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…2627283032

Comments

  • Options
    #872
    youcrazyjesus!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,146 ✭✭✭youcrazyjesus!


    humanji wrote: »
    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.

    I'm saying if I was convicted in one of the highest profile murder trials of the century where my principle defence was that a solitary burglar was to blame, was acquitted in a 2nd trial, released after 4 years and on the anniversary of the murder in the full knowledge that a small army of paparazzi would be out for my photo I would not dress as a cat burglar. That's all I'm saying. I have to ask myself what type of person would do such a thing and for what motive. It would be first and foremost in my mind on the anniversary that a: potentially hundreds of highly skilled photographers and civilians would be attempting to find me and photograph me and b: my choice of costume or more importantly the perception of it would be a big news item should I be photographed. She is not a stupid person. So a few answers come up and one of the answers to the puzzle is she is giving the 2 fingers a la Liam Keane in that famous photograph. It's certainly not the only answer but it's one of them.
    You have decided she's guilty

    Nope.
    and that she dressed like a burglar.

    About 90% presented with a photograph of that costume would say cat burglar as do many people supporting her in their articles.
    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.

    The scarf is incongruous. As for the drawn moustache, on a female wearing a burglar costume at Halloween? It's odd is it? PMSL. Guys please. Argue on sensible grounds, that's just nonsense.
    Does that not strike you as odd? It's cherrypicking evidence that got her convited in the first place.

    That somebody is wearing a scarf in cold weather? No, no it doesn't.
    IT WAS CONTAMINATED!!!!!

    No. It was gathered in such a way that means there is too great a chance it is contaminated. Therefore it became inadmissible during the 2nd trial. Nobody can say with certainty it was contaminated, that's a very basic point.
    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.

    That wasn't the only piece of DNA evidence. Different experts disagreed during the 2nd trial too. It's not a one way street.


  • Options
    #873
    spider guardian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 884 ✭✭✭spider guardian


    Giruilla wrote: »
    '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.

    You've got it all wrong. The original guilty verdict was set aside, which means she now has the same status as if she was never found guilty. Wouldn't be much of a justice system if an overturned unsafe guilty verdict attached itself for life now would it?


  • Options
    #874
    Son Of A Vidic
    Registered Users Posts: 32,370 ✭✭✭✭Son Of A Vidic


    Giruilla wrote: »
    '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.

    Are you stuck in a time warp? Because since the initial flawed trial, she has subsequently been found not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You either missed the memo? Or more likely, just don't understand what this actually means.

    Giruilla wrote: »
    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.

    Which of course means she should not have been convicted in the first place, since the prosecution had flawed evidence.

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

    It's scary how some people can complicate the uncomplicated.


  • Options
    #875
    Yahew
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭Yahew


    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    :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?

    Since she is as innocent as me, and since she is didn't actually dress up as a cat burglar your entire point is tabloid nonsense.

    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.

    You and other readers of Tabloid nonsense can believe what you want. She is wearing the scarf because she is dressing up as a member of her favourite team who has a moustache. From that you surmise it is a cat burglar outfit - probably because cat burglars sometimes have moustaches ( and sometimes don't - who actually knows?). You were told what to think by some moronic Red Top - and so you did.
    Yeah, that's it, it's misogyny. That's it!

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

    The whole case against knox is based on her looks, and cartwheels, and assumed guilt. Guilt is assumed, then the actions are explained in light of the guilt. Its a witch hunt. As for it being anti-women there tends to be less analysis of Sollecito - who may have dressed up as an Ax murderer for Halloween for all we know

    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.

    Read my above quote. The DNA was "contaminated". That means it was added during the process. The knife was taken from Sollecito's house, and then contaminated. They realised that some of the wounds were too small for the taken knife, and then came the two knifes theory. So apparently Knox got into an orgy with two knifes, not one, and she brought one from Sollecito's just in case someone broke in and she then decided to have an orgy with the burglar and her room-mate; an orgy where she floated around a blood stained room getting no DNA or fingerprints anywhere.
    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.

    It wasn't incongruous - it was what she said. What else do you have - a moustache? You've decided guilt here, just like in the case.
    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.

    The DNA was contaminated. That means it got onto the knife but wasn't there before hand. Thats what contaminated means. The innocent explanation is a lab f*ck up - I go with the less innocent explanation, the blood was put on the knife by the police. Even then they messed up and had picked up the wrong knife, too big for most of the wounds ( a smaller knife could have made bigger wounds, but a bigger knife can't make smaller wounds) so they invented a two knife story.

    But still though, guilty as sin. Carthweels, and a Cat burglar outfit. The Red Tops and their readers would burn her alive if they could.


  • Options
    #876
    Giruilla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    spider guardian wrote: »
    You've got it all wrong. The original guilty verdict was set aside, which means she now has the same status as if she was never found guilty. Wouldn't be much of a justice system if an overturned unsafe guilty verdict attached itself for life now would it?

    No, you've got it wrong.

    You can overturn a guilty verdict in two ways.
    1) By showing there is not enough evidence to find someone guilty.
    2) By new evidence which proves someones innocence.

    What happened in this case was 1). Knox has a status that is unclear. She has been convicted as guilty once, and aquitted once. She has never been proven innocent. I don't understand how people can be so convinced she is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #877
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    Giruilla wrote: »
    No, you've got it wrong.

    You can overturn a guilty verdict in two ways.
    1) By showing there is not enough evidence to find someone guilty.
    2) By new evidence which proves someones innocence.

    What happened in this case was 1). Knox has a status that is unclear. She has been convicted as guilty once, and aquitted once. She has never been proven innocent. I don't understand how people can be so convinced she is.

    Luckily, no, you're wrong:
    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.


  • Options
    #878
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Millicent wrote: »
    It's Roger Levesque. Did I not already clear this up for you?

    In fairness it doesn't look remotely like anything approaching a costume of a soccer player, Levesque or anybody else. I have yet to see a picture of Levesque sporting a moustache like the one she has drawn on (any I've found are either clean shaven or with a more or less full beard of stubble). All that goes on is she's wearing a scarf => she's dressed as a soccer player d'uh.. what soccer players dress head to toe in black? :confused:

    On the other hand a whole lot of hoo-ha about nothing whatsoever. If she wants to draw a ridiculous moustache on her face for whatever reason that's it. It's as big a leap to say she's dressed as a cat burglar.


  • Options
    #879
    Giruilla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    Luckily, no, you're wrong:
    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.

    How does your post prove I'm wrong?? The jury's verdict was that they simply didn't commit the crime. There was no conclusive evidence to prove her innocent.

    You do realise the judge of the case also stated he can't say she is innocent??


  • Options
    #880
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    Giruilla wrote: »
    How does your post prove I'm wrong?? The jury's verdict was that they simply didn't commit the crime. There was no conclusive evidence to prove her innocent.

    You do realise the judge of the case also stated he can't say she is innocent??

    I'm not sure if you follow this, but a verdict that someone did not commit the crime means they are innocent. Not enough evidence to convict was the other option, which would indicate that they think she did it but can't prove it.

    Luckily, the judge alone doesn't decide innocence or guilty, and nor do you. The jury does, and they decided to acquit.


  • Options
    #881
    Tayla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Millicent wrote: »
    To be honest, it's not a very cat burglary costume. Looks more like a French dude. How many cat burglars wear a football scarf?

    I thought she looked like a french artist when I saw the costume!
    Mr. Presentable wrote: »

    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?

    Simple answer is that they saw a message to Amanda from her boss Mr Lumumba, in English the phrase Amanda used to reply to her boss meant "see you later" but the police said in Italian it meant she had an appointment with him later that evening.

    They thought that he was their man.

    She was interrogated for hours and hours and then the investigator told her that sometimes you forget things when you're in shock and told her to imagine what would have happened if she was in the house when Mr Lumumba was committing the crime.

    That imagined scene is what they used against her.
    youcrazyjesus! wrote: »
    There was DNA evidence. It was eventually thrown out as unreliable but it did exist.

    It was tainted and contaminated.
    Mr. Presentable wrote: »
    Hmmm, actually she was found guilty
    then on appeal not guilty beyond reasonable doubt

    But never "innocent"

    As some others have said, she was found to have "not commited the crime". That's innocent in my book!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #882
    Giruilla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    I'm not sure if you follow this, but a verdict that someone did not commit the crime means they are innocent. Not enough evidence to convict was the other option, which would indicate that they think she did it but can't prove it.

    Luckily, the judge doesn't decide innocence or guilty, the jury does.

    You do realise you can be acquitted of murder when in fact you really did commit the crime right???

    Only, if there is evidence which proves someone didn't commit the crime, then you can conclusively say they are innocent. Can you conclusively say this about Amanda Knox?


  • Options
    #883
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,002 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Giruilla wrote: »
    How does your post prove I'm wrong?? The jury's verdict was that they simply didn't commit the crime. There was no conclusive evidence to prove her innocent.

    You do realise the judge of the case also stated he can't say she is innocent??

    I wouldn't pay much attention to what the judge said in this case, not after it proved what a balls the Italian legal system made of the entire case since day 1. Had he said anything else, his colleagues wouldn't have appreciated the criticism.


  • Options
    #884
    Tayla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Giruilla wrote: »
    You do realise you can be acquitted of murder when in fact you really did commit the crime right???

    Only, if there is evidence which proves someone didn't commit the crime, then you can conclusively say they are innocent. Can you conclusively say this about Amanda Knox?

    Yes but in Italy their system is different than ours.

    They can acquit based on them not committing the crime or else due to lack of evidence. They acquitted and said they didn't commit the crime.

    It's a stronger acquittal than in most countries.


  • Options
    #885
    Tayla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Giruilla wrote: »
    You do realise the judge of the case also stated he can't say she is innocent??


    Yep but he said that a day after he and his jury acquitted her and said she didn't do it.

    It was extremely insensitive to the Kercher family and I believe he only said that to save some blushes for the Italian judicial system.


  • Options
    #886
    Giruilla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    Only, if there is evidence which proves someone didn't commit the crime, then you can conclusively say they are innocent. Can you conclusively say this about Amanda Knox?
    Tayla wrote: »
    Yes but in Italy their system is different than ours.

    They can acquit based on them not committing the crime or else due to lack of evidence. They acquitted and said they didn't commit the crime.

    It's a stronger acquittal than in most countries.

    That doesn't answer my question.


  • Options
    #887
    mongoman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 669 ✭✭✭mongoman


    Giruilla wrote: »
    How does your post prove I'm wrong?? The jury's verdict was that they simply didn't commit the crime.

    Yes didn't they find her not guilty? Isn't that what juries do, find you guilty or not guilty?
    Giruilla wrote: »
    There was no conclusive evidence to prove her innocent.

    Wasn't she found to be not guilty beyond reasonable doubt?
    Giruilla wrote: »
    You do realise the judge of the case also stated he can't say she is innocent??

    Of course he can't say who is innocent and who is not. It's not his job to decide, that's what a jury is for. Last time I checked, a defendant is found either guilty or not guilty. What's your obsession with 'innocent'? You do know the verdict don't you?


  • Options
    #888
    Tayla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Giruilla wrote: »
    That doesn't answer my question.

    What's the question?
    mongoman wrote: »


    Of course he can't say who is innocent and who is not. It's not his job to decide, that's what a jury is for. Last time I checked, a defendant is found either guilty or not guilty. What's your obsession with 'innocent'? You do know the verdict don't you?

    I think the judge actually got 2 votes and each juror got one.


  • Options
    #889
    Wattle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,075 ✭✭✭Wattle


    Giruilla wrote: »
    '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.

    She was indeed found guilty at the first trial but the second trial effectively washed away that verdict and all it was based on. Therefore the conviction at the first trial becomes null and void. If the verdict from the first trial cannot be relied on why didn't the prosecution come up with new evidence at the second trial to prove her guilty? I would contend it was because they had nothing.


  • Options
    #890
    Giruilla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    I'm not saying I think she is guilty here by the way.

    I'm trying to make a point that it is ridiculous and frankly embarassing how people can so assuredly say she is definitely innocent.


  • Options
    #891
    Tayla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Giruilla wrote: »
    I'm not saying I think she is guilty here by the way.

    I'm trying to make a point that it is ridiculous and frankly embarassing how people can so assuredly say she is definitely innocent.

    There was no evidence against her though, if you can't be considered innocent when there's no evidence against you then when can you be?

    It's not like this is an unsolved murder either, there is mountains of evidence against Rudy Guede so yes I think we can say she is definitely innocent. What's ridiculous and embarrassing is that the prosecution bargained a deal for the real murderer all to lock up an innocent girl.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #892
    Wattle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,075 ✭✭✭Wattle


    Giruilla wrote: »
    I'm not saying I think she is guilty here by the way.

    I'm trying to make a point that it is ridiculous and frankly embarassing how people can so assuredly say she is definitely innocent.

    Given the evidence that she was convicted of in the first trial it's frankly embarassing how people could so assuredly say she was definitely guilty.


  • Options
    #893
    Giruilla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    Wattle wrote: »
    Given the evidence that she was convicted of in the first trial it's frankly embarassing how people could so assuredly say she was definitely guilty.

    Which you'll see I agree with if you read my post.


  • Options
    #894
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    Giruilla wrote: »
    I'm not saying I think she is guilty here by the way.

    I'm trying to make a point that it is ridiculous and frankly embarassing how people can so assuredly say she is definitely innocent.


    By that token, no one is ever definitely innocent. Once you are up on trial, the possibility of guilt has to exist.


  • Options
    #895
    Tayla
    Registered Users Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Giruilla wrote: »
    Which you'll see I agree with if you read my post.

    But Giruilla, if there is no evidence against one person and there's mountains against another person then isn't it even more ridiculous to say 'well we don't actually have any proof that she's innocent' :confused:


  • Options
    #896
    jenningso
    Registered Users Posts: 131 ✭✭jenningso


    What a mess of a case. Because of her strange behaviour, she was accused of murder. The amount of lies and fabrications from the prosecutors.......... DNA evidence meant it was pretty much an open and shut case. Rudi's DNA was found on and inside Meridith. He fitted the profile exactly and he legged it to Germany. This Amanda Knox was just a bit weird and eccentric, doesn't make her guilty! The only guilt could be her not reporting the crime earlier or something like that. And her freaking out and blaming her boss. But, it's a fairly straight forward case really. The killer is in prison. The media have ruined Knox's life. Funny how people here on this forum believe the bullsh*t. The sex games theory was just that, theory! Wild fabrications from the minds of the police.


  • Options
    #897
    Giruilla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    By that token, no one is ever definitely innocent. Once you are up on trial, the possibility of guilt has to exist.

    Of course its possible to be definitely innocent.


  • Options
    #898
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    Giruilla wrote: »
    Of course its possible to be definitely innocent.

    But why isn't Amanda Knox now the evidence against her is discredited?


  • Options
    #899
    ejmaztec
    Registered Users Posts: 24,002 ✭✭✭✭ejmaztec


    Giruilla wrote: »
    Of course its possible to be definitely innocent.

    Never in the eyes of a mob wound up by the media, it isn't.


  • Options
    #900
    Giruilla
    Registered Users Posts: 1,595 ✭✭✭Giruilla


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    But why isn't Amanda Knox now the evidence against her is discredited?

    Because there is no conclusive evidence to prove she is innocent!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #901
    Mr. Presentable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,496 ✭✭✭Mr. Presentable


    Tayla wrote: »
    There was no evidence against her though, if you can't be considered innocent when there's no evidence against you then when can you be?

    It's not like this is an unsolved murder either, there is mountains of evidence against Rudy Guede so yes I think we can say she is definitely innocent. What's ridiculous and embarrassing is that the prosecution bargained a deal for the real murderer all to lock up an innocent girl.

    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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement