Amanda Knox guilty or not?

[generalbulldog]

She was found guilty for blaming a completely innocent man and implicated him for the murder. She was out on a technicality and she did it with the other 2.

Yep. She blamed her boss at first and said he was the murderer, not only that but she changed her story a lot of times. Innocent people dont change their stories constantly.

[ICB]

Guilty as sin.

[imp]

Money can get anyone off.
Knox is as guilty as sin.
But they have the poor black guy to take the fall so this will all fade away and amanda will get very rich and the real killer.. a thing of the past.
Bring on 2012 and the end of this system of things

[Kev]

Money can get anyone off.
Knox is as guilty as sin.
But they have the poor black guy to take the fall so this will all fade away and amanda will get very rich and the real killer.. a thing of the past.
Bring on 2012 and the end of this system of things

Based on what? What evidence against her convinces you of her guilt?

Or have you just bought into the media headlines of the last four years?

[imp]

Money can get anyone off.
Knox is as guilty as sin.
But they have the poor black guy to take the fall so this will all fade away and amanda will get very rich and the real killer.. a thing of the past.
Bring on 2012 and the end of this system of things

Based on what? What evidence
against her convinces you of her
guilt?

Or have you just bought into the
media headlines of the last four
years?

What makes you think shes completely innocent Bilbo?

Sorry to ask a question with a question.

[Kev]

Money can get anyone off.
Knox is as guilty as sin.
But they have the poor black guy to take the fall so this will all fade away and amanda will get very rich and the real killer.. a thing of the past.
Bring on 2012 and the end of this system of things

Based on what? What evidence
against her convinces you of her
guilt?

Or have you just bought into the
media headlines of the last four
years?

What makes you think shes completely innocent Bilbo?

Sorry to ask a question with a question.

Well because in most cases people are convicted of a murder based on their being evidence of them having committed it.

Your conclusion seems to be this, a girl is found dead. I believe her flatmate killed her. Unless we can prove that she didn't then she must have.

That's a rather strange form of justice.

There was no evidence of Amanda Knox being at the crime scene. Her DNA was not found on Meredith Kercher at all. Nor was her boyfriend's.

By contrast, the man who is in jail serving time for Meredith's murder, Randy Guede, his DNA is all over the crime scene and Meredith's body.

The involvement of Knox and Sollecito was part of the 'Satanic orgy' hypothesis of the Italian prosecutor. He initially believed Knox, Sollectito, and Amanda's boss, a guy called Lulumba did it in some form of satanic sexual serial killing ritual.

His evidence for this? On the night of the murder Amanda had sent a text to her boss saying simply 'See you later'.

Lulumba was cleared as he had a cast iron alibi, but by then Randy Guede's DNA had been found all over the crime scene and instead of just doing him for the murder, the prosecutor was intent on proving his satanic ritual slaughter hypothesis so he kept that idea and just substituted Guede for Lulumba.

But it was based on no actual evidence at all. Which has since been demonstrated and Amanda is finally free.

It was a total miscarriage of justice. The prosecutor who got Amanda Knox jailed has since been served with a 16 month jail sentence of his own for illegally hacking into phones of journalists and fellow police do to with another case. Google him. Guilano Mignini.

She was totally set up.

[BIG H]

She was found guilty for blaming a completely innocent man and implicated him for the murder. She was out on a technicality and she did it with the other 2.

Yep. She blamed her boss at first and said he was the murderer, not only that but she changed her story a lot of times. Innocent people dont change their stories constantly.

Desperate people may do, whether guilty or not.

[Kev]

The people who are saying she is guilty as sin though, based on what?

As I understand there is no evidence whatsoever linking her to the murder.

Her DNA was not found anywhere in the room where Meredith was killed, whereas Randy Guede's was found all over Meredith's body.

Meredith has been determined as a killer based on her contradictory reports as to what happened that night, blaming her boss, reported unusual behaviour and a the inconsistent alibi story.

As H says, that may have been desperation and fear rather than guilt. It's also worth noting she was only 19/20 at the time, didn't speak much Italian and the whole interview took place, supposedly under duress and in a foreign language.

I guess her story will come out in time.

IT's very similar to that poor backpacker girl whose husband/fiance was murdered when they were both kidnapped in the outback. For years she was regarded as being complicit as it was 'impossible' she could have escaped as she described.

Then in court, they handcuffed her from behind and asked her to demonstrate how she managed to escape. She just sat down on the floor and slid the cuffs under her legs and was able to run away. Took about 4 seconds....

The media print a lot of sensationalist crap and twist every innocent thing to be malevolent.

[Mars_ax]

"Foxy Knoxy"?, this bitch is seriously ugly, and humm, a horrible speaker.

Amanda Knox's tearful return to the U.S.

[Kev]

"Foxy Knoxy"?, this bitch is seriously ugly, and humm, a horrible speaker.

Amanda Knox's tearful return to the U.S.

First speech after 4 years in prison with the world hating you, not easy to look your best.

Also, horrible speaker? Imagine how most of us would sound after 4 years inside for murder and the media scrutiny she has endured. You can't exactly expect her to sound like Clarence Darrow.
By Christmas she will be a hottie again.

[ono]

She's not dealing from a full deck. Not that this makes her a murderer.

I understand that the Italian police completely fucked up with all the forensic evidence, so it's very difficult to prove she had a part in it.

However, other evidence is very, very sketchy. At best, it makes her out to be a complete maniac. At worst, it suggests she is a murderer or an accomplice.

Claiming she witnessed her boss carry out the murder is beyond sick and i don't understand how a grueling 14 hour interrogation (as bad as that may be) can lead you to making such an accusation.
I can understand a person being manipulated into telling half truths during an interview and i understand that police can give you leading questions so your version of events fills the gaps in their current theories. What i can't understand is how a person would lie to the point where they say they witnessed somebody kill somebody else. That's either one hell of a law breaking interrogation where the police have forced her to make that statement, or she is a complete and utter fruitcake. Or she knows what really happened and she's covering for herself or somebody else.

Then all of the other minor pieces of evidence where she and her then boyfriend tried to create an alibi. There's just too many lies in there. Pointless lies that wouldn't matter unless you were trying to cover your own back.

The staged break in. The fact that she was seen buying bleach the following morning, when she claimed to be in bed. The fact that she confirmed the cause of death to one of her British friends, when the actual cause hadn't been released yet. The fact that she blamed her vagueness of what happened on her smoking weed that night.

I'll stop short of saying she's done it, because i wasn't there. I didn't see it. But something doesn't sit well at all.

[Kev]

She's not dealing from a full deck. Not that this makes her a murderer.

I understand that the Italian police completely fucked up with all the forensic evidence, so it's very difficult to prove she had a part in it.

However, other evidence is very, very sketchy. At best, it makes her out to be a complete maniac. At worst, it suggests she is a murderer or an accomplice.

Claiming she witnessed her boss carry out the murder is beyond sick and i don't understand how a grueling 14 hour interrogation (as bad as that may be) can lead you to making such an accusation.
I can understand a person being manipulated into telling half truths during an interview and i understand that police can give you leading questions so your version of events fills the gaps in their current theories. What i can't understand is how a person would lie to the point where they say they witnessed somebody kill somebody else. That's either one hell of a law breaking interrogation where the police have forced her to make that statement, or she is a complete and utter fruitcake. Or she knows what really happened and she's covering for herself or somebody else.

Then all of the other minor pieces of evidence where she and her then boyfriend tried to create an alibi. There's just too many lies in there. Pointless lies that wouldn't matter unless you were trying to cover your own back.

The staged break in. The fact that she was seen buying bleach the following morning, when she claimed to be in bed. The fact that she confirmed the cause of death to one of her British friends, when the actual cause hadn't been released yet. The fact that she blamed her vagueness of what happened on her smoking weed that night.

I'll stop short of saying she's done it, because i wasn't there. I didn't see it. But something doesn't sit well at all.

A lot of those claims against her might be innacurate or completely made up though. As I said above, go through some of the stuff about Joanna Lees that is still on the net, all the 'lies' and mistruths she told, everything that didn't add up, all the reasons why she must have been guilty, and then realise that a few years later she was completely and totally vindicated. The same with Colin Stagg, who had his life completely ruined and was totally innocent.

The point is Amanda Knox hasn't been able to give her side of the story or respond to any of the claims yet, everything is reported in the paper and given a malevolent spin.

This idea of her being satanic and diabolical because she liked to party and sleep around....really? Like 90% of student girls her age aren't doing the same

The stories about buying blach and talking to a friend about the murder just sound like bits of gosspi to me, that very well might not even be true.

Her boss Mr Lumumba I presume you agree was completely innocent. So why then did he delete a text message he sent to Amanda Knox on the night of the murder saying 'I will see you later'? And why was there a signal trace from his phone at the cottage shortly afterwards?

We know now he had nothing to do with it so these 'incriminating' actions are presumably entirely cooincidental, and that could just as easily be true of the majority of the strange events surround Knox...

At the end of the day we will likely never know what happened but as I understand they found no actual evidence that linked Knox to the murder at all. The break in, the buying of bleach etc have not been shown to have been by her either as I understand it.

[Mars_ax]

She's not dealing from a full deck. Not that this makes her a murderer.

I understand that the Italian police completely fucked up with all the forensic evidence, so it's very difficult to prove she had a part in it.

However, other evidence is very, very sketchy. At best, it makes her out to be a complete maniac. At worst, it suggests she is a murderer or an accomplice.

Claiming she witnessed her boss carry out the murder is beyond sick and i don't understand how a grueling 14 hour interrogation (as bad as that may be) can lead you to making such an accusation.
I can understand a person being manipulated into telling half truths during an interview and i understand that police can give you leading questions so your version of events fills the gaps in their current theories. What i can't understand is how a person would lie to the point where they say they witnessed somebody kill somebody else. That's either one hell of a law breaking interrogation where the police have forced her to make that statement, or she is a complete and utter fruitcake. Or she knows what really happened and she's covering for herself or somebody else.

Then all of the other minor pieces of evidence where she and her then boyfriend tried to create an alibi. There's just too many lies in there. Pointless lies that wouldn't matter unless you were trying to cover your own back.

The staged break in. The fact that she was seen buying bleach the following morning, when she claimed to be in bed. The fact that she confirmed the cause of death to one of her British friends, when the actual cause hadn't been released yet. The fact that she blamed her vagueness of what happened on her smoking weed that night.

I'll stop short of saying she's done it, because i wasn't there. I didn't see it. But something doesn't sit well at all.

Right, and it's hard to imagine that Knox wasn't involved in some kind of way.

[Fenster]

I think Bilbo and H are right here. Joanna Lees (backpack murder) was guilty as hell in the media until it turned out she was innocent.

Ever heard about the West Memphis Three? These poor fuckers just spent 20 years in prison basically on the back of a borderline retarded kids "confession." Convicted with ZERO evidence or motive.

[Mars_ax]

I think Bilbo and H are right here. Joanna Lees (backpack murder) was guilty as hell in the media until it turned out she was innocent.

Ever heard about the West Memphis Three? These poor fuckers just spent 20 years in prison basically on the back of a borderline retarded kids "confession." Convicted with ZERO evidence or motive.

Knox may or may not really be guilty, the bottom line is, the Italian prosecutions flimsy "evidence" against her should never have supported a murder conviction in the first place.