Amanda Knox Guilty of murder (shakeshead)

[puckluck2]

Exactly. Would she be guilty in America? Probably not but after watching her on TV a while back (I think Dateline) the hairs on my neck stood up. She seemed like a calculated liar and knew more than she was letting on.

[RogerWilco]

No one should be guilty of murder just because their demeanor is what you would consider "awkward", that is just silly.

I just have a totally different take on this. Steve Moore laid out the best case showing that no only was it improbable for Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to be involved, it is was actually impossible.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I don't know that she did it, but it seems to me a lot of people are going out of their way to proclaim Knox's innocence. I would agree the evidence isn't strong enough in North America to convict, but we aren't dealing with those standards. In other words, while I think she's "not guilty", I also doubt her innocence.

People are going out of their way to proclaim their innocence because of the cruel and unusual claims against her, which landed them in jail for four years. This case is totally crazy and it was very interesting. There was no evidence in Italy either, so I am unsure what standard you are speaking of.

Originally Posted by Delgar

There's no doubt Knox is a liar. She definitely knows more about the murder than she's let on, though it would seem in part her hashish haze contributed to her actions in the interrogation immediately afterwards.

She is not a liar, you are simply rehashing the lies and accusations against her. She knew nothing about the murder which the murderer admitted to. He brought Knox in when offered a deal, nothing more than that. Hash had nothing to do with anything at all.

Originally Posted by Delgar

I'm no fan of the Italian justice system, nor of Knox. In many ways she has contributed to the mess she finds herself in.

Blame the victim eh? This is simply pathetic.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Exactly. Would she be guilty in America? Probably not but after watching her on TV a while back (I think Dateline) the hairs on my neck stood up. She seemed like a calculated liar and knew more than she was letting on.

This is the exact type of comment I would expect from you.

[oilyfan]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Blame the victim eh? This is simply pathetic.

This is the kind of narrative her supporters have created, have you forgotten who lost her life?

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

This is the kind of narrative her supporters have created, have you forgotten who lost her life?

That is because the prosecution has created two more innocent victims while the actual killer is set to be released from jail later this year. It is not only disgusting but cowardly. The people trying to ruin two more live are no better than the killer. It is simply put pathetic.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

This is the kind of narrative her supporters have created, have you forgotten who lost her life?

Unreal, what does that have to do with putting an innocent person in jail? You have repeated many of the lies. If you want to remember who lost their life, stop victimizing innocent people.

Your comments are word for word straight from the mouths of the people responsible for ruining the lives of two innocent people. Very shameful and pathetic.

You are basically saying that because someone died we shouldn't defend innocent people.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

There was no evidence in Italy either, so I am unsure what standard you are speaking of.

If you really mean to say this, then you weren't paying attention either to the trial or the news that came out. There is evidence which suggests she may have been involved in the murder. The most obvious example being that her DNA was found on a knife which may have been used in the murder, along with the victim's. That is significant and deserves an explanation given her own words. Based on Knox's own statements, she provides no explanation on how that could have happened, and in fact her statements suggest it would be impossible for her own DNA to be on the knife handle. This warrants further investigation by itself.

I suppose its possible the police put the DNA there, or otherwise mishandled the knife. But that does not mean there is "no evidence". There is evidence which needs to be explained. Discrediting evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

As a result, these are not "cruel and unusual" claims against her. The evidence required vetting in a trial. I don't think it was vetted very well, but Italy has different standards.

As to saying she's not a liar, her own words have come back to haunt her in several respects. This is the first I've heard of someone defending Knox on the ground she was entirely truthful, and it doesn't stand scrutiny. Lying about things doesn't make one a murderer, but she sure didn't help her case when she spoke with the police with half-truths some cases and intentional misdirection in others. That's not blaming the victim (your word, "pathetic" suggests you don't appreciate the meaning of that word), its fact.

And as pointed out, the main victim is the deceased. Knox is perhaps a victim of circumstance as well, but as indicated above she did have some role in causing her own problems.

Anyway, stick to thinking there's "nothing" or "no evidence", all that shows is you're not paying attention, and doesn't actually help your argument, as those statements are clearly over the top. Poor evidence, or discreditable evidence? Sure. No evidence? That's wrong.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Delgar

If you really mean to say this, then you weren't paying attention either to the trial or the news that came out. There is evidence which suggests she may have been involved in the murder. The most obvious example being that her DNA was found on a knife which may have been used in the murder, along with the victim's. That is significant and deserves an explanation given her own words. Based on Knox's own statements, she provides no explanation on how that could have happened, and in fact her statements suggest it would be impossible for her own DNA to be on the knife handle. This warrants further investigation by itself.

The knife was not part of the crime, never was. It was simply a knife in a house. Knox does not have to provide an explanation why her DNA is on a knife, but I would guess it is because she claims they made meals together at his place? She is not a scientist who specializes in DNA. The average person may assume DNA equals blood, which it does not. It also includes pretty much all of you, including skins flakes, hair and saliva.

Originally Posted by Delgar

I suppose its possible the police put the DNA there, or otherwise mishandled the knife. But that does not mean there is "no evidence". There is evidence which needs to be explained. Discrediting evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

Nope, the prosecution and scientists never scientifically proved the knife was part of the crime - at all. The knife was just a knife. Contrary to that, experts claims the knife could have never been a part of the crime since it was too long and one knife was used in the attack. You are going down their path of lies.

Originally Posted by Delgar

As a result, these are not "cruel and unusual" claims against her. The evidence required vetting in a trial. I don't think it was vetted very well, but Italy has different standards.

Why would anyone care her DNA was on a knife they used for cooking at her boyfriends? The murderer ditched most of his clothes and the murder weapon. In fact, that guy was the guy who is currently in jail for this murder, and he left his DNA everywhere at the crime scene. This is a silly debate.

Originally Posted by Delgar

As to saying she's not a liar, her own words have come back to haunt her in several respects. This is the first I've heard of someone defending Knox on the ground she was entirely truthful, and it doesn't stand scrutiny. Lying about things doesn't make one a murderer, but she sure didn't help her case when she spoke with the police with half-truths some cases and intentional misdirection in others. That's not blaming the victim (your word, "pathetic" suggests you don't appreciate the meaning of that word), its fact.

She did not lie. Anything she was purported as to saying or agreeing with was done under coercion under extreme circumstances. And the recording equipment magically disappeared. The police knew they crossed lines and quickly discovered there was international attention and deleted everything.

Originally Posted by Delgar

And as pointed out, the main victim is the deceased. Knox is perhaps a victim of circumstance as well, but as indicated above she did have some role in causing her own problems.

Blame the victim is a real classy thing.

Originally Posted by Delgar

Anyway, stick to thinking there's "nothing" or "no evidence", all that shows is you're not paying attention, and doesn't actually help your argument, as those statements are clearly over the top. Poor evidence, or discreditable evidence? Sure. No evidence? That's wrong.

There was no evidence. You brought up a knife that was not used in the crime and was taken from a kitchen in another location, along with many other knives. The crime scene proved it was one person. The absence of evidence tells everything, except for what evidence existed resulted in the arrest in Germany of the sole murderer. How do you think it played out? They magically floated above the murder scene and took a souvenir?

Repeating nonsense does not make it true.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Delgar

If you really mean to say this, then you weren't paying attention either to the trial or the news that came out. There is evidence which suggests she may have been involved in the murder. The most obvious example being that her DNA was found on a knife which may have been used in the murder, along with the victim's. That is significant and deserves an explanation given her own words. Based on Knox's own statements, she provides no explanation on how that could have happened, and in fact her statements suggest it would be impossible for her own DNA to be on the knife handle. This warrants further investigation by itself.

I suppose its possible the police put the DNA there, or otherwise mishandled the knife. But that does not mean there is "no evidence". There is evidence which needs to be explained. Discrediting evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

As a result, these are not "cruel and unusual" claims against her. The evidence required vetting in a trial. I don't think it was vetted very well, but Italy has different standards.

As to saying she's not a liar, her own words have come back to haunt her in several respects. This is the first I've heard of someone defending Knox on the ground she was entirely truthful, and it doesn't stand scrutiny. Lying about things doesn't make one a murderer, but she sure didn't help her case when she spoke with the police with half-truths some cases and intentional misdirection in others. That's not blaming the victim (your word, "pathetic" suggests you don't appreciate the meaning of that word), its fact.

And as pointed out, the main victim is the deceased. Knox is perhaps a victim of circumstance as well, but as indicated above she did have some role in causing her own problems.

Anyway, stick to thinking there's "nothing" or "no evidence", all that shows is you're not paying attention, and doesn't actually help your argument, as those statements are clearly over the top. Poor evidence, or discreditable evidence? Sure. No evidence? That's wrong.

You mean the knife that never had DNA on it that matched the victim? The same knife that doesn't fit any of the stab wounds nor the blood stain on the sheets when it came in contact with them? That knife?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...lls-court?lite

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Knox does not have to provide an explanation why her DNA is on a knife, but I would guess it is because she claims they made meals together at his place?

Why would anyone care her DNA was on a knife they used for cooking at her boyfriends?

You brought up a knife that was not used in the crime and was taken from a kitchen in another location, along with many other knives.
Repeating nonsense does not make it true.

You're making things up now. There was no evidence about them cooking together, and there was some evidence to suggest they never had as they had just recently met. I don't see much point in debating this with you. Also, just picking one expert at a trial and suggesting that conclusion is fact and ignoring the other experts who said the opposite only shows you're going to go with whatever evidence supports your belief. You are only talking about the Knox experts and are ignoring the government's experts.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

You mean the knife that never had DNA on it that matched the victim? The same knife that doesn't fit any of the stab wounds nor the blood stain on the sheets when it came in contact with them? That knife?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2...lls-court?lite

The knife DNA has resulted in different experts saying different things. The american media is reporting those items that support her innocence. If I'm not mistaken Knox's DNA on the knife wasn't even part of the initial trial, that information only came out after.

Lets not forget the other blood evidence, Amanda's mixed with the victim's. Again, my only point being there is cause for suspicion.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Delgar

You're making things up now. There was no evidence about them cooking together, and there was some evidence to suggest they never had as they had just recently met. I don't see much point in debating this with you. Also, just picking one expert at a trial and suggesting that conclusion is fact and ignoring the other experts who said the opposite only shows you're going to go with whatever evidence supports your belief. You are only talking about the Knox experts and are ignoring the government's experts.

You mean the independent experts who told them the DNA was bunk? They let her out of jail...

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Delgar

The knife DNA has resulted in different experts saying different things. The american media is reporting those items that support her innocence. If I'm not mistaken Knox's DNA on the knife wasn't even part of the initial trial, that information only came out after.

Lets not forget the other blood evidence, Amanda's mixed with the victim's. Again, my only point being there is cause for suspicion.

There was no blood evidence? Where are you looking this stuff up?

I think you are confusing DNA with blood. Big difference.

[monkeyman]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

This is very silly. The crime scene had evidence of one attacker, including DNA evidence and footprints. There was no evidence at all of a second attacker. The person whose DNA was found at the scene? Guede. He even confessed.

There was evidence of an attacker with footprints everywhere in blood. Not two people, or three, just one. That in itself is evidence of one attacker.

Here are the facts, taken from a great website:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

1. There is absolutely no evidence of Amanda Knox in the room at the time of the murder, nor is there evidence that she participated in any way. There was no motive. Originally, they claimed that Amanda caught a burglar in their house and decided to murder her roommate with the burglar. It is simply stupid.

a. No blood
b. No hairs
c. No fingerprints
d. No footprints
e. No saliva
f. No DNA

I had to quote this because i don't think it be stated enough.
often the simple answer is the correct one.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Delgar

The knife DNA has resulted in different experts saying different things. The american media is reporting those items that support her innocence. If I'm not mistaken Knox's DNA on the knife wasn't even part of the initial trial, that information only came out after.

Lets not forget the other blood evidence, Amanda's mixed with the victim's. Again, my only point being there is cause for suspicion.

It was a court ordered independent review in the last appeal, you can read the entire transcript in English below.

http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

There was no blood evidence? Where are you looking this stuff up?

I think you are confusing DNA with blood. Big difference.

If understand how the Italian court works (or doesn't work as the case may be), the retrial was not a true retrial in that evidence from the first trial can be considered.

Anyway, their blood was found mixed together in the bathroom, for sure, and there was expert disagreement as to whether mixed blood was found in the room where the murder took place.

Amanda told the police she had thoroughly cleaned the bathroom the day before the murder.

Also, on the footsteps, a lot of you are picking a side. There was testimony that the bloody footsteps were consistent with Knox. And I have no idea where you all say the evidence shows there was only one attacker, that's what a website argues but the evidence itself could be argued the other way, and was.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Delgar

If understand how the Italian court works (or doesn't work as the case may be), the retrial was not a true retrial in that evidence from the first trial can be considered.

Anyway, their blood was found mixed together in the bathroom, for sure, and there was expert disagreement as to whether mixed blood was found in the room where the murder took place.

Amanda told the police she had thoroughly cleaned the bathroom the day before the murder.

Also, on the footsteps, a lot of you are picking a side. There was testimony that the bloody footsteps were consistent with Knox. And I have no idea where you all say the evidence shows there was only one attacker, that's what a website argues but the evidence itself could be argued the other way, and was.

This really isn't rocket science, just a little common sense some time prevails. The foot prints were Knox's for sure, but they were not blood.

The The Luminol Lies

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI6.html

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

This really isn't rocket science, just a little common sense some time prevails. The foot prints were Knox's for sure, but they were not blood.

The The Luminol Lies

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI6.html

That website is no better than the several that claim Knox definitely is guilty. There was testimony about the bloody prints in particular which said they were consistent with Knox (and sollecito for that matter).

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Delgar

That website is no better than the several that claim Knox definitely is guilty. There was testimony about the bloody prints in particular which said they were consistent with Knox (and socellito for that matter).

You just need to use a little common sense when reading reviews of evidence. The explanation there is simple and anyone that is even remotely educated can analyse it and draw a conclusion. You can do that with all the sites out there. The article is simple, straight forward and makes a whole lot of sense. What part do you not understand about it? It is really a pretty simple analysis, I don't see any spin there.