no idea on this one.
Amanda Knox Is Innocent
- Thread starter phildwyer
- Start date
Johnny Vodka
The Abominable Scotsman
I quite fancy her. 
Shreddy
Truth Through Character
I think she's sexy
savoloysam
Pigman's pigman's ha ha charade you are..
So was Ted Bundy.
Shreddy
Truth Through Character
sure was
Hardly an impartial source.
And in any case, this is no significant evidence against Knox. The DNA mixing is inevitable in a shared apartment. As I've said before, a violent struggle, such as the prosecution alleges took place, would have left Knox's DNA smeared all over the room.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I have just ploughed through that true justice link. The crux of the argument is that either this guy Guede, who is unarguably guilty, broke into the house and sexually assaulted and killed Kercher in which case we have a relatively mundane and grubby murder case or he was invited into the house for a weird violent sex party in which Kercher was obliged to take part and then held down, assaulted and murdered by everyone in the house when she refused.
Occam's razor, What scenario seems most likely? The former of course. For this reason, I think there is enough reasonable doubt for me to vote innocent.
Occam's razor, What scenario seems most likely? The former of course. For this reason, I think there is enough reasonable doubt for me to vote innocent.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
in applying the razor, one must always make sure it actually covers all (or as many as possible of) the same facts. Your usage fails to do so - not least because it just ignores all the facts surrounding Knox & Sollecito. It ignores there streat of lies and conflicting (even now!) stories. It ignores the mass of forensic evidence, sich as the mingling of DNA (well beyond what is 'normal' and in places where it really shouldnt be - and Phils description of the struggle is simply wrong/a blatant lie) and, of course, Sollecito's bloody footprint.
Then there's your given reason for disbelieving the prosecution - a 'weird violent sex party'? Which is perfectly explicable as a couple of young people being a bit off it, getting into something which they probably thought would be a laugh, but got very out of control. Eminently plausible
Then there's your given reason for disbelieving the prosecution - a 'weird violent sex party'? Which is perfectly explicable as a couple of young people being a bit off it, getting into something which they probably thought would be a laugh, but got very out of control. Eminently plausible
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Wasn't there a claim that some of the forensic evidence was tainted. Stories of dirty gloves, dropped knives. The fact that the bra clasp was found 6 weeks after the murder. The fact that independant investigators found the dna on the knife to be so low as to be untestable. Claims that the crime scene had been tainted by allowing people into it etc. I honestly don't know if you are right or not. Maybe she did do it. However I don't have to be sure she is innocent. All I need is reasonable doubt and so far I do.
The prosecution's strategy in the first trial was to spin her as a dangerous young woman addicted to "living life on the edge." The jury was not sequestered and so was exposed to all the media coverage of "Foxy Knoxy" etc.
But as soon as we look into that, it turns out to have been all bullshit, invented and manipulated to sensationalize the case. Her diary was rifled for sexual content, which was all ridiculously distorted--for example it was reported that she'd had 7 sexual partners since arriving in Italy, when in facy that was the figure for her entire life etc etc.
She was stitched up in order to sell newspapers, and the nutty prosecutor got flukishly lucky one time. I can't see it happening again though.
Sure, but we don't even need to look at the tainted evidence. Just look at the way the story's been reported, then look at the facts.
For example. Since many people on this site seem to have experience with soft drug use, look at the way her "drug use" (she smoked a couple of spliffs) has been distorted and presented as some "edge" behavior, likely to drive her to murder. Now compare that with what you know to be the truth. Now do that with the entire case.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
I noticed that. Even in that truejustice link her "drug use" is stated as though its implications are obvious. Also on her initial arrest she was interviewed with no legal council and in Italian, a language she had only been studying for a few months. This was even accepted by the Italian Supreme Court who ruled that her civil rights had been violated. Though her initial statement was ruled inadmissable in her trial, it was allowed in lumumba's defamation trial which had the same jury. It is therfore impossible to avoid the conclusion that it influenced the jury.
Again, we should remember that her innocence does not need to proved. Only doubt about her guilt. And there is undoubtedly doubt.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
there are many many stories! And I'll agree the bra clasp one is too dubious to be allowed. But the only question re the knife was when her blood got on it, there's no claim of contamination or anything, Solleciotos version of how her blood came to be there is poor, in the first place, even before we get to Knox contradicting him.
The press here give the impression that those two things are the entire forensic case against them. but they're not. the mixed dna and that bloody footprint blow there story wide apart. Virtually the only thing we do know for sure is that they are a pair of liars
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
utterly irrelevant, as is everything you have posted.
And how a story is reported thousands of miles away has absolutely zero effect on anything
She definitely didn't help herself during the interrogation, but the Carabinieri can get much tougher people than her to swear that black is white. She'd have panicked. I also find plausible her claims that she didn't conceive that she was a suspect, that she thought she'd be able to retract her statements later and so on. Twenty year-old white Americans who are not from either CA or the east coast are the most naive people in the world.
Fool, I'm discussing how the story was reported in Italy, to the jury.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
He is right though. When the prosecution state that the couple were smoking hashish and reading porn and that this "influenced their behaviour". When the prosecutor, made outrageous claims of drug fuelled halloween rituals and sex games etc he was speaking to the court.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
aah come on, phil is desperately trying to mix up the media reporting with the actual evidence. the satanic ritual stuff made up a tiny amount of the case, but it got a lot of attention for all the obvious reasons.
At around the same time K&S's lawyers were making appalingly racist arguments, it was all the fault of some black guy, the one Knox tried to grass up but failed, and then Guede.
From the summation, both those pieces of theatre were largely irrelevant, the actual facts of the case being more than enough to convict.
At around the same time K&S's lawyers were making appalingly racist arguments, it was all the fault of some black guy, the one Knox tried to grass up but failed, and then Guede.
From the summation, both those pieces of theatre were largely irrelevant, the actual facts of the case being more than enough to convict.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
Sure, the evidence is the issue and on this I am not convinced. You mentioned the DNA on the knife. But independant investigators have found the DNA to be so low that it can't be tested. The bra clasp, the crime scene, all contaminated. The lack of due process and the violation of Knox's civil rights. The continued citation of her initial statement throughout the trial despite it being ruled inadmissable. The frankly bizarre claims of occultism by the prosecutor, All this adds up to reasonable doubt that her trial was fair and reasonable doubt is all that is needed. Therefore she is innocent and should walk
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
How is the following explained?
Guede's bloody footprints head straight from victim's room to front door. Two sets of bare footprints (a man's and a woman's) lead to bathrooms (one clearly identified as Solecittos on the bath mat) and a flatmate's room where a break in is staged. These footprints are in blood, which only sticks to feet while in liquid form and not when it is dry.
How do we know it's a staged break in? Answer, The broken glass from the window is on top of the clothes that have been scattered all over the floor.
The bloody footprints had to be revealed using Luminol because they had been washed. Are we to believe that an intruder comes in, kills someone, then gives the whole house a thorough cleaning to such an extent that only one fingerprint of knox, who lived in the house, can later be found (On a glass in the kitchen).
The question is, Do you stage a break in if you don't live in the house? Guede didn't go in the break in room.
The appeal is centred on trying to discredit two aspects of the DNA evidence. It's like a partial appeal that ignores the rest of the evidence. This leads me to believe that the defences' pitch lies in the hope of influencing the jury through the media and its misreporting.
Guede's bloody footprints head straight from victim's room to front door. Two sets of bare footprints (a man's and a woman's) lead to bathrooms (one clearly identified as Solecittos on the bath mat) and a flatmate's room where a break in is staged. These footprints are in blood, which only sticks to feet while in liquid form and not when it is dry.
How do we know it's a staged break in? Answer, The broken glass from the window is on top of the clothes that have been scattered all over the floor.
The bloody footprints had to be revealed using Luminol because they had been washed. Are we to believe that an intruder comes in, kills someone, then gives the whole house a thorough cleaning to such an extent that only one fingerprint of knox, who lived in the house, can later be found (On a glass in the kitchen).
The question is, Do you stage a break in if you don't live in the house? Guede didn't go in the break in room.
The appeal is centred on trying to discredit two aspects of the DNA evidence. It's like a partial appeal that ignores the rest of the evidence. This leads me to believe that the defences' pitch lies in the hope of influencing the jury through the media and its misreporting.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
She's fucking guilty as sin. Probably came to Europe with the explicit intention of murder too.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
versus: her repeated lies, contradictory statements, a clearly faked break in (which Knox would have to have seen prior to entering the house if it were true, but she still claims she never did), her trying to set up the other guy, the mixed dna samples, and, of course, Sollecito's bloody footprint. Even if all the doubts you've pointed to are accepted (and I dont agree with the argument re the knife, most experts have said there was enough dna, thats why Sollecito came up with his implausible story) there is still enough evidence to say they are guilty
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
I was about to type pretty much this after reading that site, but I'll add that I'm not surprised that given her clear guilt that she's being stigmatised again during the appeal, lying murderers aren't really the most popular characters in the public consciousness.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
guilty or no, I'm not having OB and the affiliates saying 'she was not hit' as concrete evidence that she was not. We know how they batter people then lie about it.
I'm erring towards dylans analysis on this. Although the evidence suggests she is guilty as sin, the prosecution case was so dodgy as to render the conviction very
She's a bit weird like, but so was bulsara. A re-trial might be appropriate but at this stage of the game it would be unable to come to a definite unbaised conclusion. In which case she should be released and that. She can stop at my yard, but I will not be allowing any sharps in the house.
I'm erring towards dylans analysis on this. Although the evidence suggests she is guilty as sin, the prosecution case was so dodgy as to render the conviction very
She's a bit weird like, but so was bulsara. A re-trial might be appropriate but at this stage of the game it would be unable to come to a definite unbaised conclusion. In which case she should be released and that. She can stop at my yard, but I will not be allowing any sharps in the house.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
On the question of the knife. How do you discredit the report of the independent investigation ordered by the appeal judge.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/doubts_cast_over_dna_evidence_in_qhpEjFvy8HYLcUdedTyMSK
Not investigators employed by the defence. By the appeals judge.
Bottom line. When independant investigators employed by the judge make remarks like contaminated and mistakes and unreliable and claim international procedures have not been followed then all indications are that the prosecution have made such a fuck up of this case that a fair trial simply hasn't taken place. If the prosecution have failed to follow proper procedures for handling vital forensic evidence then they have destroyed their own case through their own incompetence. Therefore, regardless of her actual guilt or innocence, there is enough reasonable doubt not to send this woman (this couple rather) to prison for 26 years.
.
Anudder Oik
heinous pointless bellend/fucking gobshite muppet
It's really the findings of forensic experts with experience in the field against findings from 2 universty profesors without field experience. One set are independent and the other are police/prosecution. So take your pick.
Relevant to this is the fact that Sollecito, rather than protest the impossibilty of the victim's blood being on his knife, wrote to his family explaining how he had pricked Meredith's finger with it when she came to dinner at his place. She never went for dinner there. Her movements are accounted for during the whole 8 days that Sollecto dated knox. The letter to his family was not written under pressure or duress, so why did he place himself in a situation where he is holding a knife which cut Meredith? He obviously doesn't question that particular DNA evidence even though it incriminates him.
Similar threads
