French dude. How many cat burglars wear a football scarf?

Johro

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

After seeing her choice of Halloween costume I'm leaning more towards guilty.

Lost me there.

Yahew

Johro wrote: »

Lost me there.

there is no evidence again her but she wore a halloween costume so that proves her guilt, burn the witch!

Millicent

Yahew wrote: »

there is no evidence again her but she wore a halloween costume so that proves her guilt, burn the witch cat burglar!

They were all out of witches' costumes.

youcrazyjesus!

Millicent wrote: »

Oh, well that just proves it then.

I dressed up as Sally from The Nightmare Before Christmas for Halloween; doesn't mean I'm about to start stitching and un-stitching my own limbs.

To be honest, it's not a very cat burglary costume. Looks more like a French dude. How many cat burglars wear a football scarf?

Missing the point completely.

youcrazyjesus!

Yahew wrote: »

there is no evidence again her but she wore a halloween costume so that proves her guilt, burn the witch!

Admit it, it's a bizarre choice.

Millicent

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Missing the point completely.

Not really. I did say it didn't really look like a cat burglar costume. How is that missing the point?

ETA:

Comments on this picture here say she is dressed as "Roger Levesque of the Seattle Sounders soccer team." Fits with my question about the sports' scarf.

Seems plausible, given his appearance.

youcrazyjesus!

Seems unlikely to me. The costume looks very much like the thing people are perceiving it to be.

youcrazyjesus!

Johro wrote: »

Lost me there.

It's quite easy to follow really whether you agree or not. Can't help you there mate.

humanji

How in god's name does that look like a burglar?

Snakeblood

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Seems unlikely to me. The costume looks very much like the thing people are perceiving it to be.

Are you essentially saying that it looks like the thing you think it looks like here?

For what it's worth, I think it does look cat burglary. On the other hand, I don't think it's quite the same as dressing as a murderer. If she'd been acquitted of breaking into houses, then I'd think 'yeah, that's poor taste' but then if she had, we wouldn't still be talking about it.

Snakeblood

humanji wrote: »

How in god's name does that look like a burglar?

It's a bit like a french cat burglar. In my head, the type that Clouseau is trying to stop taking the Pink Panther (WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY A DIAMOND). with the curly mustache and all.

Millicent

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Seems unlikely to me. The costume looks very much like the thing people are perceiving it to be.

It's Roger Levesque. Did I not already clear this up for you?

fran oconnor

Looks more like a joker to me, i think people are going a little ott with this now.

youcrazyjesus!

Millicent wrote: »

It's Roger Levesque. Did I not already clear this up for you?

I disagree, did you not see my post.