Amanda Knox

Mr. Presentable · 02-11-2011 2:20pm

jenningso wrote: »

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.

Where's that emo? :rolleyes:

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 2:21pm

Giruilla wrote: »

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

Do you have to prove your innocence now?

"The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof."

A Primal Nut · 02-11-2011 2:21pm

Darren Brown will have an interesting show about confessions and police interrogations on Friday:

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/derren-brown-the-experiments/episode-guide/series-1/episode-3

Could be interesting in the context of this case. Most people who were later acquitted were originally found guilty because of a confession; the police have no evidence so they decide the only way they will get a conviction is to force a confession or some kind of changed story.

For people who think the DNA evidence is enough to make Knox look guilty; I think the opposite. The complete lack of DNA in the room or on Meredith's body; proves 100% she is innocent.

The prosecution got so desparate that at the end of the appeal they changed their story to suggest Knox stayed outside the room orchestrating everything and telling Guede how to wield the knife! What a load of nonsesne. By that logic anybody in the vicinity of Perugia could have been outside the room orchestrating everything. Just as likely some random homeless guy as Knox.

Tayla · 02-11-2011 2:22pm

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.

That's to save face, they made such an embarrassment of themselves, they know she won't come back for an appeal.

No the trial that freed her said that 'she did not commit the crime'

They could have acquitted based on lack of evidence but they didn't, they said she didn't commit the crime.

Of course she would have got a retrial, over 50% of convictions are overturned on appeal in Italy. They're known for getting it wrong.

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 2:22pm

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 there was not quite enough, they'd have gone with lack of evidence. The Jury who acquitted her went with 'innocent because she didn't do it'. Italian courts have to specify one of the two.

Giruilla · 02-11-2011 2:24pm

Snakeblood wrote: »

Do you have to prove your innocence now?

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

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 2:25pm

Giruilla wrote: »

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

Because of the presumption of innocence and the lack of any compelling evidence that she did it.

Giruilla · 02-11-2011 2:27pm

Snakeblood wrote: »

Because of the presumption of innocence and the lack of any compelling evidence that she did it.

So you agree that it cannot be proven she is innocent?

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 2:28pm

Giruilla wrote: »

So you agree that it cannot be proven she is innocent?

No, I'm saying that for the last 1400 years, that's not necessary in a civilised society.

Wattle · 02-11-2011 2:29pm

Giruilla wrote: »

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

Jeez how many times do we have to walk you through this? The prosecution case against her was thrown out and the jury declared that she did not commit the crime. There in a nutshell is your conclusive evidence of her innocence.

Tayla · 02-11-2011 2:31pm

Giruilla wrote: »

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

I would consider the fact that there was none of her DNA in the murder room to be proof of innocence yes.

I'd also consider the fact that the real murderer didn't even say Amanda was there until he wanted a reduced sentence as proof of her innocence .

Giruilla · 02-11-2011 2:31pm

Snakeblood wrote: »

No, I'm saying that for the last 1400 years, that's not necessary in a civilised society.

I didn't realise we were discussing the past 1400 hundred years of civilisation.
All I did was ask you a very simple question.. do you agree that it has not been proven she is innocent?

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 2:34pm

Giruilla wrote: »

I didn't realise we were discussing the past 1400 hundred years of civilisation.
All I did was ask you a very simple question.. do you agree that it has not been proven she is innocent?

Whether it was proven? Yeah, in my opinion, if the evidence used to convict her was found to be bad evidence, yes, it is proven. If you build something on a stack of cards and then you take the cards away, you have no case to answer. You might as well say I did it, I was in Italy at the time. There's as much actual evidence linking me to the crime.

BostonB · 02-11-2011 2:34pm

Millicent wrote: »

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

I don't get why that looks like Roger Levesque scarf or no scarf. It looks nothing like him. I'm not convinced its a car burglar either. She have cat whiskers or something then. Its probably not a costume. Shes may have got the face made up and is getting changed elsewhere.

Millicent · 02-11-2011 2:36pm

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I disagree, did you not see my post.

I did see your post. How do you explain the scarf then?

Giruilla · 02-11-2011 2:37pm

Snakeblood wrote: »

Whether it was proven? Yeah, in my opinion, if the evidence used to convict her was found to be bad evidence, yes, it is proven. If you build something on a stack of cards and then you take the cards away, you have no case to answer. You might as well say I did it, I was in Italy at the time. There's as much actual evidence linking me to the crime.

Basically you are starting all your theory from presuming she is innocent first.

Whereas I am using a starting point where I don't know if she is guilty or if she is innocent. I take this stance because I know it can't be proven either way.

Anyone who says she is innocent is the one who is making the assumptions.

youcrazyjesus! · 02-11-2011 2:40pm

Millicent wrote: »

I did see your post. How do you explain the scarf then?

It's a scarf...

Millicent · 02-11-2011 2:42pm

prinz wrote: »

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?

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.

I didn't say it was a good costume.

I agree though, it is a big hoo-ha about nothing.

Millicent · 02-11-2011 2:43pm

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

It's a scarf...

Awesome. So what makes her a cat burglar do you think? And even if she is, why is that insensitive? A cat burglar didn't kill Meredith Kercher. Rudy Guede did.

Mr. Presentable · 02-11-2011 2:45pm

Snakeblood wrote: »

If there was not quite enough, they'd have gone with lack of evidence. The Jury who acquitted her went with 'innocent because she didn't do it'. Italian courts have to specify one of the two.

You include a quote from the Judge - where is it from, because the Judge has not yet submitted his report on why the jury reached the decision it did?

Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga reminded the jury Monday that they had to be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Knox and Sollecito were guilty if they were to uphold the conviction.

At least four members of the jury -- composed of six members of the public and two judges -- must have concluded they did, indeed, have doubts about her conviction.

A majority ruling was all that was needed to throw out the conviction, with a tie favoring the defense. The actual vote will remain secret, but the main judge, Claudio Pratillo Hellman, will file a statement explaining the jury's reasoning within 90 days of the ruling.

BostonB · 02-11-2011 2:46pm

You get people dressed in black all the time. Cold day, scarf and hat. In fact the only thing that's unusual is the face paint. That has nothing to do with either costume theory. Shes probably getting changed somewhere else.

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 2:48pm

Giruilla wrote: »

Basically you are starting all your theory from presuming she is innocent first.

Whereas I am using a starting point where I don't know if she is guilty or if she is innocent. I take this stance because I know it can't be proven either way.

Anyone who says she is innocent is the one who is making the assumptions.

What's my theory?

If there's no evidence that someone did something and there's a rigorous examination of the facts to attempt to prove they did it, then the likelihood would seem to fall on the side of innocent.

humanji · 02-11-2011 2:49pm

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

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 that she's dressed like a burglar and therefore is being insensitive. You are also hinting that she did it on purpose to taunt people? That's making a hell of an assumption. Where are all the photographs of her in the time since she came home? This is honestly the first I've heard from her. So why should she still be creeping around in fear that someone will photograph her and someone else will interpret the photo in a way she doesn't want?

There is no reason for her to live her life assuming everything she's doing is being watched, and that she must do what appeases the public. It's as simple as that.

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

So? It's still only your opinion that she's dressed as a burglar.

The scarf is incongruous.

Only because it doesn't fit in with your theory. If it's cold, why didn't she wear a coat? Why is the scarf draped over her shoulders instead wrapped around her neck?

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.

Argue on sensible grounds? Your the one discounting evidence because it doesn't fit your theory. You could work for the Italian police with that kind of ability. Why does she have a moustache like that? Why is it curly? Why not just do a normal one?

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.

The very basic point is that it was inadmissable as evidence and therefore wasn't evidence.

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

It was the only DNA from Knox.

Anyway, to summarise, if Knox dressed as a burglar without thinking it could possibly be deemed as insensitive. If she dressed as a burglar to piss off people, then it's malevolent. But 1) we don't know for sure if she is actually dressed as a burglar and 2) if she is, it's the most bizarre burglar outfit anyone has ever created in the history of mankind.

Actually, looking back at the photo, is that even a costume? She may even just have got the moustache on and the rest of the outfit is either in the bag or with someone else. That's the danger of jumping to conclusions.

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 2:52pm

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

You include a quote from the Judge - where is it from, because the Judge has not yet submitted his report on why the jury reached the decision it did?

No I didn't? I was paraphrasing the verdict, not the reasoning, I'd posted this before, but it got ignored:
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.

The jury upheld Knox's conviction on one charge, that of slandering her former employer, Diya "Patrick" Lumumba. Knox had identified Lumumba as the killer early on, but she later retracted the accusation. The presiding judge set the sentence at three years, meaning for time served. Knox and Sollecito were expected to be freed within hours.

http://www.nwcn.com/home/Amanda-Knox-appeals-trial-verdict-130979288.html

BostonB · 02-11-2011 2:56pm

Millicent wrote: »

Awesome. So what makes her a cat burglar do you think? And even if she is, why is that insensitive? A cat burglar didn't kill Meredith Kercher. Rudy Guede did.

Because a burglary or a staged burglary was part of the case. Hardly rocket science. THat said its the worlds worst burglar costume if it is. Of course if someone is a completely nut job who knows what they would dress up as.

Giruilla · 02-11-2011 3:01pm

Snakeblood wrote: »

What's my theory?

If there's no evidence that someone did something and there's a rigorous examination of the facts to attempt to prove they did it, then the likelihood would seem to fall on the side of innocent.

You aren't looking at this case impartially. You're starting off with an assumption that she is innocent when you have no basis to do so.
The reason I say you have no basis to do so is because she has been put into doubt and convicted of murder by a jury. You can start off with the assumption that someone is innocent if they didn't live in that town, didn't know Meridith, had numerous alibis.
Yet with someone like Amanda Know who was convicted guilty once, lived next door, new the victim well, changed her story numerous time in interrogation.. it is better to assume a frame of mind where you can't say if they are definitely innocent or guilty.

Would you not agree that it cannot be conclusively stated whether she is guilty or innocent?

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 3:11pm

Giruilla wrote: »

You aren't looking at this case impartially. You're starting off with an assumption that she is innocent when you have no basis to do so.
The reason I say you have no basis to do so is because she has been put into doubt and convicted of murder by a jury. You can start off with the assumption that someone is innocent if they didn't live in that town, didn't know Meridith, had numerous alibis.
Yet with someone like Amanda Know who was convicted guilty once, lived next door, new the victim well, changed her story numerous time in interrogation.. it is better to assume a frame of mind where you can't say if they are definitely innocent or guilty.

Would you not agree that it cannot be conclusively stated whether she is guilty or innocent?

She was put into doubt by a discredited investigation that got her convicted. It's fruit of the poison tree, and should be treated as such.

humanji · 02-11-2011 3:11pm

Giruilla wrote: »

You aren't looking at this case impartially. You're starting off with an assumption that she is innocent when you have no basis to do so.
The reason I say you have no basis to do so is because she has been put into doubt and convicted of murder by a jury. You can start off with the assumption that someone is innocent if they didn't live in that town, didn't know Meridith, had numerous alibis.
Yet with someone like Amanda Know who was convicted guilty once, lived next door, new the victim well, changed her story numerous time in interrogation.. it is better to assume a frame of mind where you can't say if they are definitely innocent or guilty.

Would you not agree that it cannot be conclusively stated whether she is guilty or innocent?

I think you're coming from too abstract an angle. No one here "knows" for sure if she is innocent or guilty. But the belief is that you are innocent until proven guilty. She was proven guilty once, but that decision was shown to be obtained by use of dubious evidence. An appeal showed that there was actually no evidence to point at her being guilty and so the previous guilty verdict was overturned. Therefore she reverts back to the status of "innocent until proven guilty". So she is currently innocent.

If the prosecution does go for another trial and she's found guilty, then that's when you can say she's no longer innocent.

Tayla · 02-11-2011 3:17pm

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:

Giruilla · 02-11-2011 3:20pm

humanji wrote: »

I think you're coming from too abstract an angle. No one here "knows" for sure if she is innocent or guilty. But the belief is that you are innocent until proven guilty. She was proven guilty once, but that decision was shown to be obtained by use of dubious evidence. An appeal showed that there was actually no evidence to point at her being guilty and so the previous guilty verdict was overturned. Therefore she reverts back to the status of "innocent until proven guilty". So she is currently innocent.

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.

humanji · 02-11-2011 3:40pm

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.

Giruilla · 02-11-2011 3:57pm

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.

Mr. Presentable · 02-11-2011 3:58pm

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.

Snakeblood · 02-11-2011 4:01pm

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.

Wattle · 02-11-2011 4:05pm

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.

A Primal Nut · 02-11-2011 4:28pm

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.

A Primal Nut · 02-11-2011 4:31pm

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?

Giruilla · 02-11-2011 5:37pm

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?

Tayla · 02-11-2011 9:08pm

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.

Johro · 03-11-2011 4:16pm

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.

mcwhirter · 04-11-2011 5:44pm

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

ameliadad · 05-11-2011 10:29pm

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

Solnskaya · 05-11-2011 11:22pm

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

Tayla · 06-11-2011 3:45am

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.

ameliadad · 06-11-2011 11:13am

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

Tayla · 06-11-2011 10:18pm

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.

Amanda Knox

Comments