Amanda Knox

[Hackney]

Nikolai Petroff said:

more bks

Allow me to paraphrase all your posts

Nikolai Petroff said:

Americans don't kill people, especially pretty ones because we Americans say so and so do a couple of American magazines.

That you criticise the Italian justice system as third world while your own country routinely imprisons those who haven't committed a crime (in a third country) and executes others with impunity would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

Your love for Knox has unfortunately clouded your judgement on this case. Fundamentally those who see Knox as an innocent all-American gal have not fully weighed up all of the evidence of her life in Italy whether guilty of this murder or not.

[Nikolai Petroff]

iphonedyou said:

Nikolai, with the greatest of respect, you do your 'side' of the argument absolutely no favours. It's all presented in a very... simplistic fashion.

Complication has no effect on veracity. It's really is that simple. In the absence of hard proof and motive AND a suspect being convicted, we have to conclude that Amanda and Rafi are innocent.

[Nikolai Petroff]

youngsyr said:

So explain the bloody bare foot print on the bath mat - Guede wore his shoes throughout, he left bloody shoe prints from Meredith's body, down the corridor to the front door.

As I keep on writing, you can make a plausible case either way.

Just about anything that is physically possible is plausible. The kicker is the absence of motive.

Again, about that footprint. I've read very convincing explanations that it was not actually a bloody one. Very convincing. Why have you not considered them.

You take the side of the incompetent Italian forensic team without considering the other side arguments.

[anonymous-user]

Harold Shipman's motive for murdering many patients was never discovered. Some things remain mysterious. Absence of proof of motive need not derail a prosecution, although it may hinder it.

[Chlamydia]

Nikolai Petroff said:

iphonedyou said:

Nikolai, with the greatest of respect, you do your 'side' of the argument absolutely no favours. It's all presented in a very... simplistic fashion.

Complication has no effect on veracity. It's really is that simple. In the absence of hard proof and motive AND a suspect being convicted, we have to conclude that Amanda and Rafi are innocent.

No. We don't. Nobody posting here knows what all the evidence presented was, only what has been reproduced in the media. I don't know if she's guilty or not but a court which has seen all the evidence and has had the opportunity to question everybody has decided she is guilty. Because of that she should be extradited to Italy to serve her sentence.
You can't just pick and choose which sentences you want to obey. If that is really your position then why should any country ever take notice of courts based in other countries?
Legally she is guilty, live with it.

[Dr Jekyll]

Chlamydia said:

No. We don't. Nobody posting here knows what all the evidence presented was, only what has been reproduced in the media.

Of course we don't. But given the press attention paid to the case the notion that a dramatic piece of evidence was presented in court which all the media (including those convinced of her guilt) have somehow omitted to mention is difficult to believe.

We had the same sort of comments when most of us expressed doubt about the Barry George conviction. People were saying 'but you weren't in the courtroom, perhaps there was clinching proof which for some reason nobody mentioned in public'.

[anonymous-user]

All I know for sure is that yes, given opportunity, I'd hit foxy knoxy like a baby seal.

[anonymous-user]

Thanks for sharing!

[Nikolai Petroff]

Breadvan72 said:

Harold Shipman's motive for murdering many patients was never discovered. Some things remain mysterious. Absence of proof of motive need not derail a prosecution, although it may hinder it.

When you have solid hard evidence absence of motive is indeed irrelevant.

[Nikolai Petroff]

Chlamydia said:

No. We don't. Nobody posting here knows what all the evidence presented was, only what has been reproduced in the media. I don't know if she's guilty or not but a court which has seen all the evidence and has had the opportunity to question everybody has decided she is guilty. Because of that she should be extradited to Italy to serve her sentence.
You can't just pick and choose which sentences you want to obey. If that is really your position then why should any country ever take notice of courts based in other countries?
Legally she is guilty, live with it.

Jury declared OJ not guilty despite DNA evidence.

[Nikolai Petroff]

I have to say though Amanda Know haters tend to be batsh*t insane though. Some nut cases out there. With friends like these...

[Chlamydia]

Dr Jekyll said:

Chlamydia said:

No. We don't. Nobody posting here knows what all the evidence presented was, only what has been reproduced in the media.

Of course we don't. But given the press attention paid to the case the notion that a dramatic piece of evidence was presented in court which all the media (including those convinced of her guilt) have somehow omitted to mention is difficult to believe.

We had the same sort of comments when most of us expressed doubt about the Barry George conviction. People were saying 'but you weren't in the courtroom, perhaps there was clinching proof which for some reason nobody mentioned in public'.

I don't disagree, and as I said I don't know if she's guilty or not, what I am saying is that she's legally guilty. Yes there are people who have been jailed who are innocent, there are also no doubt people that were found not guilty who were guilty, unfortunately it's rarely 100% positive one way or the other. In this case there are people saying she's guilty and others saying she's innocent - all from the same evidence. The only fact there is that everyone agrees on is that the court found her guilty. She should therefore be extradited.
If she'd been found not guilty then you would have people saying that was wrong and she should be jailed, but in that situation I wouldn't agree and would be of the opinion that she should be free as she was legally innocent.
People can't just pick and choose which verdicts they'll obey, if they could then what is the point of the legal profession?

[Chlamydia]

Nikolai Petroff said:

I have to say though Amanda Know haters tend to be batsh*t insane though. Some nut cases out there. With friends like these...

"Haters"? You're being a drama queen and doing your cause no good at all.

[Oakey]

Nikolai Petroff said:

Jury declared OJ not guilty despite DNA evidence.

You mentioned this before, are you just going to conveniently ignore he was later found guilty in civil court?

[Chlamydia]

Nikolai Petroff said:

Chlamydia said:

No. We don't. Nobody posting here knows what all the evidence presented was, only what has been reproduced in the media. I don't know if she's guilty or not but a court which has seen all the evidence and has had the opportunity to question everybody has decided she is guilty. Because of that she should be extradited to Italy to serve her sentence.
You can't just pick and choose which sentences you want to obey. If that is really your position then why should any country ever take notice of courts based in other countries?
Legally she is guilty, live with it.

Jury declared OJ not guilty despite DNA evidence.

Oh for god's sake you're just not getting it are you? Q: is she legally guilty?

[JustinP1]

Nikolai Petroff said:

Jury declared OJ not guilty despite DNA evidence.

That was because:

1) The defence successfully proved that one item was collected with bare hands and:

2) The defence successfully threw doubt on the DNA evidence as a chemical used in the blood samples taken is the same as one in Big Mac special sauce and OJ had one that afternoon.


I sh*t you not.

[burwoodman]

Nikolai Petroff said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550544/Am...

That thing about jurors finding Amanda guilty... Italian justice system belongs in a banana republic.

the first thought = she is partnered with a mass murderer.. oh my what a look. he is smart- fuggly bd takes a risk no other human would . you couldn't make this st up

Edited by burwoodman on Tuesday 4th February 20:19

[burwoodman]

JustinP1 said:

That was because:

1) The defence successfully proved that one item was collected with bare hands and:

2) The defence successfully threw doubt on the DNA evidence as a chemical used in the blood samples taken is the same as one in Big Mac special sauce and OJ had one that afternoon.


I sh*t you not.

that may be true but he got off because of the planted gloves-end of. any excuse to let him go.

[youngsyr]

Nikolai Petroff said:

youngsyr said:

So explain the bloody bare foot print on the bath mat - Guede wore his shoes throughout, he left bloody shoe prints from Meredith's body, down the corridor to the front door.

As I keep on writing, you can make a plausible case either way.

Just about anything that is physically possible is plausible. The kicker is the absence of motive.

Again, about that footprint. I've read very convincing explanations that it was not actually a bloody one. Very convincing. Why have you not considered them.

You take the side of the incompetent Italian forensic team without considering the other side arguments.

I haven't considered them because I haven't seen them - every account I've read has agreed the bath mat print was made in blood.

Please do share these other accounts you refer to.

[cayman-black]

Chlamydia said:

No. We don't. Nobody posting here knows what all the evidence presented was, only what has been reproduced in the media. I don't know if she's guilty or not but a court which has seen all the evidence and has had the opportunity to question everybody has decided she is guilty. Because of that she should be extradited to Italy to serve her sentence.
You can't just pick and choose which sentences you want to obey. If that is really your position then why should any country ever take notice of courts based in other countries?
Legally she is guilty, live with it.

Right , first case guilty, second not guilty, third guilty, fourth ?