Amanda Knox Guilty of murder (shakeshead)

[T@T]

^^^

Being scared and lying in a foreign country does not make you guilty. And if you are following the story you know some of the "lies" were drummed by the police as they took advantage of the language barrier.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by T@T

^^^

Being scared and lying in a foreign country does not make you guilty. And if you are following the story you know some of the "lies" were drummed by the police as they took advantage of the language barrier.

she changed her alibi, in English mind you no language barrier there, twice. Doesn't exactly scream of innocence

the media no doubt didn't treat this case as we are used to in North America, but she dug this hole for herself by lying at the start of the case

I said that she didn't get a fair trial, I personally think she is guilty but based on the evidence no one could say that beyond a reasonable doubt she was the killer.

[fatso]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

she changed her alibi, in English mind you no language barrier there, twice. Doesn't exactly scream of innocence

the media no doubt didn't treat this case as we are used to in North America, but she dug this hole for herself by lying at the start of the case

I said that she didn't get a fair trial, I personally think she is guilty but based on the evidence no one could say that beyond a reasonable doubt she was the killer.

Seems like you've been following the case more closely than me, so tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought her confessional statement was the product of 14 hours of uninterrupted interrogation, without a lawyer. That alone should raise suspicion as to its reliability.

Further, it seems like much of the prosecution's case was built on Knox's post-offence conduct: being with her boyfriend buying lingerie, public socializing, etc. But I fail to see how that is evidence of guilt.

On the other hand, I don't see why the police would unfairly target her. I mean, an expedient resolution was already reached in convicting the other guy, who was shown to have been a thief in that area.

Who knows? This is such a strange case, so much of which hinges on two completely distinct versions of the accused.

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by fatso

Seems like you've been following the case more closely than me, so tell me if I'm wrong, but I thought her confessional statement was the product of 14 hours of uninterrupted interrogation, without a lawyer. That alone should raise suspicion as to its reliability.

Further, it seems like much of the prosecution's case was built on Knox's post-offence conduct: being with her boyfriend buying lingerie, public socializing, etc. But I fail to see how that is evidence of guilt.

On the other hand, I don't see why the police would unfairly target her. I mean, an expedient resolution was already reached in convicting the other guy, who was shown to have been a thief in that area.

Who knows? This is such a strange case, so much of which hinges on two completely distinct versions of the accused.

The first confession she made was a written note, unless I am mistaken, I know she was questioned without a lawyer but I am not positive what statement that was. I hadn't really read much about until a few days ago when it was nearing its hand.

One of the reasons that much of the reporters think this case is getting so much attention is because American students on exchange is very important to some of the towns in Italy.

There is one author who has it tied to the fact that the Italian DA (who is under indictment for abuse of power and going to trial on january) originally called Knox the murderer and then they found the DNA of Rudy Guede and now the DA doesn't want to look stupid. Most of the reporters I have read or watched on CNN or BBC think that is pretty stupid.

Most of the prosecutions case is built on circumstantial stuff, like her attitude, and her lying at first. Along with the one disputed piece of physical evidence (the murder weapon).

As I said she didn't get a fair trial, and many people think she gets acquitted in an appeal. I just get the feeling that she did it and I am guessing the jury felt the same way, with no proof to back that up though. Which is why she shouldn't have been given a guilty verdict yesterday. Although Italy seems to have more of a tradition that you must prove innocence where in our system which is the other way around.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

The first confession she made was a written note, unless I am mistaken, I know she was questioned without a lawyer but I am not positive what statement that was. I hadn't really read much about until a few days ago when it was nearing its hand.

One of the reasons that much of the reporters think this case is getting so much attention is because American students on exchange is very important to some of the towns in Italy.

There is one author who has it tied to the fact that the Italian DA (who is under indictment for abuse of power and going to trial on january) originally called Knox the murderer and then they found the DNA of Rudy Guede and now the DA doesn't want to look stupid. Most of the reporters I have read or watched on CNN or BBC think that is pretty stupid.

Most of the prosecutions case is built on circumstantial stuff, like her attitude, and her lying at first. Along with the one disputed piece of physical evidence (the murder weapon).

As I said she didn't get a fair trial, and many people think she gets acquitted in an appeal. I just get the feeling that she did it and I am guessing the jury felt the same way, with no proof to back that up though. Which is why she shouldn't have been given a guilty verdict yesterday. Although Italy seems to have more of a tradition that you must prove innocence where in our system which is the other way around.

Written by the police in Italian, out of all the brutal things in this case that one took it by storm. Sorry, I feel bad for the young lady and family who died but when police and prosecutors act like this I don't really care if she did it or not!

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by T@T

Written by the police in Italian, out of all the brutal things in this case that one took it by storm. Sorry, I feel bad for the young lady and family who died but when police and prosecutors act like this I don't really care if she did it or not!

ya thats fair, Italy is so corrupt in so many ways (police, government, even the Serie A), I do feel bad for her that she isn't getting a fair trial

[HPLovecraft]

[nickerjones]

hmmm

[Byrns]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Obama doesn't have much of a poker face.

[fatso]

I thought the confession stated that she and her boyfriend were involved in the murder. But, again, it was the product of her being interrogated for 14 hours without a lawyer or a break. Apparently, the written confession was in both English and Italian. Knox claims that in addition to verbally threatening her, the police slapped her twice during the interrogation. My personal feelings are that judges should be wary of any kind of confession, and especially so if the circumstances are as unfavourable to an accused as claimed here, so I'm admittedly biased against allowing her confession as evidence.

I do find it totally fascinating that the prosecution and the defence have gone to such great lengths to paint completely opposed interpretations of Knox. The defence is making her out to be some kind of lovable nerd who was merely living her academic dream. The prosecution makes her out to be a drug-fueled, sex-crazed wild child who came to Europe to do naughty things. The truth, as they say, is probably in-between. I don't doubt she liked to party, but was murder really in her mind?

Interestingly, and again someone can correct me if I'm wrong, the original prosecution theory - that Knox and her boyfriend killed Kercher because she wouldn't participate in their orgy - was dropped as the trial proceeded. The defence introduced expert evidence that Kercher was probably killed by one person, not three as originally contended. However, it seems there was also evidence that Knox was growing marijuana in the house and that Kercher was becoming increasingly bothered by the 'friends' Knox was bringing over. Perhaps a fight between roommates escalated quickly and Knox tried to cover it up? What was the convicted grifter doing there that night? And why did Knox say it was the local bar owner who ended up having an airtight alibi?

[narbeZ]

Just researched the whole trial and I can say without a doubt that her boyfriend and her are guilty.

The sad part about the whole thing is they will probably out in 15 years.


Disgusting. Its things like this where I wish I could be batman or some elite superhero and stop this madness and beat the piss out of extremely dumb individuals if that makes any sense.

Could you imagine if you had the power to stop a crime before it happened and give the perpetrator a good old fashioned country ass woopin?

That thought alone makes me smile.

[speede5]

Oh come on how can a pretty, horny, all american girl possibly be guilty?

[T@T]

Originally Posted by narbeZ

Just researched the whole trial and I can say without a doubt that her boyfriend and her are guilty.

Well, I guess that's it then. No need to appeal the great narbeZ is never wrong.

[dre]

I can spot a guilty man or woman a mile away. Thats how good I am.

[DOK]

Originally Posted by narbeZ

Just researched the whole trial and I can say without a doubt that her boyfriend and her are guilty.

The sad part about the whole thing is they will probably out in 15 years.


Disgusting. Its things like this where I wish I could be batman or some elite superhero and stop this madness and beat the piss out of extremely dumb individuals if that makes any sense.

Could you imagine if you had the power to stop a crime before it happened and give the perpetrator a good old fashioned country ass woopin?

That thought alone makes me smile.

I think the issue is with the system over there and the language issue. If your getting your information through media and police reports, those are the exact things causing the skepticism in the trial.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by DOK

I think the issue is with the system over there and the language issue. If your getting your information through media and police reports, those are the exact things causing the skepticism in the trial.

I find it crazy that the jury wasn't sequestered and you only need a majority to convict. Do they even use the "reasonable doubt" principle?

I think she might be guilty, but to me it doesn't sound like the evidence could support that 100%.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

she changed her alibi, in English mind you no language barrier there, twice. Doesn't exactly scream of innocence

the media no doubt didn't treat this case as we are used to in North America, but she dug this hole for herself by lying at the start of the case

I said that she didn't get a fair trial, I personally think she is guilty but based on the evidence no one could say that beyond a reasonable doubt she was the killer.

She did not lie about her story...the police made her provide a hypothetical scenario of what she thinks may have occurred (this is according to the defense). There was no evidence against her at all, yet you think she is guilty? Provide me with some evidence. She has also been adamant that she was slapped by the police during the interrogation.

Based on the evidence of the case, she would not be in jail (in Canada) and the police would not have pressed charges.

[Street Pharmacist]

Ok. I have done all my research on the entire trial and.....I think she did it. I cannot prove she did it. Also, what's the motive? Psychopathy? I fail to see a clear motive. There are an extreme few murder cases without this key feature....

[flamesflames444]

I just finished watching the dateline special about it as I had it on PVR... I think the biggest issue was the fact that jury wasn't sequestered so heard everything that was going on in the media which was a total soap opera... clearly that would have biased them for sure

[d_phaneuf]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

She did not lie about her story...the police made her provide a hypothetical scenario of what she thinks may have occurred (this is according to the defense). There was no evidence against her at all, yet you think she is guilty? Provide me with some evidence. She has also been adamant that she was slapped by the police during the interrogation.

Based on the evidence of the case, she would not be in jail (in Canada) and the police would not have pressed charges.

Originally Posted by diane_phaneuf

As I said she didn't get a fair trial, and many people think she gets acquitted in an appeal. I just get the feeling that she did it and I am guessing the jury felt the same way, with no proof to back that up though. Which is why she shouldn't have been given a guilty verdict yesterday. Although Italy seems to have more of a tradition that you must prove innocence where in our system which is the other way around.

I all ready said I wouldn't convict her based on the evidence, I think she is guilty but it is a gut feeling. And Legal experts on the BBC and CNN have both said people are convicted in the States and in England for less evidence (even circumstantial) than she was.