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

Longbow said:
Yes, but I'll ask again, are you basing this on something I don't know, or is it just a wild guess? Don't just say "reports".

Given that there doesn't seem to be any evidence she was involved, or for that matter, that I was involved in the murder.
Click to expand...

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).

Here are a list of points that appeared over on reddit -

* Changed alibis multiple times, after each previous one failed to fly.
* falsely accused a totally innocent man of the crime.
* her final alibi is a joke. She says she was at her ex boyfriends (the co accused) until mid morning the next day. He says she wasn't. Her phone records say she wasn't. Witnesses say she wasn't. His computer records say they weren't watching the movie that she claimed.
* Why did she make a series of phone calls to her parents at 5 - 6am (when she claims to be asleep.)
* Why was there a faked brake-in, with glass on top of the murder scene. * Who would need to fake a break-in...
* How did she know the position of the body when she supposedly hadn't seen it?
* When she was supposedly phoning her friend to see if she was all right, why did she let the calls to the two phones only ring for 3 seconds each time? Who hangs up after 3 seconds.. unless she new no one was going to answer..
* why did they decided to suddenly thoroughly clean the house the next morning.
* The whole flat was covered in forensic evidence, and not just subtle debatable stuff - stuff like virtually full footprints.

Link ...
Click to expand...


Feel free to offer your own evidence regarding them ...

Personally I'm pretty confident Knox was a party to the murder.
 
drunkenmaster said:
You keep saying that, based on what, false statements by people who wanted to be involved in the case, the lead guy wanting to spread the blame, the lack of any evidence, afaik dna being found on a knife, in a flat she used, that wasn't the murder knife?
Click to expand...

I agree that the DNA evidence was unreliable due to the procedural issues by the Italian police, they could have handled it better. But theres a load of other circumstantial evidence. Like as soon as the shops were open the next morning they were out buying strong cleaning supplies such as bleach. They were at the property acting suspiciously when the police showed up (relating to another matter). She also knew the location of the body in the room when from her vantage point she couldnt have seen it. They both have repeatedly lied about their whereabouts that night. Shes changed her story and he still maintains he was on his computer that night, which analysis of the PC shows, it wasnt used.

Theres a load more if you actually bother reading into the case. But I agree, the Italian police messed up with evidence gathering and the DNA evidence is unreliable and therefore shouldnt be used. You are then left with a load of circumstantial evidence, which is probably enough to give you reasonable doubt.

IMO, I think they were both involved somehow.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Well there are some of us who appreciate who the real and forgotten victim is. It is something I would do if I were in her position.
Click to expand...

As she has been acquitted after 4 years in prison for a crime she didn't commit then I would say she was just as much a victim of Meredith's murder as anyone.

Just because some people think she is still guilty doesn't mean she is.
 
Farstrider said:
As she has been acquitted after 4 years in prison for a crime she didn't commit then I would say she was just as much a victim of Meredith's murder as anyone.

Just because some people think she is still guilty doesn't mean she is.
Click to expand...

Perhaps.
Just because something wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, does not mean it did not happen. It just hasnt been proven.
 
Definatly something suspicious about amanda however we will never know the full truth as the Italian police did a good job of bodging the evidence collection.

So she still may of been guilty, just with not enough evidence to prove it.
 
Farstrider said:
As she has been acquitted after 4 years in prison for a crime she didn't commit then I would say she was just as much a victim of Meredith's murder as anyone.
Click to expand...

Crime there isn't sufficient evidence to link her to tbh...

Plenty of circumstantial evidence, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of suspicious behaviour and lies on her part. Evidently not enough for a secondJury to convict her beyond reasonable doubt (or whatever the burden of proof required in Italy is) but enough for the first jury to have done.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there is a good chance she was involved - it's just we don't know 100% whether she was or not. Obviously it isn't safe to convict someone on the basis that they likely had some involvement in a murder.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
Perhaps.
Just because something wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, does not mean it did not happen. It just hasnt been proven.
Click to expand...

NathWraith said:
Definatly something suspicious about amanda however we will never know the full truth as the Italian police did a good job of bodging the evidence collection.

So she still may of been guilty, just with not enough evidence to prove it.
Click to expand...

She may well have been, but that is true of anyone in such circumstances, however the presumption of innocence should be the default until proven guilty and as it was found that the evidence did not support her guilt (even without the incompetence of the Italian Police the DNA evidence wouldn't have been admissible in a UK court for example due to the fact that it could have gotten onto the Knife, which incidentally didn't match the wounds at any time. The blood wasn't conclusively Meredith s blood according to the independent scientists. It wasn't just the mistakes the Police made, but the nature of the evidence itself that was questionable) then we must assume her innocent and proceed under that assumption.

If being a bit strange was a crime then we would all be guilty.
 
Farstrider said:
She may well have been, but that is true of anyone in such circumstances, however the presumption of innocence should be the default until proven guilty and as it was found that the evidence did not support her guilt (even without the incompetence of the Italian Police the DNA evidence wouldn't have been admissible in a UK court for example due to the fact that it could have gotten onto the Knife, which incidentally didn't match the wounds at any time. The blood wasn't conclusively Meredith s blood according to the independent scientists. It wasn't just the mistakes the Police made, but the nature of the evidence itself that was questionable) then we must assume her innocent and proceed under that assumption.

If being a bit strange was a crime then we would all be guilty.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. There's too much "guilty by press" in my mind. If the evidence isn't there then innocence must be presumed.

Andi.
 
mmj_uk said:
Italians are corrupt, the suspects family is rich... seemed like a foregone conclusion to me. :p
Click to expand...

Amanda Knox's Parents are not rich.


dowie said:
Crime there isn't sufficient evidence to link her to tbh...

Plenty of circumstantial evidence, a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of suspicious behaviour and lies on her part. Evidently not enough for a secondJury to convict her beyond reasonable doubt (or whatever the burden of proof required in Italy is) but enough for the first jury to have done.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that there is a good chance she was involved - it's just we don't know 100% whether she was or not. Obviously it isn't safe to convict someone on the basis that they likely had some involvement in a murder
Click to expand...

A lot of that circumstancial evidence is based on her and Sollicito's behaviour and testimony under duress, none of it is reason to convict and all the solid evidence was found to be either inconclusive or non existent in the first place.

The problem with the first trial was that there was no independent analysis of the evidence allowed by the Judge (can you imagine that in a UK court), the idea of reasonable doubt was not entered into Italian Law until after the original case, the Italian courts allow for people to say pretty much anything in court regardless of whether it is actually true or not and the Police elicited confessions and testimony by force.

If this was anyone other than Amanda Knox we would all be screaming "fit up".

That is the truth here.
 
Last edited:
Farstrider said:
Amanda Knox's Parents aren't rich.
Click to expand...

What has that got to do with anything I've posted?

A lot of that circumstancial evidence is based on her and Sollicito's behaviour and testimony under duress, none of it is reason to convict and all the solid evidence was found to be either inconclusive or non existent in the first place.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom