Amanda Knox retrial begins

Cianmcliam

A Primal Nut wrote:

if they were being fair why they didn't they allow her have a lawyer present?

The statements weren't allowed in court for these reasons.

Knox was being heard as a witness, not as a suspect so she had no need for a lawyer. She was only there because the police wanted to interview Sollecito and she went with him.

They asked her to clarify some details and while she was being interviewed Sollecito told police she may have actually left his apartment that night after all. On hearing that Sollecito had taken away her alibi she cracked and gave her confession while still being heard as a witness. All within one hour of her interview that night. Once she admitted being there she became a suspect and the interview was stopped shortly after until she could get a lawyer.

A Primal Nut

Solecito never took away his alibi. That was a lie by the police to convince a naive Knox to change her story. It means nothing. Anyway i was talking about the Lumumba thing.

lazza14

Sure the prosecutions f*cked up, doesn't mean she's innocent though.

lazza14

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

ha acting . Get over it.

You get over deluding yourself that you think that statement is anything but insincere bullshít !

Amazingfun

lazza14 wrote: »

You get over deluding yourself that you think that statement is anything but insincere bullshít !

Good morning!
Everytime I see Amanda and Raffaele enjoying their lives over the years to come....I will pause, think of how much their happiness and gratitude annoys you....and smile

lazza14

Amazingfun wrote: »

Good morning!
Everytime I see Amanda and Raffaele enjoying their lives over the years to come....I will pause, think of how much their happiness and gratitude annoys you....and smile

Good stuff, good to see you are happy to allow murderers enjoy their freedom.

Wompa1

enfant terrible wrote: »

Thankfully evidence is needed, not your gut feeling.

And my opinion upsets you? Somebody mentioned hard facts...there's plenty of hard facts just not 'hard evidence'. Nothing which erases any reasonable doubt. Herself and her boyfriend told lies. They may have been judged to be not guilty in a court of law, it doesn't mean they are totally innocent

enfant terrible

Wompa1 wrote: »

And my opinion upsets you? Somebody mentioned hard facts...there's plenty of hard facts just not 'hard evidence'. Nothing which erases any reasonable doubt. Herself and her boyfriend told lies. They may have been judged to be not guilty in a court of law, it doesn't mean they are totally innocent

I'm not upset, i'm happy she's out.

I'll take the opinion of the Supreme court in Italy in judging someone's guilt or innocence over some guy on the internet who reads the papers and think's he or she has all the facts.

Cheer up an innocent person is free after been locked up for four years.

Paully D

Anyone catch the new Amanda Knox documentary on Netflix yet? It appears to be getting mixed reviews.

metaoblivia

I watched it this morning. It definitely portrays Mignini and the guy from the British tabloid, Nick Pisa, in a bad light. It doesn't use any narration, just their own words from interviews the documentarians conducted, but those two do not come off well at all.

I think how Amanda comes across depends on whether you think she's guilty or not. Since the damning evidence against Rudy Guede came to light, I've thought she was innocent. I've never seen the "psychopath" or "liar" in her demeanor that other people see. So I thought she came across well. She said some of the most insightful things about this case that I've heard anyone say.

And I don't think you can watch this film and come away from it thinking that, from the perspective of a criminal trial, Amanda and her boyfriend should have been convicted. Even if you think she's sketchy as a person, and a psychopath and a liar, the documentary does a good job showing that the physical evidence of their involvement just wasn't there.

retro:electro

Why did the documentary leave out the part about her and her boyfriend buying bleach in the shop before they called the police? The documentary is very much running in favour of Amanda in my opinion.

Wompa1

The documentary was beautifully shot but very poorly edited. It can't have just been me to notice the frame jumps during parts of the interviews. It is also being claimed that some of the translation was incorrect e.g. Mignini saying because the body was covered "it wasn't something a man would do"..the accurate translation is apparently "it wasn't something a man unknown to the victim would do"

For one example of the frame jump check out when Mignini was asking rhetorically if her attitude was common of somebody from Seattle..there's a huge frame jump. Also the shot after the fella made the comment about how at the time Italian's started their court systems, Americans were painting buffalo's in caves had a jump. They edited a lot of it to make the people seem worse and more pompous than they possibly are.

Meanwhile, they had still shots of Amanda and Raffaelle at certain parts to establish pity.

It ignored a lot of evidence and some non-evidence background details about her character. I also fond it interesting that she used the term "my" a lot. She said "my apartment" multiple times rather than our apartment...she was sharing with 3 other girls.

I was disappointed that the other two girls were not interviewed. Either was the guy who lived in the apartment below them who just started seeing Meredith. Or Meredith's friends and family who witnessed Amanda acting strange in the waiting area and who heard her heartless words about the murder.

They didn't mention that her other conviction has been upheld. There wasn't any mention of her guilt.

They also mentioned the text to her boss but not the other activity on her phone that night and the next day.

They also had audio from Guede on Skype talking about being there but not audio of him saying Amanda was not there. Just text.

The documentary didn't bring up anything new. It was another platform for Amanda is all. The journalist really hammed it up for the camera's! He'll be the main villain of this.

hatrickpatrick

I feel so sorry for Knox. Missing four years of your life at the age she was when locked up, 20, means missing out on the years when you figure out who you are and make lifelong friendships. Of all the times in one's adult life to be locked up through a miscarriage of justice, I struggle to think of an age period with more drastic and depressing long term effects on one's social life and happiness. She would have left prison to find that her home town had moved on without her, socially. I can't imagine how lonely a feeling that must have been when she arrived home. People change so much in those years, would old friendships still be recognisable after four years of total absence during late adolescence? It's hardly the same as when people move away but still visit at Christmas and post about their lives on social media.

Assuming she truly is innocent, which in my view the evidence overwhelmingly points to, the Italian justice system has in all probability done permanent damage to her as a person.

ThinkProgress

Amanda Knox is guilty as f*ck! She fits the profile of a psychopath very well.

America has now become obsessed with force feeding everyone this story of people wrongly convicted... It's a worrying trend.

It's now their favourite fairy tale to spin. They know so many people will buy into... they don't care about the truth. They care about shock value, because it sells!

They did it with the West Memphis 3... And they're now doing it again with Steven Avery... (all guilty as f*ck too)

The only thing it proves, is that there are a lot of exploitable holes in the criminal justice system. And a highly-skilled lawyer can quite often get a person off murder charges...

Top lawyers have always known this. It's very easy for a skilled lawyer to build a case for reasonable doubt to get a person off murder charges... Just look at the OJ Simpson case, if you want a very clear modern day example of this!

The idea that these murder trials can be unbiased, objective and impartial... It's total nonsense. They never are!

Lawyers are skilled storytellers... If there is a strong enough public desire for someone to be found guilty/innocent... And you have a talented lawyer or legal team... All they have to do is build a story that is just about believable enough.

It's the strength of the public consensus and desire for guilt or innocence that counts the most. Not the actual evidence!

All great lawyers understand this. And they are masters of playing the hand they're dealt...

The Black Oil

Wompa1 wrote: »

I was disappointed that the other two girls were not interviewed. Either was the guy who lived in the apartment below them who just started seeing Meredith. Or Meredith's friends and family who witnessed Amanda acting strange in the waiting area and who heard her heartless words about the murder.

Read this in the Guardian a few days ago.

Meredith Kercher was a 21-year-old student from Coulsdon, south London. She studied politics and Italian at the University of Leeds and worked as a tour guide and barmaid in Perugia to support her studies. The daughter of a British father and Indian mother, she had two brothers and a sister, and aspired to be a journalist like her father, John. Beyond that, little else is known of Meredith. Her family have always doggedly protected her privacy, as well as their own.

~

The directors reached out to the Kercher family to ask them to be part of the film, but never got a reply. Before its release to the press, the film was sent to the family, but there’s been no word on whether or not they have watched it.

Lirange

anna080 wrote: »

Why did the documentary leave out the part about her and her boyfriend buying bleach in the shop before they called the police?

Because it never happened.

If it had the prosecution would have certainly presented that as evidence. But they didn't. No receipts or evidence of any kind has been presented that they ever purchased bleach.

The whole notion that some have suggested that they could manage to bleach away evidence is nonsensical. It was a very violent crime and sexual assault. Amanda and Raffaele would have left plenty of physical forensic evidence. It is simply not plausible that they could have removed their own DNA and somehow managed to leave Guede's all over Meredith's body and room for the police to find.

retro:electro

Lirange wrote: »

Because it never happened.

If it had the prosecution would have certainly presented that as evidence. But they didn't. No receipts or evidence of any kind has been presented that they ever purchased bleach.

The whole notion that some have suggested that they could manage to bleach away evidence is nonsensical. It was a very violent crime and sexual assault. Amanda and Raffaele would have left plenty of physical forensic evidence. It is simply not plausible that they could have removed their own DNA and somehow managed to leave Guede's all over Meredith's body and room for the police to find.

I've seen numerous other documentaries on this case and every one of them have included evidence that Amanda and her boyfriend bought bleach in a near by store on the morning after the murder before they rang the police.

To me her story just doesn't add up, she saw the big bloodied footprint when she stepped out of the shower, but not when she was getting in? She showered that morning to shower away evidence and concocted a bs story to fit around that.
Phone activity maintains that she was not at her boyfriends house that night, but conveniently the doc left that out too. Her crocodile tears didn't work on me.

Lirange

anna080 wrote: »

I've seen numerous other documentaries on this case and every one of them have included evidence that Amanda and her boyfriend bought bleach in a near by store on the morning after the murder before they rang the police.

What evidence? Where is it? Citations please?

There is no evidence. It doesn't exist. It never happened.

Hearsay is not evidence. Rumours are not evidence.

anna080 wrote: »

To me her story just doesn't add up, she saw the big bloodied footprint when she stepped out of the shower, but not when she was getting in? She showered that morning to shower away evidence and concocted a bs story to fit around that.

Those pictures of the blood stains have been public for some time. The ones in the sink were small and not alarming. The matted stain on the bathmat was certainly more conspicuous but hardly shocking. I find it doubtful that many people would see those and immediately conclude that an act of violence let alone a murder had taken place. The more likely explanation would be that somebody cut or injured themselves. The unflushed feces in the toilet is what creeped Amanda more which is certainly understandable given it was a student flat with four girls.

Harvey Normal

People who think Knox is guilty would be witch burners in an earlier age.

Samaris

Does anyone look at this case and just shrug and admit that they have not a notion of who did it? I honestly have no idea and people are -so- on one side or the other, with unspeakable proof, that I would barely even know where to start in finding out the facts.

tigger123

Samaris wrote: »

Does anyone look at this case and just shrug and admit that they have not a notion of who did it? I honestly have no idea and people are -so- on one side or the other, with unspeakable proof, that I would barely even know where to start in finding out the facts.

I watched the documentary last night and it confirmed what I already suspected having followed the case through the media; a combination of an idiotic prosecutor and the tabloid press decided Amanda Knox was guilty even though there was scant evidence to prove it. And they just drove it on from there and doubled down on their mistake

IMO, there's no evidence to say she did it. It's just not there. Further, how anyone thinks that she could (in her twenties) just randomly turn into a psychopathic killer out of the blue with no history of violence or issues pointing to it before hand is beyond me. And also convince a guy she'd met 5 days before hand to collude with her? It's ridiculous.

Pac1Man

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I feel so sorry for Knox. Missing four years of your life at the age she was when locked up, 20, means missing out on the years when you figure out who you are and make lifelong friendships. Of all the times in one's adult life to be locked up through a miscarriage of justice, I struggle to think of an age period with more drastic and depressing long term effects on one's social life and happiness. She would have left prison to find that her home town had moved on without her, socially. I can't imagine how lonely a feeling that must have been when she arrived home. People change so much in those years, would old friendships still be recognisable after four years of total absence during late adolescence? It's hardly the same as when people move away but still visit at Christmas and post about their lives on social media.

Assuming she truly is innocent, which in my view the evidence overwhelmingly points to, the Italian justice system has in all probability done permanent damage to her as a person.

Jesus you make it sound like a death sentence. People can make friends at any age, 24 is hardly the cutoff point!

Stigura

A Primal Nut wrote: »

DNA is useful in finding who owns blood, fences, sperm, body parts etc.

This is truly ground breaking. The answer to that question which has so long troubled the terraced house owner. Rumour always had it it depended on which side the posts were on. Thank god for DNA! :pac:

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

Does anyone look at this case and just shrug and admit that they have not a notion of who did it? I honestly have no idea and people are -so- on one side or the other, with unspeakable proof, that I would barely even know where to start in finding out the facts.

What are you talking about?

Rudy Guede did it. He broke into the flat probably to steal but encountered Kercher attacked her and killed her and fled Italy. His DNA including his feces in the unflushed toilet were found at the crime scene. There is zero evidence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito at the crime scene. Zero. They were at Sollecito's flat smoking weed having sex and watching movies on his laptop.
This was an open and shut case of burglary and murder.
The suspect was tried and convicted.
Simple as.

ThunbergsAreGo

The journalist in the documentary is a compete creep

hatrickpatrick

Pac1Man wrote: »

Jesus you make it sound like a death sentence. People can make friends at any age, 24 is hardly the cutoff point!

Sure, you can start a new life. All I'm saying is that any real semblance of your old life would be gone, because of something you didn't actually do.

ThinkProgress

Harvey Normal wrote: »

People who think Knox is guilty would be witch burners in an earlier age.

Why? Is she a witch as well as being a cold blooded murderer?

Amazes me how many people willingly get sucked in by the blue-eyed all american girl next door image that has been desperately spun here! (Well not really, as psychopaths are expert actors, who can fool many people)

This is the same girl who was witnessed callously laughing and joking right after her roommate was viciously slaughtered. As well as in court too...

The same girl who confessed to the crime, and tried to destroy the life of an innocent local restaurant owner!

People say she was coerced into that confession, but that is always the standard defence used by any lawyer worth their money... And who the f*ck confesses to murder because they're scared? Nonsense!

Just because some crafty lawyers got her off these charges by expertly exploiting holes in the system, doesn't mean she is innocent. It means she's lucky, that's all.

We don't want our psychopaths to look like Amanda Knox... But sometimes they do!

tigger123

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Why? Is she a witch as well as being a cold blooded murderer?

Amazes me how many people willingly get sucked in by the blue-eyed all american girl next door image that has been desperately spun here! (Well not really, as psychopaths are expert actors, who can fool many people)

This is the same girl who was witnessed callously laughing and joking right after her roommate was viciously slaughtered. As well as in court too...

The same girl who confessed to the crime, and tried to destroy the life of an innocent local restaurant owner!

People say she was coerced into that confession, but that is always the standard defence used by any lawyer worth their money... And who the f*ck confesses to murder because they're scared? Nonsense!

Just because some crafty lawyers got her off these charges by expertly exploiting holes in the system, doesn't mean she is innocent. It means she's lucky, that's all.

We don't want our psychopaths to look like Amanda Knox... But sometimes they do!

What evidence is there that she's a psychopath?

cbyrd

The supreme court in Italy exonerated them as there was no evidence. If you watch the documentary, you see how much bungling of the crime scene there was.
50 items being forensicly tested at the same time when the DNA was discovered on the knife. So minute was the sample they couldn't be completely sure but went ahead and introduced it in evidence anyway. 3 male DNA types on the bra clasp but only Sollecito's was presented?
Rudy Guede was convicted of burglary, but changed his story from the original Skype version where he stated Knox was not there. By doing so got a reduced sentence. By the journalists own admission, he wasn't as headline grabbing so very little was printed about him.
Sorry, complete fcukjng cock-up
It's actually amazing how far this was allowed to get before the evidence was called into question.

It was pure hysterical trial by media and that journalist should have been sued.
It took 8 years before they admitted that they were wrong. But mud always sticks.

brickmauser

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Why? Is she a witch as well as being a cold blooded murderer?

There is no evidence whatsoever that she is a murderer.

Amazes me how many people willingly get sucked in by the blue-eyed all american girl next door image that has been desperately spun here! (Well not really, as psychopaths are expert actors, who can fool many people)

She has quite striking blue eyes and a pretty face so she must be a psychopath then?

This is the same girl who was witnessed callously laughing and joking right after her roommate was viciously slaughtered. As well as in court too...

Many people react to horror and tragedy with humor and laughter. It doesn't mean they are evil. It is a coping mechanism.

The same girl who confessed to the crime, and tried to destroy the life of an innocent local restaurant owner!

There are numerous cases where an innocent person has broken under questioning and admitted they committed a crime they didn't do and also implicated another person. Interrogation can be so stressful and terrifying that this can happen and police determined to get their culprit can form a mistaken bias against an innocent person and railroad the suspect into an admission.

People say she was coerced into that confession, but that is always the standard defence used by any lawyer worth their money... And who the f*ck confesses to murder because they're scared? Nonsense!

A person who is not a psychopath?
If Knox was a psychopath she would have remained cool and calm and been well able to deny her involvement and would not have done something so stupid as implicating a person who was so obviously not involved. Psychopaths are cunning and manipulative and calculating under pressure. Knox is anything but cunning - she is like an open book - cunning - she has no guile as far as I can see - and bursts into tears when she talks about the case in interview after interview.

Just because some crafty lawyers got her off these charges by expertly exploiting holes in the system, doesn't mean she is innocent. It means she's lucky, that's all.

If the prosecution had been doing their job there wouldn't have been holes to be picked. If they had a case at all there would be no reasonable doubt of guilt. The purpose of a defense counsel is to defend a defendant in making sure they have a fair trial. It is very rare that someone goes before the courts who is not guilty in most civilized countries because police and prosecutors take care to have an absolutely watertight case. When most defendant's deny guilt it is tantamount to denying the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. The only way you can have a watertight case is when you have the REAL suspect. The Knox case was not just leaking below the waterline - there was only open water and no ship!

We don't want our psychopaths to look like Amanda Knox... But sometimes they do!

A girl who is empathetic, cries, shows real emotions, has been consistently truthful and shows not a trace of ego, arrogance or narcissism could not possibly be a psychopath.

Lirange

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Why? Is she a witch as well as being a cold blooded murderer?

I really don't think the witch hunt analogies are that off the mark when one considers the prosecution's theories and the media coverage: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/knox-stabbed-kercher-in-neck-as-part-of-satanic-rite-966242.html

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Amazes me how many people willingly get sucked in by the blue-eyed all american girl next door image that has been desperately spun here! (Well not really, as psychopaths are expert actors, who can fool many people)

Desperately? Who is desperate? Amanda is a free a woman now. So is Raffaele. They as well those that believed in their innocence have been vindicated by Italy's supreme court. The court went further than just acquitting them because of a lack of evidence. The court of cassation ruling declared that they did not commit the crime.

It's telling that you choose to admonish those who believe in their innocence for supposedly building up an image of Amanda given the behaviour of the press and the Perugia Police. And how can you so confidently detect that someone is a psychopath and consistently spot this perceived acting? How are your instincts or gut feelings superior to anyone else's? Are you a body language expert? Can you read minds? Do you have special superpowers?

ThinkProgress wrote: »

This is the same girl who was witnessed callously laughing and joking right after her roommate was viciously slaughtered. As well as in court too...

Right after? You mean days after? Weeks or months after? None of us witnessed her every expression, emotion, and interaction in the hours, days, weeks, and months in the aftermath of Meredith's murder. Selectively latching onto momentary and fleeting snapshots of Amanda as inappropriate and conclude that it amounts to damning evidence that she's a psychopath and a murderer seems a step beyond. Particularly when much of it is coming through the filter of tabloid journalism.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

The same girl who confessed to the crime, and tried to destroy the life of an innocent local restaurant owner!

People say she was coerced into that confession, but that is always the standard defence used by any lawyer worth their money... And who the f*ck confesses to murder because they're scared? Nonsense!

This is the only part of your post that I have some concordant feeling toward. During the initial trial phase and only casually following the story the implication of Lumumba put me off Knox. Whilst I wouldn't say I was initially convinced of her guilt I was certainly leaning in that direction. It wasn't until after the first appeal and acquittal that I took a renewed closer interest in the case. The lack of physical evidence linking Knox or Sollecito to the crime and the overwhelming evidence of Guede made it fairly obvious what happened to Meredith and who was responsible. As for false "confessions" they are more common than you seem to realise, particularly when witnesses are put under intense duress and experience deprivation/psychological abuse.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Just because some crafty lawyers got her off these charges by expertly exploiting holes in the system, doesn't mean she is innocent. It means she's lucky, that's all.

They exploited holes in the case. They did not need to "exploit holes in the system." And "lucky" is one of the last words I would ever use to describe Amanda Knox.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

We don't want our psychopaths to look like Amanda Knox... But sometimes they do!

Conversely, I think some seem to get some sort of perverse satisfaction that a psychopath and a murder may potentially look like Amanda Knox.

HensVassal

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Amanda Knox is guilty as f*ck! She fits the profile of a psychopath very well.

America has now become obsessed with force feeding everyone this story of people wrongly convicted... It's a worrying trend.

It's now their favourite fairy tale to spin. They know so many people will buy into... they don't care about the truth. They care about shock value, because it sells!

They did it with the West Memphis 3... And they're now doing it again with Steven Avery... (all guilty as f*ck too)

The only thing it proves, is that there are a lot of exploitable holes in the criminal justice system. And a highly-skilled lawyer can quite often get a person off murder charges...

Top lawyers have always known this. It's very easy for a skilled lawyer to build a case for reasonable doubt to get a person off murder charges... Just look at the OJ Simpson case, if you want a very clear modern day example of this!

The idea that these murder trials can be unbiased, objective and impartial... It's total nonsense. They never are!

Lawyers are skilled storytellers... If there is a strong enough public desire for someone to be found guilty/innocent... And you have a talented lawyer or legal team... All they have to do is build a story that is just about believable enough.

It's the strength of the public consensus and desire for guilt or innocence that counts the most. Not the actual evidence!

All great lawyers understand this. And they are masters of playing the hand they're dealt...

The adversarial legal system (trial by jury with two pantomime characters arguing and trying to sway 12 dummies) is notoriously flawed. The argumentative system (no jury but rather panel of judges and evidence presentation) like they have in France is much more effective, reliable and fair. Miscarriages of justice, be they wrongful convictions or guilty persons being found not guilty, are extremely rare in the latter system.

seamus

Lirange wrote: »

Conversely, I think some seem to get some sort of perverse satisfaction that a psychopath and a murder may potentially look like Amanda Knox.

Indeed, there are some people who are convinced that she's guilty precisely because they really want it to be true; some perverse envy in them that makes them want to see a privileged person taken down a peg or two. Facts be damned.

Grayson

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Why? Is she a witch as well as being a cold blooded murderer?

Amazes me how many people willingly get sucked in by the blue-eyed all american girl next door image that has been desperately spun here! (Well not really, as psychopaths are expert actors, who can fool many people)

This is the same girl who was witnessed callously laughing and joking right after her roommate was viciously slaughtered. As well as in court too...

The same girl who confessed to the crime, and tried to destroy the life of an innocent local restaurant owner!

People say she was coerced into that confession, but that is always the standard defence used by any lawyer worth their money... And who the f*ck confesses to murder because they're scared? Nonsense!

Just because some crafty lawyers got her off these charges by expertly exploiting holes in the system, doesn't mean she is innocent. It means she's lucky, that's all.

We don't want our psychopaths to look like Amanda Knox... But sometimes they do!

I was cracking jokes with my family and friends the day my Dad died. You need to sometimes. The stress gets released in silly trivial jokes.

Cianmcliam

The PR Knox the family paid for has certainly been worth the money if the posts above are anything to go by.

brickmauser

seamus wrote: »

Indeed, there are some people who are convinced that she's guilty precisely because they really want it to be true; some perverse envy in them that makes them want to see a privileged person taken down a peg or two. Facts be damned.

She wasn't privileged.
She was just a normal middle class girl like thousands of other student/tourists who come to Europe.
There is nothing remarkable about her in any way whatsoever except maybe she has very striking eyes.
That's it.

meeeeh

When it happened I didn't overly follow the case. It just seemed grusome murder mixed with gutter journalism to provide fodder to tabloid masses. At the time I thought Italian justice system was unfairly vilified. Only years later at the time of appeal I read how much evidence was messed up and how unfair conviction seemed.

We have watched the documentary yesterday and one thing that struck me (besides the creep journo) is how much the lead prosecutor disliked Knox's way of life and personality. It just seemed to me they decided that those two were acting inappropriately so they must be guilty. They were looking only for evidence that supports that before they had actual killer. After that they decided to shoehorn all three of them into the story when much more likely explanation is that there was murder/break in.

Anyway I never wanted or hopped Knox and bf to be innocent when the case was in the courts but from reading afterwards about it in non American media and watching the documentary I really can't think how they could be found guilty.

brickmauser

meeeeh wrote: »

When it happened I didn't overly follow the case. It just seemed grusome murder mixed with gutter journalism to provide fodder to tabloid masses. At the time I thought Italian justice system was unfairly vilified. Only years later at the time of appeal I read how much evidence was messed up and how unfair conviction seemed.

We have watched the documentary yesterday and one thing that struck me (besides the creep journo) is how much the lead prosecutor disliked Knox's way of life and personality. It just seemed to me they decided that those two were acting inappropriately so they must be guilty. They were looking only for evidence that supports that before they had actual killer. After that they decided to shoehorn all three of them into the story when much more likely explanation is that there was murder/break in.

The story of the prosecutor changed so many times.
Originally it was witchcraft and human sacrifice or some crap.
Then it changed into Knox and Kercher not getting along - the only disagreement they had was over Knox neglecting to use the toilet brush to clean the toilet bowl once after she took a sh*t.
We were led to believe she seduced Sollecito and persuaded Geude to help her and cut Kercher's throat as part of some sex game gone wrong?
WTF?
It's so laughable I don't know how it even got to court.
Knox and Sollecito spend years in prison because of this lunacy.

seamus

brickmauser wrote: »

She wasn't privileged.
She was just a normal middle class girl like thousands of other student/tourists who come to Europe.
There is nothing remarkable about her in any way whatsoever except maybe she has very striking eyes.
That's it.

An attractive middle-class white American on a long trip to Europe is the poster child of privilege. It doesn't really matter how wealthy her family may or may not be.
There are plenty of people who would love to see her in jail just because of what she represents.

The Highwayman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I feel so sorry for Knox. Missing four years of your life at the age she was when locked up, 20, means missing out on the years when you figure out who you are and make lifelong friendships. Of all the times in one's adult life to be locked up through a miscarriage of justice, I struggle to think of an age period with more drastic and depressing long term effects on one's social life and happiness. She would have left prison to find that her home town had moved on without her, socially. I can't imagine how lonely a feeling that must have been when she arrived home. People change so much in those years, would old friendships still be recognisable after four years of total absence during late adolescence? It's hardly the same as when people move away but still visit at Christmas and post about their lives on social media.

Assuming she truly is innocent, which in my view the evidence overwhelmingly points to, the Italian justice system has in all probability done permanent damage

What???

Sorry she missed 4 years of her life??? What about Amanda? She is dead!!!

Knox maybe innocent of the actual murder but she has never been truthful about what happened which makes her guilty of a conspiracy.

tigger123

The Highwayman wrote: »

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I feel so sorry for Knox. Missing four years of your life at the age she was when locked up, 20, means missing out on the years when you figure out who you are and make lifelong friendships. Of all the times in one's adult life to be locked up through a miscarriage of justice, I struggle to think of an age period with more drastic and depressing long term effects on one's social life and happiness. She would have left prison to find that her home town had moved on without her, socially. I can't imagine how lonely a feeling that must have been when she arrived home. People change so much in those years, would old friendships still be recognisable after four years of total absence during late adolescence? It's hardly the same as when people move away but still visit at Christmas and post about their lives on social media.

Assuming she truly is innocent, which in my view the evidence overwhelmingly points to, the Italian justice system has in all probability done permanent damage

What???

Sorry she missed 4 years of her life??? What about Amanda? She is dead!!!

Knox maybe innocent of the actual murder but she has never been truthful about what happened which makes her guilty of a conspiracy.

The name of the victim is Meredith Kercher. Amanda is Knox's first name; Amanda Knox.

seamus

The Highwayman wrote: »

Knox maybe innocent of the actual murder but she has never been truthful about what happened which makes her guilty of a conspiracy.

Being beaten and interrogated for four days without a solicitor tends to cause significant difficulties with obtaining a truthful statement.

CdeC

Reading about it, they found absolutely no DNA evidence that Knox was in the room when Kirchner was murdered.
Seems like she really got screwed over.

They have the guy that did it.
I don't understands under what circumstances they still believe that Knox had anything to do with it.

1. they were friends
2. No DNA evidence at all
3. She can explain all her actions
4. Bloody handprints, shoe prints and DNA swab evidence from Guerde.
5. She implicated someone else under duress.

Is there money to be had??

Samaris

I think the last couple of pages definitely show there's controversy over it, so I'll stick with "nope, no idea".

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

I think the last couple of pages definitely show there's controversy over it, so I'll stick with "nope, no idea".

No there isn't.

The evidence against Rudy Guede:

Guede admitted he was in the room.

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

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

Guede's excrement was found in the toilet.

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

Guede's handprint, in Meredith’s blood, was found on a pillow case in Meredith's room.

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

Guede 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.

Rudy Guede murdered Meredith Kercher and he acted alone.

End of.

The Highwayman

seamus wrote: »

The Highwayman wrote: »

Knox maybe innocent of the actual murder but she has never been truthful about what happened which makes her guilty of a conspiracy.

Being beaten and interrogated for four days without a solicitor tends to cause significant difficulties with obtaining a truthful statement.

Citation needed!!!! Did aliens do it?

brickmauser

The Highwayman wrote: »

Citation needed!!!! Did aliens do it?

The confusion about the interrogations and the sequence of events as described by Knox and Sollecito are irrelevant.

There is no evidence whatsoever that places them at the crime scene. Nothing. Zilch.

There is no way they could possibly have committed the crime and left no evidence at the scene.

There is overwhelming evidence that places Geude at the scene ergo implicating him in the murder of Kercher.

meeeeh

I think a lot of the people decided she must be guilty because the whole fantasy about a nymphomaniac who persuades her sexual partners to kill someone as part of a sex act is so much more interesting than your bog standard break in/rape/murder. It doesn't sell newspapers half as well. For years people were being fed any gorey detail, exaggerated and everything and I guess it's not easy to accept it was just a good old witch hunt without any meaningful proof.

As a completely separate issue I must admit that 'drawing buffalos in the cave' for me gets the statement of the year award. It's brilliant.

brickmauser

meeeeh wrote: »

I think a lot of the people decided she must be guilty because the whole fantasy about a nymphomaniac who persuades her sexual partners to kill someone as part of a sex act is so much more interesting than your bog standard break in/rape/murder. It doesn't sell newspapers half as well. For years people were being fed any gorey detail, exaggerated and everything and I guess it's not easy to accept it was just a good old witch hunt without any meaningful proof.

As a completely separate issue I must admit that 'drawing buffalos in the cave' for me gets the statement of the year award. It's brilliant.

The ineptitude of the Perugia police is stunning.

When they arrived at the house they made the subjective judgement that the burglary was staged. How they came to this conclusion is anyone's guess.
Then they assumed that only the people in the house could have done it.
Knox was kissed by Sollecito who was comforting her after her friend had died which aroused their immediate suspicion.
When they interrogate Knox and Sollecito they had not yet got the full forensic picture so when they reviewed the text sent by Lumumba from Knox "see you later good night" suddenly had massive significance because the expression which is innocent in English does not mean the same in Italian.
Knox was badgered into implicating Lumumba into the early hours of the morning until she relented to get them off her back and get out of the interrogation room.
Once Sollecito and Knox started contradicting each other and they had evidence pointing to Lumumba they thought they had their murderers.
When Geude was found, convicted and sentenced they realized they had dug a hole for themselves and decided to try and frame Knox and Sollecito rather than admit they made a balls up in front of the world.
It almost worked and they almost destroyed the lives of two young innocent people.
An absolutely shocking deplorable case.
It is scary that these people are still working as investigators in Perugia almost a decade on.

Cianmcliam

Knox was not interrogated for four days without a lawyer and was most certainly not beaten.

She was only in the police station to accompany Sollecito but police got suspicious of their conflicting stories and decided to question Amanda.

Within a couple of hours she had broken down after it was suggested to her that Sollecito was not going to back up her alibi. She then told police she was there during the murder and had heard her boss killing Meredith while she cowered in the kitchen. They stopped the interview and let her rest. She then voluntarily wrote down the same story the next morning.

She let Patrick, an innocent man, sit in prison for weeks as an accused murderer unitil a man that had been with him at the time of the murder came forward.


Lovely girl.