ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Amanda Knox to stand trial again(126 Posts)
Just announced. Stating that her acquittal was flawed. I wonder if she does have to go? I am sure when watching the acquittal that news said authorities couldn't make her return to Italy if a re-trial did happen.
They must be innocent because two nice middle class students wouldn't do that sort of thing.
I personally don't read the fail, but I did read Times reporter John Follain's book. He interviewed everyone involved, including defence lawyer (who believed that AK had the face of an angel so how could she have done it - again ), anyway after reading the whole book, I'm afraid it didn't look good for AK and RS. The thing the Italians effed up was not closing off the crime scene and carabinieri etc trampling over it, however, the statements, false accusations and very weird behaviour are what made the Italians then believe Guede had accomplices. Also in the book, the Kerchers do believe AK was involved.
I think some of us will never agree on this.
My point is that he lied about not being with Knox all evening, lied about being online until 1am - so he's a liar. His whole statement was full of lies. That, to me, is suspicious
I agree - it's very suspicious. But we do need to understand what was going on with K & S when they were coming up with these fantastical statements. The police, at one point, were questioning them concurrently - an officer moving between each room. K was told that S had implicated her, S was told that K had implicated him. They were both told that the other had sneaked out while the other was sleeping to do the deed so there was huge confusion.
It would have been in the very best interests of both to say that they were alone together all night - and they tried to. All the evidence available indeed suggests that they were - it's only when the police started accusing the other of sinister movements that their stories started to change, becoming more and more ludicrous.
S had no reason to lie - he was home alone with K. So why did he? THAT is what's really suspicious. It was a lie that did him no favours at all, and that smacks to me of coercion.
They must be innocent because two nice middle class students wouldn't do that sort of thing
Are you completely unable to have a discussion about something without trying to insult the people who hold a different view to you? How childish.
This has nothing to do with the personalities or backgrounds of the people involved. Nothing. It's to do with the evidence. Are you familiar with the concept of evidence in any way?
I hope you never end up on a jury.
Nancy66 The DA announced a few years ago that the Ramseys were no longer considered suspects because of new DNA evidence.
I think that was an outgoing DA and the incoming one wasn't quite so forthcoming.
EVen so - I can think of two very high-profile Uk cases where convicted killers have been released on appeal and declared the victims of a miscarriage of justice - where the police are convinced otherwise.
Sorry - does police suspicion amount to evidence then? The police can be wrong - or they can be right. Like all human beings. Unless they have evidence then they have no case.
And evidence matters - not the secret suspicions of police officers.
This whole "there's no smoke without fire" thing is absolute nonsense, and I'm surprised you're trying to advance it.
of course evidence matters. Just making the point that not all 'miscarriages of justice' are that.
True - but a miscarriage of justice is more about declaring a previous conviction unsound rather than that the person is 100% innocent. The law accepts that, to some degree, we can't ever really know that for sure (not being omnipotent beings) which is why the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is so important.
In this case, K & S's conviction was very, very unsound. Doesn't mean they absolutely, 100% didn't do it (we can't know for sure) just that there were not sufficient grounds to convict them.
Personally, I think they probably didn't do it, but I have no way of knowing, so can only go by the evidence available to us. And that, does not support a conviction in my opinion.
Ellie how is questioning somebody saying AK and RS must be innocent because they are nice and middle class rude? If they were working class and tattooed it's like saying they must be guilty. Someone who assumes guilt or innocence based on class would be a dangerous juror, not somebody who looks at the facts. Murderers come from all backgrounds and in all guises.
Ellie how is questioning somebody saying AK and RS must be innocent because they are nice and middle class rude?
Who on this thread said or implied that, apart from you?
You seemed to be implying that the rest of us were unable to be objective because we're blinded by their "nice, middle-classness" and that's obviously not true - and rather insulting, actually.
If you were just picking up on someone else's comment to that effect, then apologies. But it didn't read like that.
I was just picking up on what someone upthread. Sorry if I didn't make it clear, I was trying to say that anyone could be guilty, class shouldn't come into it. After reading Follain's book last year when pregnant, I got quite emotionally invested in the case and feel for the Kerchers and they, especially M's sister, feel strongly AK was involved.
*someone said upthread, that should read!
Then accept my apologies. I read it wrong.
You're right - class and "niceness" are completely beside the point.
Maybe I'll read Follian's book. Is it this one?
No offence taken.
Yes, that's the book. I had no strong feelings towards AK and RS before reading and I certainly didn't like the media reaction to AK, whether guilty or not, but certainly after reading Follain's account, I changed my mind. I am so at the Italian authorities. I strongly feel we will never get the truth because they cocked up.
No it was me that said it. These crimes are not typically committed by mc college students with no criminal history. Put that with the total lack of evidence against them and the sex games gone wrong scenario becomes ludicrous. Once they had identified Guede they should have thrown the idea out. The forensics and the crime fit perfectly with him acting alone. Throw the other 2 into the mic and of course it stops making sense.
Portofino Oh, I see. I think there was some confusion over what was said and what was meant.
I'll also add in - how likely, really, is it that K & S, having known each other a week, would be seeking to involve others in their sex life? I know that people do this - but in their first week together? That's the honeymoon period when you're presenting the very best side of yourself to the other. Which one said, "I know - let's go and see if Meredith is up for a threesome. Even better, what about that guy neither of us really knows joining in too?"
No. That's really stretches credibility too far.
I have started rereading the Follain book with the view to see why people who have read it seem so convinced. It is awful lazy journalism. He repeats the misinformation that was thrown out to the media as fact. The wild sex in the underwear shop, the late night screams, the bleach buying. 2 blonde hairs picked off the body, for example....this is just not true and is not anything presented at the trial.
Plus lots and lots of media spin. 2 or 3 of Meredith's friends mentioned a guy called Hicham who,liked Meredith in their reports to the police. When they were bugging AK and RS she also mentioned him. The comment (in the book) was that maybe SHE was tring to set him up, ignoring the fact that 2 or 3 people had already mentioned him. Lots and lots of character assassination stuff from people who didn't seem to like Amanda much, though no evidence at all to show that Maeredith didn't like her.
Comments on how cool and not distraught AK was compared to a description of the Kercher family, also dry eyed and wanting to know the facts. They were dignified though vs AK being evil and cold blooded. No proper analysis of the evidence, though even Follain mentions that they had to pack the knife they found in RSs apartment carefully so as not to cause damage, whereas the Prosecution claims AK was carrying it Bout in her handbag....
Lots and lots od descriptions about the investigators being so dedicated and moved by the crime, though normally Tis in a days work sort of thing. Though they fucked the crime scene big time, the all got awards. Lots of taking "statements" out of context timing, which matches the stuff leaked to the press and not the timings given in the trial....
Is there anything more accurate that we can read? My friend is borrowing the Follain book and she says Follain is a 'good journalist' and she has read his stuff before (I haven't). I thought he interviewed/spoke to all involved, including Amanda and witnesses. Surely he wouldn't be able to print a pack of lies? Perhaps I am naive. How do we know what was an exact representation of the trial? I would like to see it and then I may feel differently.
Murder in Italy by Candace Dempsey is a much more objective account imho.
Thanks Portofino. I would like to read that.
On the Amazon reviews for Death in Perugia, there are some good summaries of what is wrong with the book.
I came across these from looking at comments on books regarding the case on Amazon. So many people trying to make money from this and the media obsession with AK.....I still don't know what to think. Seemingly nice people have committed horrendous crimes in history, however, if AK is innocent, how horrific too. There are no winners.
The Telegraph article is strange. "Lets make it about the victim this time" and queue pictures of AK and Myra Hindley...he seems to be losing his own argument.
Coincidentally I was reading something on another site about the person who runs the TJMK site. He sounds a little odd
Join the discussion
Please login first.