The Amanda Knox saga continues

[tlongII]

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.

Dude, I don't have to prove anything. I already stated it's my opinion that she's guilty. She lied about her former boss and she lied about where she was on that night. These are irrefutable facts. I can add two and two together and come up with four. Can you?

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Dude, I don't have to prove anything. I already stated it's my opinion that she's guilty. She lied about her former boss and she lied about where she was on that night. These are irrefutable facts. I can add two and two together and come up with four. Can you?

I respect your opinion and I don't know one way or another whether she is guilty but if she lied that doesn't make her a killer. It does make her possibly guilty of perjury depending on when she lied.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I respect your opinion and I don't know one way or another whether she is guilty but if she lied that doesn't make her a killer. It does make her possibly guilty of perjury depending on when she lied.

I haven't followed the case. The point about lying though, I assume, if she didn't do anything wrong, why lie to police? Lying alone doesn't make her a killer, but it is suspicious behavior.

 

[porkchopexpress]

I haven't followed the case. The point about lying though, I assume, if she didn't do anything wrong, why lie to police? Lying alone doesn't make her a killer, but it is suspicious behavior.

Cause she was scared and was interrogated for hours in a 2nd language w/o an attorney. Not hard to imagine someone breaking and just tell the police what they want to hear.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Cause she was scared and was interrogated for hours in a 2nd language w/o an attorney. Not hard to imagine someone breaking and just tell the police what they want to hear.

Especially if that person is a woman (no disrespect to women but we do know that they can get emotional in high pressure situations).

 

[Masbee]

Dude, I don't have to prove anything. I already stated it's my opinion that she's guilty. She lied about her former boss and she lied about where she was on that night. These are irrefutable facts. I can add two and two together and come up with four. Can you?

First, you are wrong that those are "irrefutable facts". Her lies were from her immediately recanted confession that would have been 100% illegal in the U.S. and even the Italians had problems with the interrogation process. No attorney. No translator. Excessive time. Sleep deprived.

And thank you for stating that your opinion is based on NOTHING but your perceptions of headlines and pictures.

 

[Masbee]

I haven't followed the case. The point about lying though, I assume, if she didn't do anything wrong, why lie to police? Lying alone doesn't make her a killer, but it is suspicious behavior.

You don't know anything about police interrogation do you?

Learn about it and you will find that there are big problems with "confessions" extracted during poorly executed police interrogations.

And yes, lying is suspicious. But, by itself should never be enough to convict someone of murder and sentence to more years in prison than the dude you know for certain was at the scene of the crime.

 

[jlprk]

Masbee, you're applying the American system to this, but I doubt you know Italian rules of evidence. Also, you're trying to eliminate guesswork, assumptions, opinions, and generalizations, but even the American system doesn't do that. As I posted above, many innocent people must be in prison in both countries.

 

[tlongII]

First, you are wrong that those are "irrefutable facts". Her lies were from her immediately recanted confession that would have been 100% illegal in the U.S. and even the Italians had problems with the interrogation process. No attorney. No translator. Excessive time. Sleep deprived.

And thank you for stating that your opinion is based on NOTHING but your perceptions of headlines and pictures.

As is yours.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

You don't know anything about police interrogation do you?

Learn about it and you will find that there are big problems with "confessions" extracted during poorly executed police interrogations.

And yes, lying is suspicious. But, by itself should never be enough to convict someone of murder and sentence to more years in prison than the dude you know for certain was at the scene of the crime.

I know a thing about police interrogations.


As I said, lying by itself does not mean she is involved in the murder. But it is a big piece of evidence the jury should consider, IMO.

 

[Masbee]

I know a thing about police interrogations.


As I said, lying by itself does not mean she is involved in the murder. But it is a big piece of evidence the jury should consider, IMO.

Why should it be a "big" piece?

When you are deciding to send someone to prison for a very long time, as a juror you should be looking for solid evidence to prove the accused is guilty.

An accused who has lied only proves they are a liar, and that their testimony is unreliable.

Disregard all of her testimony. What proof is there that Knox killed Kercher?

All that is left is the bra clasp and the knife.

This was thrown out by the appeals court, and rightly so.

Then what is left to convict her? A story painted by the prosecution that Knox was strange, acted strange, didn't act "right", was a drug user, was promiscuous, was a foreigner, was a liar, etc. and all of this added up to someone who must be guilty based on their perceived personality and behavior.

Then, if you know about police interrogation you would know that it is well established that lengthy interrogations often produce suspect statements that contain false confessions, details later shown to only have been previously known by the police, and made up stories that the accused think the police want to hear.

So, again, much of what Knox was accused of lying about, was from an alleged forced statement, which she later recanted.

To push that thought to an extreme, if you were tortured to make a false statement, would you consider yourself to be a liar?

 

[MARIS61]

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.

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

 

[MARIS61]

An accused who has lied only proves they are a liar, and that their testimony is unreliable.

Disregard all of her testimony.

This should also apply to the prosecution. We know all police lie. It's a court-approved tool they are allowed/encouraged to use whenever dealing with suspects.

So all police testimony should be disregarded.

 

[jlprk]

Some people think that to find the true details, read the police report. But police reports are slanted to assist the prosecution. They throw every false anecdote they can think of onto the wall to see which will stick.

 

[Run BJM]

I think it would be interesting to ask some Italians whether they think shes guilty or not.

I haven't met an Italian that doesn't facepalm when you ask them about government, the judicial system, or really anything controlled by the state.

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

I think it would be interesting to ask some Italians whether they think shes guilty or not.

I haven't met an Italian that doesn't facepalm when you ask them about government, the judicial system, or really anything controlled by the state.

I saw a poll on that and after the trial they were overwhelmingly felt she was guilty.

 

[jlprk]

Every no-good saucy little tart deserves to bend over in jail and get a good whipping whether she likes it or not.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Why should it be a "big" piece?

When you are deciding to send someone to prison for a very long time, as a juror you should be looking for solid evidence to prove the accused is guilty.

An accused who has lied only proves they are a liar, and that their testimony is unreliable.

Disregard all of her testimony. What proof is there that Knox killed Kercher?

All that is left is the bra clasp and the knife.

This was thrown out by the appeals court, and rightly so.

Then what is left to convict her? A story painted by the prosecution that Knox was strange, acted strange, didn't act "right", was a drug user, was promiscuous, was a foreigner, was a liar, etc. and all of this added up to someone who must be guilty based on their perceived personality and behavior.

Then, if you know about police interrogation you would know that it is well established that lengthy interrogations often produce suspect statements that contain false confessions, details later shown to only have been previously known by the police, and made up stories that the accused think the police want to hear.

So, again, much of what Knox was accused of lying about, was from an alleged forced statement, which she later recanted.

To push that thought to an extreme, if you were tortured to make a false statement, would you consider yourself to be a liar?

I think lying can mean much more than just saying the defendant is not credible. For instance, if someone is being investigated and says they were not at the scene of the crime and DNA shows they are there, that is a pretty powerful lie they have against the defendant.

The defense always has the right to say why they lied (like I lied about being there because I was having an affair with her and didn't want to admit it). Also how the police got the statement is also relevant.

But defendant's statements to police about the crime, and their lies, are very powerful in trial, which is why it is admitted even as hearsay statements. Again, defense can bring in evidence to explain statements . . . but ask many jurors if they believe statements on stand by defendants months to years after the incident and preparing for trial with an attorney or statements made shortly after the crime . . . many will find the statements made shortly after crime more reliable.

But each trial is unique, and it is up to the jurors who get to hear both sides.

To answer your last question, yes I would be a liar, but had a good reason to lie. I assume you think Knox had a good reason to lie. I'm not saying she didn't, but certainly something that will have to be explained (and hopefully believed) by the jury.

 

[Masbee]

There is no more jury. The Italian upper court threw the case back to the appellate level, so the case will be again reviewed by a panel of judges.

As for the lying used to build a case - yes - use lying to build upon a case that has a framework to build on. The problem with the case against Knox is that the there was no framework of a case to build on.

No credible physical evidence.

No credible witnesses.

No credible theory for motive.

No nothing.

She was convicted on opinions, feelings, attitudes, suspicions, biases, discrimination, smears - not facts.

 

[Masbee]

When Italy's highest court reversed the acquittal of Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito this week, a small cottage industry on the internet began grinding back into high gear. Actually it has never had a down day: the Knox-hating websites have been passing along innuendo and cherry-picked factoids for six years now....

I went to Italy thinking I was writing a book about an American girl psycho. After a month in Perugia, I realized the case was shaky, and after a year there, I knew it was nonexistent. But I did enough research on Amanda Knox to conclude that the person she was in 2007 was not perfect, and probably not even very nice. In the sexist media world we inhabit, though, a pretty girl wrongly accused of a heinous crime can’t be just a jerk, she’s got to be a murderess or, in the superstitious alleys of Perugia, a witch.​

We don’t know what the Italian judges were thinking when they threw out Knox and Sollecito’s acquittal this week—and we won’t know until they release their report 90 days from now. My best analysis of their motivation is that they are simply letting the slow wheels of Italian justice turn by allowing a panel of judges in Florence to double-check the ruling of the appellate court in Perugia that acquitted the two students in October 2011. Given the notoriety of the case, and the fact that so many Italians still believe the original prosecutor’s theory that Kercher died in a cultish sex-game gone wrong, the high court may merely be applying an extra layer of judicial safeguard.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2013/03/29/th...ow-they-learned-to-hate-me-too/#ixzz2OwrBM1kC

As for the opinion of so many Italians that Knox was guilty, you can thank a No 1 selling sensationalist book in that country that set the tone early for her trial. The book was so influential (yet so full of crap), that in reality, Knox had little chance of what we consider a fair trial.​

Shortly before her trial, Knox had begun legal action against Fiorenza Sarzanini, the author of Amanda e gli altri ("Amanda and the Others"), a best-selling book about her that had been published in Italy. The book included accounts of events as imagined or invented by Sarzanini, witness transcripts not in the public domain, long excerpts from Knox's private journals, which Sarzanini had somehow obtained, and intimate details professing to be about Knox's sex life. Lawyers for Knox said that the book had "reported in a prurient manner, aimed solely at arousing the morbid imagination of readers."[15][16][17] According to US legal commentator Kendal Coffrey, "In this country we would say, with this kind of media exposure, you could not get a fair trial".[18] In March 2010, Knox won her civil case against Sarzanini and her publisher for violation of her privacy and illegal publication of court documents. Knox was awarded €40,000 in damages.

As, I have already said, Italians should be embarrassed by the case, because it makes their legal system look idiotic. And, in fact, that is the case and some leaders have come out and denounced the handling of this case. They better be pretty sure about their position before they jump all over a court and prosecutor, don't you think?​

Some Italian MPs are seeking a probe into the prosecutors' office in Perugia, which brought the charges which led to American student Amanda Knox being convicted of murdering her British room-mate Meredith Kercher....

"These distortions, not without reason, are fuelling accusations against the administration of justice in our country," Mr Girlanda said in the letter to the president.

The petition to Justice Minister Angelino Alfano was signed by 11 MPs. It asks Mr Alfano to consider sending inspectors to judicial offices in Perugia - a move that is considered very serious in Italy and is typically read as a sign of discontent from Rome.​

​

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mps-amanda-knox-treated-unfairly-28621084.html​

​

 

[jlprk]

If she were a man accused of a sex murder of the young woman, we never would have heard of this. He/she would be in prison for a long time.

The British parents of the victim think that Knox was involved. They know all the details and I haven't followed it (because I am above following crime cases). That tells me something.

3rd thought: The Italian public may be wreaking a proxy revenge for Americans accused there (e.g. CIA agents and previous cases) escaping their laws.

 

[ABM]

She has an exclusive interview with Diane Sawyer airing at 7 PM tonight on ABC.