Amanda Knoxx retrial

And for all those saying there's no DNA, I'm pretty sure there was. Here are some points I pinched from another site:

  • Knox’s DNA was found on the handle (Kercher’s DNA on the blade) of the knife used to slit Meredith’s throat.
  • An abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA was found on the clasp of Kercher’s bra, which had been forcibly removed (the bra was severed with a knife). Knox’s DNA was also found on Meredith’s bra.
  • Luminol, a chemical agent used by forensic investigators to detect blood at crime scenes, revealed bloody footprints all over the house. The footprints were compatible with those of Knox and Sollecito. An additional footprint, believed to be Knox's, was found underneath Kercher’s body.
  • There were no less than five separate instances of Knox’s DNA being mixed with Kercher’s blood in three different locations in the house they shared.
  • The morning after the murder, Knox showered in a bathroom with Kercher’s blood still smeared across the sink and floor.
  • A shopkeeper testified to seeing Knox come into the store to buy cleaning supplies, most notably the bleach that was used (unsuccessfully) to clean the murder weapon, at 7:45 on the morning after the murder. Knox claimed not to have gone to the store.
  • A staged break-in designed to throw off the investigation was quickly dismissed by police because the window had been broken AFTER the room had been ransacked. Nothing had been taken in the “burglary” btw.
  • Knox and Sollecito gave multiple and conflicting accounts of their whereabouts on the night of the murder. None of their alibis was credible.
  • On the day after the murder, Knox phoned Kercher’s two cell phones, to help establish her false alibi that she was at Sollecito’s apartment. She was then seen throwing the cell phones into a neighbor’s backyard, presumably to aid the burglary story.
  • Knox was photographed kissing and cooing with Sollecito as the forensics team was removing her roommate's blood-soaked body from the house.
  • Knox was seen turning cartwheels and doing handstands after being interrogated at the police station. She evidently thought she’d (literally) gotten away with murder.
  • Knox falsely accused Patrick Lumumba, a former employer, of murdering Kercher. She admitted she knew he was innocent in a conversation with her mother which was intercepted by police. She later changed her story to implicate Guede as the murderer.
  • Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Kercher’s murder in a handwritten note she gave the police, one week after the crime.
  • Knox was constantly laughing, smiling and “voguing” for court cameras during the murder trial.
  • Knox was known to be promiscuous, very kinky in her sexual appetites and heavily involved in drug use (mostly methamphetamine and hashish). Evidence suggests Knox disliked Kercher intensely and was jealous of her good looks in particular. They’d only occupied the house together for a week and were not friends.
 
Is that all true? Pretty damning. Surely she hasn't got a leg to stand on in round two?

Though some are awfully subjective....."Knox was seen turning cartwheels and doing handstands after being interrogated at the police station. She evidently thought she’d (literally) gotten away with murder."
 
Thats why the justice system scares me. If you look the wrong way or dont behave how your peers expect then you could be screwed.

Thats basically why the real sociopaths usually get far, they can act like how other people expect.

Best performance wins.


I'm not sitting on the jury, and even if I was, I would in no way take the performance of the individual into account, I'd be basing my decision on the evidence presented to me. Lack of evidence, even circumstantial evidence, would not be enough for any conviction in my opinion.

However, it still doesn't determine what actually happened, or whether the suspect is actually guilty.

Since I'm not on a jury, I can wildly speculate at home for my own sick entertainment purposes.


But, at the same time I disagree with everything Jason2 says, ever. Oh my, what a quandary!
 

If half of that is true then I'm not sure how she isn't locked up.

Where did that list come from?

They look very cherry picked to prove a point, A lot like these guys with tin foil hats do.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I've always thought she's a bit of a physcopath. It's just the expression she gives off. Like it's all a game. I could be wrong, but my view is still valid.

I don't care what anyone says, she at least know something. I'm going at a step further to say she is the murderer. At no point during the trial did she protest her innocence. And everytime I saw her she look cold and detached.

Answer me this, why would an innocent person change their stories several times, and then try and pin the blame on a completely innocent person? Seems way too fishy to me.

Is everything you say designed intentionally to irritate me? Are you a moron or a genius?
 
Putting my tinfoil hat on for a moment I think its a deliberate distraction so the italian media focus on her instead of the fact their politicians can't form a government at the moment. The public can get angry about something else instead.

Whether she's innocent or guilty is irrelevant now. She's been tried once and the US will tell the Italians to do one if they ask for extradition two reasons:

- She's been tried once. Under US law (and most sensible places) you can't be tried twice for the same crime.
- There is no way she could get a fair trial after all the publicity first time round.
 
The US do not have to resort to the Double Jeopardy rule anyway...according to their extradition treaty any extradition must be validated with a "case summary that gives reasonable basis for the guilt of the person being sought for extradition". I can't see any US State Official making such a decision given the inadequacies of both the evidence and the issues with the investigation.

Also the US have no reason to comply with or obligation to the ECHR.
 
It'd be stupid to have an absolute double jeopardy law, imo... it's good to have one to stop frivolous retrials, etc... but it's stupid to have an absolute one as it means mistakes can't be rectified. The balance of having one with caveats seems wholly sensible.

The people in charge can't exactly always be trusted, after all, they really know they've got their man, even when it turns out they're wrong.

The choice ultimatly comes down to having an absolute double jeopardy law or having one that doesn't have any teeth, especially if you're in the good ol' USA where the letter of the law rules supreme about any notions of common sense.
 
If it's not Amanda Knoxx, that means some random person went into Meredith Kercher's apartment, raped her, then killed her. What are the odds of that happening? Nearly all murders are done by someone who knows the person.

And again, I ask, why would a completely innocent person change their story, not once, but several times? And why also would they try to shift the blame onto a completely innocent person? Why also would they make a written confession a week later? I don't care what anyone says. No innocent person admits to something which they haven't done.
 
I think its pretty clear that one way or another she's very unlikely to be extradited from the US. Her family has spent a lot on PR, the investigation by the Italians wasn't without errors and AFAIK the evidence against her might well have not been sufficient for a US court.

Its a very divisive case and no politician is going to want to risk a political backlash as a result of sending an American Citizen to what has been portrayed in the US media as a third world esq justice system.
 
Really interesting case. I find it impossible to believe Knox and Sollecito weren't probably involved, yet they were acquitted by the court and the precedent being set here is rather scary.
 
If it's not Amanda Knoxx, that means some random person went into Meredith Kercher's apartment, raped her, then killed her. What are the odds of that happening? Nearly all murders are done by someone who knows the person.

And again, I ask, why would a completely innocent person change their story, not once, but several times? And why also would they try to shift the blame onto a completely innocent person? Why also would they make a written confession a week later? I don't care what anyone says. No innocent person admits to something which they haven't done.

well there is that guy in prison that admitted killing her - and he's already in jail, is a nasty piece of work and has no reason to lie.

and as for your last point - it happens all the time for various reasons.
 
I was just talking in general, as the poster I quoted was talking about double jeopardy in general/"Under US law (and most sensible places) you can't be tried twice for the same crime."/not specifically the US or Italy. Obviously they don't care about the ECHR... no one's that stupid, captain obvious :confused:.

Keep you hair on, its relevant as Amanda Knox is a US citizen residing in the US. What the ECHR has to say on the matter regarding US extradition procedures is irrelevant and that was the point I was making, I was also pointing out that the DJ rule doesn't really have any impact on said extradition either as the US do not need to resort to it in order to block any extradition.

The poster was referring to the US legal system and why they might refuse extradition and not Italy btw, despite your claims to have focused on his parenthesis...in respect of what you said, not even all EU countries are obligated by the ECHR in this regard anyway, including the UK. In Italy this is not a double jeopardy case as the case was not ultimately closed and the retrial is in fact a continuance of the trial in absolute legal terms.
 
Last edited:
I thought it obvious I was talking about his comments about DJ in general, considering that's what I replied about. I didn't mention extradition, at all.

I think it is pretty obvious that different countries have different rules on such judgements, and in the case the poster was referring to, it is the US legal position that would be relevant to what he said. The ECHR is pretty irrelevant in this case anyway as even in Europe, different countries apply it or ignore it differently and it isn't relevant to Italy as they are still trying the same case under their legal system, the difference between the US and Italian legal systems means that while an acquittal in the US would in most cases be absolute, in Italy it is not as they still have leave to appeal.

The poster you replied to was specifically referencing the US position in relation to why they may refuse extradition, not making claims about the ECHR or how it affects legal process in Europe.
 
What? He was claiming everywhere civilised has DJ rules, and that this Italian ruling is a bit weird. I was just demonstrating that having DJ rules is widely regarded as being a good idea, but also that it's widely regarded as being a good idea for them to not be absolute.

I wasn't saying anything massively complicated/detailed... and nothing to do with what you replied about, in a way where you were trying to be right about something which wasn't even brought up. It was just weird.

He simply didn't understand the Italian system which means that the case is not yet closed so DJ isn't relevant to them. And he was clearly referring specifically to the US, despite his parenthesis.

You went off the handle btw, not me and its not about being right, it is about being relevant to the case and the point he was making about why the US would ignore an extradition request if one was forthcoming, you going on about the ECHR (which isn't relevant to the US or the current situation in Italy) was irrelevant, in my opinion and I stand by it.
 
No, he referred to the US, "and most sensible places"... most sensible places outweighing the US.

I didn't go off the handle :confused:. TBH I think it is about you being right, considering you made an argument against a point which wasn't even made in my post - you fabricated a point I'd apparently made (without typing it :o) just so you could rebut it. It's a common theme in your posting - the absolute desperation to be correct - I wonder if it's an underlying sense of inferiority because of your academic past, compared to your brother's... but I digress.

I did not even quote you, I was merely pointing out both that the US do not need to refer to DJ to block any extradition, and also that the ECHR has no relevance to the US, which it doesn't. And in any case he put the 'most sensible places" in parenthesis so it is set apart from his point rather than outweighing his point which I referenced. You quoted the entire post so it is not unreasonable to assume you are referring to the point he made within that quote. You seem intent on assuming I am saying you are wrong, when in fact I wasn't...I did however question the relevance of what you said to the case and the situation.

You came back with the unnecessary "no ones that stupid, captain obvious" commentary....you now compound that with another insult.....

As for academia, I don't really understand the relevance or even the veracity of that given our respective qualifications :confused:, it just seems that you feel the need to insult me, albeit rather ineffectively.

I suggest you simply calm down and take what has been said as it was intended rather than taking it personally and making it personal
 
Last edited:
It was unreasonable, when the whole content of my post made it obvious I wasn't talking about his post in its entirety. It's pretty simple.

I disagree as you quoted the entire post, made reference to the case and given the actual context and content of the broader discussion, and even if it were, I think it was relevant to point out that neither the Double Jeopardy rule or the ECHR was entirely relevant to the situation under discussion.

In any case there was no reason to resort to insult, you could have simply stopped at 'I was speaking generally'
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom