Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Amanda Knox

Options
1…262728293032»

Comments

  • Options
    #932
    humanji
    Registered Users Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    Giruilla wrote: »
    Yet, I am trying to talk about whether or not she really was involved. In the real world, whether she committed or was involved in this crime or not. It hasn't been proven either way, yet people wholeheartedly are convinced she is wasn't involved in this crime.
    And some people areconvinced she's guilty. It's all peoples opinions. It's something we can never know without being able to read minds or travel through time and space. So we use the default belief that people are innocent until proven guilty, and build from that. So with that in mind, Knox is currently considered to be innocent.

    It's a moot point to consider the unknowable. The only relevance it has to this debate would be if everyone started each post with "I don't know whether she is innocent or guilty, but my opinion is..." and there's hardly a need for that as it's obvious.


  • Options
    #933
    Giruilla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    humanji wrote: »
    And some people areconvinced she's guilty. It's all peoples opinions. It's something we can never know without being able to read minds or travel through time and space. So we use the default belief that people are innocent until proven guilty, and build from that. So with that in mind, Knox is currently considered to be innocent.

    It's a moot point to consider the unknowable. The only relevance it has to this debate would be if everyone started each post with "I don't know whether she is innocent or guilty, but my opinion is..." and there's hardly a need for that as it's obvious.

    It would only be obvious if people took that as a de facto position, but reading this thread and the media it's clear people don't do that. People are genuinely convinced she is innocent and I don't understand or like how they can so easily do that.


  • Options
    #934
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    No I didn't? I was paraphrasing the verdict, not the reasoning, [/url]

    This is what you posted
    'innocent because she didn't do it'.

    In quotes. So you were paraphrasing, OK, but it doesn't mean the same thing. As I said, the report's not out yet.


  • Options
    #935
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    Mr. Presentable wrote: »
    This is what you posted



    In quotes. So you were paraphrasing, OK, but it doesn't mean the same thing. As I said, the report's not out yet.

    Yes, but the verdict is, and that says innocent, not not enough evidence. If the report says that contrary to the expressed verdict that they really just couldn't prove it, I'll be somewhat shocked.


  • Options
    #936
    Wattle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,075 ✭✭✭Wattle


    Tayla wrote: »
    Another poster mentioned that they might be her normal clothes and I agree they could be, Amanda dresses very conservatively and look at her in this photo from years ago, all black outfit!

    http://www.google.ie/imgres?q=amanda+knox+photo&um=1&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&biw=1218&bih=649&tbm=isch&tbnid=ooPFlr0PdjetLM:&imgrefurl=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568639/Amanda-Knox-wrote-stories-about-rape.html&docid=gmN1k8-P7_LWjM&imgurl=http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00650/news-graphics-2007-_650207a.jpg&w=320&h=300&ei=xl2xTpfBJM-2hAeyt_nYAg&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=415&sig=109870077446467540302&page=1&tbnh=161&tbnw=165&start=0&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:10,s:0&tx=52&ty=91

    She's not a cat burglar in that pic, you just believe what you want to believe. It's ridiculous, if she wore a sexy outfit then the headlines would be all about Foxy knoxy femme fatale, if she wore something scary it would be because she's evil and now she went dressed as a football player,( I originally thought she was a french artist )and suddenly you're saying she's a cat burglar :rolleyes:

    Sections of the media are just waiting for her to make the slightest mis-step. I remember when she was photographed smiling and laughing going through the airport on her way home. According to some papers that was Amanda Knox laughing her way to freedom as if she was taking the piss out of the Kercher family instead of merely being happy and relieved at having her life back after a miscarriage of justice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #937
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    Mr. Presentable wrote: »
    And yet, the prosecuters are preparing an appeal. Because there is evidence she was involved. But according to the trial that freed her, just not quite enough - ergo reasonable doubt.

    I don't know whether she is guilty or innocent, but what I can say is that if she looked like Quasimodo she'd never even have got the retrial.

    If she looked like Quasimondo she wouldn't have been a suspect in the first place. She only because a suspect because of the prosecutor's crazy sex orgy fantasies about her. I dont think he would have had the same fantasies about someone looking like Quasimodo.

    Everyone gets an appeal anyway.


  • Options
    #938
    A Primal Nut
    Registered Users Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    Giruilla wrote: »
    Of course not. But how can you categorically say she is innocent, when there is no conclusive evidence to prove that??

    Its impossible to have Rudy Guede's DNA all over the crime scene, and not Amanda if both were involved. Completely impossible! There's your conclusive evidence. She is supposed to have taken part in a sex orgy and very bloody killing where there was evidence of a struggle; and its accepted there was no cleanup yet not one bit of DNA of her was found in the room or on Meredith; yet Guede's was found everywhere. What more evidence do you need?


  • Options
    #939
    Giruilla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    Its impossible to have Rudy Guede's DNA all over the crime scene, and not Amanda if both were involved. Completely impossible! There's your conclusive evidence. She is supposed to have taken part in a sex orgy and very bloody killing where there was evidence of a struggle; and its accepted there was no cleanup yet not one bit of DNA of her was found in the room or on Meredith; yet Guede's was found everywhere. What more evidence do you need?

    I thought it was established that the forensic team made a complete mess of the scene and testing?


  • Options
    #940
    Tayla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Giruilla wrote: »
    I thought it was established that the forensic team made a complete mess of the scene and testing?

    They did but his DNA was everywhere in the room and on the victim, his bloody fingerprint was in the room and he admitted to being there.


  • Options
    #941
    Johro
    Registered Users Posts: 4,705 ✭✭✭Johro


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    It's quite easy to follow really whether you agree or not. Can't help you there mate.
    Hmm... Still having trouble following the link from 'bad halloween costume choice' to 'guilty'.
    Call me stupid, but I don't care.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #942
    mcwhirter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,432 ✭✭✭mcwhirter


    A Primal Nut wrote: »
    If she looked like Quasimondo she wouldn't have been a suspect in the first place. She only because a suspect because of the prosecutor's crazy sex orgy fantasies about her. I dont think he would have had the same fantasies about someone looking like Quasimodo.

    Everyone gets an appeal anyway.

    Leave Quasimondo out of it


  • Options
    #943
    ameliadad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 55 ✭✭ameliadad


    I don't think she was directly involved in the murder but she had some bit part to play. There was a lot of non-forensic evidence linking her to the crime scene as well as inconsistencies in her stories that changed time and time again. What role she had to play? I guess we'll never know


  • Options
    #944
    Solnskaya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,463 ✭✭✭Solnskaya


    I think she's guilty and will get at least 10 years.....oh no, hang on..


  • Options
    #945
    Tayla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    ameliadad wrote: »
    I don't think she was directly involved in the murder but she had some bit part to play. There was a lot of non-forensic evidence linking her to the crime scene as well as inconsistencies in her stories that changed time and time again. What role she had to play? I guess we'll never know

    Eh, that's not true at all.


  • Options
    #946
    ameliadad
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 55 ✭✭ameliadad


    Tayla wrote: »
    Eh, that's not true at all.

    http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C378/

    The mobile phones, the different stories, accusing an innocent man. The list goes on and on..

    I really think she had something to hide


  • Options
    #947
    Tayla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    ameliadad wrote: »
    http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C378/

    The mobile phones, the different stories, accusing an innocent man. The list goes on and on..

    I really think she had something to hide

    What about the mobile phones?

    You said she changed her story time and time again, she didn't, she told her story, they didn't like it and interrogated her until she accused Lumumba, she stood by her original story though after that, that's changing her story once under duress, not again and again.

    All the so called 'evidence' was either discredited or was never really evidence in the first place.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement