Italian court convicts Amanda Knox of murder

Kandahar · Dec 8, 2009

PeteEU said:
Maybe because she was lieing and was caught in lies on day one?

The police reportedly accused her of lying within an hour of her first interrogation. How the hell would they know if she was lying at that point?

PeteEU said:
Just saying, her credibility is no higher than that of the Italian police at this point.

And there's still no evidence linking her to the crime. Next?

PeteEU · Dec 8, 2009

Kandahar said:
The police reportedly accused her of lying within an hour of her first interrogation. How the hell would they know if she was lying at that point?

Because they caught her and her boyfriend cleaning the crime scene maybe and they could not explain why they were doing so and not calling the police? Why did she go out and buy clean supplies after she allegedly discovered the body?! Why?

How the hell would you know? Were you in the room?

How do you know, because Amanda and her PR people said so to a willing American audience? Why should we trust a word they say? I aint saying I trust a word the Italians are saying either by the way if you were going to imply that. Point is, it is her word against theirs, and the Italian police have a tad, not much, but a tad more credibility than a woman who falsely accused another man of a crime and ruined his life.

And there's still no evidence linking her to the crime. Next?

There is evidence, just not evidence enough for the American court system, but guess what.. she aint in America.

aps · Dec 8, 2009

Kandahar said:
Because what "your gut told you" is not a good enough reason to support someone's incarceration for 26 years.

In your opinion, Kandahar. So whatever you think is the rule of law? Give me a break.

If her conviction got overturned, I wouldn't care. I have printed up a bunch of article that were written back in 2008 (which I find more credible than ones written at or after her conviction). I'll see what I conclude. I have stated that my gut told me she was guilty. If you don't like it, tough. It's JUST MY OPINION! Jesus Christ.

aps · Dec 8, 2009

Kandahar said:
She was interrogated for 14 hours, the police accused her of lying almost immediately, they told her that it would be better for her to not have a lawyer, and one of them allegedly hit her in the back of the head. How well would YOU stand up under those circumstances?

I don't know how I would stand up under those circumstances, but I find it hard to believe that I would state that I heard someone screaming as they were being stabbed to death when I wasn't even present when this occurred.

aps · Dec 8, 2009

Kandahar said:
Whether or not it hurts her credibility shouldn't matter if there is no actual evidence linking her to the crime. I don't care if she's a compulsive liar who has never told the truth once in her life...that doesn't change the fact that there isn't a single bit of actual evidence linking her to the murder scene.

Yes, it does matter, Kandahar. My gosh. The United States criminal justice system is essentially based on testimony. The jury can hear evidence both for and against the defendant, and they have to choose which story they find more credible. That involves assessing the credibility of the witness. Credibility is EVERYTHING in a trial--both criminal and civil. Who are you kidding?

Kandahar · Dec 8, 2009

PeteEU said:
Because they caught her and her boyfriend cleaning the crime scene maybe and they could not explain why they were doing so and not calling the police? Why did she go out and buy clean supplies after she allegedly discovered the body?! Why?

Allegedly discovered the body? According to the police the door to the bedroom was locked from the inside when they arrived, and they had to break it down. If she bought cleaning supplies to clean up the murder scene, why didn't she, umm, clean up the murder scene? Are you telling me that she was able to clean up her own blood and Rafaelle's from the murder but not Kercher's or Geude's? Give me a break.

PeteEU said:
How do you know, because Amanda and her PR people said so to a willing American audience? Why should we trust a word they say? I aint saying I trust a word the Italians are saying either by the way if you were going to imply that. Point is, it is her word against theirs, and the Italian police have a tad, not much, but a tad more credibility than a woman who falsely accused another man of a crime and ruined his life.

I really don't care who you think has more credibility; as I said, I don't care if she's never told the truth once in her life. There was no evidence linking her to the murder.

PeteEU said:
There is evidence, just not evidence enough for the American court system, but guess what.. she aint in America.

Which is exactly the problem with the Italian court system. People are presumed guilty in reality (even if they're presumed innocent in theory) and the standard of proof required is appallingly low.

Kandahar · Dec 8, 2009

aps said:
Yes, it does matter, Kandahar. My gosh. The United States criminal justice system is essentially based on testimony. The jury can hear evidence both for and against the defendant, and they have to choose which story they find more credible. That involves assessing the credibility of the witness. Credibility is EVERYTHING in a trial--both criminal and civil. Who are you kidding?

What? No it isn't. Testimony and circumstantial evidence like this would NEVER be enough to convict someone in an American court. The American criminal justice system is all about EVIDENCE. The least credible defendant in the world will walk if there is no evidence that they committed the crime...and rightly so. There is no evidence whatsoever that she was involved in this murder. None. Zip. Zero.

There is no evidence that Knox had more than a distant acquaintanceship with Geude, or that Solecito and Geude knew each other at all. There is, however, evidence that the prosecutor (who is under indictment for abuse of power) got his ridiculous Satanic-group-sex-ritual-gone-wrong theory from an occultist and had used this same ridiculous theory in prior cases.

Vader · Dec 8, 2009

Kandahar said:
What? No it isn't. Testimony and circumstantial evidence like this would NEVER be enough to convict someone in an American court. The American criminal justice system is all about EVIDENCE. The least credible defendant in the world will walk if there is no evidence that they committed the crime...and rightly so. There is no evidence whatsoever that she was involved in this murder. None. Zip. Zero.

There is no evidence that Knox had more than a distant acquaintanceship with Geude, or that Solecito and Geude knew each other at all. There is, however, evidence that the prosecutor (who is under indictment for abuse of power) got his ridiculous Satanic-group-sex-ritual-gone-wrong theory from an occultist and had used this same ridiculous theory in prior cases.

Actually, yes it can, it has, and will continue to do so until the conviction rating system used by prosecutors is abolished.

Vader · Dec 8, 2009

Kandahar said:
Whether or not it hurts her credibility shouldn't matter if there is no actual evidence linking her to the crime. I don't care if she's a compulsive liar who has never told the truth once in her life...that doesn't change the fact that there isn't a single bit of actual evidence linking her to the murder scene.

It shouldn't, I agree, but it does. Italy's facist kangaroo court is a sham; this is a given. If Knox is to get justice, she will need help from the US government.

Arcana XV · Dec 8, 2009

Ethereal said:
One can only hope. I think once the details of this trial come to light around the world intense pressure will be put on the Italian justice system to ensure a fair review of the so-called evidence against her and her ex.

To be quite honest, I don't think anyone really cares anywhere else outside of Italy, the UK and the US. And the whole case from start to finish has been extensively covered in all three countries in various appallingly biased ways. If your State Department gets involved and H. Clinton officially complains to her Italian counterparts, then maybe some pressure can be applied, but other than that, don't hold your breath.

Well, what was their motive? The prosecutor's theory is that it was the culmination of a Satanic sex ritual. This theory, by the way, was not the brainchild of the prosecutor, rather, it originated with an occultist blogger who claims to communicate with a dead priest. Not what I'd call a plausible motive.

Magnini is clearly insane. I can't believe he's still allowed to practice law. As for the motive, there might not even be one. My thought from the start was that this was an accident which they all tried to cover up.

This wouldn't have even gone to trial in America. The chain of evidence was broken in such an amatauerish fashion as to be laughable.

The key piece of forensic evidence linking Raffaele to the murder scene (a clasp from the victim's bra) was not collected until SIX WEEKS after the murder.

The Italian system is different. It has a lot of self correcting processes. This is only the first step. They've still got two other courts they can take this to and completely restart the trial. The only problem is that it will be a lengthy process. Who knows how many more years they'll have to spend in jail.

Arcana XV · Dec 8, 2009

gunner said:
Even the DNA [knoxs] on the knife? I appreciate it was apparently destroyed during testing. What about the different stories she confessed its purported they changed a few times. I agree with what alot of people are saying the rigours of the Italian court system lead alot to be desired.

Paul

It's not the fact that Knox's DNA was found on that knife that is troubling. After all it could have gotten there at any time in Raffaele's appartment. It's the traces of Meredith's DNA found on the blade that are the most damning, coupled with the fact that the knife was found in an apartment she'd never set foot in. Of course there's no way to double check that as it was destroyed during the first round of tests. None of this is proof that Amanda killed Meredith, tho. In fact, it points more towards Raffaele's guilt.

aps · Dec 8, 2009

Kandahar said:
What? No it isn't.

It isn't? Are you kidding me? :shock:

Testimony and circumstantial evidence like this would NEVER be enough to convict someone in an American court. The American criminal justice system is all about EVIDENCE. The least credible defendant in the world will walk if there is no evidence that they committed the crime...and rightly so. There is no evidence whatsoever that she was involved in this murder. None. Zip. Zero.

There is no evidence that Knox had more than a distant acquaintanceship with Geude, or that Solecito and Geude knew each other at all. There is, however, evidence that the prosecutor (who is under indictment for abuse of power) got his ridiculous Satanic-group-sex-ritual-gone-wrong theory from an occultist and had used this same ridiculous theory in prior cases.

I never understand people who talk as thought they know ALL the facts in the case when they didn't sit in the courtroom EVERY DAY and hear all the testimony and see all the evidence submitted. I don't understand it. Clearly your facts cannot be refuted by anything else anyone says. So, I'm done here. Have a nice day.

Ikari · Dec 8, 2009

aps said:
I never understand people who talk as thought they know ALL the facts in the case when they didn't sit in the courtroom EVERY DAY and hear all the testimony and see all the evidence submitted. I don't understand it. Clearly your facts cannot be refuted by anything else anyone says. So, I'm done here. Have a nice day.

Well I don't have all the facts, but this was reported today
Knox verdict leaves many questions unanswered - CNN.com

The strongest evidence against Knox and Sollecito was the fake break-in the prosecution says they staged to cover up their role in the crime, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini seemed to feel. He spent about an hour at the beginning of his summation talking about the break-in.

But even the prosecution admits the evidence is largely circumstantial.

aps · Dec 8, 2009

Ikari said:
Well I don't have all the facts, but this was reported today
Knox verdict leaves many questions unanswered - CNN.com

Thanks for this. I have printed out a bunch of articles that I will read to educate myself. I lost interest in this case some time ago, but I remember thinking that things did not look good for Amanda Knox.

My complaint with Kandahar's posts in here is that he writes like he's omniscient on the subject matter and that since HE HE HE HE HE thinks nothing can link her to the murder NO ONE ELSE should have such opinion. :roll: Puleeze.

Ikari · Dec 8, 2009

aps said:
Thanks for this. I have printed out a bunch of articles that I will read to educate myself. I lost interest in this case some time ago, but I remember thinking that things did not look good for Amanda Knox.

My complaint with Kandahar's posts in here is that he writes like he's omniscient on the subject matter and that since HE HE HE HE HE thinks nothing can link her to the murder NO ONE ELSE should have such opinion. :roll: Puleeze.

I don't know if she committed those murders or not, but it does sound like she didn't get a fair trial over it. I'd like to be assured that the trial was fair and impartial.

aps · Dec 8, 2009

Ikari said:
I don't know if she committed those murders or not, but it does sound like she didn't get a fair trial over it. I'd like to be assured that the trial was fair and impartial.

I agree. Man would I hate to be in a foreign country accused of a crime.

boblzer0 · Dec 8, 2009

aps said:
I agree. Man would I hate to be in a foreign country accused of a crime.

which is why you don't go to foreign countries. have fun in italy, i'll write you from hawaii.

Kandahar · Dec 8, 2009

Ikari said:
Well I don't have all the facts, but this was reported today
Knox verdict leaves many questions unanswered - CNN.com

The strongest evidence against Knox and Sollecito was the fake break-in the prosecution says they staged to cover up their role in the crime, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini seemed to feel. He spent about an hour at the beginning of his summation talking about the break-in.

But even the prosecution admits the evidence is largely circumstantial.

It's odd that he would cite that as the strongest evidence, since it doesn't even remotely implicate Knox/Sollecito. All it shows (if the break-in was indeed staged) is that SOMEONE tried to cover their tracks.

Kandahar · Dec 8, 2009

aps said:
My complaint with Kandahar's posts in here is that he writes like he's omniscient on the subject matter and that since HE HE HE HE HE thinks nothing can link her to the murder NO ONE ELSE should have such opinion. :roll: Puleeze.

If you cited some evidence linking her to the murder and believed that implicated her, that would be one thing. But instead you said you "fully supported this verdict" because...well, because your gut told you she was guilty and because you didn't like her behavior. You're right, frankly I don't think you should have an opinion like that. She's now going to spend the next 26 years in prison not because there's any evidence she committed the crime, but because a few jurors (with full access to the unflattering stories about her in the Italian media) thought with their gut rather than their brain.

Manc Skipper · Dec 8, 2009

Re: Italian court convicts Amanda Knox of muhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreplrder

Kandahar said:
If you cited some evidence linking her to the murder and believed that implicated her, that would be one thing. But instead you said you "fully supported this verdict" because...well, because your gut told you she was guilty and because you didn't like her behavior. You're right, frankly I don't think you should have an opinion like that. She's now going to spend the next 26 years in prison not because there's any evidence she committed the crime, but because a few jurors (with full access to the unflattering stories about her in the Italian media) thought with their gut rather than their brain.

..... Or perhaps they simply carried out their duty unhindered by "evidence" filtered through a partisan American media storm.

EpicDude86 · Dec 8, 2009

Re: Italian court convicts Amanda Knox of muhttp://www.debatepolitics.com/newreplrder

Manc Skipper said:
..... Or perhaps they simply carried out their duty unhindered by "evidence" filtered through a partisan American media storm.

Oh great, let's make this about the faults of America's legal system now...:lol:

aps · Dec 8, 2009

Kandahar said:
If you cited some evidence linking her to the murder and believed that implicated her, that would be one thing. But instead you said you "fully supported this verdict" because...well, because your gut told you she was guilty and because you didn't like her behavior. You're right, frankly I don't think you should have an opinion like that. She's now going to spend the next 26 years in prison not because there's any evidence she committed the crime, but because a few jurors (with full access to the unflattering stories about her in the Italian media) thought with their gut rather than their brain.

I'll provide an updated opinion once I read all these articles I printed out.

I let my gut tell me a lot of things. If my gut is wrong, so be it. If my gut is right, though......I'm god.

Navy Pride · Dec 8, 2009

aps said:
Actually, I'm not horrified by the election result. How much can he do in 4 years? Now, the loss of a bunch of seats in the delegates was disappointing. A smoking ban went through and is effective December 1, 2009, which was passed while a Democrat was in office. That is what I am still cheering about. We never thought a smoking ban would pass in Virginia....but it HAS!

I haven't read all the facts in the case lately. When it first came out, and I was reading the evidence against her, I thought she was guilty.

A lot of things can be done in 4 years aps.......Look t your boy Obama he is trying to bankrupt this country in one year.........

Navy Pride · Dec 8, 2009

boblzer0 said:
which is why you don't go to foreign countries. have fun in italy, i'll write you from hawaii.

I had a great time when I was in Italy but I did not kill anyone....

gunner · Dec 8, 2009

Kandahar said:
She was interrogated for 14 hours, the police accused her of lying almost immediately, they told her that it would be better for her to not have a lawyer, and one of them allegedly hit her in the back of the head. How well would YOU stand up under those circumstances?

allegedly being the operative word.

Paul

Italian court convicts Amanda Knox of murder

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

PeteEU

aps

Passionate

aps

Passionate

aps

Passionate

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Vader

Vader

Arcana XV

Arcana XV

aps

Passionate

Ikari

aps

Passionate

Ikari

aps

Passionate

boblzer0

Member

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant

Manc Skipper

Wrinkly member

EpicDude86

aps

Passionate

Navy Pride

Navy Pride

gunner