Amanda Knox Guilty of murder (shakeshead)

[oilyfan]

What's with the name calling dude? You can't seem to have a conversation about this without calling someone stupid, repulsive etc...

[puckluck2]

I love how people keep pointing to the fact that she had someone else's DNA inside of her proves that someone else must have killed her. A lot of women have someone else's DNA inside them at this very second and are still alive and well. If you're going to bash someone else's theory at least make sure yours isn't filled with holes.

[puckluck2]

And she also was coerced into blaming an innocent man and ruining his life

She is a liar and there is something wrong with her head even if she is innocent.

Also love how Nage Waza had no problem without a single piece of evidence bashed and made fun of Clint Hardman but it's not ok to draw conclusions on this case from a lot of circumstantial evidence. Why the double standard Nage? How can you be so sure since your burden of proof is so high?

[CASe333]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

I love how people keep pointing to the fact that she had someone else's DNA inside of her proves that someone else must have killed her. A lot of women have someone else's DNA inside them at this very second and are still alive and well. If you're going to bash someone else's theory at least make sure yours isn't filled with holes.

Uhhh, I'm pretty sure no one is making the claim that since Kercher had Guede's DNA in her that it proved Guede was the killer and Knox/Sollecito were innocent.

The claim is more like since Guede's DNA was found in her and all over her room he is guilty. Probably had something to do with his confession too.

On the other hand no DNA or even any physical evidence that can only be attributed to Knox/Sollecito has ever been found except for the bra clasp found 46!!! days after the investigation started which only was found to have a tiny amount of Sollecito's DNA. None of his DNA was found on the fabric of the bra strap and I'm pretty sure it's nearly impossible to unclasp a bra strap without touching the strap. The tiny amount of Sollecito's DNA most likely came from contamination.

I just wish the people that keep saying she is guilty or they know she did something would present some kind of actual evidence of it. The only thing she doesn't have was a solid alibi but the only chance of that was destroyed by the police in their investigation or should I say witch hunt?

Spoiler!

The appeal will examine closely how potentially critical evidence on three laptops - two owned by Sollecito and one owned by Knox - was destroyed by a police 'computer expert'. The computers were seized after the two lovers were arrested. The defence team claim examination of the hard-drives would have gone a long way to substantiating the version of events given by Knox and Sollecito. At least two of the computers would have shown Knox or Sollecito were using them at the time Meredith is said to have been killed. But the computer expert managed to systematically destroy all three hard-drives. One defence source said: 'After destroying one hard-drive, common sense would have told him to stop and find out what he was doing wrong. 'But, no, he continued and didn't stop until all three were destroyed beyond any hope of reading from them what had actually taken place on the night in question.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-murder.html

[Nage Waza]

I took part in the thread and asked and offered money to Hardman to come into the thread and explain his side of the story. I think that is fair. Hardman never took the offer. I also pointed out when so called 'evidence' was stretching it.

[monkeyman]

I'd like to point out that false confessions are very real and happen more than most people would like to believe. Often these come after long and arduous questioning, where people are virtually coerced into believing that although they didn't commit the crime, their actions could have led to the eventual outcome.
To convict someone on innuendo and behaviour alone is preposterous, especially if the physical evidence doesn't support it.

[Nage Waza]

A very interesting website to look at regarding this case is debate.org. The website allows people to vote if Knox is guilty or innocent and provides space for comments. I must have read thirty comments from both sides and they summarize very closely to this thread:
Guilty = she appears ruthless and guilty
Not Guilty = there was no evidence regarding the crime

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

A very interesting website to look at regarding this case is debate.org. The website allows people to vote if Knox is guilty or innocent and provides space for comments. I must have read thirty comments from both sides and they summarize very closely to this thread:
Guilty = she appears ruthless and guilty
Not Guilty = there was no evidence regarding the crime

You are going to say there's no evidence regardless of the facts, that's clear. But again you make a post with inaccuracies. Some of us in this thread point to trial facts upon which we base the argument she may have done it. I have yet to see anyone on the innocent side in this thread weigh any of the contradicting evidence, its just, her defence said so, therefore its true. This thread is a caricature of message board debates.

Here 's the first comment in the second (and more relevant) link that comes up at debate.org when typing Amanda Knox into the search window. I haven't read any further on that site as it really doesn't help matters:

1. Staging of a break-in
The prosecution showed that Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in in an attempt to make the murder look like a third party. Hardly the actions of an innocent woman.

2. Perjury

Knox had two seperate accounts of the events. First she claimed that she had gone to Kercher's apartment with a colleague, without Sollecito and Guede. She then claimed that this colleague, Lamumba, killed Kercher whilst she was in the kitchen. Lamumba has since been exonerated completely of the crime as it was shown he had not ever been in the flat and had a strong alibi. This false accusation heavily implies guilt. Later she claimed that she had spent the night with her boyfriend. Two witnesses showed this to be false.

3. Guede
The third person convicted of the murder, who was trialled seperately, attests to Knox's assistence in the murder. However he refused to be a witness at the Knox and Sollecito trial.

4. Forensic evidence
The footprint made with Kercher's blood was shown to belong to a woman. No other woman has been implicated forensically or through witness testimony. [3] Also the footprint could not have belonged to Kercher
A sufficient amount of Knox's DNA was found on the knife as was Kercher's demonstrating it was the murder weapon. As stated before, this alone is not enough to suggest guilt.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Delgar

You are going to say there's no evidence regardless of the facts, that's clear. But again you make a post with inaccuracies. Some of us in this thread point to trial facts upon which we base the argument she may have done it. I have yet to see anyone on the innocent side in this thread weigh any of the contradicting evidence, its just, her defence said so, therefore its true. This thread is a caricature of message board debates.

The prosecution certainly provided their evidence; the part we disagree with is if it should have been considered evidence. In fact, this is the entire body of the argument. What the prosecution provided was disgusting.

Originally Posted by Delgar

1. Staging of a break-in
The prosecution showed that Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in in an attempt to make the murder look like a third party. Hardly the actions of an innocent woman.

They had no part in staging any type of break in at all. Anything regarding this matter was simple accusations with no evidence or motive. The murderer chucked a rock and climbed through the window. The same guy was on a spree breaking into places. And he was apparently familiar with the building as colleagues were growing marijuana in it.

Let me ask you this? What would their motive be to stage the break in? There was a body in the house that they (according to you) knew was dead. Yet they were never in the room during the murder (based on factual scientific evidence)...so why stage a break in? Aren't they masterminds and would know to simply stage a alibi at the boyfriends place? And to create a single story as a cover up? They did not of that because they had no clue.

Originally Posted by Delgar

2. Perjury

Knox had two seperate accounts of the events. First she claimed that she had gone to Kercher's apartment with a colleague, without Sollecito and Guede. She then claimed that this colleague, Lamumba, killed Kercher whilst she was in the kitchen. Lamumba has since been exonerated completely of the crime as it was shown he had not ever been in the flat and had a strong alibi. This false accusation heavily implies guilt. Later she claimed that she had spent the night with her boyfriend. Two witnesses showed this to be false.

Wrong. She was coerced. Anything said should be thrown out.

Originally Posted by Delgar

3. Guede
The third person convicted of the murder, who was trialled seperately, attests to Knox's assistence in the murder. However he refused to be a witness at the Knox and Sollecito trial.

Wrong, he only did that much later and had his sentence reduced as a result.

Originally Posted by Delgar

4. Forensic evidence
The footprint made with Kercher's blood was shown to belong to a woman. No other woman has been implicated forensically or through witness testimony. [3] Also the footprint could not have belonged to Kercher

So are you saying Knox stepped in blood and then floated across the room and out the door? There was only one other person in the room, Guede. The claim is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Delgar

A sufficient amount of Knox's DNA was found on the knife as was Kercher's demonstrating it was the murder weapon. As stated before, this alone is not enough to suggest guilt.

I think you are confusing blood with DNA. You are also confusing the murder weapon, which was never found, with a knife, one of many, found at the boyfriends.

You have really provided no evidence to suggest any guilt at all.

As they say, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Nothing in the room pointed to either Knox or Sellecito since they were not there.

[Kjesse]

I didn't say I agree with the comments from that site. Some I do, some I don't. As for your response to them, it's just opinion.

[puckluck2]

Funny that the Knox defenders can have it both ways. They point to the evidence that doesn't implicate Knox and "trust" the Italian authorities in that case but the evidence that implicates Knox and the BF is called "disgusting". So the Italians got the "factual scientific evidence" right? Maybe they aren't as incompetent as you think.

You can't have it both ways. So there was no evidence that they were in the house but you trust that the Italians went through the scene thoroughly and competently? But the evidence that Delgar points to above is "disgusting". Yeah, ok.

Do I think she was the one who knifed her? no not really. but I do believe she had something to do with the murder whether an accessory after the fact or just a witness. She can not be innocent. Not a chance.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Later she claimed that she had spent the night with her boyfriend. Two witnesses showed this to be false.

which witnesses? From what I remember, they were highly unreliable. Antonio Curatolo for example, a homeless alcoholic who was a key witness for the prosecution. Here's the transcript of his testimony in the second trial.

Judge: So, you saw Amanda and Raffaele?

Curatolo: Yeah, it was Halloween when I saw them. I know this because I saw the kids getting on the disco buses all dressed up in costumes. That’s how I also know what time it was.

Judge: When is Halloween?

Curatolo: I don’t know. Maybe end of October or beginning of November, I think.

Judge: You aren’t sure? What about your case now? You are in prison, correct? How long will you be there?

Curatolo: I don’t know. I don’t understand the case against me really. I understand nothing.

Judge: Ok, so how did you live in the park? Were you always there?

Curatolo: Always, yes. I never left. I just lived there. On a bench mostly.

Judge: What about when you had to go to the restroom?

Curatolo: I went to the bathroom in the wooded area down the hill.

Judge: So you weren’t there all the time then?

Curatolo: What do you mean?

Judge: Never mind. So, are you certain the buses were disco buses and not tour buses?

Curatolo: Yes, definitely disco buses. They look different from other buses.

Prosecution: No, no, you must be mistaken?

Curatolo: No. I am certain they were disco buses.

Judge: Do you take drugs?

Curatolo: Yes, heroin.

Judge: Were you taking drugs on that night?

Curatolo: I always take drugs, so most certainly I was high that night…but that’s ok. Heroin does not make you hallucinate or anything.

The prosecution's remark "no, no, you must be mistaken?" was due to the fact that there were no disco buses during that night.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Funny that the Knox defenders can have it both ways. They point to the evidence that doesn't implicate Knox and "trust" the Italian authorities in that case but the evidence that implicates Knox and the BF is called "disgusting". So the Italians got the "factual scientific evidence" right? Maybe they aren't as incompetent as you think.

The prosecution claimed they had a killer and all the evidence, their evidence did not pan out. So they lied their way to a verdict. They misrepresented evidence, such as a luminox hit as an indication of blood, or the coercion of a 'confession'.

Originally Posted by puckluck2

You can't have it both ways. So there was no evidence that they were in the house but you trust that the Italians went through the scene thoroughly and competently? But the evidence that Delgar points to above is "disgusting". Yeah, ok.

The evidence indicated one person in the room. So what did the prosecution do? Mislead the public.

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Do I think she was the one who knifed her? no not really. but I do believe she had something to do with the murder whether an accessory after the fact or just a witness. She can not be innocent. Not a chance.

She had nothing to do with anything and all you have is gut feelings to base your decision. This is as bad as burning people for being witches, which still takes place on this planet.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

The prosecution claimed they had a killer and all the evidence, their evidence did not pan out. So they lied their way to a verdict. They misrepresented evidence, such as a luminox hit as an indication of blood, or the coercion of a 'confession'.

What do you mean it didn't pan out? They convicted her twice and another man is in jail. I'd say it panned out quite well. And I've said this before but here it is again, if you don't like the laws of the country you are visiting then get the hell out. She was found guilty in the country she was in. She should be in jail.

The evidence indicated one person in the room. So what did the prosecution do? Mislead the public.

Which still doesn't make her innocent. Knowing about a murder or being in the same house as a murder and nor reporting it makes you a criminal. It also makes her a messed up person in the head but I think anyone who watches her already can figure that out.

She had nothing to do with anything and all you have is gut feelings to base your decision. This is as bad as burning people for being witches, which still takes place on this planet.

Oh you mean the same witch hunt me and YOU took part in another thread with Clint Hardman? No factual evidence was presented that made him a scammer but you were ready to burn him at the stakes. And I was going to hand you the matches. But I guess she's hot so she gets all the sympathy when an innocent man was accused, an innocent woman was killed but let's all feel sorry for the psychopath Knox.

[devo22]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

But I guess she's hot so she gets all the sympathy when an innocent man was accused, an innocent woman was killed but let's all feel sorry for the psychopath Knox.

ah yes, the classic "you only defend her because she's hot" argument. Brilliant.

[CASe333]

Originally Posted by Delgar

You are going to say there's no evidence regardless of the facts, that's clear. But again you make a post with inaccuracies. Some of us in this thread point to trial facts upon which we base the argument she may have done it. I have yet to see anyone on the innocent side in this thread weigh any of the contradicting evidence, its just, her defence said so, therefore its true. This thread is a caricature of message board debates.

Here 's the first comment in the second (and more relevant) link that comes up at debate.org when typing Amanda Knox into the search window. I haven't read any further on that site as it really doesn't help matters:

1. Staging of a break-in
The prosecution showed that Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in in an attempt to make the murder look like a third party. Hardly the actions of an innocent woman.

2. Perjury

Knox had two seperate accounts of the events. First she claimed that she had gone to Kercher's apartment with a colleague, without Sollecito and Guede. She then claimed that this colleague, Lamumba, killed Kercher whilst she was in the kitchen. Lamumba has since been exonerated completely of the crime as it was shown he had not ever been in the flat and had a strong alibi. This false accusation heavily implies guilt. Later she claimed that she had spent the night with her boyfriend. Two witnesses showed this to be false.

3. Guede
The third person convicted of the murder, who was trialled seperately, attests to Knox's assistence in the murder. However he refused to be a witness at the Knox and Sollecito trial.

4. Forensic evidence
The footprint made with Kercher's blood was shown to belong to a woman. No other woman has been implicated forensically or through witness testimony. [3] Also the footprint could not have belonged to Kercher
A sufficient amount of Knox's DNA was found on the knife as was Kercher's demonstrating it was the murder weapon. As stated before, this alone is not enough to suggest guilt.

1) Staging of a break-in?
All the prosecution showed was that it appeared like a staged break-in, however they hardly proved Knox and Sollecito were responsible. What is their proof, they said so?

2). Perjury
So she lied. This is basically the only solid evidence you have of her doing anything wrong but what does it prove? That maybe she didn't trust the investigators or was lied to herself multiple times by them and was goaded into making false statements and accusations? Or that she was trying to hide something automatically proving her guilt? Its really hard to prove either theory but I would argue both are possible.

3). Guede
Guede's initial statement was that Knox was not present.
This has been well publicized. He changed his story later when the prosecution made him a deal to reduce his sentence.

I love it when this is thrown out as evidence because it shows how little the "guilty" crowd actually know about the case.

4). Forensic Evidence
Footprint was shown to belong to a women.
Shown to be a women by one "expert", however certainly not proven to belong to a women because that is impossible. I know some guys have lady feet and vice versa so what does this really prove? Besides ~30,000,000 women live in Italy so it hardly is solid evidence of Knox being there.

Knox's DNA was found on the knife as was Kercher's

There are so many good questions about the "murder knife". Like how did the police officer pick it out from many knives in a drawer from Sollecito's apartment. The first knife they pick out and test has Knox's DNA and such a small amount of Kercher's DNA that it couldn't be proven within the accepted limits used for such tests. Furthermore the knife doesn't fit the profile for most of the stab or slash wounds and also doesn't fit the profile of a bloody imprint of the real murder weapon. Starting to sound like maybe it wasn't the murder weapon!

Originally Posted by Delgar

I didn't say I agree with the comments from that site. Some I do, some I don't. As for your response to them, it's just opinion.

And frankly this is what the prosecution's case boils down to, their opinion. Sometimes I wonder if you guys are just arguing that there is a chance Knox is guilty since there hasn't been any good arguments or evidence that proves anything more that there is a chance she did it. If that's the case, I agree there is a chance Knox and Sollecito are guilty of murder but given how bad the investigation was handled I think chances are low they are correct and certainly there is not enough evidence to convict Knox or Sollecito of murder.

[Kjesse]

Originally Posted by CASe333

And frankly this is what the prosecution's case boils down to, their opinion. Sometimes I wonder if you guys are just arguing that there is a chance Knox is guilty since there hasn't been any good arguments or evidence that proves anything more that there is a chance she did it. If that's the case, I agree there is a chance Knox and Sollecito are guilty of murder but given how bad the investigation was handled I think chances are low they are correct and certainly there is not enough evidence to convict Knox or Sollecito of murder.

I think there's a chance Knox is guilty. I'm not convinced the Italian court was right in convicting her. I think at a minimum she knows more about what happened than she now admits.

Again, the pieces of so-called evidence you were just quoting didn't come from me and I don't endorse them. I think there are some inaccuracies based on the portions of the trial I read.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I think there's a chance Knox is guilty. I'm not convinced the Italian court was right in convicting her. I think at a minimum she knows more about what happened than she now admits.

Again, the pieces of so-called evidence you were just quoting didn't come from me and I don't endorse them. I think there are some inaccuracies based on the portions of the trial I read.

Of course there's a chance, theres always a chance when it's someone close to the victim but to even try to lock someone up for life on a hunch or just to close a case is barbaric.

Lots of cases that look bad don't get a sniff because of no real evidence(Robert Wagner comes to mind) or cases where guilt looks 99% but because the cops screw around with evidense it gets thrown out (O.J) and it shouldn't be any other way.

I would rather see a murderer get away scott free then to convict an inocent person.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Delgar

I think there's a chance Knox is guilty. I'm not convinced the Italian court was right in convicting her.

I agree with both of these statements.

Where we differ is on the sufficiency of the evidence.

To me what is telling is that you referred in an earlier post to the "innocent" side of the debate. As in you assume that there is a "guilty" and an "innocent" side.

I am not on the "innocent" side. As I've said, I know very little about this case, and I defer to the greater knowledge of others who've done actual research into the facts.

However, based on what I've heard, I am leaning strongly toward the "Not Guilty" side.

There is, of course, a world of difference between "Innocent" and "Not Guilty." "Not Guilty" does not mean "Innocent"; it merely means that the evidence that was tendered by the state does not meet the standard that the state must live up to before it exercises its power to impose criminal sanctions.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by lazypucker

I expect an offer for Amanda to do a porn video shoot very soon...just like Casey Anthony was offered.

Offer has come in. Vivid Studios will pay "Foxy Noxy" $20k towards her legal fees to star in a film. She has not responded to the offer.
http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stori...-in-porn-movie
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1607976