The Amanda Knox saga continues

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
KeepOnRollin

KeepOnRollin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
11,498
Likes
5,679
Points
113
If you aren't aware of who Amanda Marie Knox is then read up on her on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox

At any rate she is now going to be retried in an Italy Court but the kicker is she won't be attending and they can't force her to come or go back to jail (They can try extradition but it is likely that the US will not oblige).

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...o-be-retried-for-meredith-kercher-murder?lite

So what do you think of this ongoing saga? And is she guilty or not?
 
Double Jeopardy. I didn't follow this really, but she shouldn't be retried.
 
sounds like a huge waste of time for all involved though.
 
I don't know if she is guilty or not (I lean towards not) but why are they going to try her again when they supposedly have someone who confessed and is in jail by the name of Rudy Guede?

I assume because they think she was an accomplice?
 
YOU'VE APPARENTLY NEVER DEALT WITH ITALIANS. :MARIS61:
 
From what we've heard in the media over here, I'm not sure what they can convict her on. The best evidence was some DNA of hers on the knife used. The knife was from their kitchen. I'm sure some of my knives have my DNA on them as well. And even that evidence was tainted somehow. The prosecutor has been in trouble before and seemed to just want to make a name for himself. The only thing going against her is that she was aloof when it first happened and then 'confessed' have something like 10 or 20 hours of interrogation (in her 2nd language and w/o a lawyer).
 
KeepOnRollin said:
I don't know if she is guilty or not (I lean towards not) but why are they going to try her again when they supposedly have someone who confessed and is in jail by the name of Rudy Guede?

I assume because they think she was an accomplice?
Click to expand...

Cause having it be a murder over a sex/torture game gone wrong is a much bigger headline. They claim Knox and her boyfriend are accomplices, but I don't think they've ever explained how they would even know the guy who confessed.
 
I followed the original trial closely and I was convinced of her guilt. Now I see she's writing a couple of books to cash in on all this.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
I followed the original trial closely and I was convinced of her guilt. Now I see she's writing a couple of books to cash in on all this.
Click to expand...

What led you to think she was guilty? Just curious as I didn't follow it super closely, but everything I read pointed to innocent. She was in prison for 5 years for a murder she didn't (possibly) commit. Why shouldn't she write a book and at least get some compensation for losing 5 years of her life.
 
The evidence was pretty strong that Amanda stabbed Kercher while she was being held down and sexually assaulted. There were some testimony from others about Knox and her boyfriend engaging in drug fueled sex rage and stuff like that. She tried to portray herself as the naive girl next door but her escapades were fairly well known. So when people start lying I usually see them in a negative light. It pretty much all fit together. Her DNA was found on the knife as well as blood from the victim. In the appeal it was alleged the evidence was mishandled, but that was more a theory of plausibility and it was accepted by a court. She also tried to place guilt on an innocent person and divert attention away from her and later said she was beated by Italian police into doing so. It made no sense they would do that when they had the murderers already in custody.
 
This is a list of evidence from a couple years ago. None of it seems all that strong to me.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/04/knox.evidence/index.html

The knife wasn't matched to the wounds and having Kercher's blood on the tip could just mean she cut herself cooking. Knox's DNA on hand handle means she used a kitchen knife.
The Bra clasp wasn't collected for 6 weeks and apparently was moved around a lot during that time.
Bloody footprint that may be her boyfriends
Broken window (seems easy to prove whether it was broken from the inside or out)
Bloody shoe print was already matched to Guede
Confession. I just don't put too much stock in a confession from a someone being interrogated for hours in her 2nd language. Lying about her former boss seems more like deflection by a scared suspect.

None of if seems very strong to me. Plus I think I remember one of Guede's cell mates coming forward saying that Guede admitted they weren't involved. I could be remembering that last part wrong though.

And prior to this trial, the prossocuter was known for another big murder case in Florence where:

A series of murders that took place around Florence, Italy between 1968 and 1985 were known as the Monster of Florence murders. At different points in time, four different people were tried and convicted for the crimes (and subsequently released in most cases). Newspaper critics have expressed the view that the true killer (or killers) have never been identified by the police
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini
 
KeepOnRollin said:
I don't know if she is guilty or not (I lean towards not) but why are they going to try her again when they supposedly have someone who confessed and is in jail by the name of Rudy Guede?

I assume because they think she was an accomplice?
Click to expand...

Hysteria.

Plain and simple.

Just the basic facts of the case point toward the killer being in prison already.

Rudy Guede is a drifter/drug dealer with a criminal past.

After the murder he fled the country.

After presented with evidence matching his semen to victim, he admits to having sex with the victim.

He initially claimed he was in the bathroom and "another man" murdered Kercher.

There were two witnesses that saw a black man running down the street about the time of the murder. Kercher's purse was emptied of cell phone, cash (300 Euros), credit cards and house keys.

The criminal drifter has no alibi. No witness to support his claim he was in the bathroom. No witness to support his theory or any other alternative theories about what happened. Thus, as you would expect he was quickly found guilty.

The physical evidence the prosecution used to support their case against Knox was weak to begin with and made completely worthless by being mishandled. The defense team destroyed the claims of physical evidence upon appeal, even though that was hugely embarrassing to the Italians and much political pressure existed to not overturn.

So, in all probability they have their man. All evidence points to a rather mundane theft/rape/murder.

Why did the Italians go after Knox (and Solecitto) - a college student with her future ahead of her and no criminal past - with such weak evidence? Why did they concoct an implausible theory of a three-way drug fueled sex-crazed orgy/murder?

I think all you need to know is that a large amount of the prosecutor's time and energy was spent trying to portray (pretty successfully too) Knox as a sex-obsessed, manipulative "she-devil."

Guess what? You can be those things and not be a killer. It was all a morality play.

Maybe Knox is a VERY rare female sex obsessed killer.

Regardless, the evidence isn't there.

What a huge embarrassment for the Italians. Makes them look like backwater, religious nuts.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
The evidence was pretty strong that Amanda stabbed Kercher while she was being held down and sexually assaulted.
Click to expand...
Where do you get this from? "Strong" evidence?

There were some testimony from others about Knox and her boyfriend engaging in drug fueled sex rage and stuff like that.
Click to expand...
Really?

The Italian appeals court begs to differ, and in-fact said there WAS NO EVIDENCE to support this claim made by the prosecutor.

What do you do, listen to prosecutor closing arguments to form your opinions?
 
She's guilty. She even tried to blame it on some pub owner over there and she was convicted of libeling him.
 
tlongII said:
She's guilty. She even tried to blame it on some pub owner over there and she was convicted of libeling him.
Click to expand...

That's your proof?

You do know that she was convicted of "libel" on the basis of a confession that she immediately recanted?

You know the facts, right?

You also realize that lying does not equal murder?

You know that, right?

Please.

Tell me you know the difference.
 
tlongII said:
She's guilty. She even tried to blame it on some pub owner over there and she was convicted of libeling him.
Click to expand...

Also, your claim is contradicted by the convicted killer Rudy, who admitted he was at the scene of the crime, who had a phone call with a friend while he was on the run where he claimed that Knox was not at the scene of the murder.
 
Her trial made the OJ trial seem like a model of responsible jurisprudence.
 
Masbee said:
That's your proof?

You do know that she was convicted of "libel" on the basis of a confession that she immediately recanted?

You know the facts, right?

You also realize that lying does not equal murder?

You know that, right?

Please.

Tell me you know the difference.
Click to expand...

It's my opinion. I suggest you read the timeline of events on CNN.com. I think it's pretty clear that she isn't being completely forthright in her explanation of the events that occurred.
 
Who would you rather bang Amanda Knox or Casey Anthony?
 
At least Knox might be not guilty, Anthony seems creepier/guiltier.
 
tlongII said:
It's my opinion. I suggest you read the timeline of events on CNN.com. I think it's pretty clear that she isn't being completely forthright in her explanation of the events that occurred.
Click to expand...

I will state again because you seem REALLY dense about this:

Assume she is a big fat slobbering constant liar. Being a liar does not prove you are a murderer.

What is your proof she murdered Kercher?

Here is another thought:

Say you suppose the prosecution's theory about what happened is true:

Three folks (one already a drifter criminal, two young college students with a bright future all but assured) somehow end up together, Guede has sex with Kercher (a fact not in dispute), and they kill Kercher.

Two of them stay in town because they are incredibly stupid thinking they will easily get away with this heinous crime.

One of them flees the country because (oh fuck it, I am tried of trying to defend the completely insane thought process of that moronic prosecutor).

Knox and Solecito are brought in for interrogation. If they were part of a trio who killed Kercher, why didn't either of them try to pin the murder on Guede? They had no reason to protect him? Why would Knox bring up the bartender if she knew Guede was involved? Makes no sense.

None at all.

Unless, she wasn't part of the murder and didn't know Guede was there having sex/raping Kercher.

Anywho, the suspect who flees and gets caught, who barely knew Knox and her boyfriend, who has no reason to "protect" those two, has the perfect opportunity to turn on the two of them and pin the crime on them during his confession.

He does not!

Make no sense. None at all.

Unless.... you get the point.
 
With so much guesswork, there must be many, many innocent people in prison for very long sentences. In both Italy and the U.S.
 
The question to me is if US is going to turnover Knox for a retrial.

If Italy had someone who the US wanted arrested to stand for trial in the US,I would be pissed if Italy got in the way citing their rules of law as controlling. Will be interesting to see what the US does.
 
Treaty_of_Batum said:
The question to me is if US is going to turnover Knox for a retrial.

If Italy had someone who the US wanted arrested to stand for trial in the US,I would be pissed if Italy got in the way citing their rules of law as controlling. Will be interesting to see what the US does.
Click to expand...

Italy convicted 26 CIA members for torture during the Bush Wars. The U.S. has successfully "persuaded" ($$$$) the Italian prime minister to not pursue extradition. If the U.S. extradites Knox, it will lose what tiny precedent it holds in resisting allowing the CIA extraditions.

It won't have a leg to stand on (much like Bush's torture victims).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Shapecity
The Goldman Connection
Replies
1
Views
418
maxiep
maxiep

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top