Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Amanda Knox Is Innocent

Rutita1 said:
Interesting. Do you know AN then Phil?
Click to expand...

I know her type.

Rutita1 said:
don´t you think this is a bit of a strange description of her, especially in a thread where you are arguing her innocence?
Click to expand...

Not at all.

My point is that her status as a bit of a ´chica loca´ is what enabled the prosecutor to convince the jury of her guilt, by suggesting that such women are completely devoid of morality and thus capable of murder. Just because she likes to party and has had a few boyfriends, there are no limits to the depravity in which she might be expected to indulge.

I regard that argument as misogynist in the extreme don´t you?
 
i think there's a lot which has come out of this case largely how broken the italian justices system is.

having seen what they've shown on tv and read about it i think she probably is innocent of the murder, and has definitely been demonised.

sadly what hasn't come out is what really happened on that night...
 
ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
Yes. So you admit there is evidence?
Finally, I think you are beginning to actually get it. Bit slow for a grown lad aren't you.
Click to expand...
tbf the standard of evidence within this particular trial which would be hearsay in the UK isn't very high. hence my saying she's probably innocent. then took her reaction after the death to be indicative of guilt because she failed to show sufficient remorse ffs...

Why would someone not guilty need to show remorse or morn their friend in a court mandated manner, they did beat her, did beat him, they did sleep deprive them refused them translators and made them sign a confession in a language they didn't speak fluently.

anywhere else in the world this would be an amnesty case but because it's got tabloid hype behind it and it's in Europe it's been largely ignored.

Hence me saying the Italitan justices system is broken... (though we only have to look at the recent belisconi trials to know this is true...)
 
Anudder Oik said:
From what I have gathered in conversation tonite with a friend, who has studied the case, she is guilty.
Knox and boyfriend open door and immediately say they have already phoned the police (They haven't, it's a lie). They are cleaning the house, it smells strongly of bleach. Knox shows concern about victim's door being locked.
Click to expand...

This is utterly at odds with the Rolling Stone article this year. I've linked to the page with the interrogation, but the whole article paints a picture of innocence. I *assume* this is based on transcripts and fact.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627?page=5

WTF?
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
tbf the standard of evidence within this particular trial which would be hearsay in the UK isn't very high. hence my saying she's probably innocent. then took her reaction after the death to be indicative of guilt because she failed to show sufficient remorse ffs...

Why would someone not guilty need to show remorse or morn their friend in a court mandated manner, they did beat her, did beat him, they did sleep deprive them refused them translators and made them sign a confession in a language they didn't speak fluently.

anywhere else in the world this would be an amnesty case but because it's got tabloid hype behind it and it's in Europe it's been largely ignored.

Hence me saying the Italitan justices system is broken... (though we only have to look at the recent belisconi trials to know this is true...)
Click to expand...

I don't doubt any of that, well I doubt some of it a little bit but that's inconsequential.
There is a possibility that she did commit the crime, whether she gets let off or stays banged up for life is neither hear nor there.
 
ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
I don't doubt any of that, well I doubt some of it a little bit but that's inconsequential.
There is a possibility that she did commit the crime, whether she gets let off or stays banged up for life is neither hear nor there.
Click to expand...
the thing is our standard of proof in the UK is to prove beyond reasonable doubt a crime has been committed, in italy it's to prove innocence that a crime has not and if there's a chance you did it in the UK but insufficent evidence then you go free, in italy if there's a chance you might have done it then you're jailed.

Again the wieght and value of evidence in court is also in question in the UK the court places the same weight of balance to all admissible evidence in italy that evidence provided by the prosecutor or police is given a higher value than other evidence IE police witness in the UK is subject to the same rules as a witness from the public. In italy the police are given far more weight than any other witness...

Even in italy italians fear and loath the judicary because of their broken system...
 
I'm not arguing any of that.

I am just saying that there is a chance she played a part in the murder. There is also the possibility that she didn't.
To say that she 100% had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime is just plain stupid.

Terrible system though I agree, and I didn't exactly hear very good things about the cops from the locals when I was in Italy earlier this year.
 
ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
I'm not arguing any of that.

I am just saying that there is a chance she played a part in the murder. There is also the possibility that she didn't.
To say that she 100% had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime is just plain stupid.

Terrible system though I agree, and I didn't exactly hear very good things about the cops from the locals when I was in Italy earlier this year.
Click to expand...
By that logic, you can't be ruled out. I have seen no evidence that makes me think that she was involved, and the evidence presented by the friend of Anudder Oik contradicts that presented on the article I link to above and wikipedia. Obviously, both of these could be wrong, but again, I have seen nothing to suggest they are. The 'guilty until proven innocent' approach and the fact that police evidence is given higher weight is the best explanation I can see for why she is in prison. Misogynists 2, women 0.
 
There is a lot more to suggest Knox did it than I.
I could easily prove I didn't do it.

From what you or I know of the case and the details there is more than a high probability that she was involved.
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
the thing is our standard of proof in the UK is to prove beyond reasonable doubt a crime has been committed, in italy it's to prove innocence that a crime has not and if there's a chance you did it in the UK but insufficent evidence then you go free, in italy if there's a chance you might have done it then you're jailed.
Click to expand...
Utterly wrong. Italy works on the same basis of proof as the UK, beyond reasonable doubt. A defendant may lie tho, there's no perjury in that instance.
 
ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
I'm not arguing any of that.

I am just saying that there is a chance she played a part in the murder. There is also the possibility that she didn't.
To say that she 100% had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime is just plain stupid.

Terrible system though I agree, and I didn't exactly hear very good things about the cops from the locals when I was in Italy earlier this year.
Click to expand...
well I guess there are 4 possibles as with all cases:

she did it
she didn't do it
she didn't do it but knew about it before the act and did nothing to stop it
she didn't do it, didn't know about it but helped cover it up/provided an alibi after the act

However what she's currently in jail for is

She didn't do it, didn't know about it, didn't show sufficient remorse.

Now of course none of us know whether she is innocent or not or have had access to all the files (including her defense team...) however if this had been tired in the UK she'd be in the USA now not in Jail...
 
belboid said:
Utterly wrong. Italy works on the same basis of proof as the UK, beyond reasonable doubt. A defendant may lie tho, there's no perjury in that instance.
Click to expand...
Certainly not according to what I've read. this case has been about her defense team proving her innocence against a pre-judged/assumed guilt, not a presumption of innocence...
 
ATOMIC SUPLEX said:
From what you or I know of the case and the details there is more than a high probability that she was involved.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't see it. There is an unreliable witness (to a conversation, nothing else), no motive, and all the DNA evidence seems to be either a) not from the crime scene or b) questionable because of contamination. Compare this to the very strong evidence against Guede and I don't even see why they suspect other involvement.
 
GarfieldLeChat said:
Certainly not according to what I've read. this case has been about her defense team proving her innocence against a pre-judged/assumed guilt, not a presumption of innocence...
Click to expand...
that happens everywhere. there IS a presumption of innocence in law, but that doesnt mean it will be applied by individual human beings in every case.
 
no dear, I'm afraid you've failed to read carefully, yet again. Having to prove a case against a presumption of guilt happens everywhere, no matter what is actually written down in law.
 
belboid said:
no dear, I'm afraid you've failed to read carefully, yet again. Having to prove a case against a presumption of guilt happens everywhere, no matter what is actually written down in law.
Click to expand...
no you have to prove a case in the UK from a position of innocence. this doesn't happen everywhere...

you can't prove a case against a presumption of guilt, you can prove a case against the presumption of suspicion.
 
sorry, i forgot i was dealing with a brain dead moron. Go back and reread it slowly, maybe speak the words allowed, I gather that helps sometimes.
 
that is what I just said, well done! Now go back and read the other posts, and you should be able to work out why you are talking out of your arse.
 
alternatively I could just engage with you know the other posters on the thread and ignore you entirely... as your being spurious...
 
spurious? You really should look words up in a dictionary before you try and use them in a sentence
 
phildwyer said:
I know her type.
Click to expand...

I suggest, with this ^^^ statement alone you are doning exactly what you accuse others of doing in your statements below.

My point is that her status as a bit of a ´chica loca´ is what enabled the prosecutor to convince the jury of her guilt, by suggesting that such women are completely devoid of morality and thus capable of murder. Just because she likes to party and has had a few boyfriends, there are no limits to the depravity in which she might be expected to indulge.

I regard that argument as misogynist in the extreme don´t you?
Click to expand...
 
Is it true that the crucial bit of evidence was lost for 47 days, walked on by god knows who, and then found in a rubbish bin?

Also is it true that (as I saw on another site), trace elements of DNA for Knox and Sollecito were found, but much larger DNA evidence for the Rudy Guede person - this seems to be important, because if she did try to clean the crimes scene, wouldn't there also be only trace elements of DNA for Guede also?

She may seem weird, but then so did Stefan Kiszko, and those smelly hippies the Guilford four.
 
Idris2002 said:
Is it true that the crucial bit of evidence was lost for 47 days, walked on by god knows who, and then found in a rubbish bin?

Also is it true that (as I saw on another site), trace elements of DNA for Knox and Sollecito were found, but much larger DNA evidence for the Rudy Guede person - this seems to be important, because if she did try to clean the crimes scene, wouldn't there also be only trace elements of DNA for Guede also?

She may seem weird, but then so did Stefan Kiszko, and those smelly hippies the Guilford four.
Click to expand...
I don't think she is that weird.

Hell if you took my sex life and put it under the microscope of tabloid muck raking or any of ours how many little things peccadilloes etc would it expose which could be twisted and whic you could neither refute or deny because there was an on going case against you.

Granted I've never tried killing someone during sex but then there's a much evidence that I have as has been presented that she has or you have...

The things I've read on this suggest that the elements were entirely consistent with those one would expect to find in a shared house IE bugger all but minuscule amounts...

They never followed up on the reported intruder, they've never followed up on any other leads at all they've not done location traces on the mobile phones of her and Sollecito so many things the guy who originally put the case together has a history of framing innocent women as being involved in satanic rituals and had unsuccessfully attempted to prosecute 20 others with near identical stories and was eventually removed from the case... it's horrific....

and at the bottom of all of this some poor family have still not gotten any real answers to this matter...
 
belboid said:
spurious? You really should look words up in a dictionary before you try and use them in a sentence
Click to expand...

not genuine, authentic, or true; not from the claimed, pretended, or proper source; counterfeit.

that's you... debate the topic not the poster or fuck off son...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

krtek a houby
JD Vance's time is up
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
166
Views
8K
two sheds
two sheds
Sweet FA
Hopefully Sean 'Diddy' Combs' time is up
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
ID47
I
Pickman's model
George v's time is up
Replies
3
Views
657
tim
tim
N
Is Trump's personality a result of self-loathing?
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
4K
two sheds
two sheds
tim
Lula's time is up.
Replies
3
Views
953
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom