Amanda Knox

nagirrac

Tayla wrote: »

This is a bit off topic but did any of you ever see the press conference of Merediths family after Amanda Knox was prosecuted?

Meredith's brother was talking about the fact that 2 young people have been sent down for a long time and then he said there was of course the other gentleman who was sent to jail last year as well.

I couldn't believe he called him a gentleman

I know Meredith's family seem like a very nice family who have remained verry dignified throughout and i'm sure he actually doesn't think he's a gentleman but it still struck me as very very weird.

It is one of the strangest aspects of this case how well Guede is being treated by those that you would imagine would despise him the most i.e. those seeking justice for Meredith.
He seems to be getting credit for admitting to being involved in the crime, even though the evidence against him is overwhelming. His DNA was found everywhere inside the bedroom, including inside the victim. There appears to be a serious intent to minimise his role, in the thirst to convict the "she devil". We are supposed to believe his version of events as told at his appeal, that he was sorry he did not do more to save Meredict.. really? the semi pro basketball athlete could not stop the little girl and her nerdy boyfriend murdering Meredith. It just beggars belief.
Easier to blame the witch. The should check to see if she floats.

Batsy

Amanda Knox is as guilty as hell and needs to be locked up for the rest of her life, to die in jail. That's what may have happened to her if she did the murder in England & Wales.

Thankfully, I think the prosecution, who have rightly dubbed her a she-devil, is looking to do just that.

--Kaiser--

Good stuff out of you, nagirrac
I was definitely on the 'guilty as all hell side' before, but now I'm undecided

Tayla

Batsy wrote: »

Amanda Knox is as guilty as hell and needs to be locked up for the rest of her life, to die in jail. That's what may have happened to her if she did the murder in England & Wales.

Why do you want to believe it so much when all the evidence has been tainted? You want to believe she did it even though there is no solid proof, all the evidence has been discredited.

This would never in a million years have made it to court in England or Wales...........are you trying to say that in England or Wales that they would try to pin it on someone else when they already have the real killer?

The obvious suspect Rudy was a drug dealer,his dna was all over the victim and crime scene, he had a history of breaking and entering etc....

You know normally in civilized countries the police stop looking once they've found the culprit, not the police in Perugia though, that wasnt enough for them.

And then we're supposed to believe that him, Amanda and Rafaelle decided to take part in a sex game, even though there is no evidence at all of them even knowing or speaking to him ever before. Not only that but the prosecuter decided to say Amanda was the ringleader, even though she had no history of violence.

If you're trying to say that police and prosecuters in England and Wales would concoct such a bull**** story then please god remind me to never go to England or wales.



Anyone remember the Rebecca French case in Ireland, all the accused pinpointed each other, the guards had no idea who had did what and so instead of any of them getting done for murder they all get done for impeding the investigation.....

In Perugia you have all the evidence pointing at one guy but then the police decide to come up with a theory and run with it as a fact, evidence means nothing because they only believe what they want to believe

Lollipops23

Tayla wrote: »

And then we're supposed to believe that him, Amanda and Rafaelle decided to take part in a sex game, even though there is no evidence at all of them even knowing or speaking to him ever before.

I hear what you're saying, curiousity makes me wonder if Rudy was acting alone, what was his motive?

Tayla

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I hear what you're saying, curiousity makes me wonder if Rudy was acting alone, what was his motive?

I think he had a habit of carrying a knife, he obviously had it that night, I think he had one when he was arrested, he had been seen with a knife at a school a few weeks before that

I don't think he went there to murder her but obviously he went there fror something, whether it was to rob or rape her or both.

Zebra3

Batsy wrote: »

Thankfully, I think the prosecution, who have rightly dubbed her a she-devil, is looking to do just that.

Must be great living in the 15th century. :rolleyes:

ejmaztec

If she gets off, only her family will believe that she's innocent.

nagirrac

Tayla wrote: »

I think he had a habit of carrying a knife, he obviously had it that night, I think he had one when he was arrested, he had been seen with a knife at a school a few weeks before that

I don't think he went there to murder her but obviously he went there fror something, whether it was to rob or rape her or both.

To steal the rent money, it was rent night. He entered the apartment at about 9PM (his own admission and CCTV evidence), Meredith came home shortly afterwards and obviously caught him there. It likely escalated from a robbery to a rape to a murder. Time of death is estimated no later than 9.30PM due to analysis of stomach contents. Knox and Sallico have an firm alibi at 9.20PM as a girl called to Sallicido's apartment and talked to Knox.

nagirrac

ejmaztec wrote: »

If she gets off, only her family will believe that she's innocent.

Nonsense. ALmost everyone who has reviewed this case who is not tainted by the early tabloid reporting is convinced she and Sallicido are innocent. The credible (non tabloid) English newspapers now doubt her guilt. The famed FBI profiler John Douglas who prosecuted hundreds of murders and spent years studying murderers wrote a piece for Magill magazine in which he said they should never have been charged.

One mistake people are making is assuming her guilt because of the conviction in the first trial. In Italy you are not assumed guilty until after your appeal or appeals. I believe the statistic is 50% of cases that are appealed are overturned.

For those convinced of her guilt, do a little research on the lead prosector Magnini. Convicted and sentenced (currently being appealed) for a prior case where he abused his powers to secure convictions.

There is no credible evidence in this case, period. A confused "confession" later retracted does not count, these people are experts at breaking mafia suspects, do you think they had a problem with a 19 year old student?

nagirrac

Tayla wrote: »

In Perugia you have all the evidence pointing at one guy but then the police decide to come up with a theory and run with it as a fact, evidence means nothing because they only believe what they want to believe

The problem is the evidence linking Guede to the crime came in after the police and presector had already solved the case. Lumumba was arrested (subjected to a harsh interrogation and beaten according to his own interview afterwards) the day after Knox's "confession". The prosector and head of police held a news conference the next day proudly announcing "case closed". They were faced with a huge embarrasment when all forensic data came in shortly afterwards pointing to Guede and Guede alone. Instead of admitting their mistake, they released Lumumba and arrested Guede but insisted Knox and Sallicido were also involved. They then set about destroying Knox by leaks to the media and discovering "evidence" to link them to the crime, a heroin addict who "saw" them near the apartment, DNA evidence in the apartment that has been shown in the appeal to be non- existant or perfectly unerstandable to any rational person. Everything except any forensic evidence in the bedroom where poor Meredith was slaughtered.

nagirrac

Batsy wrote: »

Amanda Knox is as guilty as hell and needs to be locked up for the rest of her life, to die in jail. That's what may have happened to her if she did the murder in England & Wales.

Thankfully, I think the prosecution, who have rightly dubbed her a she-devil, is looking to do just that.

Serious question.
What evidence can you point to that demonstrates her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

One of the scary injustices here is that Guede has had his sentence reduced to 16 years and could be on the streets much sooner than that. If I were a citizen of Peruglia I would be much more worried about that than keeping two innocents locked up for life.

Jess16

Nagirrac -you write clearly and concisely and I appreciate reading the views you offer, which seem more balanced and unbiased than those offered by the media. Thank you.

However with regard to your comments about courtroom closing statements, may I ask what your sources for such information are please?

nagirrac

Jess16 wrote: »

Nagirrac -you write clearly and concisely and I appreciate reading the views you offer, which seem more balanced and unbiased than those offered by the media. Thank you.

However with regard to your comments about courtroom closing statements, may I ask what your sources for such information are please?

There are several websites dedicated to this trial (both pro guilty and pro innocent leaning) with reporting of what is going on inside the courtroom (real time tweets from reporters at the court and more detailed reports at the end of each day). "Perugia Murder File.org" is the most extensive, which is an exclusively pro guilt site. Sites with a leaning towards innocence are "InjusticeInPerugia.org and "perugiashock.com"

ejmaztec

nagirrac wrote: »

Nonsense. ALmost everyone who has reviewed this case who is not tainted by the early tabloid reporting is convinced she and Sallicido are innocent. The credible (non tabloid) English newspapers now doubt her guilt. The famed FBI profiler John Douglas who prosecuted hundreds of murders and spent years studying murderers wrote a piece for Magill magazine in which he said they should never have been charged.

One mistake people are making is assuming her guilt because of the conviction in the first trial. In Italy you are not assumed guilty until after your appeal or appeals. I believe the statistic is 50% of cases that are appealed are overturned.

For those convinced of her guilt, do a little research on the lead prosector Magnini. Convicted and sentenced (currently being appealed) for a prior case where he abused his powers to secure convictions.

There is no credible evidence in this case, period. A confused "confession" later retracted does not count, these people are experts at breaking mafia suspects, do you think they had a problem with a 19 year old student?

It's nonsense that you think my comment nonsense.

Most people will be too lazy to do any research, and not many people have been ignoring the story for months. Only those waking from a coma will be more understanding.

I still think that the heavy sentence that she received was down to the "extraordinary rendition" trouble the Italian government was having with the CIA at the time. I'm sure that there was definitely an anti-American edge to the trial.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/04/cia-guilty-rendition-abu-omar

The Italian government was very miffed that the Americans refused to extradite the CIA operatives involved, but found most of them guilty in absentia.

BobTheBeat

http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/2011/3/Massei_Report.pdf

^ a translated report with extensive material from the coroners. Pretty interesting read for anyone who wants to draw their own conclusions on the case.

nagirrac

bobmeaney wrote: »

http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/2011/3/Massei_Report.pdf

^ a translated report with extensive material from the coroners. Pretty interesting read for anyone who wants to draw their own conclusions on the case.

This is the judges report from the first trial. The judge is the head of the jury and has two votes. The judge writes the report outlining why the jury came to their conclusions. The appeal is of course a separate trial with a separate judge.

I agree, read the report and draw your own conclusions regarding the decision of the jury in the first trial.

A significant amount of the report is obviously given over to proving opportunity i.e. placing Knox and Sallicido at the scene of the crime. This is covered in the section on "Inconsistencies and denials in Amanda Knox's tale" starting on page 78. A lot is made of the fact that she said they ate dinner at 10.30 - 11PM and the fact this is contradicted by testimony of Sallicido's father who stated in a phone conversation with his son at 8.40PM, the son had mentioned a leak he noticed while washing dishes. The conclusion is made that the dishes were being washed after dinner, so dinner had to be earlier than 8.40.
Why were no other innocent explanations considered like the dishes had to be washed earlier as the kitchen was a mess (unusual for students?) or that Sallicido was referring in general to a leak and what to do about it and not a specific leak at that moment in time?
A significant amount of testimony is reported from the homeless "Curatulo" who saw them at the square that night. He is called a reliable witness, and the jury should disregard the fact he is homeless. Should they also ignore that he was a heroin addict and stated the students at the square were wearing masks (Halloween was the night before).
Everything is explained to fit with a time of death around 11 - 11.30PM. Meredith arrived home at around 9PM and Guede admitted he was there around 9 to 9.30PM, colloberated by CCTV evidence. What are we supposed to believe went on between 9PM and 11PM when the killing supposedly took place?
The contents in Meredith's stomach show death no later than 9.30 based on the time of her last meal.
Time of death is one of the keys to the case. Knox and Sallicido had alibis up to 9.40PM (the girl who called to the door). For them to be involved the time of death had to be shown to be later.

nagirrac

Reading parts of the judge's report again highlighted one of the more incomprehensible aspects of the case.

After the two defendants supposedly killed Meredith, they set upon a massive cover up / clean up operation. With some sort of advanced microscope DNA collection thing they removed all of the DNA from the bedroom where the crime was committed, but left Guede's, cleaned the bathroom but left a bit of the victim's blood and some traces of Amanda's DNA. Broke a window and staged a break in. Removed and disposed of all their blood soaked clothes, shoes, etc.

and then went back to their apartment and carefully placed the knife they killled her with back in the kitchen drawer.

BQQ

So, either

the whole police force in Perugia, in collusion with the prosecution and judiciary, are lying, destroying computer harddrives etc. And for what? To put two innocent people in prison for life, of course.

Or

Two people are lying to get away with murder.

Biggins

BQQ wrote: »

So, either

the whole police force in Perugia, in collusion with the prosecution and judiciary, are lying, destroying computer harddrives etc. And for what? To put two innocent people in prison for life, of course.

Or

Two people are lying to get away with murder.

Aye, its all an anti-American conspiracy/vengeance/dis-like thing of course!

geeky

x in the city wrote: »

can somone elaborate what sex game involves a womans throat being cut and an orgy of at least 4 people involved....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15046562

Imaginary ones?

nagirrac

It's not a conspitracy nor is it fueled by anti-American sentiment.

It is a simple case where a rush to judgement was made by the police before the forensic evidence came back linking the real killer to the crime. The nutjob prosector held a new conference and declared "case closed" and then could not back down and instead went on a witchhunt.. he has previous on this, read about the Monster of Florence case.

There are only two credible pieces of evidence from the first trial (witness + DNA) linking the two to the crime scene, these are the items that the new judge asked to be examined in the appeal. In Italy the judge decides what is examined at the appeal, not the defense.

Both the witness (heroin addict who saw people with masks, wrong night) and the DNA (contamination or non existant) have been rubbished at the appeal.

There very likely will be an acquittal on Monday. The media who were most guilty of vilifying Knox and Sallicido are now furiously backpedelling, but it's a little too late to give them back 4 years of their lives and their reputations. They will forever be linked to a crime they did not commit.

Biggins

nagirrac wrote: »

...They will forever be linked to a crime they did not commit.

...In your opinion.

ejmaztec

nagirrac wrote: »

It's not a conspitracy nor is it fueled by anti-American sentiment.

It is a simple case where a rush to judgement was made by the police before the forensic evidence came back linking the real killer to the crime. The nutjob prosector held a new conference and declared "case closed" and then could not back down and instead went on a witchhunt.. he has previous on this, read about the Monster of Florence case.

There are only two credible pieces of evidence from the first trial (witness + DNA) linking the two to the crime scene, these are the items that the new judge asked to be examined in the appeal. In Italy the judge decides what is examined at the appeal, not the defense.

Both the witness (heroin addict who saw people with masks, wrong night) and the DNA (contamination or non existant) have been rubbished at the appeal.

There very likely will be an acquittal on Monday. The media who were most guilty of vilifying Knox and Sallicido are now furiously backpedelling, but it's a little too late to give them back 4 years of their lives and their reputations. They will forever be linked to a crime they did not commit.

That's a naive opinion.

nagirrac

Biggins wrote: »

...In your opinion.

My opinion is they will be acquitted. If they are acquitted they will be deemed "not guilty" under Italian law.

I understand you are convinced of their guilt and nothing will change your mind, not even an acquittal. From reading your prior posts on this and the prior thread you question whether police can convince or force people to admit things they did nkt do under interrogation. Now that's a naive opinion. In 25% of the cases in the US where DNA evidence was later used to free people who were wrongly convicted, the innocent parties had "confessed" to the crimes. It happens a lot and the techniques used are the same the world over. Read the article by the FBI profiler John Douglas and he would know a little about inerrogations. He admitted he himself would break undergoing such an interrogation, what chance would a 19 year old girl have?

Ther has been a lot said about her behavior after the crime indicating guilt. In fact the opposite is true. If she was smart let alone guilty she would have got on the first plane out of Italy. Instead she spent 4 days there before being named a suspect. The US would never have extradited her with such flimsy evidence. Guede fled to Germany, Meredith's English friends in Perugia flew back to England, and the Italian flatmates got lawyers and only spoke to the police with a lawyer present. Knox and Sallicido were guilty all right, guilty of being naive and helping the police with their investigation when they had no obligation to do so after giving their first statment regarding where they were that night.

BQQ

nagirrac wrote: »

It's not a conspitracy nor is it fueled by anti-American sentiment.

It is a simple case where a rush to judgement was made by the police before the forensic evidence came back linking the real killer to the crime. The nutjob prosector held a new conference and declared "case closed" and then could not back down and instead went on a witchhunt.. he has previous on this, read about the Monster of Florence case.

There are only two credible pieces of evidence from the first trial (witness + DNA) linking the two to the crime scene, these are the items that the new judge asked to be examined in the appeal. In Italy the judge decides what is examined at the appeal, not the defense.

Both the witness (heroin addict who saw people with masks, wrong night) and the DNA (contamination or non existant) have been rubbished at the appeal.

There very likely will be an acquittal on Monday. The media who were most guilty of vilifying Knox and Sallicido are now furiously backpedelling, but it's a little too late to give them back 4 years of their lives and their reputations. They will forever be linked to a crime they did not commit.

They had no problem backing down in the case of Diya(patrick) Lumumba when it became clear he was innocent, so why not now?

nagirrac

ejmaztec wrote: »

That's a naive opinion.

Naive to believe they will be acquitted?
If I am wrong I will come on here and hold my hand up and say I was wrong. Will you do the same?

My conclusions on the case are based on reading the 400 page report on the original trial and following the appeal closely. What are yours based on?

nagirrac

BQQ wrote: »

They had no problem backing down in the case of Diya(patrick) Lumumba when it became clear he was innocent, so why not now?

They could not convict Lumumba because he was serving behind his bar all night and had dozens of witnesses placing him there. They still held him for 2 weeks though until the evidence on Guede came in.

Knox and Sallicido had no alibi other than themselves after 8.40PM.

ejmaztec

nagirrac wrote: »

Naive to believe they will be acquitted?
If I am wrong I will come on here and hold my hand up and say I was wrong. Will you do the same?

My conclusions on the case are based on reading the 400 page report on the original trial and following the appeal closely. What are yours based on?

It's quite clear from my post and the highlighted part of your quote, that I was referring to your discounting of the anti-American edge to the case and the resultant (in my opinion) heavy original sentencing.

Sandwlch

Is that Amanda sitting out in a piazza with pals in the Baileys Biscotti advert ?