Amanda Knox

NickDrake · 03-10-2011 11:43PM

Warper wrote: »

Lets face it, this is exactly like the OJ Simpson case where if you can hire a top quality laywer you have a good chance of getting off. History has proven that wealth is the best way to stay out of prison. Even look at Strauss-Kahn

Nothing to do with it. she is innocent. So you are telling me that if you were found guilty of murder and were innocent you wouldn't hire the best lawyer you could afford?

not yet · 03-10-2011 11:44PM

21 years in captivity are you so blind that you cannot seeeeee

Altogether...............freeeeeee nelson, oh bol1ocks wrong trial.

Tayla · 03-10-2011 11:44PM

Mazeire wrote: »

Really? I thought it was still in production. What did you think of it?

It was shown back in February or March I think, it was boring and there was a lot of inaccuracies.

A Primal Nut · 03-10-2011 11:45PM

Warper wrote: »

:rolleyes: Show me the proof

Have you got proof that Guede was poorer than Knox and Sollecito?

nagirrac · 03-10-2011 11:46PM

Warper wrote: »

Police evidence was presented showing that Knox and Sollecito did not have alibis for the time of the murder. Sollecito maintained that he was at his apartment, using his computer. Police computer analysts testified that his computer had not been used between 9:10 on the evening of the murder and 5:32 the next morning.

Knox has maintained that she was with Sollecito at the time, but during police questioning after 10 pm on Monday November 5th 2007, Sollecito said that he could not be certain she was with him when he was asleep. Their version of events was contradicted by a witness, who testified that he had seen Knox and Sollecito chatting animatedly on a basketball court around five times between 9.30 and midnight on the night of the murder.

Knox's DNA was matched to the handle of a kitchen knife recovered from Sollecito's flat, and the prosecution stated that Kercher's DNA was on the blade. A June 2011 report by court appointed forensic experts concluded that the previous results indicating that Kercher's DNA was on the knife blade appeared "unreliable because not supported by scientifically valid analytical procedures". Prosecution witnesses stated that the knife could have made one of the three wounds on Kercher's neck.

Carlo Torre, a professor of criminal science based in Turin, hired by Knox, testified that all three wounds originated from a different knife that had a blade one quarter the size of that recovered from Sollecito's flat. During her trial, Knox's lawyers argued that she had used knives for cooking at Sollecito's apartment.

We will never know what evidence was on Sallicido's computer. Four computers that were collected (2 belonging to Sallicido, one to Knox and one to the victim had their hard drives / memory erased while in police custody).

The witness that saw them at the basketball court was a homeless heroin addict, who also said he saw people with masks (that was the previous night, Halloween). He was presented as a reliable witness in the first trial, the jury in the second trial got to see how reliable he actually was.

Only the witnesses and DNA implicating Knox and Sallicido were examined further in the appeal. I assume the jury found both not to meet the "reasonable doubt" bar.

jcf · 03-10-2011 11:46PM

I see the BBC are painting her allready as the innocent victim - ****ing sick,
typical BBC cowing to America.

ColeTrain · 03-10-2011 11:47PM

NickDrake wrote: »

Exactly - Its amazing how people don't understand the law and try and convict her on absolute rubbish evidence.

she was totally innocent. The actual murderer even admitted the crime in jail to other prisioners.

How do you know that, Is there a tape?

If Knox's confession of being at the house wasn't valid then that 'confession' certainly isn't..

orourkeda · 03-10-2011 11:47PM

nagirrac wrote: »

We will never know what evidence was on Sallicido's computer. Four computers that were collected (2 belonging to Sallicido, one to Knox and one to the victim had their hard drives / memory erased while in police custody).

The witness that saw them at the basketball court was a homeless heroin addict, who also said he saw people with masks (that was the previous night, Halloween). He was presented as a reliable witness in the first trial, the jury in the second trial got to see how reliable he actually was.

Only the witnesses and DNA implicating Knox and Sallicido were examined further in the appeal. I assume the jury found both not to meet the "reasonable doubt" bar.

Which begs the obvous question whay were the initial jury thinking?

NickDrake · 03-10-2011 11:48PM

ColeTrain wrote: »

How do you know that, Is there a tape?

If Knox's confession of being at the house wasn't valid then that 'confession' certainly isn't..

Have your read the case? I suggest you do

NufcNavan · 03-10-2011 11:49PM

Top ride.

Warper · 03-10-2011 11:49PM

NickDrake wrote: »

Exactly - Its amazing how people don't understand the law and try and convict her on absolute rubbish evidence.

she was totally innocent. The actual murderer even admitted the crime in jail to other prisioners.

One such witness testified that he had heard stories of Knox and Sollecito's innocence while he was in jail and he heard Guede say that Knox and Sollecito were innocent. However, Guede denied this on the stand, calling it "all lies". He said he had never discussed the murder and that the former cellmate was being manipulated by others. Prosecutor Mignini introduced new evidence by reading a letter penned by Guede in 2010 that referred to "the horrible murder of a splendid girl by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox", and Guede stated that he stood by the contents of the letter.

Spread · 03-10-2011 11:50PM

BornToKill wrote: »

There are definite echoes in this case of The Monster of Florence investigation; an obsession with satanism and a stubborn inability to admit of other possibilities. The same prosecutor too. Coincidence?

Jesus, that was one hell of a gory story. Have you got an alibi BornToKill?

Warper · 03-10-2011 11:50PM

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Have you got proof that Guede was poorer than Knox and Sollecito?

And guess what, he was black

Tayla · 03-10-2011 11:51PM

Warper wrote: »

Their version of events was contradicted by a witness, who testified that he had seen Knox and Sollecito chatting animatedly on a basketball court around five times between 9.30 and midnight on the night of the murder.

In that case they have an alibi until midnight do they not? :rolleyes:
That means they couldn't have been killed Meredith as the scream was heard before that.

It just goes to show what a weak case the prosecution had when have witnesses who all contradict each other :rolleyes:

Warper wrote: »

:rolleyes: Show me the proof

Are you trying to say he's not guilty when his DNA is all over her?

x in the city · 03-10-2011 11:51PM

NufcNavan wrote: »

Top ride.

:rolleyes:

orourkeda · 03-10-2011 11:51PM

jcf wrote: »

I see the BBC are painting her allready as the innocent victim - ****ing sick,
typical BBC cowing to America.

She has been found innocent. What is the problem?

NickDrake · 03-10-2011 11:52PM

Warper wrote: »

One such witness testified that he had heard stories of Knox and Sollecito's innocence while he was in jail and he heard Guede say that Knox and Sollecito were innocent. However, Guede denied this on the stand, calling it "all lies". He said he had never discussed the murder and that the former cellmate was being manipulated by others. Prosecutor Mignini introduced new evidence by reading a letter penned by Guede in 2010 that referred to "the horrible murder of a splendid girl by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox", and Guede stated that he stood by the contents of the letter.

So now we should believe Guede the murderer?

nagirrac · 03-10-2011 11:52PM

Warper wrote: »

Lets face it, this is exactly like the OJ Simpson case where if you can hire a top quality laywer you have a good chance of getting off. History has proven that wealth is the best way to stay out of prison. Even look at Strauss-Kahn

I agree having a good lawyer is a significant factor. The sad reality is many innocent people are behind bars who could not afford a good lawyer.

Other than that there is no comparison between the two cases. In fact they are almost the opposite in terms of credible evidence.

orourkeda · 03-10-2011 11:52PM

Warper wrote: »

And guess what, he was black

The race card. Nice.

He admitted to murder but he must be innocent because he's black?

Spread · 03-10-2011 11:53PM

NickDrake wrote: »

You cannot appeal an appeal - She is free and the correct decision has been made. The right man is in jail and he even admitted to the murder in jail.

Just watched the local news and their solicitor said that there could be an appeal but extradition "would not be an option".

NickDrake · 03-10-2011 11:54PM

Spread wrote: »

Just watched the local news and their solicitor said that there could be an appeal but extradition "would not be an option".

On what grounds? You can't just appeal for god sake.

Warper · 03-10-2011 11:54PM

Tayla wrote: »

In that case they have an alibi until midnight do they not? :rolleyes:That means they couldn't have been killed Meredith as the scream was heard before that.

It just goes to show what a weak case the prosecution had when have witnesses who all contradict each other :rolleyes:

Are you trying to say he's not guilty when his DNA is all over her?

She said she was in his apartment all night :rolleyes:

ColeTrain · 03-10-2011 11:54PM

NickDrake wrote: »

Have your read the case? I suggest you do

Someone hearing someone say something isn't conclusive proof.

orourkeda · 03-10-2011 11:54PM

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree having a good lawyer is a significant factor. The sad reality is many innocent people are behind bars who could not afford a good lawyer.

Other than that there is no comparison between the two cases. In fact they are almost the opposite in terms of credible evidence.

Absolutely. The evidence against OJ was far more compelling. The racist policeman was enough for cochrane to plant the seeds of doubt in the jurys minds.

Tayla · 03-10-2011 11:55PM

ColeTrain wrote: »

If Knox's confession of being at the house wasn't valid then that 'confession' certainly isn't..

It wasn't valid because she wasn't read her rights, she was intimidated into signing it and she didn't have an interpreter.

I don't know if Rudy confessed to someone or not but in his case all the DNA evidence points towards him.

Warper · 03-10-2011 11:58PM

Tayla wrote: »

It wasn't valid because she wasn't read her rights, she was intimidated into signing it and she didn't have an interpreter.

I don't know if Rudy confessed to someone or not but in his case all the DNA evidence points towards him.

Police say otherwise.

A Primal Nut · 03-10-2011 11:58PM

Warper wrote: »

And guess what, he was black

His DNA was also found all over the crime scene, despite not living there.

Warper · 03-10-2011 11:58PM

If she was innocent, why did she lie profusely?

Lirange · 03-10-2011 11:59PM

This does remind me of the West Memphis 3 case in some respects. Especially the lack of DNA and the prosecution/media driven caricatures of the defendants.

NickDrake · 03-10-2011 11:59PM

Warper wrote: »

Police say otherwise.

You mean the prosecution.

Amanda Knox

Comments