• 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!

Amanda Knox's stories dont match up once again.

Higgins86 said:
you also have no idea in that part she played for all you know you could be defending a murderer. How to explain her erratic behaviour in the days after?
Click to expand...
You said "most people know that Knox had a part to play that night". You, not I, claimed to have knowledge of Knox's supposed role in Kercher's murder. I would never be so reckless as to claim knowledge that I do not have. However, you have been that reckless so put up or shut up. Where is the DNA evidence that supports this "knowledge" you claim "most people" have? Show me. Post it.
 
Last edited:
ThePlayDrive said:
You said "most people know that Knox had a part to play that night". You, not I, claimed to have knowledge of Knox's supposed role in Kercher's murder. I would never be so reckless as to claim knowledge that I do not have. However, you have been that reckless so put up or shut up. Where is the DNA evidence that supports this "knowledge" you claim "most people" have? Show me. Post it.
Click to expand...

Witnesses put her at the scene of the crime, her stories changed, she acted very odd in the days after putting her on the Polices radar, she confessed and then claimed she was tricked and accused another man who turned out to be innocent. Its all their mate and lets not forgot she was only freed due to mis-handling of evidence by the Police. You accuse me of bias but the only bias I see is from you, this believe she is automatically innocent because she's an American who was in a foreign country. Like I said I dont think she put the knife in but she is def with holding key information in regards to her involvment that night.
 
Higgins86 said:
Witnesses put her at the scene of the crime, her stories changed, she acted very odd in the days after putting her on the Polices radar, she confessed and then claimed she was tricked and accused another man who turned out to be innocent.
Click to expand...
1. I requested DNA evidence as DNA evidence is the only thing besides pictures or video that would demonstrate that you KNOW she played a part in the case. You don't have it. You don't know jack.

2. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Also, only one witness not witnesses (as you said) claimed to have seen the two near the crime scene. That witness was a heroin act who contradicted himself several times on the exact night that he saw Knox and her boyfriend. Isn't it funny that you discredit Knox for contradictory stories and yet you use another person with contradictory stories as solid evidence against her? Hilarious. Also, another witness put Knox and her boyfriend in the latter's apartment on the night of the murder.

3. Acting odd is not evidence of a crime.

4. False confessions happen frequently. False accusations, while less frequent, still occur and given that she was alone in a country where the police were interrogating her in a foreign language without a lawyer for several hours in a room where they just happened to not have recording available makes such confessions and accusations less than meaningful.

You ain't got ****. This hodge podge "case" you've put together illustrates one of the main reasons I'm against the death penalty. If people like you - who claim that all that adds up to "knowledge" - can serve on juries then God help the people who's lives are in your hands because you've got an ax to grind.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
1. I requested DNA evidence as DNA evidence is the only thing besides pictures or video that would demonstrate that you KNOW she played a part in the case. You don't have it. You don't know jack.

2. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Also, only one witness not witnesses (as you said) claimed to have seen the two near the crime scene. That witness was a heroin act who contradicted himself several times on the exact night that he saw Knox and her boyfriend. Isn't it funny that you discredit Knox for contradictory stories and yet you use another person with contradictory stories as solid evidence against her? Hilarious. Also, another witness put Knox and her boyfriend in the latter's apartment on the night of the murder.

3. Acting odd is not evidence of a crime.

4. False confessions happen frequently. False accusations, while less frequent, still occur and given that she was alone in a country where the police were interrogating her in a foreign language without a lawyer for several hours in a room where they just happened to not have recording available makes such confessions and accusations less than meaningful.

You ain't got ****. This hodge podge "case" you've put together illustrates one of the main reasons I'm against the death penalty. If people like you - who claim that all that adds up to "knowledge" - can serve on juries then God help the people who's lives are in your hands because you've got an ax to grind.
Click to expand...


ok calm down big man no one is talking about the death penalty or even that she is guilty of 1st degree. You can write off the evidence as much as you want but their is plenty to link Amanada to scene of the crime which is why people still question her role and the events of that night which of course was the point I was trying to make. I agree their is reasonable doubt which is why she walks free today but that doesnt mean I have to accept her as innocent. Her interview and her book show to me what a shallow person she is and confims that she adores the media attention. She may fool people like you with comments like " I want to visit her grave and reach out to her family" but I think its cheap. Of course if she was to donate a large sum of the profits to the family or even a related charity I might think differently but of course she wont. I look forward to her guest apperances on US networks everytime an American gets arrested overseas and expect her to milk it for years to come.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me if I'm wrong, because I really might be, but she can be "put at the scene" because it was the house she lived in correct?

Erratic behavior? A girl was murdered in her house. Wouldn't that cause some erratic behavior in a young adult?

Again, I have not followed this case at all. So maybe I'm way wrong.
 
The "weird behaviour" argument is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There are no guidelines for appropriate behaviour in these circumstances, no matter the life experience.. :roll:

I personally don't think it's admirable to profit off the event, but that decision in no way implies her guilt.
 
Ben K. said:
I personally don't think it's admirable to profit off the event, but that decision in no way implies her guilt.
Click to expand...

True, but it is testament to her character. If she is finally convicted that will weigh when it comes to sentencing.
 
Higgins86 said:
if she isn't trying to change her image then why go on national television and give an interview? Why not just try and move on?
Click to expand...

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


She has a book to sell.
 
Ben K. said:
The "weird behaviour" argument is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There are no guidelines for appropriate behaviour in these circumstances, no matter the life experience.. :roll:

I personally don't think it's admirable to profit off the event, but that decision in no way implies her guilt.
Click to expand...

I would normally agree but a commentator on CNN last night made a good point last night about the financial angle.

First assume she's innocent. Lots of people are profiting from the case - her lawyers and the media primarily. The woman is making 4.5 million on her book. She has about 1.5 million in legal fees. She went through the trauma of a trial, lost 4 years of her life while in prison and will likely not be able to get any kind of well paying job, except maybe as some kind of celebrity-oddity. 3 million to compensate for that doesn't seem like a whole lot to me.

Of course if she's guilty nothing that I just said holds.
 
Ben K. said:
The "weird behaviour" argument is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. There are no guidelines for appropriate behaviour in these circumstances, no matter the life experience.. :roll:

I personally don't think it's admirable to profit off the event, but that decision in no way implies her guilt.
Click to expand...



While I am dubious about her complete innocence and despite what I just wrote, her family is heavily in debt after the experience and it affected her education/career opportunities for 4 yrs....if not into the future.

So I don't begrudge her wanting to make $$. I hope most of it goes to her parents.
 
PeteEU said:
In the case of prisons... it is. She was a convicted murder.. do you think she would be put in a 4 seasons in the US?
Click to expand...

Right, and considering everything you think you know about American prisons comes from movies and TV . . .

Her description sounds what you get in a standard American prison.
Click to expand...

:roll:
 
Lursa said:
While I am dubious about her complete innocence and despite what I just wrote, her family is heavily in debt after the experience and it affected her education/career opportunities for 4 yrs....if not into the future.

So I don't begrudge her wanting to make $$. I hope most of it goes to her parents.
Click to expand...

If it's about her parents finances, her parents should have talked her out of it and taken the hit. This isn't the sort of celebrity that will do her well in the long term, not to mention the victim of the crime and her family.
 
Higgins86 said:
ok calm down big man no one is talking about the death penalty or even that she is guilty of 1st degree. You can write off the evidence as much as you want but their is plenty to link Amanada to scene of the crime which is why people still question her role and the events of that night which of course was the point I was trying to make. I agree their is reasonable doubt which is why she walks free today but that doesnt mean I have to accept her as innocent. Her interview and her book show to me what a shallow person she is and confims that she adores the media attention. She may fool people like you with comments like " I want to visit her grave and reach out to her family" but I think its cheap. Of course if she was to donate a large sum of the profits to the family or even a related charity I might think differently but of course she wont. I look forward to her guest apperances on US networks everytime an American gets arrested overseas and expect her to milk it for years to come.
Click to expand...
Actually, I am talking about the death penalty and people like you who claim to "know" things that they don't are one of the reasons why I don't support it, as I said.

Great, you admit that there is "reasonable doubt" which is a roundabout way of admitting that you were full of it when you said "most people know that she was involved". Like I said, you don't know jack.

Oh please. She hasn't "fooled me." I don't even care for her - especially after last night's interview that made her seem like a narcissist. However, unlike you, I don't judge the value of a case according to the suspect's personality. I judge it according to DNA evidence. There wasn't any linking her to the scene so the only thing you have going for you is "I just feel like she had something to do with it." Guess what? Your feelings are irrelevant.
 
Dragonfly said:
Forgive me if I'm wrong, because I really might be, but she can be "put at the scene" because it was the house she lived in correct?

Erratic behavior? A girl was murdered in her house. Wouldn't that cause some erratic behavior in a young adult?

Again, I have not followed this case at all. So maybe I'm way wrong.
Click to expand...
1. Yeah, it was her house so that could be an explanation. Also, the one guy who put her at the house turned out to be a heroin addict who's apparently a frequent witness at murder trials. He also changed his statement several times saying that he may have seen her at the house on different days.

2. Agreed. The "erratic behavior" argument is dumb. Some people lose touch with reality after stuff like that.
 
Andalublue said:
True, but it is testament to her character. If she is finally convicted that will weigh when it comes to sentencing.
Click to expand...
How is it a testament to her character? It's only a "testament to her character" if you attribute bad intentions to her publishing of the book. Let's say she's publishing the book because she wants to pay back her parents and friends who spent millions of dollars on her defense. Is that also a testament to her character or is only such when it makes her look like a villain to Europeans like yourself?
 
Andalublue said:
True, but it is testament to her character. If she is finally convicted that will weigh when it comes to sentencing.
Click to expand...

If she is convicted it will only prove that the Italian justice system is even more corrupt then we already believe. The evidence against her would not have survived a probable cause hearing in the USA
 
Higgins86 said:
you also have no idea in that part she played for all you know you could be defending a murderer. How to explain her erratic behaviour in the days after?
Click to expand...

It's none of your business why she did or does anything. Knox was acquitted and she is free in the U.S. where she belongs.
 
Higgins86 said:
BBC News - Amanda Knox and prison life


This time its her memoir in which she describes prison life as tough, inappropriate behaviour by staff, sexual passes and a humiliating medical exam etc. All of which of course doesn't match what she previously she at the time but hey it's not the first time she has changed previous statements for personal gains. Her interview on American television was interesting to say the least as she wants to change the image often portrayed in the media so the most obvious way to do this is to cash in....
Click to expand...

Kangaroo court at it's finest. The evidence was so lacking. If I were her, I would never go back to Italy again.
 
ChrisL said:
Kangaroo court at it's finest. The evidence was so lacking. If I were her, I would never go back to Italy again.
Click to expand...

agree. you'd think after most of our WWII vets had died off the Italians wouldn't want to resurrect the widespread perception of total incompetence that was created in that war once again in the minds of many Americans. They should be known for great sports cars, and top of the line target shotguns, not a court system that makes Pol Pot's regime look fair
 
TurtleDude said:
agree. you'd think after most of our WWII vets had died off the Italians wouldn't want to resurrect the widespread perception of total incompetence that was created in that war once again in the minds of many Americans. They should be known for great sports cars, and top of the line target shotguns, not a court system that makes Pol Pot's regime look fair
Click to expand...

This case was mucked up terribly from the beginning with the investigation, contaminating evidence and all the other mistakes they made. Then to actually try to get a conviction on that sloppy work is a joke. That would NEVER fly over here in the US.
 
ChrisL said:
This case was mucked up terribly from the beginning with the investigation, contaminating evidence and all the other mistakes they made. Then to actually try to get a conviction on that sloppy work is a joke. That would NEVER fly over here in the US.
Click to expand...

You are right I have been involved in at least 100 criminal appellate matters and this sort of incompetence-especially in a case that has world wide attention-would not be tolerated
 
TurtleDude said:
You are right I have been involved in at least 100 criminal appellate matters and this sort of incompetence-especially in a case that has world wide attention-would not be tolerated
Click to expand...

I wonder if it would even make it to trial phase here in America?
 
ChrisL said:
I wonder if it would even make it to trial phase here in America?
Click to expand...

I sure wouldn't take that sort of facts to a grand jury or a preliminary hearing

BBL
 
Ben K. said:
If it's about her parents finances, her parents should have talked her out of it and taken the hit. This isn't the sort of celebrity that will do her well in the long term, not to mention the victim of the crime and her family.
Click to expand...

Well if it was me, I'd do what I thought was right for my family and probably help my folks. But I have no idea what kind of person she is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom