Amanda Knox and her Ex found guilty of the Murder of Medredith Kercher

Castiel · 4 Oct 2011 at 11:33

dowie said:
I agree, though it would seem more likely that she was involved than she wasn't - rather a lot of circumstantial evidence, suspicious behaviour and some disputed DNA evidence on the murder weapon. Plenty of lies too which appear rather dubious regardless of the poor innocent girl I terrogatrd by angry foreign police angle - every account she's come up with has been highly dubious and inconsistent. It's not sufficient to convict her so the court must find her not guilty but it's enough to presume there is a good chance she was somehow involved in the murder.

No it's not, it is enough to presume that a terrified and naive young girl was in a situation she could not deal with and that she taken advantage of by a corrupt police investigation, because that is what the evidence suggests.

People are under the assumption that the Italian justice system is in any way comparable to our own. The prosecution can make up whatever scenarios or claims they want, it is up to the defence to show they are not true. The prosecution didn't even have to justify many of the claims made about Knox or Sollecito, let alone offer proof. The satanic ritual nonsense for example.

In any case, whatever the truth, the presumption should be geared toward someone's innocence not their guilt, something that Knox and Sollecito where never given the benefit of.

Castiel · 4 Oct 2011 at 11:38

Von Smallhausen said:
Funny enough, I don't find people guilty or not by press or popular demand.

You seemed to be implying that she was guilty regardless of there being no conclusive evidence besides what was invented by the Italian Police.

It wasn't just the collection and testing of forensic evidence that was questioned by the independent science, but the nature of the evidence to begin with.

I think some people will find Knox and Sollecito guilty regardless of the truth, if the truth ever comes to light and even if it proves conclusively that they had nothing to do with it.

Vulcan · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:02

philip2009 said:
IIRC well for starters she formulated multiple alibis and accused an innocent man, Lumumba, of the murder. Then they bought bottles of bleach the morning after Meredith was murdered to "clean" the flat up (only one of Knox's fingerprints was found in the _entire_ house).

Personally I'm pretty confident Knox was a party to the murder.

She was stressed, and allegedly miss-treated by the Italian police. The Italians courts have already ruled that her human rights where abused.

As for the bleach, it was not bought that morning at all, this is more fabrication to make Knox appear guilty. Sollecito had bought the bleach on a previous day, and both bottles were unopened when his apartment was searched.

MookJong · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:09

Anyone who has read up on this case and I don't mean the bits that have been in the newspapers, will see that the idea Knox was involved was just stupid from day 1.

Read up on the Judge and you will see why she was imprisonned....this is not the first time he has falsly put people away.

dowie · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:10

I'm think the Knox family PR machine seems to have worked on some people - especially re: that Rolling stone article.

Its hardly an unreasonable position to put forward that its is quite likely she did have some involvement but courts don't convict on the basis that it is perhaps likely someone was involved in some crime.... I think everyone is already well aware that the evidence is inconclusive but to blindly accept as a result of this appeal that there should be no doubts as to her innocence is a bit naive.

Von Smallhausen · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:13

Farstrider said:
You seemed to be implying that she was guilty regardless of there being no conclusive evidence besides what was invented by the Italian Police.

It wasn't just the collection and testing of forensic evidence that was questioned by the independent science, but the nature of the evidence to begin with.

I think some people will find Knox and Sollecito guilty regardless of the truth, if the truth ever comes to light and even if it proves conclusively that they had nothing to do with it.

I implied nothing other than perhaps the wealth that will follow should be shared with the Kerchers.

regulus · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:17

Bottom line, NONE of you know what happened that night, the only people that know is Knox, Sollecito and the unfortunate Ms Kirchner. Everything else is pure speculation. It's like the Maddy Mcann threads. People are so 110% sure the mom did it ... no wait wait ... the dad.

You . Do . Not . Know.

All you're selling is your opinion. I have no issues with people discussing it put to take a position where you're 100% of her guilt after she's just been acquitted is a bit silly.

Did she do it?

Probably, but you can never be sure.

MookJong · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:22

We know who did it....the man still locked up in jail, the man who had previous for threatening women with a knife.

philip2009 · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:25

Longbow said:
She was stressed, and allegedly miss-treated by the Italian police. The Italians courts have already ruled that her human rights where abused.

I think you are being extremely charitable, it shouldn't be difficult to come up with a credible alibi you can stick to(assuming you are innocent). How many different alibis did Knox concoct?

As for the bleach, it was not bought that morning at all, this is more fabrication to make Knox appear guilty. Sollecito had bought the bleach on a previous day, and both bottles were unopened when his apartment was searched.

Can you provide a link regarding the bleach details(I'm reading at least one open bottle)?

NathWraith · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:25

Whilst there is no doubt that Gued was guilty (DNA all over the scene, a hand print covered in the victims blood) I do still beileve Knoxx had a part in this, whilst I accept the italian police used questionable methods and frankly rubbish evidence collection, Knoxx's inconsistency's do raise eyebrows.

Castiel · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:26

Von Smallhausen said:
I implied nothing other than perhaps the wealth that will follow should be shared with the Kerchers.

I am sure that the Kerchers could generate their own wealth if they so wished. Should they then share that with Knox?

I am not saying she shouldn't or couldn't, only that she has no moral obligation to do so.

regulus · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:26

MookJong said:
We know who did it....the man still locked up in jail, the man who had previous for threatening women with a knife.

Could agree with that, but I'm just surprised at the vigor people have taken in this when they had no reliable evidence about her guilt to go by. It's purely just what they want it to be.

Castiel · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:29

regulus said:
Bottom line, NONE of you know what happened that night, the only people that know is Knox, Sollecito and the unfortunate Ms Kirchner. Everything else is pure speculation. It's like the Maddy Mcann threads. People are so 110% sure the mom did it ... no wait wait ... the dad.

You . Do . Not . Know.

All you're selling is your opinion. I have no issues with people discussing it put to take a position where you're 100% of her guilt after she's just been acquitted is a bit silly.

Did she do it?

Probably, but you can never be sure.

I think that the only people who can be 100% sure are the murderer or Meredith Kercher (who sadly cannot speak for herself). Knox may not have any more idea than anyone else who actually killed Meredith. To say that she does implies her guilt, which as you point out cannot be proven.

regulus · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:31

Farstrider said:
I think that the only people who can be 100% sure are the murderer or Meredith Kercher (who sadly cannot speak for herself). Knox may not have any more idea than anyone else who actually killed Meredith. To say that she does implies her guilt, which as you point out cannot be proven.

Yep, that's true. Didn't put that very well. At least Knox and Sollecito knew whether they did or didn't do it.

Castiel · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:35

regulus said:
Yep, that's true. Didn't put that very well. At least Knox and Sollecito knew whether they did or didn't do it.

Indeed. I feel that the Kercher family need to take some solace that the actual proven murderer of their daughter is in prison.

Personally, If it were my daughter, I would be very concerned over the prosecutions decision to make a deal for testimony with Guede which means he will serve significantly less time, especially as that testimony was questionable at best and has a high probability of being fabricated to get a reduced sentence.

hurfdurf · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:37

Farstrider said:
No it's not, it is enough to presume that a terrified and naive young girl was in a situation she could not deal with and that she taken advantage of by a corrupt police investigation, because that is what the evidence suggests.

People are under the assumption that the Italian justice system is in any way comparable to our own. The prosecution can make up whatever scenarios or claims they want, it is up to the defence to show they are not true. The prosecution didn't even have to justify many of the claims made about Knox or Sollecito, let alone offer proof. The satanic ritual nonsense for example.

In any case, whatever the truth, the presumption should be geared toward someone's innocence not their guilt, something that Knox and Sollecito where never given the benefit of.

A good post

hurfdurf · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:41

NathWraith said:
Whilst there is no doubt that Gued was guilty (DNA all over the scene, a hand print covered in the victims blood) I do still beileve Knoxx had a part in this, whilst I accept the italian police used questionable methods and frankly rubbish evidence collection, Knoxx's inconsistency's do raise eyebrows.

Knoxx's inconsistency can be completely explained by Police abusing the suspect though. Police officers are incredibly talented at getting people to look guilty and implicate themselves, including innocent people.

Never ever talk to the Police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc - American based but extremely relevant and interesting lecture on by a very good lawyer who then refers to a serving detective to refute his talk who does not and instead completely agrees with it.

Raymond Lin · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:52

regulus said:
Bottom line, NONE of you know what happened that night, the only people that know is Knox, Sollecito and the unfortunate Ms Kirchner. Everything else is pure speculation. It's like the Maddy Mcann threads. People are so 110% sure the mom did it ... no wait wait ... the dad.

You . Do . Not . Know.

All you're selling is your opinion. I have no issues with people discussing it put to take a position where you're 100% of her guilt after she's just been acquitted is a bit silly.

Did she do it?

Probably, but you can never be sure.

That is the thing, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. It is their job to PROOF that she is guilty. Not her job to prove she is innocent.

They didn't, not by a country mile.

You cannot convict someone because of "she probably did it". We have all heard of "Beyond Reasonable Doubt". I am sure Italian law has a similar thing, it is a jurior system afterall.

The fact that you said "you can never be sure", that alone is a reason not finding her guilty.

elrasho · 4 Oct 2011 at 12:57

Who do you think will play them in the movie remake?

Von Smallhausen · 4 Oct 2011 at 13:00

Do you think lawyers are the shining beacons of truth and justice hurfdurf ?