Amanda Knox Verdict

[TML fan]

Seems to me that she's lying. Can't get her story straight. The only duress she was under was to come up with a convincing alibi.

I believe in a justice system that doesn't convict people without evidence, so I agree with releasing her. I don't, however, believe for one second that she wasn't involved or at least knew about it because of all the holes she has in her story. I think she got away with this one.

 

[Manson]

Seems to me that she's lying. Can't get her story straight. The only duress she was under was to come up with a convincing alibi.

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[TML fan]

Seems to me that she's lying. Can't get her story straight. The only duress she was under was to come up with a convincing alibi.

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I'm not. I'm questioning the validity of her story and realizing that human beings have the capacity to lie.

Also, explain the witchhunt? If the police already have their man, why are they going after her?

 

[Bender]

"There was no forensic evidence directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom in which Kercher was murdered.[53] Knox's fingerprints were not found in Kercher's bedroom, nor in her own bedroom.[28][73] Investigators argued that a break-in had been staged at the flat, partly because the window seemed to have been broken after the room had been ransacked.[74]"
In 2009, a group of American forensic specialists wrote an open letter expressing concern that procedures used by most laboratories in the United States to ensure accurate results had not been followed in this case. They stated that a chemical test for blood had returned a negative result for the knife, that the amounts of other DNA were sufficient only for a low-level, partial DNA profile, and that it was unlikely that all traces of blood could have been removed from the knife while retaining the DNA that was discovered.[75] In December 2010, the judge presiding over Knox and Sollecito's appeal ordered a re-examination of the DNA evidence pertaining to the knife and the bra clasp.[28][63] The report concluded that the DNA evidence used to convict Knox and Sollecito did not adhere to international standards for the collection and analysis of the DNA, that the evidence was unreliable, and that the previous test results could have been the result of contamination.[64][65] The report concludes that the police either mishandled evidence or failed to follow proper forensic procedure 54 times.[76]"

Her alibi, as far as I know, became solid afterwards, stating she spent the evening with Sollecito in his apartment. To be honest, it sounds like the witnesses are more problematic. One witness stated months after the fact that she was at a supermarket when she was at Sollecito's apartment. An associate did not see her.

You won't have 100% conclusive evidence, and this is why cases like these are tough, but the whole point is to show what's more plausible: Her killing Meredith with no DNA evidence and an alibi, Guede killing Meredith with DNA evidence and no alibi. No one developed an even remotely plausible motive for it, either. Unless you're very, very disturbed, most people don't kill other people without a motive, and Guede's motive is as good as any: He knew Kercher, he decided to rape her, he needed cash and wanted to steal things. Done. There's no reason to bring anybody else into this.

 

[Manson]

Seems to me that she's lying. Can't get her story straight. The only duress she was under was to come up with a convincing alibi.

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I'm not. I'm questioning the validity of her story and realizing that human beings have the capacity to lie.

While ignoring a mountain of other evidence.

 

[Manson]

Seems to me that she's lying. Can't get her story straight. The only duress she was under was to come up with a convincing alibi.

I believe in a justice system that doesn't convict people without evidence, so I agree with releasing her. I don't, however, believe for one second that she wasn't involved or at least knew about it because of all the holes she has in her story. I think she got away with this one.

Well congratulations, you haven't researched the facts, but you formed your opinion anyway.

 

[Bender]

Seems to me that she's lying. Can't get her story straight. The only duress she was under was to come up with a convincing alibi.

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I'm not. I'm questioning the validity of her story and realizing that human beings have the capacity to lie.

Also, explain the witchhunt? If the police already have their man, why are they going after her?

Well we aren't private investigators, we can't explain everything. I have no idea why they would waste their time trying to convict her and Sollecito to be perfectly honest. In my opinion, you have to be pretty sure of yourself to say her motive was a sex induced orgy gone wrong - the fact that the forensic evidence indicates that's very far from the truth makes me question the police. I believe there was some level of corruption on this case, and once the media caught wind: bam, character assassination. So the prosecution is emboldened by a story she confessed to (which she did under coercion and duress), and the flames continue to be fanned by the media.

But like I said: I don't think it's fair to conclude she got away with murder when most of the evidence states otherwise. There's no indication she was ever there, not a trace.

 

[Bender]

Here's a link for her first note after the interrogation:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

I'm going to use Occam's Razor here:

She smoked up with her boyfriend, had some fun and likely went to sleep.

1) When most people smoke up they get drowsy as hell. I have a feeling she's like many girls and can't handle alcohol or drugs as easily as men.

2) The note rings as extremely genuine. I think you'd have to talk to a psychologist about it, but I think if people beat into your head that something happened one way you end up believing it.

3) She repeatedly said her first account is wrong, and it sounds like she wants to find the truth. Usually a person would 100% maintain their innocence, but I think her wanting to find the truth speaks to how much of an honest person she is.

Almost nobody's story is airtight because there aren't any unbiased witnesses to give an account without holes! That's the whole point: nobody is there to corroborate this stuff. So in my view, some inaccuracy is to be expected. I think it would be a very poor indicator of guilt.

When your story changes repeatedly in an effort to save your own skin with mounting and properly scrutinized evidence placed against you, then you have something, ala Rudy Guede.

 

[Kin]

In my opinion, you have to be pretty sure of yourself to say her motive was a sex induced orgy gone wrong - the fact that the forensic evidence indicates that's very far from the truth makes me question the police.

In fairness to the Italian police, that probably accounts for 90% of the motives they have to deal with.

 

[Pucken Chronic]

As long as it means I don't have to watch an American on trial in Italy on my Canadian news every freaken day, I don't care what the verdict is. Get this stupidity outta my daily news. Seriously, who gives a damn?

 

[TML fan]

Seems to me that she's lying. Can't get her story straight. The only duress she was under was to come up with a convincing alibi.

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

No, I'm not. I'm questioning the validity of her story and realizing that human beings have the capacity to lie.

While ignoring a mountain of other evidence.

I'm not ignoring anything. There is not enough evidence to convict her. That doesn't mean she wasnt involved. It just means they can't prove it. If they already had their man, why did they continue to go after her? Why was her story full of holes? There is more than enough reason to mistrust her but not enough to convict her.

And Manson, if you think you have all the facts you're pretty naive. I never said she should have been found guilty. I said I think she was involved because of all the inconsistencies in her defense. I believe she is lying.
Show me evidence (and not just the lack of evidence) that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that she is innocent and I'll shut up.

Bender, don't you find it odd that there was NO DNA evidence in the apartment at all? Not even fingerprints in her own room? These girls are supposed to be roommates, no? Dont you think the Police would have found SOMETHING of her in the victims room?

 

[Manson]

I'm not ignoring anything. There is not enough evidence to convict her. That doesn't mean she wasnt involved. It just means they can't prove it. If they already had their man, why did they continue to go after her? Why was her story full of holes? There is more than enough reason to mistrust her but not enough to convict her.

And Manson, if you think you have all the facts you're pretty naive. I never said she should have been found guilty. I said I think she did it because of all the inconsistencies in her defense. I believe she is lying.

You're ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the crime scene.  There is no trace of her being there, in a crime scene that would have had tons of proof of whoever was there, just like there is tons of proof of Rudy Guede being there.  The room was an ABSOLUTE blood bath. 

So no, it doesn't just mean they can't prove if she was there, it means she wasn't there.  Clearly, you're not comprehending this.

The prosecution continued their "witchhunt" because the prosecutor Guiliano Mignini is corrupt.  He was part of the corrupt interrogation and was the lead prosecutor in court (which you've been told already).  He was more concerned with saving his own career and winning the case because it was his own theory that there were 4 people involved in this satanic sex orgy gone wrong.  He's done this exact same thing before in a previous case, with the exact same motive and lost and was completely embarassed... First he said the motive was a satanic sex orgy (sounds believable right?), then when that was thrown out, he changed the motive to revenge due to "a rage caused by smoking marijuana" (again, very believeable), then that was disproven, so he changed the motive to a financial motive, again disproven, so he finally said with today's violence, there doesn't have to be a motive.  He was absolutely determined to find a way to convict them, even without a motive or evidence.  He was just determined to win the argument for his own selfish interests.  Sounds like you might get along well together.

You've already been explained, in detail, why her story was "full of holes"...you're cleary not reading these posts.  The interrogation was incredibly corrupt...re-read the posts, I'm not re-posting.

You keep say you're reading everything but you keep asking the same questions.

At least read Wikipedia ffs. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#Prosecution_and_defence_arguments

 

[Manson]

Bender, don't you find it odd that there was NO DNA evidence in the apartment at all? Not even fingerprints in her own room? These girls are supposed to be roommates, no? Dont you think the Police would have found SOMETHING of her in the victims room?

So what did she do, wipe away all her and her boyfriends bloodstains and DNA in a completely bloodsoaked room and just leave Rudy Guede's?  Are you hearing yourself?

 

[TML fan]

Bender, don't you find it odd that there was NO DNA evidence in the apartment at all? Not even fingerprints in her own room? These girls are supposed to be roommates, no? Dont you think the Police would have found SOMETHING of her in the victims room?

So what did she do, wipe away all her and her boyfriends bloodstains and DNA in a completely bloodsoaked room and just leave Rudy Guede's?  Are you hearing yourself?

Thats what I'm asking! Why is there not a trace of her in the room? Like a hair follicle or something? She lived with this girl and yet nothing could be found of her in the room? Doesn't that strike you as the least bit odd?

Honestly man, turn off CSI, shut down the Internet, and try to use your own brain for the first time in your life. There are a lot of inconsistencies in this whole thing. Even your own explanation of the prosecutor's corruption is more in line with someone who is just stupid and incompetent than some corrupt mastermind. I mean, why would this prosecutor who by your own words had already been discredited once, go out of his way to discredit himself another THREE times to catch a killer in a case where the killer had already been caught??

 

[Manson]

Bender, don't you find it odd that there was NO DNA evidence in the apartment at all? Not even fingerprints in her own room? These girls are supposed to be roommates, no? Dont you think the Police would have found SOMETHING of her in the victims room?

So what did she do, wipe away all her and her boyfriends bloodstains and DNA in a completely bloodsoaked room and just leave Rudy Guede's?  Are you hearing yourself?

Thats what I'm asking! Why is there not a trace of her in the room? Like a hair follicle or something? She lived with this girl and yet nothing could be found of her in the room? Doesn't that strike you as the least bit odd?

Honestly man, turn off CSI, shut down the Internet, and try to use your own brain for the first time in your life. There are a lot of inconsistencies in this whole thing. Even your own explanation of the inspectors corruption is more in line with someone who is just stupid and incompetent. I mean, why would this inspector who by your own words had already been discredited once, go out of his way to discredit himself another THREE times to catch a killer in a case where the killer had already been caught??

So what are you even suggesting?  That she somehow removed her hair follicles after an incredibly violent murder?

It doesn't strike me as odd that there is no DNA of hers in a room she's never been in.  She obviously didn't go into a room that wasn't hers.  It also didn't strike any one on either side as odd or anyone in the media as odd.  So for, you're the first one who finds it odd.  I find that odd.

 

[TML fan]

I'm suggesting that it's possible. You're only viewing her ad Amanda Knox the poor sweet American Princess. Do you actually know anything about her? Given all the inconsistencies in this story, I'm rather suspicious.

I find it odd that she never went into her roommates room in the time they were living together. I've lived with 3 different roommates and I cant count the number of times I've been in their rooms, for whatever reason. I'm sure if my roommates checked for evidence they'd find a fingerprint or something...I find it odd that they didnt find anything.

 

[Manson]

I'm suggesting that it's possible. You're only viewing her ad Amanda Knox the poor sweet American Princess. Do you actually know anything about her? Given all the inconsistencies in this story, I'm rather suspicious.

I find it odd that she never went into her roommates room in the time they were living together. I've lived with 3 different roommates and I cant count the number of times I've been in their rooms, for whatever reason. I'm sure if my roommates checked for evidence they'd find a fingerprint or something...I find it odd that they didnt find anything.

More read, less post.

 

[Guilt Trip]

Bender, don't you find it odd that there was NO DNA evidence in the apartment at all? Not even fingerprints in her own room? These girls are supposed to be roommates, no? Dont you think the Police would have found SOMETHING of her in the victims room?

So what did she do, wipe away all her and her boyfriends bloodstains and DNA in a completely bloodsoaked room and just leave Rudy Guede's?  Are you hearing yourself?

Thats what I'm asking! Why is there not a trace of her in the room? Like a hair follicle or something? She lived with this girl and yet nothing could be found of her in the room? Doesn't that strike you as the least bit odd?

Honestly man, turn off CSI, shut down the Internet, and try to use your own brain for the first time in your life. There are a lot of inconsistencies in this whole thing. Even your own explanation of the inspectors corruption is more in line with someone who is just stupid and incompetent. I mean, why would this inspector who by your own words had already been discredited once, go out of his way to discredit himself another THREE times to catch a killer in a case where the killer had already been caught??

So what are you even suggesting?  That she somehow removed her hair follicles after an incredibly violent murder?

It doesn't strike me as odd that there is no DNA of hers in a room she's never been in.  She obviously didn't go into a room that wasn't hers.  It also didn't strike any one on either side as odd or anyone in the media as odd.  So for, you're the first one who finds it odd.  I find that odd.

TML makes a valid point. It was stated above that Knox's prints weren't found in Kercher's room...they weren't even found in her own room.

"There was no forensic evidence directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom in which Kercher was murdered.[53] Knox's fingerprints were not found in Kercher's bedroom, nor in her own bedroom.[28][73] Investigators argued that a break-in had been staged at the flat, partly because the window seemed to have been broken after the room had been ransacked.[74]"

I think it's virtually impossible not to have your own fingerprint in your own room. Not saying she killed her, or was in on it, but this strikes me as very very odd.

 

[TML fan]

I'm suggesting that it's possible. You're only viewing her ad Amanda Knox the poor sweet American Princess. Do you actually know anything about her? Given all the inconsistencies in this story, I'm rather suspicious.

I find it odd that she never went into her roommates room in the time they were living together. I've lived with 3 different roommates and I cant count the number of times I've been in their rooms, for whatever reason. I'm sure if my roommates checked for evidence they'd find a fingerprint or something...I find it odd that they didnt find anything.

More read, less post.

What I read isn't necessarily the truth.

 

[Manson]

TML makes a valid point. It was stated above that Knox's prints weren't found in Kercher's room...they weren't even found in her own room.

"There was no forensic evidence directly indicating that Knox had been in the bedroom in which Kercher was murdered.[53] Knox's fingerprints were not found in Kercher's bedroom, nor in her own bedroom.[28][73] Investigators argued that a break-in had been staged at the flat, partly because the window seemed to have been broken after the room had been ransacked.[74]"

I think it's virtually impossible not to have your own fingerprint in your own room. Not saying she killed her, or was in on it, but this strikes me as very very odd.

There were fingerprints in her own room but they were smeared and smudged.  There were no forensically viable fingerprints in her own room, but there were fingerprints.  There were no forensically viable fingerprints on Kurt Cobain's gun either.