Amanda Knox

[LadyBeagleEyes]

Her appeal is being heard at the moment, and there is a good chance she'll be freed.
So who did kill Meredith?
If she and her ex boyfriend are deemed innocent, I hope the Italian police will continue to look into the case and get some justice for her.
I don't understand why they say the DNA is flawed, or have Knox's parents just managed to hire some very smart lawyers?
It's such a sad case.

Bupcakes Ditto

Bupcakes, I have read this thread praying like hell I never end up in front of a jury with these eejits on it...

"Well, there's no evidence to place her at the scene, no motive and no witnesses, but she did have three glasses of wine and switch her mobile off, so I reckon she did it. Plus she looks a bit funny."

And that'd be it. Life sentence, thank you and good night. Terrifying, really...

To the people who say they switched their phones off to have a love-in. They had never, switched their phones off before and neither of them are claiming to be virgins. .

"And why, when neither of their phones had ever in their lives been switched off so early" and how far back do you think they keep records of these things? They had only been in Perugia since the start of term. I am pretty sure they never had AK's US phone records. I work for a telecom company. I can assure you that traffic records are normally not kept for more than 30 days. The server space needed to keep stuff "indefinitely" would be massive and expensive.

Ask Patrick Lumumba if he thinks Amanda Knox was guilty. He knows her very well. You MNetters, including myself, do not.

Spare your misguided sympathies for Patrick Lumumba. Amanda Knox took the view that she would be believed over a black man and tried to have him put away for murder. Yes, very sweet and innocent.

But he was definitively NOT THERE. How would he know? He was certainly sure enough of her good character to employ her up til that point. I can certainly understand why he might be pissed of NOW! It's a bit like RS's father not being AK's biggest fan. It would be quite understandable for these people to wish in hindsight they never met her. Not because of anything she DID, but because of her proximity to the circumstances.

I have read virtually nothing, NADA, about Sollecito. Nothing. amanda knox has been and will continue to be vilified, for being a female, who acted outside of what was considered normal/ appropriate female behaviour

mmyHoney Thu 06-Oct-11 18:48:48

And just because the evidence was flawed doesn't mean Knox and Sollecito didn't do it.

The evidence isn't just flawed, it is non-existent.

And just because her confession is inadmissable doesn't mean it's not true - even if as another post claimed earlier that a percentage of confessions are true, by the poster's own admission, the chances of the confession being real is a much higher percentage and therefore much more likely,.

noblegiraffe Tue 04-Oct-11 21:10:09

not least her own confession

www.economist.com/node/21525840

"SINCE 1992 the Innocence Project, an American legal charity, has used DNA evidence to help exonerate 271 people who were wrongly convicted of crimes, sometimes after they had served dozens of years in prison. But a mystery has emerged from the case reports. Despite being innocent, around a quarter of these people had confessed or pleaded guilty to the offences of which they were accused.

I take it you are referring to this post. Yes, some confessions are true. Some, on the other hand, are not.

And why did she accuse an innocent man?

She was asked if it could have been him, replied that it could have been before immediately retracting it.

And why, when neither of their phones had ever in their lives been switched off so early, did the timing of that coincide with the murder? Why did they switch their phones off only on that night when they had never ever done that before?

Because Patrick Lumumba had phoned her earlier to give her the night off. She and Raffaelle then decided to fuck like bunnies have a quiet night in and turned their phones off in case Lumumba changed his mind.

And why did Guedde say they were there?

Because he thought he would get a reduced sentence if he had colluded with others instead of actually breaking in and killing her himself.

And why did Sollecito lie about having called the police?

He didn't.

Far, far more likely that they went to the cottage, high on drugs, and decided to have some very sick 'fun', having found Guedde and Meredith to be inside. And things got extremely out of hand.

You really are deluded aren't you? Stop reading the tabloids love.

The Knox family were very media friendly and therefore they had the backing of the media. The Kerchers, on the other hand, have remained dignified throughout and therefore they were not courted by the media.

Well done. You've succeeded in making me laugh out loud at your utter naivety.

Sollecito also comes from a wealthy family and they were able to buy the best defence lawyers.

So what?

They got away with murder because of a bungled police investigation, media backing and inept forensics.

They haven't got away with anything because they weren't involved. The only physical evidence all points to Rudy Guede being the killer of Meredith Kercher.

But, for some reason people want to believe that her confession was a lie, her accusation of Lumumba was a lie, yet she is telling the truth when she says she wasn't there.

Now really. Repeating yourself. You are either as thick as mince or a troll. Which is it? I'll go with mince.

Portofino - you can understand why he might be pissed off now!

And can you also understand why she tried to frame an innocent man?

The police KNEW that a black man had been at the crime scene. Can you give one reason at all that AK should freely suggest her boss was there - even if she was totally guilty? Why him?

So either she was there, and she would surely have identified the correct person under pressure....., or she wasn't there, and the police (after hours of interrogation without translator, or lawyer) told her repeatedly that they knew that PL WAS there and asked her to imagine a certain scenario where he and she were in the apartment.

So it was established that PL was NOT there. If AK WAS there, and was broken down under pressure, why not say that it was Guede - who definitely WAS there.

If she WASN'T there, as the appeal judge and most other sensible people believe, WHY would she finger PL? There is no earthly reason for her to do so, unless the police brought him into it.

Yummyhoney, I haven't seen anyone trying to claim AK is 'sweet and innocent'. However, she is not guilty of murder.

She isn't the first person to sign a misleading statement under heavy police pressure, and she won't be the last. I hardly think that justifies all the... frothing about her.

(Very patient of you, HedleyLamarr, I couldn't face repeating all that again!)

Yes, I can understnad why she tried to frame an innocent man. she was questioned, without an interpreter or lawyer present, with no record being kept, for hours on end. she was told she was not being interviewed as a suspect, hence no need for a lawyer. However, given the. Length of the interview, one can only imagine that it became rather hostile. Apparently she was also repeatedly asked about her text messages to Patrick Lumbada, so I expect that, broken down and scared, she told them what she thought they wanted to hear.

Now, I personally don't think that there is definitive proof she is innocent, but 'beyond all reasonable doubt' is a good enough standard of evidence for most Western criminal law systems, so it is good enough for me.

That's such a good point Portofino. It makes no sense, if she had been there and colluded with Guedi, to accuse a different black man who wasn't there and who probably had an alibi. In that scenario surely she would blame RG and say it was all him, as there would obvioulsy be evidence there that he was involved?

But obvioulsy Yummy you are far more clever and have managed to see all this evidence that the court appointed experts have missed when they have said that there is NO EVIDENCE that RS and AK were there. Well done you.

I've got nothing else to add to this thread.

She and Sollecito have got away with murder.

Meredith Kercher's father says the decision to let them off was "crazy and ludicrous".

And I think he's right.

YummyHoney, I'm sorry, but it looks very much like you had nothing to add in the first place.

I hope you look further than your own stubbornness if you are ever on a jury.

Yummy - there is NO evidence that links them to crime. There are no witnesses. There is NO motive.

You are hanging a young woman out to dry on a "confession" that was not even admissable in court in the criminal trial and a lot of untrue media frothing.

I really hope none of YOUR children find themselves in this unfortunate postition.

there is the huge issue about the break in being staged and the calling of only one of meredith's phones when trying to contact her that puts ak 'in the frame'.

I'm glad Amanda and her boyfriend have been freed as clearly there was no evidence against them and the copper who tried to pin it on them is under investigation for bungling in other cases as well. Desperately sad that Meredith's family have been put through such torment thanks to an incompetent investigation and incompetent judiciary. I hope they draw some comfort from knowing the guilty man is actually in custody - the only person against whom there is reliable evidence, it seems. Imprisoning innocent people does nothing to help victims or relatives.

But I do hope that some of the Americans who have been campaigning about this miscarriage of justice will turn their attention to their own system. So many innocent people not only rotting in prison but facing the death penalty in the US, thanks to equally poor investigations and still prevalent racism in the deep South.

I don't think the "staged" break in IS a huge issue. The defence demonstrated how it could have been done as a REAL break in. It was not definitely clear one way or the other. I think it is a matter of context. There was no evidence that the room was staged by AK/RS. No fingerprints or DNA.

If you have decided that it WAS staged as opposed a real break in, then, yes RG had no reason to do it, so it follows it must be an extra damning point to AK/RS involvement.

On the other hand, RG had form as a burglar. He had recently broken into a building in exactly the same way. So if he really did break in - his story of being invited round for a date seems extremely implausible, as MK didn't actually know him and had told friends she was tired - then you might look at it in a different way.

And re. the phones, MK had an Italian phone lent to her by the landlady. Maybe AK only had that number - and not MK's UK phone....I don't remember any mention of this....

yes, the fact that he had very recent form as a burglar made it incredibly unlikely that he would get away with this crime, another something that doesn't add up

I remember reading lots of timelines with regards to who phoned who and when and how that fitted with the cctv on the corner which showed when the various police cars arrived at the scene. There was nothing that stood out to me as implausible.

Why doesn't it add up? He definitely WAS there. Beyond all reasonable doubt. He even admitted he was. It's probably why he left the country - knowing that he wouldn't get away it.

the room where the window was broken was not hugely messy or disrupted. Look at the photos. There was glass inside and outside, there were rocks on top of bags which apparently meant that the break in was staged. It looks like it could have just been a break in, or it could have been staged but by Guede.

That part of it is really insignificant compared to the Guede DNA all over the room where the murder took place.