Discussion
I have to say that I paid very little attention to the case and totally bought the line that she was being stitched up by a corrupt Italian legal system with an alpha male prosecutor looking for a swan song.
I then watched the Panorama documentary a year or so ago and swung almost 100% in opinion. I understand that documentaries can be made to push a point of view or manipulate the viewer, but it seems clear at the very minimum that she was incredibly inconsistent and vague as a witness. As Youngs says, no one theory really explains everything, but it seemed to me that Knox knew far more than she let on. I felt on balance of probabilities that she had got mixed up in it somehow.
I then watched the Panorama documentary a year or so ago and swung almost 100% in opinion. I understand that documentaries can be made to push a point of view or manipulate the viewer, but it seems clear at the very minimum that she was incredibly inconsistent and vague as a witness. As Youngs says, no one theory really explains everything, but it seemed to me that Knox knew far more than she let on. I felt on balance of probabilities that she had got mixed up in it somehow.
WTFWT said:
I have to say that I paid very little attention to the case and totally bought the line that she was being stitched up by a corrupt Italian legal system with an alpha male prosecutor looking for a swan song.
I then watched the Panorama documentary a year or so ago and swung almost 100% in opinion. I understand that documentaries can be made to push a point of view or manipulate the viewer, but it seems clear at the very minimum that she was incredibly inconsistent and vague as a witness. As Youngs says, no one theory really explains everything, but it seemed to me that Knox knew far more than she let on. I felt on balance of probabilities that she had got mixed up in it somehow.
Not proven beyond reasonable doubt then.I then watched the Panorama documentary a year or so ago and swung almost 100% in opinion. I understand that documentaries can be made to push a point of view or manipulate the viewer, but it seems clear at the very minimum that she was incredibly inconsistent and vague as a witness. As Youngs says, no one theory really explains everything, but it seemed to me that Knox knew far more than she let on. I felt on balance of probabilities that she had got mixed up in it somehow.
robsa said:
Salon.com have published an article clarifying much of the information in case. Very interesting read.
http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/amanda_knox_verdic...
That only covers a part of it, you really need to read some of evidence concerning the murder of Meredith Kercherhttp://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/amanda_knox_verdic...
The evidence that Raffaele Sollecito DNA was on Meredith Kercher Bra which was removed after her death.
The evidence showing that Meredith Kercher DNA was on the murder weapon was found in Raffaele Sollecito apartment. Not at the murder scene.
The evidence that Sollecito & Knox changed their alibi at least eight times and still remained inconsistent with each other and proven evidence.
The evidence that Sollecito & Knox staged a burglary.
The evidence that Knox tried to delay Police discovery of the body.
Don't be taken by the myths perpetuated by Knox PR team. or the fools that perpetuate it.
...probably worth reading the other side of the story too.
Knife:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html
Bra Clasp
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html
You get the gist - anyone who thinks it's clear cut one way or the other isn't being objective about the evidence, IMO.
Knife:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html
Bra Clasp
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html
You get the gist - anyone who thinks it's clear cut one way or the other isn't being objective about the evidence, IMO.
Martin4x4 said:
Don't be taken by the myths perpetuated by Knox PR team. or the fools that perpetuate it.
That link is absolutely pathetic. The list of 'evidence' against Knox is primarily a list of locations where her DNA was found in he own home, plus irrelevant personal detailssuch as.....
8. Knox was not studying under an approved, accredited university program.
9. Knox had few female friends.
10. Knox had a number of male friends.
11. Knox was in contact with drug dealers and was spending large amounts of cash.
12. Knox had been ticketed for making noise and throw rocks at a party.
13. Knox had played a break-in prank on a ‘friend’.
I think Knox and her boyfriend may well have done something that night that they didn't want known, they may even know more about the murder than they let on. But the notion that they took part in the murder is unlikely in the extreme. It relies on the notion of them performing a clean up campaign that removed all their prints and DNA from the murder scene but cunningly left Guede's in place.
The Italian Court that CLEARED Amanda Knox has now given it's reasons for doing so. Basically No viable physical Evidence ever placed Knox or Sollecito at the scene.
"The Cassation panel of five judges essentially concluded that while there were indications Guede could have had accomplices, nothing in the prosecutors' case proved that either Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder.
It also wrote that the lower court ignored expert testimony that 'clearly demonstrated possible contamination' of evidence and misinterpreted findings about the knife allegedly used to slit Kercher's throat, in what prosecutors had described as a sexual assault.
On more than one of the 52 pages of explanation, the judges agreed with the defendants' contentions that the convictions were a 'violation of the principle of a reasonable doubt.'
The evidence was clear but it seems that various parties in the System were either looking for a big boost in their careers or were playing to the baying masses.
"The Cassation panel of five judges essentially concluded that while there were indications Guede could have had accomplices, nothing in the prosecutors' case proved that either Knox or Sollecito were involved in the murder.
It also wrote that the lower court ignored expert testimony that 'clearly demonstrated possible contamination' of evidence and misinterpreted findings about the knife allegedly used to slit Kercher's throat, in what prosecutors had described as a sexual assault.
On more than one of the 52 pages of explanation, the judges agreed with the defendants' contentions that the convictions were a 'violation of the principle of a reasonable doubt.'
The evidence was clear but it seems that various parties in the System were either looking for a big boost in their careers or were playing to the baying masses.
telecat said:
...
The evidence was clear but it seems that various parties in the System were either looking for a big boost in their careers or were playing to the baying masses.
I think that is a bit of an exaggeration - the evidence wasn't clear either way, but it certainly wasn't sufficient for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.The evidence was clear but it seems that various parties in the System were either looking for a big boost in their careers or were playing to the baying masses.
For example, Knox and Sollecito changed their alibis several times, the bloody footprint found on the bath mat (definitely not from Guede) and the staged break-in all pointed at someone other than Guede's involvement and didn't rule out Knox and Sollecito.
[quote=Dr Jekyll It relies on the notion of them performing a clean up campaign that removed all their prints and DNA from the murder scene but cunningly left Guede's in place.
[/quote]
How's about Guede arriving on scene after the scene had been cleared of evidence? A clean yet obviously disturbed crime scene with all of Guede's DNA all over it....
[/quote]
How's about Guede arriving on scene after the scene had been cleared of evidence? A clean yet obviously disturbed crime scene with all of Guede's DNA all over it....
stanwan said:
Dr Jekyll said:
It relies on the notion of them performing a clean up campaign that removed all their prints and DNA from the murder scene but cunningly left Guede's in place.
How's about Guede arriving on scene after the scene had been cleared of evidence? A clean yet obviously disturbed crime scene with all of Guede's DNA all over it....Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 8th September 14:14
Efbe said:
Just watched the netflix documentary: "Amanda Knox"
Aside to this I have done some checking of the facts presented, and it seems fairly accurate and done well
What on earth were/are the Italians thinking? It makes them seem farcial. A complete laughing stock.
Did you find yourself wanting to murder the Daily Mail journalist, Nick Pisa or whatever his name is, afterwards?Aside to this I have done some checking of the facts presented, and it seems fairly accurate and done well
What on earth were/are the Italians thinking? It makes them seem farcial. A complete laughing stock.
Man is a f
king knobber.SpeckledJim said:
FN2TypeR said:
Did you find yourself wanting to murder the Daily Mail journalist, Nick Pisa or whatever his name is, afterwards?
Man is a fking knobber.
He is a terrible human being. And very candid about exactly how terrible he is, without seeming to recognise it.Man is a f
king knobber.Rude-boy said:
SpeckledJim said:
FN2TypeR said:
Did you find yourself wanting to murder the Daily Mail journalist, Nick Pisa or whatever his name is, afterwards?
Man is a fking knobber.
He is a terrible human being. And very candid about exactly how terrible he is, without seeming to recognise it.Man is a f
king knobber.FN2TypeR said:
Did you find yourself wanting to murder the Daily Mail journalist, Nick Pisa or whatever his name is, afterwards?
Man is a fking knobber.
YepMan is a f
king knobber.That prosecutor didn't come across well either, but didn't realise how deluded he would appear.
Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 28th December 11:54
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff