Amanda Knox

Mr. Presentable · 02-11-2011 01:01PM

There was some discussion on the radio this morning.

Why did Knox say she was in Kercher's bathroom with her hands over her ears to drown out the screams? She later changed the story, but why say it in the first place? Even if she was bullied into a confession, why add a detail like that?

humanji · 02-11-2011 01:02PM

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

There was some discussion on the radio this morning.

Why did Knox say she was in Kercher's bathroom with her hands over her ears to drown out the screams? She later changed the story, but why say it in the first place? Even if she was bullied into a confession, why add a detail like that?

Because you say anything and everything under heavy interrogation.

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 01:04PM

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

There was some discussion on the radio this morning.

Why did Knox say she was in Kercher's bathroom with her hands over her ears to drown out the screams? She later changed the story, but why say it in the first place? Even if she was bullied into a confession, why add a detail like that?

Because she was being bullied into a confession? Maybe she thought it was whatever the person bullying her wanted to hear, maybe he or she suggested it so she'd repeat it back?

There's an excellent book called 'Homicide, a year on the killing streets' about things like this. Detectives who interrogate people suggest possibilities to their suspects, as if they were friends, looking out for their best interests. The suspect, thinking their new friend is looking out for them, agrees, and hey presto, a 10 stretch in the big house.

Never talk to the police. Well, not if you're a suspect. That's the rule.

Immaculate Pasta · 02-11-2011 01:05PM

She's been found innocent, let the girl get on with her life I say. :cool:

--Kaiser-- · 02-11-2011 01:07PM

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

There was some discussion on the radio this morning.

Why did Knox say she was in Kercher's bathroom with her hands over her ears to drown out the screams? She later changed the story, but why say it in the first place? Even if she was bullied into a confession, why add a detail like that?

I've emboldened the important part of your post.
The fact of the matter is that there was no DNA evidence to convict Knox but plenty to convict Guedde. Ergo all so-called 'circumstantial evidence' and dubious confessions can be discarded entirely

youcrazyjesus! · 02-11-2011 01:08PM

Snakeblood wrote: »

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.

Not follow the case? The burglary aspect to it?

For those saying yeah, it looks a bit like a burglar but or it came off looking like a burglar but that wasn't the point...you're missing the point. do a quick Google News search to see what some intelligent journalists have made of it. It's about perception. If I was her, number one on my list this Halloween, of all days, would be to keep a low profile, NOT dress like a fox or a burglar or a jailbird or anything with any connotations like that. The fact she didn't and clearly has the appearance of a cat burglar (PMSL at the soccer player suggestion BTW) says a lot about her IMO. What it says to me about her has implications for her potential for deception and guilt. I may well be wrong but that's my opinion. I'm utterly amazed nobody stopped her going out looking like that.

Giruilla · 02-11-2011 01:09PM

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

There was some discussion on the radio this morning.

Why did Knox say she was in Kercher's bathroom with her hands over her ears to drown out the screams? She later changed the story, but why say it in the first place? Even if she was bullied into a confession, why add a detail like that?

Or because she really is guilty, was panicking, and couldn't decide on a good cover story.

ejmaztec · 02-11-2011 01:10PM

It seems that the Kercher family is going to be keeping tabs on Amanda Knox for the rest of her days, and pick fault every step of the way.

youcrazyjesus! · 02-11-2011 01:10PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

I've emboldened the important part of your post.
The fact of the matter is that there was no DNA evidence to convict Knox but plenty to convict Guedde. Ergo all so-called 'circumstantial evidence' and dubious confessions can be discarded entirely

There was DNA evidence. It was eventually thrown out as unreliable but it did exist.

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 01:11PM

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Not follow the case? The burglary aspect to it?

For those saying yeah, it looks a bit like a burglar but or it came off looking like a burglar but that wasn't the point...you're missing the point. do a quick Google News search to see what some intelligent journalists have made of it. It's about perception. If I was her, number one on my list this Halloween, of all days, would be to keep a low profile, NOT dress like a fox or a burglar or a jailbird or anything with any connotations like that. The fact she didn't and clearly has the appearance of a cat burglar (PMSL at the soccer player suggestion BTW) says a lot about her IMO. What it says to me about her has implications for her potential for deception and guilt. I may well be wrong but that's my opinion. I'm utterly amazed nobody stopped her going out looking like that.

How many years at halloween should she keep a low profile if she's done nothing wrong? Also, a fox? Would you have thought to yourself 'OH SHE'S A FOX SHE DID IT?'. A fox? Really?

youcrazyjesus! · 02-11-2011 01:12PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

It seems that the Kercher family is going to be keeping tabs on Amanda Knox for the rest of her days, and pick fault every step of the way.

At the very least its extremely insensitive. Also, the judicial process with Knox isn't at an end yet.

ejmaztec · 02-11-2011 01:14PM

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

There was DNA evidence. It was eventually thrown out as unreliable but it did exist.

If it was unreliable, then it wasn't evidence, so for all intents and purposes it didn't exist.

youcrazyjesus! · 02-11-2011 01:15PM

Snakeblood wrote: »

How many years at halloween should she keep a low profile if she's done nothing wrong? Also, a fox? Would you have thought to yourself 'OH SHE'S A FOX SHE DID IT?'. A fox? Really?

Sigh. It was her nickname? Came up a lot in the media? Didn't reflect well on her? Ring any bells yet? "Foxy Knoxy"? Still nothing?

You obviously haven't followed it at all.

The answer to your first question: at least one year. Particularly as its the anniversary of the killing.

youcrazyjesus! · 02-11-2011 01:16PM

ejmaztec wrote: »

If it was unreliable, then it wasn't evidence, so for all intents and purposes it didn't exist.

Seeing as it saw her convicted in the first trial, yes it very much did.

humanji · 02-11-2011 01:20PM

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Not follow the case? The burglary aspect to it?

For those saying yeah, it looks a bit like a burglar but or it came off looking like a burglar but that wasn't the point...you're missing the point. do a quick Google News search to see what some intelligent journalists have made of it. It's about perception. If I was her, number one on my list this Halloween, of all days, would be to keep a low profile, NOT dress like a fox or a burglar or a jailbird or anything with any connotations like that. The fact she didn't and clearly has the appearance of a cat burglar (PMSL at the soccer player suggestion BTW) says a lot about her IMO. What it says to me about her has implications for her potential for deception and guilt. I may well be wrong but that's my opinion. I'm utterly amazed nobody stopped her going out looking like that.

Ah seriously. Did she dress up as a burglar and then go out hunting paparrazi so she could prance about in front of them? No, she didn't. She dressed up and someone followed her and took pictures.

As for the costume. You want it to be a burglar outfit, so that's exactly what you see. Why a burglar needs a moustache like that and a Seattle Sounders scarf is beyond me.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

At the very least its extremely insensitive. Also, the judicial process with Knox isn't at an end yet.

You ahve decided what she has dressed up as and decided it was insensitive.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Sigh. It was her nickname? Came up a lot in the media? Didn't reflect well on her? Ring any bells yet? "Foxy Knoxy"? Still nothing?

You obviously haven't followed it at all.

The answer to your first question: at least one year. Particularly as its the anniversary of the killing.

That was a nickname given to her when she was in school. It had nothing to do with her looks or anything sexual. The media picked it up to make her look like a sex pest.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Seeing as it saw her convicted in the first trial, yes it very much did.

No, it didn't. It was contaminated and should never have been used. Hence why the second trial succeeded. The whole first trial was a joke. Read up on it and you'll see that it was.

ejmaztec · 02-11-2011 01:20PM

If I had been banged up in some foreign prison for four years, and then a court of law proved that I hadn't committed a crime, then I'd be out partying to make up for lost time.

I think that the only reason that some people find AK's actions insensitive is that they still believe that she's guilty, even though the court has thrown it out.

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 01:20PM

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Sigh. It was her nickname? Came up a lot in the media? Didn't reflect well on her? Ring any bells yet? "Foxy Knoxy"? Still nothing?

You obviously haven't followed it at all.

The answer to your first question: at least one year.

I think, really that you are analysing her from the position of 'She's guilty, and look how she's behaving, that confirms her guilt'. It's not her responsibility what the media says about her when she's locked up in a prison. I'm aware of the case, but I really don't care very much. It's not a tv show or something that affects my life directly, like the economy.

The murder was 4 years ago. So next year she can go as a cat burglar? Won't people be saying 'on the fifth anniversary, she displays as little remorse as ever'?

Mr. Presentable · 02-11-2011 01:23PM

Immaculate Pasta wrote: »

She's been found innocent, let the girl get on with her life I say. :cool:

Hmmm, actually she was found guilty
then on appeal not guilty beyond reasonable doubt

But never "innocent"

Yahew · 02-11-2011 01:27PM

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Not follow the case? The burglary aspect to it?

For those saying yeah, it looks a bit like a burglar but or it came off looking like a burglar but that wasn't the point...you're missing the point. do a quick Google News search to see what some intelligent journalists have made of it. It's about perception. If I was her, number one on my list this Halloween, of all days, would be to keep a low profile, NOT dress like a fox or a burglar or a jailbird or anything with any connotations like that. The fact she didn't and clearly has the appearance of a cat burglar (PMSL at the soccer player suggestion BTW) says a lot about her IMO. What it says to me about her has implications for her potential for deception and guilt. I may well be wrong but that's my opinion. I'm utterly amazed nobody stopped her going out looking like that.

There are two problems with your post.

1) She didn't do anything so she can dress how she likes.
2) She didn't dress like a burglar ( she is wearing a fake moustache and a SCARF!! ( A SCARF!) with the TEAM's colours. Why would a cat burglar do that?).

Look the world is divided - when it comes to law ( and particularly the guilt of women) - between rational people, and witch hunters. Rationality has won a very uncertain battle over the last thousand years, but its clearly thin soup.

Regardless of all the evidence ( i.e. no DNA, or fingerprints etc.) and the lack of motive you are assuming guilt based on the way she looks, or acts, and then seeing what you want.

The ( unproven) guilty ( in your mind) girl is wearing a cat burglar's costume (which it isn't, cat burglars don't wear scarfs).

Burn The Witch.

People like you scare me. I hope you are never on a jury.

Yahew · 02-11-2011 01:29PM

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Hmmm, actually she was found guilty
then on appeal not guilty beyond reasonable doubt

But never "innocent"

Not guilty is innocent. Don't ever ever go on a jury. Call in sick.

Giruilla · 02-11-2011 01:34PM

Yahew wrote: »

Not guilty is innocent. Don't ever ever go on a jury. Call in sick.

FFS even the judge who aquitted her admitted he couldn't say she was innocent!!

SeamusFX · 02-11-2011 01:35PM

Yahew wrote: »

Not guilty is innocent. Don't ever ever go on a jury. Call in sick.

Actually, not guilty just means there wasn't enough evidence to prove she was in fact guilty. Guilty certainly means not innocent, but not guilty doesn't necessarily mean innocent! Maybe you should call in sick.

--Kaiser-- · 02-11-2011 01:36PM

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Hmmm, actually she was found guilty
then on appeal not guilty beyond reasonable doubt

But never "innocent"

No court in the world will find you innocent.
You are 'Innocent until proven guilty'
She was found 'not guilty' therefore she is innocent

youcrazyjesus! · 02-11-2011 01:37PM

humanji wrote: »

Ah seriously. Did she dress up as a burglar and then go out hunting paparrazi so she could prance about in front of them? No, she didn't. She dressed up and someone followed her and took pictures.

That's beside the point. You KNOW you will be photographed, you KNOW people will remark, you KNOW there will be controversy even if there is the perception that you're, for example, taking the piss and you know the potential exists for you to upset the dead girls family. So why do it? I'm answering that question and there isn't a nice answer.

As for the costume. You want it to be a burglar outfit, so that's exactly what you see. Why a burglar needs a moustache like that and a Seattle Sounders scarf is beyond me.

Come off it mate. That's what it looks like. As for the scarf who the f*** knows, she is not dressed as a soccer player, that's for sure. There are a few articles out there today heavily in favour of Knox but who agree it was definitely an insensitive choice. I don't understand this boards.ie mentality of saying black is white. It's clearly a bad, bad choice. Just accept it.

You ahve decided what she has dressed up as and decided it was insensitive.

I'm far from the only one. Even those who are writing in favour of her accept it was a dumb choice.

That was a nickname given to her when she was in school. It had nothing to do with her looks or anything sexual. The media picked it up to make her look like a sex pest.

I said nothing about it's origins. I'm saying it would be another extremely dumb/sinister choice of Halloween costume.

No, it didn't. It was contaminated and should never have been used. Hence why the second trial succeeded. The whole first trial was a joke. Read up on it and you'll see that it was.

Whoa. You can say it was contaminated, you can say it was worthless but you CANNOT say it didn't exist or didn't convict her in the first trial. It does and it did, that's just a fact dude.

Son Of A Vidic · 02-11-2011 01:44PM

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Hmmm, actually she was found guilty
then on appeal not guilty beyond reasonable doubt

But never "innocent"

Quite amazing commentary that, If I'm ever on trial for anything I'll take a not guilty beyond reasonable doubt verdict anytime.

But according to you I should......

Make sure to tell everyone - "Hey I was found not guilty and I wasn't convicted of any crime"......"but that doesn't mean I'm innocent."

ejmaztec · 02-11-2011 01:45PM

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

That's beside the point. You KNOW you will be photographed, you KNOW people will remark, you KNOW there will be controversy even if there is the perception that you're, for example, taking the piss and you know the potential exists for you to upset the dead girls family. So why do it? I'm answering that question and there isn't a nice answer.

Come off it mate. That's what it looks like. As for the scarf who the f*** knows, she is not dressed as a soccer player, that's for sure. There are a few articles out there today heavily in favour of Knox but who agree it was definitely an insensitive choice. I don't understand this boards.ie mentality of saying black is white. It's clearly a bad, bad choice. Just accept it.

I'm far from the only one. Even those who are writing in favour of her accept it was a dumb choice.

I said nothing about it's origins. I'm saying it would be another extremely dumb/sinister choice of Halloween costume.

Whoa. You can say it was contaminated, you can say it was worthless but you CANNOT say it didn't exist or didn't convict her in the first trial. It does and it did, that's just a fact dude.

Your concept of the legal process is deeply flawed, and probably stems from the time that Herod did the dirty on you.

humanji · 02-11-2011 01:52PM

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

That's beside the point. You KNOW you will be photographed, you KNOW people will remark, you KNOW there will be controversy even if there is the perception that you're, for example, taking the piss and you know the potential exists for you to upset the dead girls family. So why do it? I'm answering that question and there isn't a nice answer.

Are you honestly saying that she's brought this on herself? She's being stalked. It's not her choice. She doesn't want to be followed. She doesn't want to be photographed. To pretend she's to blame is moronic. She can't know when and where she'll be followed. She has absolutely no way of knowing. And claiming that she should stunt her freedom "just in case" is ridiculous.

Come off it mate. That's what it looks like. As for the scarf who the f*** knows, she is not dressed as a soccer player, that's for sure. There are a few articles out there today heavily in favour of Knox but who agree it was definitely an insensitive choice. I don't understand this boards.ie mentality of saying black is white. It's clearly a bad, bad choice. Just accept it.

You have decided she's guilty and that she dressed like a burglar. You have decided it's insensitive. But the moustache and scarf don't fit in with the burglar idea and so they simply don't matter any more. Does that not strike you as odd? It's cherrypicking evidence that got her convited in the first place.

Whoa. You can say it was contaminated, you can say it was worthless but you CANNOT say it didn't exist or didn't convict her in the first trial. It does and it did, that's just a fact dude.

IT WAS CONTAMINATED!!!!! Therefore it should never have been even considered as evidence. How are you missing this? Also, please keep in mind that the DNA was found on a kitchen knife that was proven not to be the murder weapon, so even if it had been collected cleanly, it wouldn't mean anything. But of course, that would point to the possibility of innocence and we can't have that.

youcrazyjesus! · 02-11-2011 01:58PM

Yahew wrote: »

There are two problems with your post.

1) She didn't do anything so she can dress how she likes.

:rolleyes:

People so so often confuse "can" with "should". She can of course dress up as Hitler or Bin Laden or Atilla The Hun or whatever she likes. That doesn't mean she should and it certainly doesn't mean people shouldn't comment on her choice if it's a dumb/sinister one. She didn't do anything, ok, so should she take the piss out of the family? That's ok because by your logic she "can" right? Should she dress up as a knife wielding black man? She "can" right so what's the problem with that?

Nothing according to you.

2) She didn't dress like a burglar ( she is wearing a fake moustache and a SCARF!! ( A SCARF!) with the TEAM's colours. Why would a cat burglar do that?).

She might have been cold. It's a scarf. I'm not the only one who think it's a cat burglar costume and totally insensitive.

Look the world is divided - when it comes to law ( and particularly the guilt of women) - between rational people, and witch hunters. Rationality has won a very uncertain battle over the last thousand years, but its clearly thin soup.

Yeah, that's it, it's misogyny. That's it!

Women are incapable of insensitivity, much less crime. Bravo.

Regardless of all the evidence ( i.e. no DNA, or fingerprints etc.) and the lack of motive you are assuming guilt based on the way she looks, or acts, and then seeing what you want.

There was DNA, there was a motive (a weak one but one did exist). Look, if her boyfriend had dressed up as a cleaver wielding lunatic in a forensic suit (as he was photographed before the murder) I'd be saying the same thing but it's likely his family had bit of common sense and an appreciation for their situation and kept him under wraps on the anniversary of the crime.

The ( unproven) guilty ( in your mind) girl is wearing a cat burglar's costume (which it isn't, cat burglars don't wear scarfs).

Cold people do, especially when walking outdoors! Forget the scarf, it's incongruous with the rest of the costume. Did I say she was guilty? I said I was leaning more towards that way after seeing the photo as it struck me as a bizarre and deliberately provocative choice, that may well have been made in opposition to the advice of clued in family and friends.

Burn The Witch.

*yawn*

People like you scare me. I hope you are never on a jury.

Less of the personal insults please. I have been and acquitted the person as I would have done for Amanda Knox, as proof beyond a reasonable doubt wasn't there. That doesn't mean there's not a 45% or a 65% chance she's guilty. What I have to dispute here is the one sided view that there was no case, no DNA, no evidence, no confession and no unusual, if not outright disturbing, behaviour before and after the murder took place from both of the acquitted parties. Some diehards on here are even going to the lengths of saying the DNA evidence didn't actually exist, when it played a prominent role in the first trial. Google it.

If I'm a misogynist then I imagine the girl's diehard defenders as suffering from the classic "Mr Nice Guy" syndrome rushing to a dame's aid at every turn and going to every length to defend every small detail of the story. It's quite ridiculous!

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 02:00PM

The eight-member jury -- comprised of the presiding judge, a side judge and six jurors -- had two options to acquit: determining there wasn't enough evidence to uphold the conviction or that they simply didn't commit the crime. The jury determined the latter, clearing them completely.

http://www.nwcn.com/home/Amanda-Knox-appeals-trial-verdict-130979288.html

They could have said the evidence was tainted, but they didn't.

Giruilla · 02-11-2011 02:11PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

No court in the world will find you innocent.
You are 'Innocent until proven guilty'
She was found 'not guilty' therefore she is innocent

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Quite amazing commentary that, If I'm ever on trial for anything I'll take a not guilty beyond reasonable doubt verdict anytime.
But according to you I should......
Make sure to tell everyone - "Hey I was found not guilty and I wasn't convicted of any crime"......"but that doesn't mean I'm innocent."

'Innocent until proven guilty'... She was convicted as guilty in the first trial, therefore unfortunately for her she no longer has the status as innocent.

Her 'not guilty' verdict in the second trial, was due to there not being enough evidence to convict her, rather than new evidence to prove she was innocent. Therefore she hasn't been proven innocent.

It's scary how people here and the media can so steadfastly say she is innocent.

Amanda Knox

Comments