Amanda Knox retrial begins

Lingua Franca

Cianmcliam wrote: »

On the contrary, the vast amount of misinformation in this thread is on the 'they were just two innocent kids side'.

Then you'll be able to provide a "vast amount" of examples of this information.

This is the best bit, people believe the local police, the prosecutor, the flying squad, the forensic team and lab team in Rome, numerous witnesses, judges Micheli, Massei, Nencini, several regional and national courts are all in on a conspiracy to frame two innocent people and then call the people who seriously doubt this conspiracy theorists!

No, people believe that the police, forensics and lab team made clumsy errors, now recorded as fact in the supreme court judgement, and that the prosecutor had his own agenda.

The position that they were framed is practically the definition of a paranoid conspiracy theory.

You spelled "miscarriage of justice" incorrectly. You must be raging that the West Memphis 3, Birmingham 6, Gulidford 4 etc are all walking free.

The Supreme Court judgment is not 52 pages long by the way, the first 18 or so pages are entirely the defence arguments for requesting an appeal, people have been reading the defence arguments as if they were court findings.

Ah, like you counted the prosecutions arguments as court findings? Gotcha.


Tell me, do you think the police, forensics, lab teams etc all did their very best by Meredith Kercher and her family? Do you think they did all they could to the best of their abilities and can be proud of their work?

Lingua Franca

Also, people here believe that the Supreme court ignored "the local police, the prosecutor, the flying squad, the forensic team and lab team in Rome, numerous witnesses, judges Micheli, Massei, Nencini, several regional and national courts" and "grounded and indelible evidence presented in the case" and that instead "they were suckered by a pretty face". I note you don't find that implausible.

Lirange

Means Of Escape wrote: »

It is not
It's called bizarre behaviour and deviant personality which she exhibited on number out occasions throughout the case
Smacking herself in the head numerous times at the police station
Smirking and smiling and kissing after the body was found


Again suckered by a pretty face with very good acting and skills at deception .

Divining guilt on what you surmise to be odd or "deviant?"

Good god I hope you never serve on a jury.

ThinkProgress

It shocks me that people cannot see how disingenuous this woman is.... (sollecito too, but his broken English makes things more difficult)

The evidence is insufficient going in both directions. But it is crazy how few people can see Knox's shoddy acting skills for what they are! Please don't use the excuse that she's not an actual actress... I'm talking about her candid interviews... she is so fake it's insane!

I'm well aware that you can't send someone down for life on a gut feeling. But seriously, does no one else get the creeps watching her? She's constantly pausing and checking for reactions to what she says... (this is typical psychopath behavior)

So few people trust their gut, or have a strong instinct around these cases. Very worrying!

Lavinia

ThinkProgress wrote: »

... she is so fake it's insane!

my impression exactly.. was sickening even to listen to it...

brickmauser

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Doubts will always remain unfortunately

Doubts based on what???????

brickmauser

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It shocks me that people cannot see how disingenuous this woman is.... (sollecito too, but his broken English makes things more difficult)

The evidence is insufficient going in both directions. But it is crazy how few people can see Knox's shoddy acting skills for what they are! Please don't use the excuse that she's not an actual actress... I'm talking about her candid interviews... she is so fake it's insane!

I'm well aware that you can't send someone down for life on a gut feeling. But seriously, does no one else get the creeps watching her? She's constantly pausing and checking for reactions to what she says... (this is typical psychopath behavior)

So few people trust their gut, or have a strong instinct around these cases. Very worrying!

The police went with their gut and they were proven wrong.

They had no evidence and they were made fools of in front of the entire world.

Means Of Escape

8-10 wrote: »

What do you contend she is guilty of? You say the evidence points conclusively to her guilt, do you mean murder?

Complicit in a murder

Lingua Franca

ThinkProgress wrote: »

It shocks me that people cannot see how disingenuous this woman is.... (sollecito too, but his broken English makes things more difficult)

The evidence is insufficient going in both directions. But it is crazy how few people can see Knox's shoddy acting skills for what they are! Please don't use the excuse that she's not an actual actress... I'm talking about her candid interviews... she is so fake it's insane!

I've been a drama teacher (actress too, but mostly teaching) for 25 years. She is neither an accomplished actress, as Means Of Escape claims, nor a shoddy actress as you claim. She's not an actress and she is not acting at all, beyond a few clumsy stage directions from a director in the documentary, to my trained and experienced eye. Please feel free to contradict me in fine detail if you have more experience in the field. I'm happy to debate you on the subject.

I'm well aware that you can't send someone down for life on a gut feeling. But seriously, does no one else get the creeps watching her? She's constantly pausing and checking for reactions to what she says... (this is typical psychopath behavior)

So few people trust their gut, or have a strong instinct around these cases. Very worrying!

"I know gut feelings aren't really a thing but trust your gut feelings in this case" is the gist of this post.

Do you have anything to say on the evidence or the actual judgements? Anything at all?

deco nate

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I've been a drama teacher (actress too, but mostly teaching) for 25 years. She is neither an accomplished actress, as Means Of Escape claims, nor a shoddy actress as you claim. She's not an actress and she is not acting at all, beyond a few clumsy stage directions from a director in the documentary, to my trained and experienced eye. Please feel free to contradict me in fine detail if you have more experience in the field. I'm happy to debate you on the subject.


Really?! Just like every one else on here, you are an expert? This thread is a joke at this stage (see, pun intended)
Big difference between an actor and someone that is, well.. . It's beyond a joke at this stage! We have cops... judges.. . Detectives... prosecutors... defence attorneys.. . special investigators... and now actors... All on boards!


Case closed.


Sorry but your post is a joke, just like many on here. I'm an actor there fore I know... Feck off.

Lingua Franca

I'm not an actor, I'm a drama teacher. I do think that makes me more of an expert on the subject than people with gut feelings. As I said, please feel free to contradict me in detail if you think you have more experience in the field. I'm willing to debate it in detail.

Also, I have read this entire thread. Would you please quote the people claiming to be "cops... judges.. . Detectives... prosecutors... defence attorneys.. . special investigators... and now actors..." on this thread? Or are you genuinely shocked and surprised to learn that there is a variety of professions represented on Boards?

I await your silence with baited breath.

deco nate

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I'm not an actor, I'm a drama teacher. I do think that makes me more of an expert on the subject than people with gut feelings. As I said, please feel free to contradict me in detail if you think you have more experience in the field. I'm willing to debate it in detail.

Also, I have read this entire thread. Would you please quote the people claiming to be "cops... judges.. . Detectives... prosecutors... defence attorneys.. . special investigators... and now actors..." on this thread? Or are you genuinely shocked and surprised to learn that there is a variety of professions represented on Boards?

I await your silence with baited breath.

Don't hold you're breath any longer, it's everyone that has posted on this thread thinks they are one of the above, including yourself. You also said you did some acting in the field. ..But you, and a lot on here are experts. It's bs imo, unless you are a qualified behaviour analyst?
Its just conjunction on your behalf, no more.. . No less.

Lingua Franca

I think you meant conjecture. But I will continue to contend that my conjecture on the subject of whether Knox has

Means Of Escape wrote: »

very good acting and skills at deception .

or is

ThinkProgress wrote: »

not an actual actress... she is so fake it's insane!

is more informed than yours or theirs. Again, I am a qualified and experienced drama teacher. If you feel qualified to debate me on the subject, please do. If you even have an opinion on which of those assertions you feel are correct you should consider expressing it. If you have anything to say on the actual case we are discussing instead of mocking my career, work away.

Lavinia

brickmauser wrote: »

The police went with their gut and they were proven wrong.

They had no evidence and they were made fools of in front of the entire world.

They were not proven wrong.
They were not "proven" right either.

Means Of Escape

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I think you meant conjecture. But I will continue to contend that my conjecture on the subject of whether Knox has



or is


is more informed than yours or theirs. Again, I am a qualified and experienced drama teacher. If you feel qualified to debate me on the subject, please do. If you even have an opinion on which of those assertions you feel are correct you should consider expressing it. If you have anything to say on the actual case we are discussing instead of mocking my career, work away.

Eminent psychiatrists bought into Ken Bianchi's ruse that he had a split personality having met him and studied him yet you can determine Knoxs integrity from watching her on a television?

your argument is void

ThinkProgress

People that don't realize anyone is trying to sell them something here, are really quite gullible imho!

That's not to say that the slick sales pitch doesn't have some elements of the truth mixed in there.

However, the idea that some people think they are analyzing the pure objective facts of this case, unobstructed from any bias... that's laughable really. If you're of a mind to think that way, I'm really not sure how anyone can engage in a reasoned debate with you... it is somewhat futile tbh.

Btw, to those encouraging people to stick solely to the so-called "facts" of the case... that's been done to death. Those "facts" are not conclusive either way. At some point everyone - whether you realize it or not - is picking a side they believe to be the most truthful and believable.

I'm simply shocked by the sheer number of people that buy into this slick Hollywood-style production!

retro:electro

Lol I've read it all now a drawma expert saying Amanda isn't the killer because she has trained in drawma for 25 years and would know if she was. They could have used you in court sure what do ya need psychiatrists and behaviour analysts for when they have experts such as yourself.

8-10

anna080 wrote: »

Lol I've read it all now a drawma expert saying Amanda isn't the killer because she has trained in drawma for 25 years and would know if she was. They could have used you in court sure what do ya need psychiatrists and behaviour analysts for when they have experts such as yourself.

drawma?

Lingua Franca

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Eminent psychiatrists bought into Ken Bianchi's ruse that he had a split personality having met him and studied him yet you can determine Knoxs integrity from watching her on a television?

your argument is void

No. But I'm more qualified than you to comment on her acting ability.

Your argument was void when you started wittering on about imaginary court cases.

anna080 wrote: »

Lol I've read it all now a drawma expert saying Amanda isn't the killer because she has trained in drawma for 25 years and would know if she was. They could have used you in court sure what do ya need psychiatrists and behaviour analysts for when they have experts such as yourself.

That's not what I said at all and you know it.

Tell us all, anna080, in YOUR expert experience, if she was acting her heart out, acting terribly or not acting at all.

After all, it's Knox under the microscope here, not me.

Lingua Franca

8-10 wrote: »

drawma?

I think she was trying to accentuate the sarcasm in case her contempt for my career wasn't obvious enough.

Wompa1

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No. But I'm more qualified than you to comment on her acting ability.

Your argument was void when you started wittering on about imaginary court cases.



That's not what I said at all and you know it.

Tell us all, anna080, in YOUR expert experience, if she was acting her heart out, acting terribly or not acting at all.

After all, it's Knox under the microscope here, not me.

Pathological liars believe their own lies. They can be convincing. Watch her interview with Anderson Cooper, Diane Sawyer or others from years ago and then assess her in the documentary again.

meeeeh

Well it's actually scary to think some would imprison people because they look like a psychopath or because they are a good actor/actress. I don't care weather they are guilty or not but they were acquitted because there was not enough evidence to prove anything. The end. Those who that someone should be accused or imprisoned because of how they look might be better suited to middle ages.

Lingua Franca

Wompa1 wrote: »

Pathological liars believe their own lies. They can be convincing. Watch her interview with Anderson Cooper, Diane Sawyer or others from years ago and then assess her in the documentary again.

I can't find a link for the Anderson Cooper interview, do you happen to have one?

Wompa1

Lingua Franca wrote: »

I can't find a link for the Anderson Cooper interview, do you happen to have one?

Don't have one to hand. Watched it when it aired over here in the US.

retro:electro

Lingua Franca wrote: »

No. But I'm more qualified than you to comment on her acting ability.

Your argument was void when you started wittering on about imaginary court cases.



That's not what I said at all and you know it.

Tell us all, anna080, in YOUR expert experience, if she was acting her heart out, acting terribly or not acting at all.

After all, it's Knox under the microscope here, not me.

I don't have any expert experience dahhling. I'll leave that judgement to the professionals.

Lingua Franca

Glad to hear it.

retro:electro

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Glad to hear it.

And that doesn't include you.

Lingua Franca

Oof, that got me right in the feels. I am cut to my very core by your scathing wit.

Do you have anything to say that is on topic, at all? Any insight, any opinions on the case, any evidence you'd like to discuss? Because right now it looks like you're just here to scoff and I'm sure you're classier than that.

Wompa1

meeeeh wrote: »

Well it's actually scary to think some would imprison people because they look like a psychopath or because they are a good actor/actress. I don't care weather they are guilty or not but they were acquitted because there was not enough evidence to prove anything. The end. Those who that someone should be accused or imprisoned because of how they look might be better suited to middle ages.

Don't know many that would. I know plenty that think she did it and should be in jail but I don't think anybody would argue against the fact the investigators scuffed the case. That's not to say she's actually innocent and doesn't deserve to be in prison though.

Lingua Franca

Wompa1 wrote: »

Pathological liars believe their own lies. They can be convincing. Watch her interview with Anderson Cooper, Diane Sawyer or others from years ago and then assess her in the documentary again.

I never found the Anderson Cooper interview but I watched most of the Diane Sawyer one and the Simon Hattenstone interview (which is better because it's not full of cutaways and voiceovers) and I'm still not seeing Schrödinger's Oscar winner. I believe she's sincere. I also believe she's a moron. But I wouldn't know how to detect a pathological liar convinced of her own bullshít. That's not my field.