to think that the people on here who were condeming Amanda Knox should apologise?

[margerykemp]

Some of the language used by some people on here was really appauling.

Hang your heads in shame!

I don't know about this whole "closure" thing. Tbh if your dd was raped and murdered. And God forbid. That would never close. The pain of that would be with you every day of your life even ifyou knew for a fact who/what/when was involved and was in prison for it. It wouldn't ever close over the wound.

I think Knox is innocent in the same way that OJ Simpson is innocent.

Do the people here who are so vehemently defending Knox's 'proven' innocence feel the same about murder trials in general?

When someone is murdered and there is a trial by jury, the verdict of that jury doesn't change the fact of the accused's guilt or innocence. All it means is that those people decided that in their opinion the person in the dock was or wasn't guilty.

So what's the difference with an appeal? (other than that this wasn't by jury)

Are we supposed to assume that a judge/jury is ALWAYS correct and that it's reprehensible to disagree with the verdict? Unfortunately people are regularly found guilty/innocent incorrectly. I for one will never base my own opinion on the whim of a court.

As far as this appeal goes, Knox has got off; it doesn't mean she didn't play a part in the murder. It just means that the appeal judge looked again at the evidence and decided she should be acquitted.

People are free to believe what they want to believe and I believe Knox is guilty.

Those who are saying there was 'no evidence whatsoever' to convict Knox originally are living in cloud cuckoo land. The prosecution are set to launch another appeal once they've seen the full ruling.

Agree with Kick2 - I find it weird that some seem to be suggesting it's a slap in the face to the Kerchers that two people who didn't murder their daughter are not jailed for murdering their daughter.

There was certainly evidence gathered. Lots of evidence - forensic, circumstantial, witnesses etc. It's the intepretation and truth behind it that is key. A lot of things put forward by the prosecution were viewed in entirely another way by the defence. There were lots of assumptions made. To me the key thing was always the total lack of forensic evidence at the crime scene relating to AK//RS when there was plenty left by Guede, and the complete lack of motive.

If you discredit the ONLY 2 pieces of forensic evidence linking AK/RS to the scene then the rest falls down like a house of cards. And that is what the defence has done in this appeal.

slap in the face - more than that I expect- I could imagine the Kerchers put their trust in the Italian police/justice system at the time of the investigation and murder trial - and believed what they were told about the evidence against all 3 of the young people accused. Since they were then convicted of murder, the Kerchers would have believed that the guilty were behind bars.

Now they have heard the investigation was bungled, the findings of which were unreliable, the evidence presented to them as conclusive is flawed and no basis for a conviction, there is no possibility of retesting the knife etc, two of the persons imprisoned for their dd's murder are now released. What are they supposed to think about that? I can't see them feeling relief or truly believing tbh that AK and RS are innocent after all. They will be totally churned up inside and not know what to believe I'd imagine.

I agree ZZZ - it must be terrible for them. And of course it still isn't over - they could have to do this all again depending on what the prosecution decides to do. I think the "closure" thing is a bit twee too. My mum died aged 21 - of cancer rather in a horrible crime - and my GM NEVER got over it -not even nearly 40 years later.

Fair enough Wanna and in fact a point I made earlier (whether under this or the Peachy name I can't remember and am too lazy to find out)

Shelly I think in order to live with what can only ever be a fallible justice system one has to generally try and accept those decisions, whilst holding tight to a person's right of appeal. Otherwise it all falls apart. We all intellectually know surely that some people in prison must be innocent but we don't argue for lowered punishments (generally) on that basis or more leniency; one accepts the call of the judge but supports the right to appeal and proper representation.

DoNotPress, I fully agree.

I am totally in support of our (and other, reasonable) justice systems and the right of appeal; it's the only fair and just way to try anyone. I fully accept the judge's right to make his/her decision and respect that.

What I don't agree with are people such as the OP who, following this succesful appeal, immediately assume that the case is 'cut and dried' and that no one has any right to question the judgement. It's incredibly blinkered to think that people should be ashamed of their own opinions when we know full well that all justice systems are inherently flawed.

The only way to be sure of any judgement being correct is time travel; that's how ridiculous it is for people to absolutely believe a particular judgement and simultaneously dismiss any other possibility as if it can't even exist.

Sweet innocent girls don't by and large try and pin the blame for murders on innocent bar owners.

Watch what they do, not what they say....

just because she won her appeal doesn't mean she didn't do it.

But it does mean there is not enough evidence, and innocent until proven guilty is a pretty good mantra- certainly one I would like to seee extended to me or mine should that ever be needed.

Yes holy, or (c) burglar surprised during burglary

Out of interest, as there appears to be no evidence connecting AK to the murder, why do some posters doubt her innocence?

It also transpires that the prosecutor of the case has a somewhat dubious background. According to the Guardian...

In the first place, their [the judges] decision raises very serious questions about Mignini, who oversaw the investigation and led for the prosecution at the trial. An intensely controversial figure, he was himself facing trial for malpractice at the time Guede's role in the crime was discovered.

Critics of his handling of the case have long argued that this may have conditioned his refusal to drop the charges against the two young lovers and let go of the sex-game theory. Accusations had been laid against him over his handling of a strand of the so-called "Monster of Florence" serial killing mystery that he had woven from an even more bizarre thesis involving the entanglement of a Satanist coven made up of otherwise respectable people.

Mignini was tried and convicted, but not suspended from office.

See the full article here

There were two forms of acquittal open to the judges. They could have freed Knox and Sollecito on the grounds that there was insufficient proof of their guilt ? an outcome similar to the Scottish law verdict of "not proven". But, instead, they chose to acquit them entirely.

From the Guardian article linked above; confirms what was said earlier on in thread

On the other thread of this kind someone is saying tehy still want to see Knox hung, wow.

Really!

Shellyboobs 'What I don't agree with are people such as the OP who, following this succesful appeal, immediately assume that the case is 'cut and dried' and that no one has any right to question the judgement. It's incredibly blinkered to think that people should be ashamed of their own opinions when we know full well that all justice systems are inherently flawed.

for me Shellyboobs, I'll take that she was found innocent and accept that because for an innocent person to have gone through what she has and been vilified and to still be vilified and debated over, would be a continuance of a terrible ordeal. It's like the McCanns - I would hate to add to a persons terrible situation by putting the boot in further in continuing to accuse them of something I have no proof or evidence of just to play armchair detective and have a bit of a gossip.

"...I'll take that she was found innocent and accept that because for an innocent person to have gone through what she has and been vilified and to still be vilified and debated over, would be a continuance of a terrible ordeal..."

But then what happens when the prosecution take action to overturn this appeal? Let's just suppose for a moment that they do a better job of handling their evidence this time and it's found that Knox was guilty after all?

Does the same person suddenly become wholly guilty and deserving of vilification, where following the outcome of the first appeal they were wholly innocent and had gone through 'a terrible ordeal'?

I'm not saying that a successful counter appeal will happen, but the prosecution have stated their intention, so it may.

The point I'm trying to make is that a judgement doesn't change events 'after the fact', it's simply an interpretation/understanding of those events. Some people's perception seems to be that somehow the actual events of the past change according to the verdict. None of us know the truth about what happened to poor Meredith but whatever it was, it hasn't changed from the original verdict to the appeal and it won't be changed by a further appeal.

As for the 'armchair detective comment', you seem to be implying that no one should have their own opinion on the case and should just accept whatever the courts say. Well that's fine, except that the real detectives and judicial system don't seem to have covered themselves with glory, so far.

I don't see how they can handle their evidence "better". There was precious little to link them to the crime in the first place. I think if you had strong forensics, you could make assumptions about the rest and fit them to the scenario. In this case, without the forensics that place them at the scene, you have very little solid evidence indeed. Hence the acquittal.

I read an article that mentioned that the prosecutor was also representing the Kerchers in a multi-million-Euro civil-suit against the AK. The implication being that the Kerchers' belief in AK's guilt was a result of manipulating information given to them by the prosecutor who stood to make a subsantial financial gain if AK was found guilty and the civil-suit was won.

Does anyone know if this is founded in truth? That poor family - if this is true then that prosecutor is the worst kind of leech.

I've read enough now to accept that there wasn't enough evidence, or the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict Knox/Sollecito of murder or involvement in the murder, but I don't get the whole evangelical 'she's a poor innocent' argument when it comes to Knox. Taking out the issue with insensitive or odd behaviour immediately after the murder, she still signed a statement implicating another innocent person. She didn't just blurt it out under pressure in a moment of weakness and then immediately retract it. She signed the statement, and then retracted it a day or so later. That's not a split second decision that you regret immediately, or at least that's how it appears. I think the difficulty I have in accepting the whitewash over all her actions/statements/behaviour is that whatever she said in the interrogations she went through, muddied the waters of the investigation into Meredith's murder. Making stuff up, being 'attention seeking' or whatever is it she's been accused of as justifying her odd behaviour, didn't exactly help the investigation into Meredith's murder did it? She drew suspicion on herself by doing that surely? If you lie to the police, no matter what the reason, it doesn't paint you in a good light does it? Making statements based on pure fantasy seems an odd way to try an help the police with an investigation into the murder of someone you knew. For that reason I cannot feel much sympathy for her predicament or fate as she was sentenced to 3 years for the implication of another innocent person. If all the reasons being argued about why she did that i.e. the interrogation methods used, intimidation etc. why have all those arguments not been used to argue against the sentence she got for implicating PL? Exonerate both Knox and Sollecito of murder by all means, but I do find the whole OTT reaction to the aquittal uncomfortable if I'm honest. I've no real deep feelings either way about whether Knox/Sollecito were involved somehow or not as there has been a complete mish-mash with the arguments made on either side of the fence. But, her actions/statements justified a jail sentence, given by the same judge who acquitted her of the murder of Meredith Kercher. There had to be enough in that evidence to justify that charge and conviction surely? Or is the judge who gave the verdict for the slander part of the case to be accused of making an arse of that as well?

Banana, as I have said on other threads - I believe it was the police that brought PL into this. They had found a black hair at the scene, and Amanda had a message from her black boss telling her not to come to work, to which she replied - "Ok, see you later then". I honestly think they put the 2 facts together and got carried away - forcing her to imagine some scenario that included him. The statement was inadmissable as evidence because of the manner in which is was obtained. She retracted it in the morning.

We should never have even heard about it in the normal run of things - though the police leaked lots to the press.
It was because the prosecutor allowed PL's suit to be heard simultaneously to the criminal trial that it turned up in evidence. It was a very clever move on his part as people are still quoting that as one of the strong reason's she is guilty - of something, if not murder. It is manipulation of the facts/truths of the highest order.

portofino, we don't know how PL was brought into things or who brought him into things. You can guess, but we'll never know. If there is any mitigation to how PL was implicated by AK, if there was a justifiable reason or if there was an explanation that removes responsibility for that from AK, surely the judge who acquitted her of murder would have done the same in respect of the slander charge? If you accept the judge has come to the right conclusion about the murder/evidence etc. then surely he would have given the same consideration to the slander charge? If it was manipulation of the facts/truth 'of the highest order' then surely AK would not have been convicted and sentenced to 3 years for slander? She's been told to pay compensation to PL as well - if there was anyway she could place blame for him being implicated on the police or the prosecutor, then surely the sentence and compensation wouldn't have been passed, and she would have been found not guilty of that charge also? This is what I really don't get - AK has been acquitted by a judge being praised for his considered handling of the murder charge against AK/RS, by those who believe they were both innocent, yet he couldn't see past the manipulation you suggest? That makes no sense at all. AK & RS's involvement in the investigation of MK's murder, has adversely affected the likelihood of MK's family ever finding out the truth about their daughter. I can't get past that to feel sympathy for AK. RS I have some sympathy for as he didn't slander anyone, so actually was wrongfully imprisoned. I just cannot see AK as an innocent victim of circumstances beyond her control - she wouldn't be guilty of slander if she was 'forced' to do or say anything. How can you 'force' someone to imagine something? How exactly does that work?

AK is an adult and responsible for the choices and decisions she makes, as we all are. Whatever her reasons were for signing a statement she knew to be false, she still has responsibility in that as it's not a split decision you make. You read what you are signing. If there was an explanation as to how she mis-read it, or what her understanding was of what she signed, which explains her error or mistake or whatever, then I'm pretty sure we would have heard about it, from her family and friends, if not her lawyers. I can't find anything to explain what she thought she was signing if she didn't mean to implicate PL. If there were mitigating factors i.e. torture or physical threats or abuse, or a language barrier problem, then I do believe a judge who is willing to acquit her of murder due to lack of evidence, would be of a mind to do the same if there was a sniff of AK's accusations being true. Fair enough that people are pleased AK and RS have been acquitted of murder, but I think blindly excusing AK with regard to the slander just goes too far IMO.