Paul and Karla all over again.With new technology now they can place her at the scene itself.Apparently she held her mouth shut while being raped then left the room not knowing he was going to kill her.This is the latest from my short wave radio from the UK.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Italian judge who convicted Knox investigated for media comments
Quote:
ROME (Reuters) - Italy's justice minister ordered an investigation on Monday into comments to the media by the judge who reinstated murder convictions for U.S. student Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.
Quote:
Sollecito's lawyers said the comments showed the judge had been biased against their client and had violated the legal maxim that jury deliberations remain secret. They asked Italy's judicial governing body to consider disciplinary action and queried whether the court's decision was still valid.
Nencini's comments were made before the court issued its full judgment, the 'motivations' that in Italy are published within 90 days of a verdict, explaining how the court reached its decision. But he appeared to hint at what the document would contain.
I'm, frankly, a little astonished at what Dershowitz describes as "some evidence" in that video. I was hoping he could then trot out some new piece of super-probative information that would tend to incriminate Knox.
But nope. It's the same stuff people have been rehashing in this thread. It's a little sad to see such a prominent US lawyer confusing innuendo with evidence.
I'm, frankly, a little astonished at what Dershowitz describes as "some evidence" in that video. I was hoping he could then trot out some new piece of super-probative information that would tend to incriminate Knox.
But nope. It's the same stuff people have been rehashing in this thread. It's a little sad to see such a prominent US lawyer confusing innuendo with evidence.
First he lists in short form the evidence he thinks shows she could be guilty, then he uses the words "considerable evidence". No where in that video does he use the words, "some evidence". And he's talking about the evidence that has been presented in court. There's no way Dershowitz would have access to more than was presented. And he knows he's on a timeline, he's commenting and has only seconds to make his point.
As for innuendo vs. evidence, the items he listed were admitted in court as evidence. I'd add he's a far greater legal expert than anyone posting in this thread.
Yeah, except that of the things he listed, only one was probative. The fact that Knox changed her story isn't evidence--it's innuendo. And Dershowitz really should know better.
I have no dog in this fight. I have no way of knowing whether Knox is guilty or not. All I can do is take all of the evidence that has apparently been presented (and I assume that Dershowitz is listing all of it) and ask myself if it should be enough to support a conviction.
The answer is no. Not even close. And if Dershowitz thinks that sort of around-the-edges innuendo could support convictions in the U.S, he's either full of it or there are a lot of innocent people in U.S. Prisons on flimsy murder raps.
As I said, she absolutely could be factually guilty. But the evidence that I've heard (always assuming there may actually BE evidence that I HAVEN'T heard) is not enough to support a conviction in any halfway just legal system.
The Following User Says Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Yeah, except that of the things he listed, only one was probative. The fact that Knox changed her story isn't evidence--it's innuendo. And Dershowitz really should know better.
I have no dog in this fight. I have no way of knowing whether Knox is guilty or not. All I can do is take all of the evidence that has apparently been presented (and I assume that Dershowitz is listing all of it) and ask myself if it should be enough to support a conviction.
The answer is no. Not even close. And if Dershowitz thinks that sort of around-the-edges innuendo could support convictions in the U.S, he's either full of it or there are a lot of innocent people in U.S. Prisons on flimsy murder raps.
As I said, she absolutely could be factually guilty. But the evidence that I've heard (always assuming there may actually BE evidence that I HAVEN'T heard) is not enough to support a conviction in any halfway just legal system.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on OJ Simpson? Did he murder his wife and her BF?
It is obvious Knox knows more than she is saying even if the evidence doesn't add up. She's not guilty, but not innocent.
So I just went back and watched this video of her.
How can anyone watch that and defend her? I mean, I get it if you want to defend her in the legal sense that there isn't enough evidence to convict her but to outright defend her? She has BS written all over her face. She makes my hairs stand up just listening to her. I would never defend her in the same way I'd never defend OJ. Maybe not enough evidence to convict them both but they are both guilty in my eyes.
Oh and she smoked weed that night so that made her memory less concrete . She also says she had sex then went and then went home to shower before going back to her Bf's before returning. Yeah, that's not suspicious at all.
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Amanda Knox's judge says he suffered over guilty verdict
Quote:
Judge Alessandro Nencini also suggested in an interview with Italy's most prominent newspaper Corriere della Sera published Saturday that the decision of Knox's ex-boyfriend and co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, not to testify may have worked against him.
"It's the defendant's right, but it certainly deprived the process of a voice," Nencini was quoted as saying. "He limited himself to spontaneous declarations. He said only what he wanted to say without letting himself be cross-examined." Knox did not appear at the trial, but sent a letter to the court saying she feared wrongful conviction.
Quote:
The newspaper said Nencini consented to the interview because he knew the sentence would create a media storm.
Amanda Knox letter tried to convince Italian court of her innocence
Quote:
NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE AGAINST ME
No physical evidence places me in Meredith’s bedroom, the scene of the crime, because I was not there and didn’t take part in the crime.
Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence of his presence in the brutal scenario: handprints, footprints, shoe prints in Meredith’s blood; DNA in her purse, on her clothing, in her body.
The prosecution has failed to explain how I could have participated in the aggression and murder – to have been the one to fatally wound Meredith – without leaving any genetic trace of myself.
That is because it is impossible. It is impossible to identify and destroy all genetic traces of myself in a crime scene and retain all genetic traces of another individual.
Either I was there, or I wasn’t. The analysis of the crime scene answers this question: I wasn’t there
Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Is Amanda Knox Too Hot to Be Innocent?
Quote:
But the mentality of mascilismo or machismo that keeps these outdated practices relevant in Italy may well have contributed to her conviction in the court of public opinion. In the days after her arrest, fresh-faced Knox, just 21 when she was arrested for Kercher's murder, was assassinated for her looks and blatant confidence in the Italian press. She was a sexually confident woman who kept condoms in her beauty case, but rather than being applauded for safe sex (God knows no Italian man carries a condom), she was painted as a whore. She didn't wear make-up because she didn't need it, but her natural beauty was a source of resentment in a society where an over-abundance of beauty centers around every corner makes a quick root job or botox top-up as common as grabbing a takeout coffee.
Quote:
Knox was, and is still, terribly out of context in Italy. Young Italian women are not allowed to be as confident as she was. Few 21-year-old Italian women would have the moxie to move abroad to study without the backing of a rich uncle or a trust fund. During closing arguments in all three of her criminal trials, one of the lawyers who supported the prosecution theory called her a "she-devil" and described her in a court of law as a woman with "impure thoughts" who was "dirty on the outside because she was dirty on the inside." Three different judicial panels heard this argument. None of them ever complained about the blatant sexism. Two of them convicted her of murder.
Yeah, except that of the things he listed, only one was probative. The fact that Knox changed her story isn't evidence--it's innuendo. And Dershowitz really should know better.
I have no dog in this fight. I have no way of knowing whether Knox is guilty or not. All I can do is take all of the evidence that has apparently been presented (and I assume that Dershowitz is listing all of it) and ask myself if it should be enough to support a conviction.
The answer is no. Not even close. And if Dershowitz thinks that sort of around-the-edges innuendo could support convictions in the U.S, he's either full of it or there are a lot of innocent people in U.S. Prisons on flimsy murder raps.
As I said, she absolutely could be factually guilty. But the evidence that I've heard (always assuming there may actually BE evidence that I HAVEN'T heard) is not enough to support a conviction in any halfway just legal system.
Dershowitz is an obvious legal expert, but it is also obvious he only has taken the time to gain passing knowledge of this case. His assertions are a little odd to me. In the video linked in the post above he says something along the lines that any court in America would convict her and she would be on death row.
But than in this interview he says "Do I think she's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Maybe not, Dershowitz told John Bachman, guest host of "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax .
One of his four points is confusing as well. He states that Knox's DNA was on the bra clasp. That makes me wonder how well he has reviewed this case, because the DNA in question on the bra clasp was that of Raffaele Sollecito's not Knox. He doesn't even once mention Raffaele as if knox was the only suspect or person convicted here.
I'm not sure what Dershowitz's skin in the game is here , but he is obviously pandering to the British audience in that first video.
It is also good to know that Dershowitz does not want his son to date Knox, just in case anyone was wondering about that. Oh, and apparently the only reason anyone thinks Knox and Raffaele are innocent is because Knox is pretty. I wonder if that also means subconsciously everyone involved thinks Ryan Ferguson is attractive as well? It is all just so confusing.
Last edited by RogerWilco; 02-04-2014 at 02:18 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to RogerWilco For This Useful Post:
The fact that Knox changed her story isn't evidence--it's innuendo.
You are making a lot of comments in this thread that are demonstrably wrong and this is another one. At law, changing your own story means you made a prior inconsistent statement, and it is evidence as to your credibility. In general, and in this case in particular, it can be used to impeach a witnesses testimony at trial. At the first trial Knox was impeached on several fronts, her prior inconsistent statement being only one of them.
Out of curiosity, what is your opinion on OJ Simpson? Did he murder his wife and her BF?
To me, no, OJ's son did the killing, OJ either asked him to do it or took the bullet for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckluck2
is obvious Knox knows more than she is saying even if the evidence doesn't add up. She's not guilty, but not innocent.
I've always thought that the ascertain that someone is not guilty but not innocent is a little weird. that goes against the job of the courts does it not. If there's not enough to convict either due to legal maneuvering, lack of evidence, non disclosure of evidence that the prosecution can't use then the court finds them not guilty and they are considered innocent of the crime.
To me, no, OJ's son did the killing, OJ either asked him to do it or took the bullet for him.
I've always thought that the ascertain that someone is not guilty but not innocent is a little weird. that goes against the job of the courts does it not. If there's not enough to convict either due to legal maneuvering, lack of evidence, non disclosure of evidence that the prosecution can't use then the court finds them not guilty and they are considered innocent of the crime.
I'm not talking about the courts Captain, I'm asking to watch her interviews and tell me she doesn't sound like a psychopath. She says "we had sex" so nonchalantly then she's making out with her BF minutes after they find her roommate is bludgeoned to death.
She is either a murderer, knows something about the murder or just a real messed up person.
You are making a lot of comments in this thread that are demonstrably wrong and this is another one. At law, changing your own story means you made a prior inconsistent statement, and it is evidence as to your credibility. In general, and in this case in particular, it can be used to impeach a witnesses testimony at trial. At the first trial Knox was impeached on several fronts, her prior inconsistent statement being only one of them.
I would hazard a guess that my understanding of the law of evidence is at least as good as yours.
It is true that prior inconsistent statements can go to credibility. But that was precisely my point: it doesn't, at least not automatically, prove guilt.
So she changed her statement. People do, for lots of reasons. If that, without more, were enough to prove guilt in Canada being a Crown would be the easiest job ever.
I don't know what other evidence was tendered. But to me, a prior inconsistent statement in the context of what sounds likens complete absence of physical evidence tying her to the scene is pretty weak.
And in that context, saying "yeah, but she changed her story" is not evidence of her guilt. It's merely, as I said, innuendo. It's inviting the trier of fact to make an inference about her guilt that is not supported by the evidence available.
I'm not talking about the courts Captain, I'm asking to watch her interviews and tell me she doesn't sound like a psychopath. She says "we had sex" so nonchalantly then she's making out with her BF minutes after they find her roommate is bludgeoned to death.
She is either a murderer, knows something about the murder or just a real messed up person.
To be honest, I've never put a lot of credence into how someone comes across in a interview. Either they act up, or they act down, and we never know unless we see the unedited footage.
There are lots of people that are emotionally disconnected out there, or people that deal with situations in a different way. I remember reading a text in my abnormal psych class in university where there was a guy that would follow accident scenes on his police scanner so he could show up and tell people how much he didn't care about the death in front of him.
Maybe her reaction is a coping mechanism? Maybe death primes her engine? We don't know, but that doesn't really make her guilty of anything but saying the wrong thing at the wrong time.
Its getting harder and harder for courts to truly convict innocent people of crimes, investigations have come a long way since the days of lifting prints looking at blood types and sending out beat cops to canvas the neighbourhood.
I'm sure and maybe one of the lawyers can pipe in, getting a convinction that's not overturned on some kind of appeal is a perfect storm of overwhelming evidence to the microscopic level, combined with unimpeachable police and legal procedures.
do I think that Amanda Knox did it? there's always the possibility of it, but there was little enough evidence to convict combined by the keystone copesque adventures of the Italian police and legal system.
But we also need to separate the courts and the courts of public opinion, and the latter has no bearing except to get wound up by it.
Do I think she's hot? Yeah I'd wreck that chick,
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
I'm not talking about the courts Captain, I'm asking to watch her interviews and tell me she doesn't sound like a psychopath. She says "we had sex" so nonchalantly then she's making out with her BF minutes after they find her roommate is bludgeoned to death.
She is either a murderer, knows something about the murder or just a real messed up person.
By "making out", do you mean the 3 kisses in the video, or was there something else? She actually looks pretty distraught at that point.
As CC said, people tend to act up (or down) in interviews and on camera. I would not be surprised if she has some mental health issues (like many people do), but that doesn't mean she is guilty. If everyone with social detachment and narcissism was a murderer, the world's population would probably be cut by like 20%.
She seems like someone who wanted attention, acted up for it, and badly miscalculated what that attention would bring. Her attitude to me is no different than the "gangsta" image people try to portray in the urban hip-hop community. They often pretend to be dangerous thugs and occasionally it lands individuals in hot water when something goes down and they need to prove that they are not like their image in reality. In this case, she may have tried to play the part of a rebellious kid with no worries of the law or consequences, and was then left reeling to prove she really wasn't like that.
(I say "may" because I am not 100% sold on her innocence either, but I don't think the trials were fair so there is more than just reasonable doubt)
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
There are many recent posts here that have major mistakes in them. There was in fact evidence that she did not commit the crime:
-The multiple sources of DNA all belonged to someone else
-The crime scene investigation lead to one person due to footprints etc in the victims blood
-The fingerprints and handprint were for that someone else
-The knife was never found
-The clothes that someone else wore were never found
-The footprints matched the shoes that other person was wearing when caught
-That someone else confessed and is in jail serving for this crime
-That someone else only implicated the other two once he was offered a reduced sentence...he is due out I think this year.
How the heck can anyone even consider that she could be guilty? Puckluck has just as much of a chance of being guilty, even more so do to the fact that if they had evidence attaching her to the crime they would have used it.
Additionally, she never contradicted testimony or her statements. She was coerced, lied to and abused to make those statements. They all should be thrown in the garbage. She has no statements to make because she WAS NOT THERE.
Anyone who thinks that based on a video of her talking she must be a murderer is repulsive and not very smart.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Nage Waza For This Useful Post:
. She also says she had sex then went and then went home to shower before going back to her Bf's before returning. Yeah, that's not suspicious at all.
