Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Amanda Knox

1101113151619

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Tayla wrote: »
    If her fingerprints are not there and Rudys and Merediths are then the apartment must have been cleaned before the murder. Which footprints are you referring to? The actual bloody footprint which was on the mat? or the footprints which showed up under luminol? Luminol results can be inaccurate and can be the result of loads of other things, not just blood.

    Shoulda, coulda, woulda. The evidence is wrong, the witnesses are wrong, the other evidence is wrong, there is an explanation for everything. If you are happy to ignore the mountain of circumstantial evidence and really, truly believe that Knox and Sollecito played no role whatsoever in the murder fair play. I'm not.

    Either way it's irrelevant, the court came to a conclusion and she's away back to what's left of her life.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,609 ✭✭✭Creasy_bear


    steve9859 wrote: »
    Its not game over and I really hope they do appeal. Personally I believe that the police screwed up and she is as guilty as hell.

    If the guilty verdict is reinstated she wont be extradited, sure, but it will certainly mean that she wont be able to make quite as many millions from book sales and celebrity appearances. I'm not sure that publishers will be quite so keen to touch a convicted murderer, and sales certainly wouldn't be as high. And she would spend the rest of her life looking over her shoulder.

    why do you think she is guilty as hell?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    prinz wrote: »
    Yes, great. Christ on a bike. I can understand people thinking she should be freed and that but ffs let's try to keep things in perspective Kercher will never be at the airport to come home. Let her slip away back to her family and friends and her no doubt rewarding exclusives and bookdeals etc, but we should me mindful of who the real victims in all of this are and temper the weird triumphalism.

    If you believe Knox and Sollecito are innocent, then they are real victims also. They lost 4 years of their very young lives.

    Of course its sad that Meredith wont ever come; she is the biggest victim, but its rediculous to say Knox and Sollecito are not real victims. 4 years in jail for a crime you didn't commit when you are very young must be horrible. Of course they are victims. So it was great to see Knox at the airport and I have no shame in saying that. And it should be celebrated.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    prinz wrote: »
    Shoulda, coulda, woulda. The evidence is wrong, the witnesses are wrong, the other evidence is wrong, there is an explanation for everything. If you are happy to ignore the mountain of circumstantial evidence and really, truly believe that Knox and Sollecito played no role whatsoever in the murder fair play. I'm not.

    Either way it's irrelevant, the court came to a conclusion and she's away back to what's left of her life.

    We live in a time of DNA evidence, not circumstantial evidence, they had what they considered to be circumstantial evidence but no real evidence, you cannot lock someone up for that.

    This will kind of backtrack on what i've just said but I do in some rare cases think that there can sometimes be a piece of circumstantial evidence that can not be ignored, that is so big that it should stand on it's own, where there is no other explanation rather than what the circumstantial evidence effectively proves, however in this case there was none.

    The prosecution and court were only too happy to ignore all the evidence against Guede to reduce his sentence to 16 years. I find that very sad for Merediths family and I hope Amanda and Raffaele sue Rudy Guede for defamation and the Italian courts use this to increase Rudy's sentence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    prinz wrote: »
    Shoulda, coulda, woulda. The evidence is wrong, the witnesses are wrong, the other evidence is wrong, there is an explanation for everything. If you are happy to ignore the mountain of circumstantial evidence and really, truly believe that Knox and Sollecito played no role whatsoever in the murder fair play. I'm not.

    Either way it's irrelevant, the court came to a conclusion and she's away back to what's left of her life.

    The appeals court review all the evidence, including the report from the first trial. They found "innocent because they did not commit the crimes" and not "innocent because of reasonable doubt". The jury sat in that court for months.

    There was zero credible circumstantial evidence, let alone a mountain, if there had been any the finding would have been "reasonable doubt".


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    Monterrey wrote: »
    I didn't know much about the Amanda Knox case until last night, when my girlfriend was watching the verdict being read out on Sky News. But my first reaction was to ask her "Why does everyone care so much about this particular case?". Is it because she's a pretty, young, white, all-American girl? Surely there has been similar or worse cases in the past that haven't got a fraction of the amount of coverage that this one has? I would be grateful if anyone could provide examples of similar cases :)

    Most people thought she was innocent so it got a lot of publicity. I guess the fact there were people from 4 different countries involved (5 if you include Lumumba) made it interesting in a diplomatic sense and meant people from everywhere were interested.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Most people thought she was innocent so it got a lot of publicity. I guess the fact there were people from 4 different countries involved (5 in you count Lumumba) made it interesting in a diplomatic sense and meant people from everywhere were interested.

    Personally my own reason for being so interested in the case was that Amanda is just a couple of weeks older than me, I really felt for her and the more and more I read about the case against her, the more ridiculous it seemed.


    I'm guessing the reason it got so much press is in a large part due to the crazy theories put forward by the prosecution, it was like a modern day Salem witch trial.

    They also took aspects from her life which she has in common withan awful lot of girls of the same age and used them to demonise her and make out that she was a sex crazed maniac, 7 sexual partners in her life, smoked marijuana, had a sex toy, an innocent childhood nickname used against her, a picture of her behind some weapon at a museum showed her obsession with violence apparently. There's nothing out of the ordinary there but they made out that she was depraved, violent, sex obsessed killer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    prinz wrote: »
    Shoulda, coulda, woulda. The evidence is wrong, the witnesses are wrong, the other evidence is wrong, there is an explanation for everything. If you are happy to ignore the mountain of circumstantial evidence and really, truly believe that Knox and Sollecito played no role whatsoever in the murder fair play. I'm not.

    Most of the circumstancial evidence was set up by the prosecution though. Destroying hard drives which showed activity throughout the night, forcing confessions and false allegations through interrogations, careless DNA handling leading to possible cross contamination; offering Guede a reduced sentence to testify against them.

    It's easy to create a mountain of circumstancial evidence about a suspect if the police are determined enough. That's why it seems like "there is a seperate explanation for everything" when really it all comes down to police determination to get Knox convicted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    prinz wrote: »
    That's IMPOSSIBLE, but apparently it's possible to live in an apartment and leave no fingerprints anywhere? Did Meredith clean up the bloody footprints the day before too?
    Most people incorrectly believe that "no fingerprints were found" means that everything has been wiped clean. In reality, it means that the police were not able to get viable fingerprints. If you live in a space, you're going to leave fingerprints on things. But you're going to touch the same items over and over, smudging the fingerprints so that they can't be recognised.

    Also, the police would not bother checking the whole place for fingerprints as finding her prints there would mean nothing. They'd only check parts of the home that they believe are relative to the case. So that would decrease the amount of places they're looking for prints by quite a bit.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    4 years in jail for a crime you didn't commit when you are very young must be horrible..

    Of course, then again I'm not convinced they didn't commit a crime.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The jury sat in that court for months.

    How long did the original jury sit? Yet apparently they got it completely wrong? It's amazing, the jury says one thing they don't know what they're talking about. Appeal jury finds another and suddenly they are beyond question.
    humanji wrote: »
    Most people incorrectly believe that "no fingerprints were found" means that everything has been wiped clean. In reality, it means that the police were not able to get viable fingerprints. If you live in a space, you're going to leave fingerprints on things. But you're going to touch the same items over and over, smudging the fingerprints so that they can't be recognised..

    Well thanks for that nugget there Columbo. I never would have realised. So no viable prints. not even in Knox's own bedroom IIRC. A police force and prosecutor supposedly desperate to frame Knox at any cost and for all their attempts they can't come up with any 'smoking gun'. So out of luck or else just really crap at framing people.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    prinz wrote: »
    Well thanks for that nugget there Columbo. I never would have realised. So no viable prints. not even in Knox's own bedroom IIRC. A police force and prosecutor supposedly desperate to frame Knox at any cost and for all their attempts they can't come up with any 'smoking gun'. So out of luck or else just really crap at framing people.

    I don't really see a reason for acting like a child, but to each their own.

    You asked:
    How could none of her fingerprints be at a scene in an apartment she supposedly lived in thats a better question. One set IIRC from the entire flat.
    And I answered.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    prinz wrote: »
    Of course, then again I'm not convinced they didn't commit a crime.

    How long did the original jury sit? Yet apparently they got it completely wrong? It's amazing, the jury says one thing they don't know what they're talking about. Appeal jury finds another and suddenly they are beyond question.



    Yes, the first jury got it completely wrong. Can't blame them though, they were presented with evidence that looked compelling. They were told the homeless heroin addict was a "reliable" witness and most important the defense was not allowed independent experts to examine the DNA evidence against Knox and Sallicido. When the DNA implicating them was examined by independent experts it was discredited, that is the key to the findings on appeal.

    The fact that the appeal finding is "did not commit the crimes" as opposed to "reasonable doubt" tells you the appeal jury found nothing to link these two innocent people to the crime.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    prinz wrote: »
    How long did the original jury sit? Yet apparently they got it completely wrong? It's amazing, the jury says one thing they don't know what they're talking about. Appeal jury finds another and suddenly they are beyond question.

    The jury aren't screened for bias, they can read about the case, watch it on tv, they all got caught up in the hysteria, the prosecution wouldn't allow the defence to get the evidence independently tested.

    This time round the evidence has been proven to be useless.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    humanji wrote: »
    I don't really see a reason for acting like a child, but to each their own..

    Pay peanuts get monkeys so to speak.

    But you are correct it's entirely possible that only one single viable piece of fingerprint evidence could be found from Amanda Knox in the apartment she lived in. I'd say I left 20-30 times that amount unloading the dishwasher this morning but there you go.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    prinz wrote: »
    Pay peanuts get monkeys so to speak.

    But you are correct it's entirely possible that only one single viable piece of fingerprint evidence could be found from Amanda Knox in the apartment she lived in. I'd say I left 20-30 times that amount unloading the dishwasher this morning but there you go.
    Did you actually read humanji's post?
    If you live in a space, you're going to leave fingerprints on things. But you're going to touch the same items over and over, smudging the fingerprints so that they can't be recognised..

    Anyway, you are not doing your argument any favours here. You cherry pick lines here and there in posts that suit your argument. An appeals court found them not-guilty. Numerous pieces of the prosecution were torn apart since the original trial.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Did you actually read humanji's post?

    Yes, did you read mine? It's a large stretch of the imagination to believe that in someone's bedroom they don't leave a single viable print because every single one has been innocently smudged or otherwise damaged.
    An appeals court found them not-guilty..

    .. and courts never make mistakes. I don't have an argument by the way. The appeals court made it's decision and off they go. I don't argue with that at all.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    prinz wrote: »
    Pay peanuts get monkeys so to speak.

    But you are correct it's entirely possible that only one single viable piece of fingerprint evidence could be found from Amanda Knox in the apartment she lived in. I'd say I left 20-30 times that amount unloading the dishwasher this morning but there you go.

    Did you march a troop of Italian cops and reporters all over the dishwasher when you were finished?

    A crime scene does not continue to provide relevant evidence indefinitely. If you don't find what you're looking for when you look the first time, and your procedures are sloppy - and we've seen no shortage of sloppy police work here - it can be lost for good underfoot.

    I suggest that it's entirely possible that Mignini's boys, thinking they had already solved the case "before they had the evidence", didn't bother doing any grown-up police work until it was too late for them to do so properly. By the time they realised they might have to make an actual case, rather than just sit around constructing elaborate narratives about Satanic young American seductresses, they had already contaminated the scene so irreparably that they were left to suggest that it must have been "cleaned" in an effort to save face.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    I suggest that it's entirely possible that the Mignini's boys, thinking they had already solved the case "before they had the evidence", didn't bother doing any grown-up police work until it was too late for them to do so properly.

    That much is fairly clear, they were definitely shoddy and half-arsed from the outset.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    prinz wrote: »
    Yes, did you read mine? It's a large stretch of the imagination to believe that in someone's bedroom they don't leave a single viable print because every single one has been innocently smudged or otherwise damaged

    As has been said elsewhere, it was her bedroom. Prints are to be expected. There is a difference between finger-prints in her bedroom and viable finger-prints that count as evidence in a crime. That has already been explained to you on here. Also it has been explained that the scene was not preserved correctly.

    Also, show me where I said appeals courts don't make mistakes? Don't infer meanings to my posts that don't exist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    prinz wrote: »
    Pay peanuts get monkeys so to speak.

    But you are correct it's entirely possible that only one single viable piece of fingerprint evidence could be found from Amanda Knox in the apartment she lived in. I'd say I left 20-30 times that amount unloading the dishwasher this morning but there you go.

    And anytime you touch the same spot twice, you smudge it, so you don't leave a viable fingerprint. And anytime you don't press firmly enough, you don't leave a viable fingerprint. And anytime you don't apply equal pressure to ever part of your fingertip when you touch a surface, you don't leave a viable fingerprint.

    And again, the police only had to check certain areas that would mean something to the crime. For example, checking for prints on the tv would be unnecessary as if her prints were on it, it'd mean nothing to the crime. so when you reduce the area that they're searching, the chances of finding prints become less and less.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    prinz wrote: »
    That much is fairly clear, they were definitely shoddy and half-arsed from the outset.

    So maybe thats why they didn't find any fingerprints- they didn't look for them! And then claimed that the house had been cleaned.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    As has been said elsewhere, it was her bedroom. Prints are to be expected. There is a difference between finger-prints in her bedroom and viable finger-prints that count as evidence in a crime. That has already been explained to you on here..

    Facepalm time.


  • Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Vudgie


    This is a pretty tragic story and a disaster of a court case from start to finish. I think one can only go along with the court's decision as it has now considered the evidence a second time and found it to be not only shaky but totally non-existant.

    It was easy to find fault with Knox throughout as that was the story that we were sold but it would appear that the poilce totally botched it and in the process reduced the sentance of the one guy that appears to have admitted being directly involved.

    I found it somewhat disappointing that neither Knox's family or their supporterss in America mentioned the murdered girl in their statements in the aftermath. I may be wrong about this but I remember feeling agrieved that they didn't mention her at all.

    The greatest shame is that there was a young girl murdered for no particualr reason it would seem.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,289 ✭✭✭parker kent


    prinz wrote: »
    Facepalm time.

    I see. Well thanks for that "debate".


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,065 ✭✭✭TheChevron


    If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 168 ✭✭demolitionman


    To those who think she us guilty - what theory do you put forth so of what actually happened?

    And Motive?

    What circumstantial evidence do you have that fits in with your theory? Is it just the phones being off? It doesnt strike me as odd that two people would turn off their phones when they go to bed at night.

    I would genuinely like to hear a ''guilty'' view of what happened?

    I believe they are innocent but have yet to read an account of why anyone thinks they were guilty.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 449 ✭✭Emiko


    To those who think she us guilty - what theory do you put forth so of what actually happened?

    And Motive?

    What circumstantial evidence do you have that fits in with your theory? Is it just the phones being off? It doesnt strike me as odd that two people would turn off their phones when they go to bed at night.

    I would genuinely like to hear a ''guilty'' view of what happened?

    I believe they are innocent but have yet to read an account of why anyone thinks they were guilty.

    She's a slut, isn't she?

    What more evidence do you need?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    To those who think she us guilty - what theory do you put forth so of what actually happened?

    And Motive?

    What circumstantial evidence do you have that fits in with your theory? Is it just the phones being off? It doesnt strike me as odd that two people would turn off their phones when they go to bed at night.

    I would genuinely like to hear a ''guilty'' view of what happened?

    I believe they are innocent but have yet to read an account of why anyone thinks they were guilty.

    because she is a witch and she put a spell over both Sallicido and Guede..
    it is the only explanation that makes sense

    Unless you believe that two quite normal students who had never committed a crime suddenly decided to rape her flatmate, then slaughtered her, and afterwards cleaned the crime scene with some kind of as yet to be discovered device that selectively removes two people's DNA but not a third, then staged a "break in", and then after all that effort went back to their apartment and put the murder weapon back in the kitchen drawer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 168 ✭✭demolitionman


    Emiko wrote: »
    She's a slut, isn't she?

    What more evidence do you need?


    post reported.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    prinz wrote: »
    Pay peanuts get monkeys so to speak.

    But you are correct it's entirely possible that only one single viable piece of fingerprint evidence could be found from Amanda Knox in the apartment she lived in. I'd say I left 20-30 times that amount unloading the dishwasher this morning but there you go.

    Even if you do believe someone cleaned the whole apartment then why not Guede? Maybe he cleaned it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Even if you do believe someone cleaned the whole apartment then why not Guede? Maybe he cleaned it?

    Nobody cleaned the apartment, there is no evidence of cleaning. Why would the police even bother looking for Knox's fingerprints elsewhere in the apartment, she lived there. They looked extensively in the bedroom where the crime was committed and found nothing credible implicating Knox or Sallicido, zilch.

    The cleaning is a red herring like many other red herrings in this case. The best red herring is the "staged break in". The verdict on this charge, and it was a separate charge on interfering with a crime scene, was "innocent because it did not happen".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 413 ✭✭The Left Hand Of God


    Funny reading this thread when you look back at an old thread on the subject before she was freed :D

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055934977


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,108 ✭✭✭Lirange


    prinz wrote: »
    That's IMPOSSIBLE, but apparently it's possible to live in an apartment and leave no fingerprints anywhere?

    Eh? Amanda's fingerprints were not found in Merideth's room, the crime scene. But I do not recall any information in this case that her fingerprints/DNA were completely absent from their apartment. And yes it is simply not credible to believe they could possibly clean their own DNA from the scene of the crime and Meredith's body whilst leaving Guede's all over.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,369 ✭✭✭UnitedIrishman


    Genuine question: what actually indicates that there were others involved?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 568 ✭✭✭TheyKnowMyIP


    Just remeber. Forensics is open to fraud. The methods aren't as stringent as you are led to believe.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Genuine question: what actually indicates that there were others involved?

    At Rudys trial the judge concluded that there must have been others involved, due to the amount of injuries and they said she didn't have defensive wounds (which to them proved there was someone holding her down and the other(s) killed her. From the wounds they concluded a second knife was used. The prosecution also said that Meredith would have been able to defend herself because she was trained in karate, she was actually only an orange belt and she had trained in her teens.

    The prosecution would then have us believe that Amanda managed to clean all her DNA and leave Rudy's there, it's just not possible.

    There was also unidentified fingerprints found in the room but the police haven't found out who they belong to.

    There were also possible semen stains found on the pillow, they refused to test them as they said Meredith was sexually active....eh what? If they thought Raffaele was involved then that could have possibly been their proof right there but nope in the crazy world of Mignini there's no point in checking them.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,369 ✭✭✭UnitedIrishman


    That's even worse police work than Frank Drebin, but at least he solved the crimes in the end.

    For one, it's pretty clear that the Police decided on one route of investigation/conviction and pursued that even when the evidence didn't fit. Just as Mignini did in the Monster of Florence case (.. harping back to it, but it shows just what they are like) in convicting a man, planting a bullet on his property (confirmed by a member of his own force) and then seeing the man walk free years later on appeal.

    Guede is guilty, that's for sure, but because of those police investigators it'll be a question that hangs over the Kerschers forever,


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    That's even worse police work than Frank Drebin, but at least he solved the crimes in the end.

    For one, it's pretty clear that the Police decided on one route of investigation/conviction and pursued that even when the evidence didn't fit. Just as Mignini did in the Monster of Florence case (.. harping back to it, but it shows just what they are like) in convicting a man, planting a bullet on his property (confirmed by a member of his own force) and then seeing the man walk free years later on appeal.

    Guede is guilty, that's for sure, but because of those police investigators it'll be a question that hangs over the Kerschers forever,

    I only read about the Monster of Florence yesterday and I was shocked.

    Mignini himself is probably the monster of Florence, he couldn't kill any more couples so he decided to destroy a couples life another way by framing them!! In the crazy world of Mignini it might just be true!!!!

    I read a reconstruction last year by a retired forensic engineer of what he thought happened to Meredith, he was convinced there was only one attacker.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Thrill wrote: »
    Don't bet on it. The Italian justice system is notoriously error prone.
    If Knox is acquitted of murdering her 21-year-old British roommate Meredith Kercher - and many observers in Italy believe it's likely - she will go down in history as one of more than 4 million victims of judicial errors or unjust detention in post-war Italy


    http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/84799,people,news,amanda-knox-an-american-innocent-abroad-or-getting-away-with-murder


    I missed this the other day, wow just wow!

    Also approximately 50% of convictions are overturned or the sentences greatly reduced after their appeals in Italy.

    But none of that matters because Amanda has evil eyes apparently :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,612 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    Tayla wrote: »
    I missed this the other day, wow just wow!

    Also approximately 50% of convictions are overturned or the sentences greatly reduced after their appeals in Italy.

    But none of that matters because Amanda has evil eyes apparently :rolleyes:

    Does anyone know the reason the Defence gave for Amanda and Raphael turing off their phones that night?

    Is it true that was the first time Amanda turned off her phonce since she was in Italy?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla


    Does anyone know the reason the Defence gave for Amanda and Raphael turing off their phones that night?

    I think they said it was their first weekend together and they didn't want to be disturbed. Amanda was supposed to work but her boss text to say he didn't need her to go in and then Raffaele was supposed to do a favour for someone but then the person didn't need his help anymore. Maybe they were looking forward to having a nice relaxing night in then and turned off their phones in case her boss and his friend changed their minds?
    Is it true that was the first time Amanda turned off her phonce since she was in Italy?

    No idea, I never heard that before.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Does anyone know the reason the Defence gave for Amanda and Raphael turing off their phones that night?

    Is it true that was the first time Amanda turned off her phonce since she was in Italy?

    There is no evidence of Raffaele turning off his phone, there was no activity on his phone for several hours.
    Amanda said she turned her phone off that night. She had got a text from Lumumba telling her not to come to work, and said she was happy about this as she got to spend the evening with Raffaele. Makes sense if she was concerned he might call back and change his mind (if the bar got busy).
    Never heard the last bit, seems implausible.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Tayla



    Is it true that was the first time Amanda turned off her phonce since she was in Italy?

    Just looked it up and in her testimony when asked did she usually turn her phone off she said "Not usually, because I use it as a clock, an alarm clock, so usually I don’t, but on that night I did.”

    Like I mentioned earlier, the most likely scenario is that she was didn't want to get called back in to work when she'd been given the night off.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,176 ✭✭✭Jess16


    Does anyone know the reason the Defence gave for Amanda and Raphael turing off their phones that night?

    Because she wanted to spend time with her boyfriend rather than being called into work.

    It always amazes me that people will overlook simple, logical explanations in favour of finding flaw


  • Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,945 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    Jess16 wrote: »
    Because she wanted to spend time with her boyfriend rather than being called into work.

    It always amazes me that people will overlook simple, logical explanations in favour of finding flaw

    I'm not sure.

    The other day I called my girlfriend three times and no answer. Didn't even ring. Just straight to voicemail.

    So I called the police just in case she murdered somebody and didn't check in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭LH Pathe


    Is it over then? and I won't have to see her face again?!!

    Even if her name was blame I still wouldnt lay it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    LH Pathe wrote: »
    Is it over then? and I won't have to see her face again?!!

    Even if her name was blame I still wouldnt lay it

    I understand - you are more into this kind of woman:

    http://www.yourefatbecauseyourestupid.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/yrfat/images/image002.jpg


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭Amber Lamps




  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,515 ✭✭✭LH Pathe


    LH Pathe wrote: »
    Is it over then? and I won't have to see her face again?!!

    Even if her name was blame I still wouldnt lay it

    I understand - you are more into this kind of woman:

    http://www.yourefatbecauseyourestupid.com/wordpress/wp-content/themes/yrfat/images/image002.jpg

    maybe if the URL contained azian instead of fat, then I'd defo take a peek

    but then it'd be racist.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,949 ✭✭✭A Primal Nut


    LH Pathe wrote: »
    maybe if the URL contained azian instead of fat, then I'd defo take a peek

    but then it'd be racist.

    Haha nothing wrong if its positive.

    In response to your previous post, it's all talk. If Amanda Knox came up to you in a bar and started showing an interest, ya'd be falling over yourself to bring her home.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement