Amanda Knox Is Innocent

[phildwyer]

I can't say she did it

You did say she did it.

 

[phildwyer]

Dunno. Doesn't matter though. What matters is that all the evidence points to a scumbag drug dealing drifter and petty criminal breaking into the house and attacking and killing the occupant. There is absolutely no evidence of anyone elses involvement. No evidence that anyone but the man who has been convicted of the crime was involved. None whatsoever. As for this bullshit argument that we can't be sure Knox wasn't involved. Well call me old fashioned but I am of the school of thought that says zero evidence of someones involvement in a crime usually means they were not.

There is also the fact that her previous character gives not the slightest hint of pathology or violence of any kind. Every single person who knew her before this case has stuck by her and said they found it completely unthinkable that she would have been involved.

How many of us can say that I wonder?

 

[dilute micro]

It does seem that there's a lot of want in respects to evidence against Knox. The prosecution is more like an inquisition with inquisitors powers.

 

[goldenecitrone]

How many of us can say that I wonder?

Not many on urban, that's for sure. In fact, I'd be quite interested to know what some of them were up to on the night of the murder.

 

[dylans]

It does seem that there's a lot of want in respects to evidence against Knox. The prosecution is more like an inquisition with inquisitors powers.

There is also the fact that the court has just released the couple. The judge is a cunt for making those remarks now. He reminds me of the Judge in the Guildford 4 case who refused to accept their innocence and only shut up when threatened with a libel action by Paul Hill.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

You did say she did it.

No, I said I personally think she did play a part. I still think that, so many loose ends and so many lies. Nothing (as it obviously turns out) that can actually convict her. Reasonable doubt and all that. That has always been my stance.
Your bizarre take from the beginning was that there was not any way possible 0%, that she was at all involved. That was and still is idiocy.

 

[HumanFrailty]

All the evidence points to him being guilty yes.
No evidence of him breaking in, at all, as you own post above shows.
I think it does matter that some things in this case don't add up. I am not questioning Guede's guilt. I do though wonder who else was involved.

Maybe Meredith let him in and he took advantage of her. Why is this not considered?

 

[HumanFrailty]

Dylan, you rule so much on this thread.

 

[Fedayn]

Maybe Meredith let him in and he took advantage of her. Why is this not considered?

Ok, let's say that's what happened. Explain the break in/set up break in?

 

[HumanFrailty]

Ok, let's say that's what happened. Explain the break in/set up break in?

Guede could have done it to fit the story he later presented -- a stranger came in when he was in the toilet and killed her. He didn't have to go into the room, the rock was seemingly thrown from the outside.

 

[Fedayn]

Guede could have done it to fit the story he later presented -- a stranger came in when he was in the toilet and killed her. He didn't have to go into the room, the rock was seemingly thrown from the outside.

He left his DNA all over the bedroom, how does staging a break in change any of that?

 

[HumanFrailty]

He left his DNA all over the bedroom, how does staging a break in change any of that?

He said they kissed and did something consensual. His bloody handprints, etc. is just him checking on Kercher after the 'real killer' left. That would be his story for the DNA.

 

[Fedayn]

He said they kissed and did something consensual. That would cover for his DNA.

So no other fingerprints, a smashed window with glass outside-ie depicting a false break-in and other inconsisrtencies don't fit. Nop-one else has suggested Guede broke in. No-one else has even made any attempt to link Guede with the so-called break in....

 

[HumanFrailty]

So no other fingerprints, a smashed window with glass outside-ie depicting a false break-in and other inconsisrtencies don't fit. Nop-one else has suggested Guede broke in. No-one else has even made any attempt to link Guede with the so-called break in....

Inconsistencies in the logic of a panicking drug addict murderer is to be expected.

The glass was inside the room. There were shards on the room owner's clothes.

Um, the defense has argued that Guede broke in. :/

 

[Orang Utan]

you massive cunts

 

[Fedayn]

Inconsistencies in the logic of a panicking drug addict murderer is to be expected.

The glass was inside the room. There were shards on the room owner's clothes.

Um, the defense has argued that Guede broke in. :/

Well that contradicts your claims that he just knocked on the door then? Or are you saying he staged the break in?

 

[HumanFrailty]

Well that contradicts your claims that he just knocked on the door then? Or are you saying he staged the break in?

I'm saying he staged the break-in. The defence didn't say this.

 

[Fedayn]

Well perhaps you might wanna argue that with Dylans. He is convinced it's a legit break in.

 

[Orang Utan]

this isn't an entertainment for you to solve like you're watching poirot

 

[Fedayn]

this isn't an entertainment for you to solve like you're watching poirot

Who said it was?

 

[Orang Utan]

this is how you're behaving. let's solve a real-life murder. fuck right off.

 

[HumanFrailty]

Well perhaps you might wanna argue that with Dylans. He is convinced it's a legit break in.

Either Guede broke in or he staged a break-in. I don't know and it doesn't matter. The ultimate outcome in both cases is that he killed Meredith alone which would correspond to the DNA evidence implicating him to the exclusion of anyone else in the house.

 

[Fedayn]

this is how you're behaving. let's solve a real-life murder. fuck right off.

I wasn't aware you were the arbiter of what people spoke about? I must have missed that meeting.

 

[Orang Utan]

it's just well, off, all this talk.
distasteful even.
you've all gone a bit mad about this

 

[Miss Caphat]

not really, it's just an interesting thing to talk about for many reasons. If you don't like it, go find another place to play. that's a good boy

 

[Miss Caphat]

Maybe Meredith let him in and he took advantage of her. Why is this not considered?

ok, are you ready for what it says about this in the court file, the one that's being defended here as if it contains the ultimate truth of the world?
It goes on for about 3 pages of how Meredith was a good girl and "not fond of casual flirtations", and therefore would not under any circumstances have let a man in the house when she was there alone.

Sorry, but as a 20 year old, or even as a 35 yr old woman, I don t recall being in the habit of assuming that every man who asks to come in to use the bathroom or whatever was going to put a move on me. I also don't know many 20 year olds who are secure/bold enough to actually refuse to let one of their peers in, even if they do feel uncomfortable/uneasy.

 

[dylans]

it's just well, off, all this talk.
distasteful even.

No it isn't actually. There has been a miscarriage of justice. The two people who were wrongly convicted of this crime will have to live with the judgemental finger pointing of idiots who believe they are guilty for the rest of their lives. despite being released. If people continued to argue that the Birmingham 6 or Guildford 4 were guilty after they had been released it would be those who continue arguing that they are guilty who are massive cunts and it would be the duty of those who believe an injustice was done to defend their innocence.

Imagine serving years in prison for something you didn't do. Then having to suffer the accusations of guilt from witless idiots despite all the evidence to the contrary for the rest of your life. If people were to continue to argue that the Birmingham 6 were guilty I would argue their innocence for the simple reason that continued accusations of guilt compound the injustice. This case is no different. The two people initially convicted of this crime are innocent and their innocence is indisputable to anyone applying a modicum of common sense and rational thought to the case. You are right about one thing, It's not entertainment, it's far more important. Its defending the innocence of two people who were convicted of a crime they didn't do. That's why I care about this and that is why I am putting forward the case for their innocence and I am damned if I am going to apologise for that. If it had happened to me, I hope people would do the same for me.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Maybe Meredith let him in and he took advantage of her. Why is this not considered?

It is considered and I think this is the most likely scenario.Although, this does make me wonder why he used the toilet next to Meredith's room, rather than the one opposite the front door, which was the closest one.

So, who staged the break in? Guede doesn't seem to have done it as dylans posts above show, there is no evidence of Guede in the break-in room. How did he manage to clean himself out of it but not elsewhere?

 

[London_Calling]

it's just well, off, all this talk.
distasteful even.
you've all gone a bit mad about this

Are you offended, by chance?

 

[Diana9]

Oh really? Pagans were quite keen on witchcraft last time I looked.

Right, they were keen on witchcraft. They didn't burn witches, did they?