• 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.

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...

Are you serious?



West Memphis Three. Amanda had an easy time by comparison.
 
Ben K. said:
Are you serious?



West Memphis Three. Amanda had an easy time by comparison.
Click to expand...


Are you serious? This thread is about Amanda Knox!
 
ChrisL said:
Are you serious? This thread is about Amanda Knox!
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.
Click to expand...

Umm, yeah.
 
Ben K. said:
Umm, yeah.
Click to expand...

Okay, so maybe NEVER was an overstatement. :mrgreen: I was also reminded of the Jon Benet Ramsey case, but nobody went to jail for that one.

I should probably be more clear and say that in terms of mucking up the evidence it kind of reminded me of the Jon Benet Ramsey case. Another investigative disaster.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL said:
Okay, so maybe NEVER was an overstatement. :mrgreen: I was also reminded of the Jon Benet Ramsey case, but nobody went to jail for that one.
Click to expand...

I was reminded of British nanny Louise Woodward having a major life set back from a bull**** foreign legal decision. Her attempt to profit from the event was squashed, let's see what happens with knox.
 
Ben K. said:
I was reminded of British nanny Louise Woodward having a major life set back from a bull**** foreign legal decision. Her attempt to profit from the event was squashed, let's see what happens with knox.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I don't know how I feel about THAT one. After all, she admitted to being "rough" with the baby.
 
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...

she was seen smiling at flirting with her boyfriend at the crime scene the day after and of course she had time to go underwear shopping
 
ChrisL said:
There is a difference between doing cartwheels and admitting to "roughing" somebody up, especially a baby.
Click to expand...

Right, one is a nineteen year old girl who obviously felt some self doubt about her standard of care with a baby in her care who died, that no medical professional would confidently attribute to her, and the other is a twenty year old girl who reacts to the stress of a housemates death in an unusual fashion. Neither were compelling reasons for conviction and the scientific evidence didn't support either conviction.

Both stories were red meat to the media.
 
Ben K. said:
Right, one is a nineteen year old girl who obviously felt some self doubt about her standard of care with a baby in her care who died, that no medical professional would confidently attribute to her, and the other is a twenty year old girl who reacts to the stress of a housemates death in an unusual fashion. Neither were compelling reasons for conviction and the scientific evidence didn't support either conviction.

Both stories were red meat to the media.
Click to expand...

I agree with that. I think the media turns these trials into circuses and makes them take an unnecessarily LOOOOONG time too, which in turns costs us taxpayers extra $$. With all of the 24-hour news channels and others like Court TV, it's just never-ending nonsense.

I do have to admit to tuning into some of these trials though. A guilty pleasure. :lol:
 
ThePlayDrive said:
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.
Click to expand...


lol so you only judge cases based on DNA?

and again just because you dont beleive in eye witness accounts and statements etc doesnt make them worthless in proving her guilt in the case. There is a lot of evidence that puts her at the scene and we could go all day aruging about it, also yes my feelings are irrelevant jsut as your opinions on the Italian justice system are given the fact your are not a lawyer of any sort so spare me the condescending remarks.

p.s I dont care about the death penalty because I live in the UK
 
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...

I don't know many people who can survive a 7 figure financial hit. Are they wealthy?
 
Higgins86 said:
lol so you only judge cases based on DNA?

and again just because you dont beleive in eye witness accounts and statements etc doesnt make them worthless in proving her guilt in the case. There is a lot of evidence that puts her at the scene and we could go all day aruging about it, also yes my feelings are irrelevant jsut as your opinions on the Italian justice system are given the fact your are not a lawyer of any sort so spare me the condescending remarks.

p.s I dont care about the death penalty because I live in the UK
Click to expand...
I certainly don't judge cases based on a suspect's personality, unreliable witnesses and my feelings like you do.

You keep referring to "witnesses" and "accounts". There was literally one person who put her at the scene - that person was a heroin addict who changed his story. Again, note how you distrust Knox because she changed her story and yet you trust this witness who did the same. Your bias is showing. And no, there isn't "a lot of evidence that puts her at the scene". There is literally no evidence that puts her at the scene. None. Stop reading the Daily Mail.

What you care about is irrelevant. We've already gone over that.
 
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...
Depends on how she goes with it. If she just tries to be a famous writer, it could be bad, but if she works for a place like the Innocence Project, it will be fine. In other words, if she dedicates her life, in part, to service, she'll be fine.
 
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...

why is it stupid? Police look for that very thing when they take statements. Look at Ian Huntley it was his odd behaviour that put him on the polices radar before any DNA evidence was on the tabe.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I certainly don't judge cases based on a suspect's personality, unreliable witnesses and my feelings like you do.

You keep referring to "witnesses" and "accounts". There was literally one person who put her at the scene - that person was a heroin addict who changed his story. Again, note how you distrust Knox because she changed her story and yet you trust this witness who did the same. Your bias is showing. And no, there isn't "a lot of evidence that puts her at the scene". There is literally no evidence that puts her at the scene. None. Stop reading the Daily Mail.

What you care about is irrelevant. We've already gone over that.
Click to expand...


1) The confession.

Knox confessed that she was in the house on the night of the murder and that she heard Miss Kercher scream, identifying a Congolese bar owner, Patrick Lumumba, as the assailant. She told the court during the trial that the confession was made under duress but then repeated the entire account in a five page memorandum the next morning.

2) The false accusation.

The prosecution said the fact that Knox falsely accused Lumumba of being the killer was a sign of her own guilt and an attempt to throw them off her trail. He was arrested in a dawn raid by armed police and spent two weeks in jail. It was only by chance that a Swiss businessman read about the case and came forward to say he had been talking to Lumumba in his bar on the night of the murder — offering him a rock-solid alibi. Lumumba says Knox nearly ruined his life and is suing her for defamation.


3) The alibi.

Sollecito could not back up Knox’s alibi on the night of the murder.

She claimed she spent the evening with him, smoking marijuana, watching the French film Amelie and making love. But Sollecito told police he could not remember if Knox was with him that evening or not.

Even assuming his memory was hazy because of the drugs, it seemed odd that a young man who had just embarked on a new relationship could not recall whether he had spent the night with his girlfriend or not.

4) Computer and telephone records.

Sollecito claimed he used his computer to download and watch cartoons and Amelie. But computer experts told the court that there was no activity on his laptop between 9.10pm on Nov 1, and 5.32am the next morning — the time frame in which the murder took place.

Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones on the night of the murder, from around 8.40pm, and turned them back on at around 6am, inviting further suspicion.

5) The staged break-in.

A bedroom belonging to one of Miss Kercher’s Italian flatmates was ransacked on the night of the murder, with a window smashed with a rock. But police said the break-in was staged - broken glass from the window was found on top of clothes scattered on the floor, suggesting the window was broken after the contents of the room were messed up. Prosecutors accused Knox and her boyfriend of staging the break-in to make the killing look like a burglary that had turned into rape and murder.



but the DNA was mishandled so ignore everything else right...isn't that how O.J walked free?


p.s I read the telegraph.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom