Amanda Knox guilty!

[flexy]

Guede [...] maintains that Knox and another figure he could not recognize were at the scene.

I think anybody who can read the whole case in Italian would reach the conclusion that all three are guilty and acted together.

"Fact" is that (IMO) not even she herself actually KNOWS what took place in that night, this is clear after reading several statements.

She DOES likely NOT KNOW whether she was actually there, let alone that if she was there what exactly happened.

She DOES likely NOT KNOW about her involvement, whether passive or active in the murder.

Why? Because they were all high that night.

If she had any conscious knowledge of any of the above she would have had a credible alibi right from the beginning...or at least would have stated where she was at the given time without instantly contradicting herself.

She did NOT. In fact she lied about her whereabouts ... and later on accused someone else of the murder. Some things are fundamentally wrong there.

 

[Printer Bandit]

i hope i'm never murdered in a weird or scandalous way. i'd hate for people to always remember me in that context.

 

[flexy]

But Amanda definitely wanted her dead! For what? It sounds like they're throwing shit against the wall to get it to stick.

You're looking for a rationalization there but you don't NEED one.

Most of the time, when arguments come up and someone might end up injured or dead there must not be "logic" or a rationale behind it. Give people some drugs and add some more or less trivial reasons for a fight...you won't know the outcome.

What I know is that on that specific date (Oct 31, Nov 1st) rent was due and that it's LIKELY in my opinion that a fight over money could have started, rent money which maybe Meredith had stored somewhere.

Someone might have known about this money and took it and Meredith found out. Or someone asked Meredith for money (drugs?) knowing that she kept rent money...and she refused.

The rest would be that an argument quickly turned crazy (mind you, drugs involved) and at some point someone ended up dead. This is NOT a far-fetched scenario.

I personally had the impression after reading some books that M + A were not necessarily really "friends"....that this relationship was at best "neutral" and there were some occasional arguments...well...typical roommate relationship...so there could've been the potential that an argument over money etc. could've quickly escalated...as opposed to some claims they were both "good friends" where it would be unthinkable that such an argument/fight would even happen.

 

[juiio]

I'm not an expert on this case but I am suspicious of testimony from a convicted killer that time will be taken off his sentence if he helps the Police.

He got a lesser sentence than Knox and Sollecito because he chose a fast track trial. In Italy, if you choose a fast track trial, your sentence (if convicted) is far shorter. In exchange, your trial is a lot shorter. If he had declined a fast track trial, he would be in the same palce as Sollecito and Knox are now.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

He got a lesser sentence than Knox and Sollecito because he chose a fast track trial. In Italy, if you choose a fast track trial, your sentence (if convicted) is far shorter. In exchange, your trial is a lot shorter. If he had declined a fast track trial, he would be in the same palce as Sollecito and Knox are now.

Ah I see, kind of I guess. Can you explain the seismologists being convicted of man slaughter for not predicting an Earthquake properly? Seriously I'd like to know more

 

[uclaLabrat]

You're looking for a rationalization there but you don't NEED one.

Most of the time, when arguments come up and someone might end up injured or dead there must not be "logic" or a rationale behind it. Give people some drugs and add some more or less trivial reasons for a fight...you won't know the outcome.

What I know is that on that specific date (Oct 31, Nov 1st) rent was due and that it's LIKELY in my opinion that a fight over money could have started, rent money which maybe Meredith had stored somewhere.

Someone might have known about this money and took it and Meredith found out. Or someone asked Meredith for money (drugs?) knowing that she kept rent money...and she refused.

The rest would be that an argument quickly turned crazy (mind you, drugs involved) and at some point someone ended up dead. This is NOT a far-fetched scenario.

I personally had the impression after reading some books that M + A were not necessarily really "friends"....that this relationship was at best "neutral" and there were some occasional arguments...well...typical roommate relationship...so there could've been the potential that an argument over money etc. could've quickly escalated...as opposed to some claims they were both "good friends" where it would be unthinkable that such an argument/fight would even happen.

Exactly...plausible, not far-fetched at all, but being based on ZERO EVIDENCE. You don't throw someone's life away based on plausibility.

 

[DigDog]

As an Italian.. wait let me rephrase that.

As someone who feels profoundly ashamed of being italian, i have no problem admitting the law system over there (the whole shebang, from the courts down to the police) is absolutely dire, and a good reason to leave italy forever.

Exactly...plausible, not far-fetched at all, but being based on ZERO EVIDENCE. You don't throw someone's life away based on plausibility.

In italy you do.

funny story; a few years back, some guy got fined for speeding on the highway. The speedcams had him going 220Kph (135mph, tnx google).
he showed up in court with his licence n registration, showing he owned a fiat 500.
No not the new one, this one:

A whopping 60hp, and a maximum speed of 110Kph (thats kilometers, not miles).

Well, guess what, the "burden of proof" was still on him, and since he couldn't prove that his car wasn't actually doing 220, he had to pay the fine.
(even considering that, with how un-aerodynamic that car is, it would involve totally rebuilding the frame and interior and fitting at least a 400hp engine)

What i always tell friends who "ooh, you're italian, i love italy":
Italy is great to visit, horrible to live in.

 

[juiio]

Ah I see, kind of I guess. Can you explain the seismologists being convicted of man slaughter for not predicting an Earthquake properly? Seriously I'd like to know more

I don't know any more about that than anyone else. Either there was negligence (outright lies in reports, etc) but headline that doesn't make for a sensational enough headline, or someone who is absolutely awful when it comes to anything science-related made a horrible judgment. I assume the latter.

 

[recoil80]

I seriously doubt that italys justice system is flawed. Italy is a develop country

our justice systems is a mess, believe me...

 

[Pacfanweb]

she was found guilty. then on re-trail found not-guilty and was allowed to leave the country. Then they retried her and found her guilty yet again. she gets to appeal that yet again.

So Yes she it would be under Double Jeopardy.

If there were such a thing in Italy's useless legal system.

 

[Fritzo]

"Fact" is that (IMO) not even she herself actually KNOWS what took place in that night, this is clear after reading several statements.

She DOES likely NOT KNOW whether she was actually there, let alone that if she was there what exactly happened.

She DOES likely NOT KNOW about her involvement, whether passive or active in the murder.

Why? Because they were all high that night.

If she had any conscious knowledge of any of the above she would have had a credible alibi right from the beginning...or at least would have stated where she was at the given time without instantly contradicting herself.

She did NOT. In fact she lied about her whereabouts ... and later on accused someone else of the murder. Some things are fundamentally wrong there.

Thanks Matlock!

 

[rudeguy]

ok...so probably no prison porn


Maybe a Thelma and Louise type porn? Life on the run and all that.

 

[Geosurface]

I'm reposting this post I made in the P&N thread about Knox because I think it has a very good link for people to check out - PBS documentary which sheds a lot of light on what happened to Knox.

she is, at least, guilty of slander and there are no doubt about that

...

accusing an innocent man was a very mean action so she deserved the time she spent in jail in the past.

I don't know... I find it pretty hard to agree. What she describes is a room full of police officials yelling at and breaking down a 20 year old girl with a tenuous grasp of Italian, for hours and hours without letting up, and that the police looked at her phone, saw that she'd texted her boss that night, and THEY came up with this notion that her boss surely must be involved. They fed her that idea, they broke her down, they completely abused someone who they never had any reason to suspect in the first place, and they fed her the idea that she must have been there, and so must her boss.

Did she at some point run with it a bit and give them what they wanted to hear? Sure. But if you look into false confessions as a phenomena, there are plenty of former investigators etc who have said "I could basically get someone like that (and most people in general) to say anything I wanted them to say, just give me a couple of hours with them."

Here's a fascinating link to a PBS program called "The Confessions" which deals with how this happens. Four military men back in 1997 ended up all confessing to a gang-rape/murder of this woman - and not a single one of them had anything to do with it. A fifth man whom none of them knew had actually done it, and done it alone.

"Three of the four men were sentenced to one or more life sentences in prison without the possibility of parole ...

A fifth man, Omar Ballard, was also convicted in the crime ... He is the only man whose DNA matches that found at the scene, and his confession states that he committed the crime by himself, with none of the other men involved. Forensic evidence is consistent with his story that there were no other participants"

Sound familiar?

The police were desperate to solve it and they latched onto someone innocent but whom they brow beat until he was so desperate for them to stop, he confessed. Problem was, his DNA didn't match that which was found at the scene. So they went back to him and pressured him and pressured him again, until he coughed up some random other Sailor's name he was vaguely acquainted with. Then they dragged that sailor in and brow beat him too until he confessed. Again, his DNA didn't match. So they got HIM to spit out another name, rinse and repeat. Until they had 4 innocent men who'd all confessed, and who were later found guilty. Pretty sick eh?

Now allow yourself to consider how many times that sort of thing happened before DNA testing, and where the wrongly convicted spent the rest of their days in jail for crimes they didn't commit. Pretty sobering thought.

It would be REALLY worth your time to watch that video and I strongly encourage everyone else here to do so too. It's fascinating and enlightening. They have an investigator demonstrate how it can be done, etc.

This is why I find it hard to agree that Knox is guilty of slander, and why I also find it hard to contemplate that three out of the Norfolk Four were guilty of slander too. I don't think you can really hold people - especially young, naive people who the police break down mentally - accountable for what they say in a situation like that.

 

[Fritzo]

As an Italian.. wait let me rephrase that.

As someone who feels profoundly ashamed of being italian, i have no problem admitting the law system over there (the whole shebang, from the courts down to the police) is absolutely dire, and a good reason to leave italy forever.



In italy you do.

funny story; a few years back, some guy got fined for speeding on the highway. The speedcams had him going 220Kph (135mph, tnx google).
he showed up in court with his licence n registration, showing he owned a fiat 500.
No not the new one, this one:

A whopping 60hp, and a maximum speed of 110Kph (thats kilometers, not miles).

Well, guess what, the "burden of proof" was still on him, and since he couldn't prove that his car wasn't actually doing 220, he had to pay the fine.
(even considering that, with how un-aerodynamic that car is, it would involve totally rebuilding the frame and interior and fitting at least a 400hp engine)

What i always tell friends who "ooh, you're italian, i love italy":
Italy is great to visit, horrible to live in.

Speedcams are a civil case because no officer is present at the time of the accusation. I civil cases, the burden of proof is on you.

Hate to tell ya, but it's the same way in the US.

 

[waggy]

Speedcams are a civil case because no officer is present at the time of the accusation. I civil cases, the burden of proof is on you.

Hate to tell ya, but it's the same way in the US.

yeah but in the US they would laugh this one out of court. they most times use common sense.

I have read reports of people getting tickets while standing still that say they were breaking the speed law. they got thrown out.

 

[Geosurface]

No, it's what happened the second time. She was convicted, then aquitted, then convicted again. Wrap your head around that.

I have no idea whether she likely did it or not. A lot of people seem convinced that she didn't, but I've never seen any kind of dispassionate examination of all the evidence, so I refuse to hold an opinion either way.

Flash back to a year ago or so I had very little knowledge of the case. I had a passing familiarity with a VERY rough outline of what had happened to the murdered girl, and a VERY rough idea of the controversy about Knox, etc.

I decided I was hearing about it frequently enough that I would take the time to look into it. I absorbed everything I could. Every documentary, article, audiobook, etc. I paid particularly close attention to anything which seemed, as you say, dispassionate and which was a "big picture" look at all the evidence, and the problems with a lot of the evidence.

I went from having no real opinion on it, to being almost completely certain of her and Sollecito's innocence. Well up over 99% certain.

The whole thing was a fiasco. The police were desperate to solve the case, they latched onto a couple of young, naive kids who they really had no legitimate basis to suspect, at all. Then they brow beat confessions out of them (which is very easy to do especially when you keep someone awake for hours and have an entire room of people yelling at them in a language they barely understand, and they're 20 years old and terrified) - and once the real evidence started pointing to the real killer (Guede, and Guede alone) they had already "bought in" to their Knox/Sollecito theory too much to let it go, in no small part due to not wanting to admit they'd been wrong and abused innocent people.

It only got more clownish since then, and if you want a good website which goes into the evidence, or at least works well as a "starter" - I recommend Injustice in Perugia

 

[Fritzo]

yeah but in the US they would laugh this one out of court. they most times use common sense.

I have read reports of people getting tickets while standing still that say they were breaking the speed law. they got thrown out.

They may be more sticklers of following the letter of the law, but all your friend had to do was provide documentation from the manufacturer of his car's top speed and it would have been dismissed.

We're more lenient in the US about those things, but if you get into a backwater money-starved county, you might face something similar.

 

[Geosurface]

You did not miss it. Her lawyers did an amazing job at buying publicity and/or selling the story to the media. That part almost never gets mentioned on the American media.

I *beg* of you to watch that PBS documentary I linked to a couple posts above this one. Please, and then report back. I'd greatly appreciate it. Let me know if you think those men were guilty of "slander."

She didn't try to "frame" Lamumba, the police latched onto her having innocuously texted her boss that night and they spun a narrative, and brought their freshly mentally broken pawn into it and had her expand on it. She was completely mentally destroyed by that point and would say anything. Once she got a chance to breath and mentally compose herself without a room full of people hounding her, she started to realize (faintly) what had happened to her and started trying to tell them what she'd said was completely unreliable. But they weren't interested in hearing that, they were interested in "solving" the case quickly.

the evidence on them staging the break-in is quite overwhelming.

Yea? Let's hear it.

 

[Tango]

"Fact" is that (IMO) not even she herself actually KNOWS what took place in that night, this is clear after reading several statements.

She DOES likely NOT KNOW whether she was actually there, let alone that if she was there what exactly happened.

She DOES likely NOT KNOW about her involvement, whether passive or active in the murder.

Why? Because they were all high that night.

If she had any conscious knowledge of any of the above she would have had a credible alibi right from the beginning...or at least would have stated where she was at the given time without instantly contradicting herself.

She did NOT. In fact she lied about her whereabouts ... and later on accused someone else of the murder. Some things are fundamentally wrong there.

The other thing her defense team was really good at was basically wiping off Sollecito from the narrative. If you read American press it always looks like it her trial, the American girl interviewed in a foreign land.
Sollecito is Italian, and was interviewed in his mother language, and was caught up in the same incongruences she did.

I have read all sorts of things. In an article they even commented on the judges wearing the Italian flag to make a nationalistic statement, where in fact they always wear it. It's their official uniform.

Since I know American journalists are in fact very good and would never miss something like that, I can't find any explanation but their defense lawyers steering the media to stir up sympathy in the public.

To me the clear eyebrow raiser is the attempt to frame somebody else in a deliberate way. If you are interviewed about something you know nothing of you would never do that, and you would definitely show some shock in the face of the murder of your friend. None of them did.

 

[Tango]

I *beg* of you to watch that PBS documentary I linked to a couple posts above this one. Please, and then report back. I'd greatly appreciate it. Let me know if you think those men were guilty of "slander."

She didn't try to "frame" Lamumba, the police latched onto her having innocuously texted her boss that night and they spun a narrative, and brought their freshly mentally broken pawn into it and had her expand on it. She was completely mentally destroyed by that point and would say anything. Once she got a chance to breath and mentally compose herself without a room full of people hounding her, she started to realize (faintly) what had happened to her and started trying to tell them what she'd said was completely unreliable. But they weren't interested in hearing that, they were interested in "solving" the case quickly.



Yea? Let's hear it.

I can't now, but I will. I did at the time read the acts of her and Sollecito's interviews and it was quite obvious that their story was (rather poorly to be honest) rehearsed, and when it was clear there were time and place incongruences they tried to change it.

This does not mean they should be found guilty. If many of the pieces of evidence are non admissible there might not be enough to prove the case. That's a different problem though. In fact I think in the final stage of the trial they will be acquitted.

P.s. What you say about Lamumba is not correct. She stated, and I quote "he is the murderer", as written in the official acts.

If you have talked to anybody who works in the field you know nobody makes such a direct accusation if he/she has no knowledge whatsoever of the crime. You are not trying to solve the case, just stating your alibi.
I am of course not saying that this should be enough to convict them.

 

[Jeeebus]

Speedcams are a civil case because no officer is present at the time of the accusation. I civil cases, the burden of proof is on you.

Hate to tell ya, but it's the same way in the US.

You do realize you're wrong on the burden of proof, right?

 

[Blackjack200]

I *beg* of you to watch that PBS documentary I linked to a couple posts above this one. Please, and then report back. I'd greatly appreciate it. Let me know if you think those men were guilty of "slander."

I just want to second this, I watched "The Confessions" a couple years ago and it was one of the most compelling and horrifying things I've ever seen. IIRC, some of those kids were still in jail or being punished in some way. I no longer view confessions as persuasive evidence.

I have to say that my biggest doubt on her guilt has always been a complete lack of any kind of plausible motive. Sex game gone wrong? High on drugs so they were totally out of control? None of that makes any sense to me.

 

[Blackjack200]

You do realize you're wrong on the burden of proof, right?

Seems like he'd be wrong on the civil/criminal thing to. Since when does an officer need to be present during the comission of a crime?

Maybe there's some nuance I'm missing here...

 

[Blackjack200]

I can't now, but I will. I did at the time read the acts of her and Sollecito's interviews and it was quite obvious that their story was (rather poorly to be honest) rehearsed, and when it was clear there were time and place incongruences they tried to change it.

Do you think trained interrigators, using a foreign language, going over the sequence of events over and over and over again for hours, scaring you by telling you that your story doesn't check out, could get some "incongruences" [sic] out of you?

Did you read a transcript of the entire interview? Does such a thing even exist?

 

[Tango]

I just want to second this, I watched "The Confessions" a couple years ago and it was one of the most compelling and horrifying things I've ever seen. IIRC, some of those kids were still in jail or being punished in some way. I no longer view confessions as persuasive evidence.

I have to say that my biggest doubt on her guilt has always been a complete lack of any kind of plausible motive. Sex game gone wrong? High on drugs so they were totally out of control? None of that makes any sense to me.

Recently a couple of guys were found guilty of murder. Their motive was being bored.

Also, the first version of Knox was being in the house with Lamumba (the guy she tried to frame). Later she maintained she was not in fact at her house that night.
Again, I a. Not saying tho should be enough to support a guilty verdict in court, but tells you more or less you need to know.