Amanda Knox Verdict

[GhostofPotvin29]

I like this quote from the prosecutor who lost:

?Let's wait and we will see who was right. The first court or the appeal court,? Mignini told The Associated Press on Tuesday. ?This trial was done under unacceptable media pressure.?

Riiiight - because the original trial really flew under the radar.

 

[TheMightyOdin]

I wonder what would have happened if Amanda doesn't look the way she does. Young, attractive, almost delicate.

If she had been overweight, with missing teeth, etc...  I don't think she would have gotten the same level of support.

 

[TML fan]

I wonder what would have happened if Amanda doesn't look the way she does. Young, attractive, almost delicate.

If she had been overweight, with missing teeth, etc...  I don't think she would have gotten the same level of support.

Jessica Biel will probably be playing her in the movie

 

[Kin]

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.

Then who killed Kurt Cobain?

 

[TheMightyOdin]

I wonder what would have happened if Amanda doesn't look the way she does. Young, attractive, almost delicate.

If she had been overweight, with missing teeth, etc...  I don't think she would have gotten the same level of support.

Jessica Biel will probably be playing her in the movie

Actually I think I saw that Hayden, the cheerleader from the Heroes series, is going to play that role.

 

[TML fan]

Are they actually making a movie? I was just joking...

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

I'm sure there are plenty of attractive women in prison who we hear nothing about.

 

[Kin]

I'm sure there are plenty of attractive women in prison who we hear nothing about.

That's true. I've seen several films to that effect.

 

[CarltonTheBear]

Are they actually making a movie? I was just joking...

No, no, they aren't making a movie about it. It's already been made:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1783413/

 

[TML fan]

Wow they don't waste any time do they?

 

[Number 5]

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.

Then who killed Kurt Cobain?

Michael Dewitt

 

[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.

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?

This reminds me of Gattaca: You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't. They find a hair follicle from Ethan Hawke and assume he killed a colleague because they found a hair follicle.

Anyway, it's still problematic because the police did everything they could to produce samples to implicate her. I think this falls more under corruption than Amanda Knox being an evil genius and removing all trace of herself in the apartment. I think the likelihood of that is very farfetched. Even if she's cleaning fingerprints and whatnot I would be very surprised for her to catch every single follicle, every single fingerprint, every single footprint, every single piece of skin or dandruff.

And regardless the most important aspect is that there is no DNA implicating her being there at the scene of the crime, while evidence exists that Rudy Guede was there. I don't think she would be able to pick and choose which samples to remove and which samples to keep. I also find it very unlikely that Guede would trust Sollecito and Knox to clean up while he high tails it to Germany.

This article by a former FBI agent should shed light on the subject:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/38969942/ns/today-today_people/t/former-fbi-agent-amanda-knox-innocent/#.Toy-HJsUqso

Some people will say he's speaking because Americans like to help their own. Personally, I think that's crazy. I'm sure there have been plenty of Americans abroad who committed murder and did not receive support from any part of the American government. I think it's such an easy and weak argument to make: "She's pretty, so she gets support" or "She's American, so she gets support." There's a lot of people out there who would love to lynch Casey Anthony right now.

 

[TML fan]

I think you've got CSI syndrome, Bender. You're so focused on the DNA evidence that you won't even consider other possibilities.

The judge in the initial trial ruled that the murder was carried out by multiple attackers (iirc) so where are the other attackers? WHY were the police trying so hard to implicate Knox? Corruption? To what end? Why did Guede implicate her in that letter he wrote in prison? Why did she implicate some random person? Why were her stories inconsistent? Duress? That was never proven. She could easily be lying. Why did they continue prosecuting Knox after they caught Guede? What purpose does that serve?

Just so were clear, I agree with overturning the verdict. There is not enough evidence for a conviction and I believe in that type of system of justice. I think, however, that there is more than enough reason to cast suspicion on her and question the validity of her story.

Edit: it's also entirely possible that she's completely innocent, and that there's no evidence because she simply wasn't there. I just don't buy it. I'm just trying to explain why I think the way I do.

 

[Number 5]

I think you've got CSI syndrome, Bender. You're so focused on the DNA evidence that you won't even consider other possibilities.

The judge in the initial trial ruled that the murder was carried out by multiple attackers (iirc) so where are the other attackers? WHY were the police trying so hard to implicate Knox? Corruption? To what end? Why did Guede implicate her in that letter he wrote in prison? Why did she implicate some random person? Why were her stories inconsistent? Duress? That was never proven. She could easily be lying. Why did they continue prosecuting Knox after they caught Guede? What purpose does that serve?

Just so were clear, I agree with overturning the verdict. There is not enough evidence for a conviction and I believe in that type of system of justice. I think, however, that there is more than enough reason to cast suspicion on her and question the validity of her story.

Edit: it's also entirely possible that she's completely innocent, and that there's no evidence because she simply wasn't there. I just don't buy it. I'm just trying to explain why I think the way I do.

You don't buy it?

But you buy the idea that a young couple, after smoking some pot, got together with a thrid party they'd never met, had a sex orgy gone awry, murdered the girl, and then rigged the scene so that only the third party would be detected?

Wow. Just wow.

If you can't see that she's clearly innocent, and not just not guilty, then I've got a piece of land in Florida you're likely to want.

 

[TML fan]

I think you've got CSI syndrome, Bender. You're so focused on the DNA evidence that you won't even consider other possibilities.

The judge in the initial trial ruled that the murder was carried out by multiple attackers (iirc) so where are the other attackers? WHY were the police trying so hard to implicate Knox? Corruption? To what end? Why did Guede implicate her in that letter he wrote in prison? Why did she implicate some random person? Why were her stories inconsistent? Duress? That was never proven. She could easily be lying. Why did they continue prosecuting Knox after they caught Guede? What purpose does that serve?

Just so were clear, I agree with overturning the verdict. There is not enough evidence for a conviction and I believe in that type of system of justice. I think, however, that there is more than enough reason to cast suspicion on her and question the validity of her story.

Edit: it's also entirely possible that she's completely innocent, and that there's no evidence because she simply wasn't there. I just don't buy it. I'm just trying to explain why I think the way I do.

You don't buy it?

But you buy the idea that a young couple, after smoking some pot, got together with a thrid party they'd never met, had a sex orgy gone awry, murdered the girl, and then rigged the scene so that only the third party would be detected?

Wow. Just wow.

If you can't see that she's clearly innocent, and not just not guilty, then I've got a piece of land in Florida you're likely to want.

Maybe she hated Kercher, hired the guy she buys pot from to rape her, rape went bad so he killed her and she planned the whole thing?

Does that sound so incredibly far fetched?

Maybe if you opened your mind just a little bit, you'd see that there's a whole world of possibilities outside of what you read on the Internet...

 

[Number 5]

I think you've got CSI syndrome, Bender. You're so focused on the DNA evidence that you won't even consider other possibilities.

The judge in the initial trial ruled that the murder was carried out by multiple attackers (iirc) so where are the other attackers? WHY were the police trying so hard to implicate Knox? Corruption? To what end? Why did Guede implicate her in that letter he wrote in prison? Why did she implicate some random person? Why were her stories inconsistent? Duress? That was never proven. She could easily be lying. Why did they continue prosecuting Knox after they caught Guede? What purpose does that serve?

Just so were clear, I agree with overturning the verdict. There is not enough evidence for a conviction and I believe in that type of system of justice. I think, however, that there is more than enough reason to cast suspicion on her and question the validity of her story.

Edit: it's also entirely possible that she's completely innocent, and that there's no evidence because she simply wasn't there. I just don't buy it. I'm just trying to explain why I think the way I do.

You don't buy it?

But you buy the idea that a young couple, after smoking some pot, got together with a thrid party they'd never met, had a sex orgy gone awry, murdered the girl, and then rigged the scene so that only the third party would be detected?

Wow. Just wow.

If you can't see that she's clearly innocent, and not just not guilty, then I've got a piece of land in Florida you're likely to want.

Maybe she hated Kercher, hired the guy she buys pot from to rape her, rape went bad so he killed her and she planned the whole thing?

Does that sound so incredibly far fetched?

Maybe if you opened your mind just a little bit, you'd see that there's a whole world of possibilities outside of what you read on the Internet...

Yes. Yes, it does sound incredibly far fetched.

While I don't preclude the possibility that is what happened, all evidence clearly show that it is among the least likely scenarios. Up there with a gang of Shriner midgets storming the building and doing it. Go-karts and all.

 

[TML fan]

No, ALL the evidence points to her likely not being in the room or having thrust the knife in herself. THAT'S IT.

What's more likely? A corrupt system tries to throw an innocent girl in jail for NO reason, or a corrupt system trying to use incomplete or faulty evidence to put a guilty woman in jail for murder?

 

[Number 5]

No, ALL the evidence points to her likely not being in the room or having thrust the knife in herself. THAT'S IT.

What's more likely? A corrupt system tries to throw an innocent girl in jail for NO reason, or a corrupt system trying to use incomplete or faulty evidence to put a guilty woman in jail for murder?

I give up. This is a troll, right? You can't possibly be this dense. You're not a flyers fan.

 

[Newbury]

Are they actually making a movie? I was just joking...

No, no, they aren't making a movie about it. It's already been made:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1783413/

Whoa. Strange, but since the hot chick from Heroes is playing Knox I'll have to check it out somehow.

 

[TML fan]

No, ALL the evidence points to her likely not being in the room or having thrust the knife in herself. THAT'S IT.

What's more likely? A corrupt system tries to throw an innocent girl in jail for NO reason, or a corrupt system trying to use incomplete or faulty evidence to put a guilty woman in jail for murder?

I give up. This is a troll, right? You can't possibly be this dense. You're not a flyers fan.

You don't have to give up. Unlike you, I'm not trying to convince you of anything or change your mind. I'm just trying to explain my own thoughts. I don't take any of this personally...