• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Italian court convicts Amanda Knox of murder

Navy Pride said:
I guess I have heard over 100 times they did have conclusive DNA evidence........I have a flash for you....Young Americans can do bad things when they are overseas and away from their family and loaded with drugs whether you believe it or not.................
Click to expand...

Well then why don't you learn about the evidence yourself and form your OWN conclusion, instead of condemning an innocent girl based on what you've "heard over 100 times." They do NOT have DNA evidence. They have a tiny scrap of DNA (not even blood) on a knife that was not found at the murder scene, does not match the murder weapon, and isn't even enough DNA to be a conclusive match.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
This is Italy......different country, different laws.........Let it be a lesson to you......They use to tell us aboard ship when we went ashore... don't get in trouble with the local law.............I had 2 friends who were drunk and caught urinating in public in Turkey........They went to court, found guilty and were locked up........4 years later I saw message traffic trying to get these guys out of jail..........
Click to expand...

There's a big difference between not obeying local laws because you don't know/care that it's a crime, and not breaking the law at all and being railroaded by a foreign justice system with shoddy standards. Your friends did the former, Amanda Knox was the latter.
 
Ethereal said:
Link?

Based upon what I've read, the two never contacted each other by phone or email...ever.
Click to expand...

She knew of him...they were distant acquaintances but certainly were not friends. You are correct that they never contacted each other. And there is no evidence that Geude and Sollecito ever knew each other at all.
 
aps said:
I'm still in the process of reading through a bunch of articles I printed on this case. To me, I see so many similarities between Scott Petersen's behavior after his wife went missing and after she was found dead and Amanda Knox's behavior after this murder. She claims that her making out with her 2-week boyfriend as they examined the crime scene was as a result of her being in shock. Bullcrap! That doesn't speak well of her innocence, IMHO.
Click to expand...

Do murderers frequently make out with each other when returning to the crime scene? If not, it's hardly evidence of guilt.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Do murderers frequently make out with each other when returning to the crime scene? If not, it's hardly evidence of guilt.
Click to expand...

personally I masturbate while the police investigate the crime scene of somebody I just murdered :roll:
 
Kandahar said:
Do murderers frequently make out with each other when returning to the crime scene? If not, it's hardly evidence of guilt.
Click to expand...

They were spaced out on drugs,,,anything could happen
 
Navy Pride said:
The guy that did that 48 hours report was on Oreilly...He is bias as hell
Click to expand...

Peter Van Sant conducted a 16 month investigation on the trial and is staking his reputation as a journalist on her innocence.

He's been an investigative reporter for a quarter-century, and is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards for journalism and broadcasting:

Peter Van Sant - 48 Hours - CBS News

What reason do you have to believe that his assessment of the trial was based solely upon his personal bias?
 
Navy Pride said:
I don't want to see anyone wrongfully convicted but this girl is guilty as hell and you are very naive not to see it...........They have conclusive DNA evidence against her.........
Click to expand...

Yes, on a knife that was not the murder weapon. On a knife that did not match the composite that they pulled. Explain that.
 
Navy Pride said:
They were spaced out on drugs,,,anything could happen
Click to expand...

So you're willing to condemn an innocent girl to 26 years in prison not because you have any evidence, but just on the mere speculation that "anything could happen." Maybe YOU killed Meredith Kircher. Anything could happen. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Ethereal said:
Peter Van Sant conducted a 16 month investigation on the trial and is staking his reputation as a journalist on her innocence.

He's been an investigative reporter for a quarter-century, and is the recipient of numerous prestigious awards for journalism and broadcasting:

Peter Van Sant - 48 Hours - CBS News

What reason do you have to believe that his assessment of the trial was based solely upon his personal bias?
Click to expand...

I watched him last night and when Oreilly confronted him he had very little evidence to prove her innocence......
 
Kandahar said:
So you're willing to condemn an innocent girl to 26 years in prison not because you have any evidence, but just on the mere speculation that "anything could happen." Maybe YOU killed Meredith Kircher. Anything could happen. :roll:
Click to expand...

and your willing to let her skate even though the prepondence of the evidence says she is guilty and has been convicted in a court of law........I am warnin you lefties that drugs will get you in trouble.......Truth be told she was so spaced out she does not even remember doing it..........
 
Navy Pride said:
and your willing to let her skate even though the prepondence of the evidence says she is guilty and has been convicted in a court of law........I am warnin you lefties that drugs will get you in trouble.......Truth be told she was so spaced out she does not even remember doing it..........
Click to expand...

1. It's "preponderance"

2. Preponderance of Evidence is the lowest level of proof. Basically means "Most likely she is guilty" and is not to be confused with "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt".

3. You're an aficionado on the Italian legal system and this case in particular? Did you see the case? The evidence presented? Each side's argument for guilt/innocence? And did you take into account that, like many other Prosecutors even in our own country, they strive for a conviction which is NOT the job of a Prosecutor, contrary to popular belief...The job of a prosecutor is to SEEK JUSTICE.
 
Last edited:
Navy Pride said:
and your willing to let her skate even though the prepondence of the evidence says she is guilty
Click to expand...

"Preponderance of evidence" should NOT be the standard of proof required in a murder case. I would be highly surprised if that's on the books even in Italy...and if it is, it's appalling.

And anyway, the preponderance of evidence suggests no such thing. The evidence OVERWHELMINGLY suggests that Rudy Geude acted alone. Only his DNA and the victim's were found at the murder scene. There is no evidence that he contacted either Knox or Sollecito at any point before or after the murder, that he and Knox had more than a distant acquaintanceship, or that he and Sollecito ever even met each other. And the prosecutor (who is under indictment for abuse of power) cooked up this fanciful theory about a Satanic-sex-ritual-gone-wrong from an occultist blogger, and has used exactly the same fanciful theory for other cases.

Navy Pride said:
and has been convicted in a court of law........I am warnin you lefties that drugs will get you in trouble.
Click to expand...

What the **** does this have to do with being a "lefty" or your typical partisan drivel? This is about an innocent person who was just sentenced to 26 years in prison with absolutely NO evidence.

Navy Pride said:
......Truth be told she was so spaced out she does not even remember doing it..........
Click to expand...

But (according to this theory) not so spaced out that she wasn't able to clean up everything at the murder scene implicating her and Sollecito, while leaving plenty of evidence implicating Geude. Give me a ****ing break. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Do murderers frequently make out with each other when returning to the crime scene? If not, it's hardly evidence of guilt.
Click to expand...

Do murderers smile a lot while on trial for murder? No! I am stunned at how much smiling she was doing throughout this process. It reminds me of Scott Petersen--a total sociopath. There's a reason I was incredulous over his behavior throughout his trial--it's because I cannot understand the crazy f'ing mindset of a sociopath. That applies here as well. Something is not right here.

She accused her boss of killing Meredith. She said she heard Meredith screaming and she covered her ears. She subsequently completely changes her story. I have serious problems with these allegations and confessions and changing her story.
 
Here's a very good article, surprisingly from the Daily Mail of all papers, that gives a very clear account of all the troubling details that cast a heavy doubt that either Amanda or Raffaele were involved in the murder. Very interesting read:

Amanda Knox: The troubling doubts over Foxy Knoxy's role in Meredith Kercher's murder | Mail Online

Whatever happened in that house that night did not happen the way the prosecution insisted it did. The only thing that is clearly irrefutable so far is that Rudy Guede was there and that he had sex with Meredith. Everything else, including the accusation that he killed her, is open for debate and speculation. Too many things just don't add up and don't make any sense.
 
Arcana XV said:
Here's a very good article, surprisingly from the Daily Mail of all papers, that gives a very clear account of all the troubling details that cast a heavy doubt that either Amanda or Raffaele were involved in the murder. Very interesting read:

Amanda Knox: The troubling doubts over Foxy Knoxy's role in Meredith Kercher's murder | Mail Online

Whatever happened in that house that night did not happen the way the prosecution insisted it did. The only thing that is clearly irrefutable so far is that Rudy Guede was there and that he had sex with Meredith. Everything else, including the accusation that he killed her, is open to debate. Too many things just don't add up and don't make any sense.
Click to expand...

This looks very interesting. I read another article from this website as well. I'll read this and the one Ethereal posted last night.

It does seem a little far fetched.
 
aps said:
This looks very interesting. I read another article from this website as well. I'll read this and the one Ethereal posted last night.

It does seem a little far fetched.
Click to expand...

I'm actually beginning to suspect these people were framed by the police. I also found the Italian authorities very forgiving behavior towards Guede and his previous burglaries more than a little odd.
 
Arcana XV said:
I'm actually beginning to suspect these people were framed by the police. I also found the Italian authorities very forgiving behavior towards Guede and his previous burglaries more than a little odd.
Click to expand...

Is that in the article you posted?

To me, Guede it the most guilty. You made out with her and went to the bathroom and some intruder came in and killed her? Come on.
 
aps said:
Is that in the article you posted?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it is. You'll see, it's just too weird.

To me, Guede it the most guilty. You made out with her and went to the bathroom and some intruder came in and killed her? Come on.
Click to expand...

Not "some intruder". He claims Amanda and Raffaele came to the house while he was in the bathroom. Not that I believe what he says, but then again I have my doubts about the other two and their ever changing stories too.
 
Arcana XV said:
Not "some intruder". He claims Amanda and Raffaele came to the house while he was in the bathroom. Not that I believe what he says, but then again I have my doubts about the other two and their ever changing stories too.
Click to expand...

But, initially, he said some "Italian" guy came in and killed her. :roll:
 
aps said:
But, initially, he said some "Italian" guy came in and killed her. :roll:
Click to expand...

Right, Raffaele is Italian. ;)

He changed his story as well. First he said there were people in the house, but he didn't see who it was, he just heard them. And then he later changed the story to say that he saw the silhouettes of Amanda and someone who looked like Raffaele running away. They all lied and changed their stories so many times, it's either a deliberate attempt to confuse the investigators or they were all so stoned that night they can't remember what the heck happened.
 
aps said:
Do murderers smile a lot while on trial for murder? No! I am stunned at how much smiling she was doing throughout this process. It reminds me of Scott Petersen--a total sociopath. There's a reason I was incredulous over his behavior throughout his trial--it's because I cannot understand the crazy f'ing mindset of a sociopath. That applies here as well. Something is not right here.
Click to expand...

The only reason people think she was smiling excessively during the murder trial is because of selective reporting on the part of the press. The trial went on for over a year, obviously she is going to smile a few times, and her smiling was often directed at a family member or friend that she hadn't seen in a long time. The idea that she was constantly smiling is simply not true and yet another example of media bias against Amanda Knox.

She accused her boss of killing Meredith.
Click to expand...

The police induced her to confess this. Amanda had sent Lamumba (her boss) a text message saying, "See you later." on the night of the murder.

The police interpreted this as an implication that Amanda was to meet Lamumba later at the crime scene. They insisted to her that this must be the case, and after hours of harsh interrogation she finally caved and told the police what they wanted to hear, i.e., that her and Lamumba has met and were at the crime scene the night of the murder.

She said she heard Meredith screaming and she covered her ears.
Click to expand...

Once again, this is attributable to the police, who told her to "imagine" what could have happened to Meredith.

She subsequently completely changes her story.
Click to expand...

That's because she was induced into making a false confession by the Italian police. The confession itself was ruled inadmissible by a judge specifically because of the manner in which it was obtained.
 
Ethereal said:
The only reason people think she was smiling excessively during the murder trial is because of selective reporting on the part of the press. The trial went on for over a year, obviously she is going to smile a few times, and her smiling was often directed at a family member or friend that she hadn't seen in a long time. The idea that she was constantly smiling is simply not true and yet another example of media bias against Amanda Knox.



The police induced her to confess this. Amanda had sent Lamumba (her boss) a text message saying, "See you later." on the night of the murder.

The police interpreted this as an implication that Amanda was to meet Lamumba later at the crime scene. They insisted to her that this must be the case, and after hours of harsh interrogation she finally caved and told the police what they wanted to hear, i.e., that her and Lamumba has met and were at the crime scene the night of the murder.



Once again, this is attributable to the police, who told her to "imagine" what could have happened to Meredith.



That's because she was induced into making a false confession by the Italian police. The confession itself was ruled inadmissible by a judge specifically because of the manner in which it was obtained.
Click to expand...

Damn. You need to be on her defense team. These are very interesting facts that you present. I haven't read the articles you and Aracana posted last night and this morning, respectively. I will read them today and report my thoughts tomorrow. You, Arcana, and maybe even Kandahar ;), have got me re-thinking this case/verdict.
 
aps said:
Damn. You need to be on her defense team. These are very interesting facts that you present. I haven't read the articles you and Aracana posted last night and this morning, respectively. I will read them today and report my thoughts tomorrow. You, Arcana, and maybe even Kandahar ;), have got me re-thinking this case/verdict.
Click to expand...

I just feel really sorry for this girl, so I've been researching the case obsessively. She is the victim of a mentally disturbed prosecutor and a sensationalist media. Half the things you've heard about this case probably aren't true.

For instance, it's been reported that Amanda Knox was caught on CCTV entering the crime scene the night of the murder. This simply isn't true, and is the product of misinformation from early on in the investigation. This is just one example of MANY where the media has dropped the ball.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom