Amanda Knox Guilty of murder (shakeshead)

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by RogerWilco

You just need to use a little common since 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.

Give me a break. These are stupid personal attacks and that's my only comment on the above.

[oilyfan]

I am surprised at how personal this is for Nage and Roger Wilco.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I don't pretend to know much about the evidence in this case other than what I've read in this thread, but I would suggest that there is nothing wrong with feeling personally invested in miscarriages of justice. The whole point of having strict rules of evidence and procedure that must be followed in criminal trials is that the next time the state chooses to exercise its power to punish an individual, that individual could be you.

I don't know whether Knox is guilty--but I do know that even if we assume that all of the evidence that her detractors have brought forth is 100% true (and there seems to be considerable doubt on that score anyway) that it falls MILES short of proving her guilt to any reasonably just standard. She should not go to jail, she should not be extradited, she should not be imprisoned--not because she is "innocent" (though she may be) but because a state (including a foreign state) must be held to a higher standard than what we have seen in her legal proceedings thus far.

To put this another way: permitting the Italian justice system to convict and imprison a person based on the paper-thin evidence they have tendered would amount to saying that we no longer presume innocence at all, but put the onus on the accused to prove they didn't do the crime they are accused of. That's not right, and it's not justice. And in that sense, your actual opinions about Knox herself are irrelevant.

And you'd better believe it's personal. There is no more personal subject matter in law than controlling the exercise of state power against individuals.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Delgar

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.

No it was not. Amanda's blood perhaps existed in the washroom, but so what? That was not the crime scene, and it was in such small amounts, similar to anyone's bathroom. I bet her blood was on her pillow and phone as well. These are basically guarantees when it comes to collecting DNA.

What I find amazing is that the crime scene had evidence of one person and only that person's footprints slipping around the blood. Yet for some reason, you think Amanda was bleeding? They found no cuts or scratches on her at all.

So explain to us why her own blood, in a minuscule drop in the bathroom, matters at all? How does that mean she murdered someone?

This is crazy.

There was no expert disagreement. There were no experts for the prosecution - their incompetence was proven, thus not an expert.

[oilyfan]

Is your assertion that every murder scene is full of DNA of the suspect? I am pretty sure killing someone does not mean you are spilling your own blood. Especially when the victim is hypothesized to have been restrained.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Is your assertion that every murder scene is full of DNA of the suspect? I am pretty sure killing someone does not mean you are spilling your own blood. Especially when the victim is hypothesized to have been restrained.

Hair, skin under nails, saliva.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Is your assertion that every murder scene is full of DNA of the suspect? I am pretty sure killing someone does not mean you are spilling your own blood. Especially when the victim is hypothesized to have been restrained.

I'm trying to be fair to you here, but it sounds like you have made up your mind and will not be convinced. Let me ask you this:

Do you believe that a reasonable person, apprised of the evidence, could harbour a doubt in their mind as to Knox's guilt?

If your answer is "no" then ok--but you must be considering evidence that you haven't mentioned in this thread.

If your answer is "yes" then Knox should go free, whether or not you think she is factually guilty.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm trying to be fair to you here, but it sounds like you have made up your mind and will not be convinced. Let me ask you this:

Do you believe that a reasonable person, apprised of the evidence, could harbour a doubt in their mind as to Knox's guilt?

If your answer is "no" then ok--but you must be considering evidence that you haven't mentioned in this thread.

If your answer is "yes" then Knox should go free, whether or not you think she is factually guilty.

Yeah, I think the issue (and I'm not trying to beat up on Oilyfan, as he's getting a rough ride) is that Oilyfan has a) made up his mind as to her guilt and appears to be using confirmation bias to keep reinforcing his assertion, and b) doesn't seem too worried about the justice process, which is what most in this thread have been appalled at.

So the rest of us are expressing frustration in the justice system, while in Oilyfan's mind, it boils down to;

A) I believe she's guilty, and;

B) The State should be able to find her guilty by any means possible.

I honestly don't think he realizes how unreasonable his thoughts are.

[oilyfan]

Flameswin - thanks for the analysis, and I actually don't think I am getting a rough ride, I think this is a good discussion.

I can admit there is reasonable doubt because the Italians left themselves open to it. But from everything I have read I believe she is guilty. At the very least she knew what happened that night and is not saying anything.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by oilyfan

Is your assertion that every murder scene is full of DNA of the suspect? I am pretty sure killing someone does not mean you are spilling your own blood. Especially when the victim is hypothesized to have been restrained.

It was at this crime scene (you can draw your own conclusion as to why his DNA was found inside her body): And while the Italians focus on 2 innocent people this guy will get out on work release this year.

The evidence against Rudy Guede:



Rudy admitted he was in the room.



Rudy's DNA was found in and on Meredith's body.



Rudy's DNA along with Meredith’s blood, was found on Meredith's purse.



Rudy's excrement was found in the toilet.



Rudy's shoe prints, set in Meredith’s blood, were found in the bedroom and hallway.



Rudy's handprints, in Meredith’s blood, were found on a pillow case in Meredith's room and on her wall.



Rudy had a cut on his right hand that was still visible when he was arrested.



Rudy fled the country.





All of the evidence at the crime scene pointed to Rudy Guede. Amanda and Raffaele left no evidence at the crime scene. Why? Because Amanda and Raffaele were not there.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Oilyfan: In that case you believe she is factually guilty, but "not guilty" in law. That's fair enough.

[Kjesse]

A little commentary from Alan Derchowitz,

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/01/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2

"I don't know why public opinion is so supportive of her innocence," said Dershowitz, who described the circumstantial case against Knox as compelling, though not overwhelming.


"This is not a case, as it's been projected in the media, of no evidence at all. It's a case of the kind that would have resulted probably in a conviction in most courts in America. And so yet, because she is attractive, and because she has created a media campaign all over the country, she's become very popular. And I don't think we should do justice by popularity or justice by the way a person looks. This is a case for extradition."
The victim, he said, has largely been ignored by the American media, which has been supportive of Knox.
"In Italy, it's exactly the opposite. In Italy, she's Al Capone, she's the worst murderer in history."


I guess either he and I lack common sense, and reading comprehension, or we've looked beyond the biased websites to get our info.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

No it was not.

This was in response to where I said her blood was found mixed with the victim's in the bedroom, where the murder took place.

There are actually copies of the court exhibit demonstrating this on the internet, but I can't read Italian. Apparently there was some issue as to the validity of the Knox sample, but it's still some evidence.

So where exactly are you getting your information? If it's that former FBI guy who wrote a book, I'd suggest you compare what he says to what even Knox's own lawyer argued at the most recent trial.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Delgar

"This is not a case, as it's been projected in the media, of no evidence at all. It's a case of the kind that would have resulted probably in a conviction in most courts in America.

Show me a court in America where this case would have resulted in a conviction, let alone "most" of them. That's just straight up bull**** to throw that out there.

[hesh329]

It is a crazy trial and I am not really sure if she is guilty or not. The only reason i lean slightly to the side of not guilty is because of how mishandled the evidence was, the loss of the interrogation video and audio (really how do you not have a back up) as well the fact that it seems that the investigators had a theory and they spent the whole time focused on proving it without even giving a little consideration against the theory she didn't do it. It is always easy to prove what you believe, but if you can first prove what is opposite there is a good chance you are wrong and it feels like they went out of their way to prove they were right. and spent little to no time proving they might be wrong. Our brains are designed to look for patterns that often fit our own biases which is great for survival but not so great when it comes to deducing things. That is why scientist are always peer reviewed and always try to prove the opposite of their theory in order to prove their theory. Again not clue what the truth is but it sure seems to have been mismanaged from the beginning and never would have held up in Canada or the USA.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Delgar

This was in response to where I said her blood was found mixed with the victim's in the bedroom, where the murder took place.

There are actually copies of the court exhibit demonstrating this on the internet, but I can't read Italian. Apparently there was some issue as to the validity of the Knox sample, but it's still some evidence.

So where exactly are you getting your information? If it's that former FBI guy who wrote a book, I'd suggest you compare what he says to what even Knox's own lawyer argued at the most recent trial.

Look, I'm not saying either you or Dershowitz is wrong about Knox (how would I know?) but if you're going to appeal to a more learned authority there are probably better options. Dershowitz is a weird one: there is no doubt that he has had a lot of success in his legal career, but as a commentator he has made some pretty serious missteps (advocating warrants for torture is just one). He's pretty easy to attack, and has a history of taking extreme views and making inflammatory remarks in the media. Who's to say he's not just doing that again?

Once again, not saying he's wrong--just saying that given his history I'm not sure what his agenda for speaking out is, and that I don't really think he's in a position to know anyway.

There may well be evidence that would be sufficient to prove Knox's guilt to any kind of a reasonable standard. I haven't seen it, and if Dershowitz thinks that she would be convicted in the US, I'd sure like to know how.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by hesh329

It is a crazy trial and I am not really sure if she is guilty or not. The only reason i lean slightly to the side of not guilty is because of how mishandled the evidence was, the loss of the interrogation video and audio (really how do you not have a back up) as well the fact that it seems that the investigators had a theory and they spent the whole time focused on proving it without even giving a little consideration against the theory she didn't do it.

It is always easy to prove what you believe, but if you can first prove what is opposite there is a good chance you are wrong and it feels like they went out of their way to prove they were right. and spent little to no time proving they might be wrong. Our brains are designed to look for patterns that often fit our own biases which is great for survival but not so great when it comes to deducing things.

That is why scientist are always peer reviewed and always try to prove the opposite of their theory in order to prove their theory. Again not clue what the truth is but it sure seems to have been mismanaged from the beginning and never would have held up in Canada or the USA.

fixed for easier reading

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by Delgar

A little commentary from Alan Derchowitz,

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/01/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2

"I don't know why public opinion is so supportive of her innocence," said Dershowitz, who described the circumstantial case against Knox as compelling, though not overwhelming.


"This is not a case, as it's been projected in the media, of no evidence at all. It's a case of the kind that would have resulted probably in a conviction in most courts in America. And so yet, because she is attractive, and because she has created a media campaign all over the country, she's become very popular. And I don't think we should do justice by popularity or justice by the way a person looks. This is a case for extradition."
The victim, he said, has largely been ignored by the American media, which has been supportive of Knox.
"In Italy, it's exactly the opposite. In Italy, she's Al Capone, she's the worst murderer in history."


I guess either he and I lack common sense, and reading comprehension, or we've looked beyond the biased websites to get our info.

You lack common sence, that is without a doubt.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

There may well be evidence that would be sufficient to prove Knox's guilt to any kind of a reasonable standard. I haven't seen it, and if Dershowitz thinks that she would be convicted in the US, I'd sure like to know how.

I don't have enough info to agree with the strength of Dershowitz's assertion, but he's certainly a recognized expert in US criminal law and knows leaps and bounds more than I ever will about it.

The only point I'm really trying to make in this thread is that there is evidence pointing to Knox's involvement. Any suggestion that there is no evidence is not supportable. That's my only real point, and I get tired of silly media reports saying otherwise, so I'm in this thread only to advocate against that issue specifically.

Knox and Sollecito's stories diverged right at the start, that's enough to wonder if they were involved. She said they were together all night, he said no they weren't, then she changes her story when she finds out what he said. So right off the bat they're making themselves suspicious. We know they were hiding something. Maybe they only wanted to hide that they had drugs, but then it gets better. You have her blood at the scene (though they're roommates, the blood shouldn't be where it was found), the knife from Sollecito's apartment with both their DNA, and Sollecito's false statement that he and the victim had cooked together. There's so much more. But they started off lying. That's not to defend the interrogation techniques, which were reprehensible, but before things got oppressive they had already started lying.

The case against Sollecito is strong. One example, later on in the case he made a statement that the victim's DNA was on his knife because he poked her with it at his place when they were cooking. The evidence was conclusive she had never been to his place.

When you have Knox saying she was with him all night, well hell, she's already got herself in a catch 22, though Sollecito's statement didn't occur until long after the interrogations were over, and I doubt she could anticipate he would say something like that... they didn't have enough time to get their stories straight.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Show me a court in America where this case would have resulted in a conviction, let alone "most" of them. That's just straight up bull**** to throw that out there.

Why, are you an expert? I'm not. Your question is rhetorical nonsense and not capable of an answer. Courts in the USA, whether judge or jury, have often convicted people, or let them off, where popular opinion differed or where the evidence was later considered shoddy. Look up the Innocence Project.