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.

I already explained why. The police wouldn't back down. And it would expose them as imcompetent, bungling amateurs that they are.

----

That makes no sense.

Within the very case where you are saying two people were held, charged, tried and convicted becuase the Italian police don't back down....the police DID BACK DOWN.

K&S could have been dropped like hot potatoes once G was in the frame 2 weeks in.

Just like PL was

He was also arrested early on in the full view of the media. He was not immune to the alleged shady police tactics used on other suspects.

And the extent to which the police had jumped the gun in arresting and detaining him became really rather apparent when they let him go. Not Italy's finest hour by any stretch of the immagination. Egg liberally splattered over the collective faces of the law. Yes K pointed the finger, but it was very clear that the police had leapt on the sacrifical random black man like all their xmases had come at once.

Unlike the case of PL, the police/prosecution could have saved face when letting K&R once a better candiadte was on their radar, by blaming their (police fabricated or real) less than static alibis, inconsistant accounts, odd demeanours and the finger pointing at PL, as giving rise to strong early suspitions that later proved unwarrented when forensics came in.

The world would have wiffled over whether the police caused the discrepancies/finger pointing OR K&S paniced/failed to take things seriously when a little distracted by the limelight... for about five minutes and then moved on to the next big story.

If anything the release of K&S and arguments over whether they were culperble for causing the susption that fell on them or not, would have been a help in distracting attention away from PL having been detained for two weeks on ever so flimsy grounds, which was rather more diffiucult to justify and explain away.

as an aside....

The known issues caused by racial bias when it comes to justice are consistantly and utterly ignored when people draw their conclusions about this case.

Were this case playing out in the UK or the States, hands up who would really be utterly convinced that a white, well heeled, well connected person is more likely to be favoured as a handy "fitted up" scapegoat than a black guy with less economic power and a disinct lack of contacts ?

Re the FE, I do not kid myself that my long standing obsession with CSI (all versions of, and all the other programmes I enjoy along the same lines) has equiped me to assess, evaluate and comprehend the significance of a few examples contained in an internet forum post. Especially when its hard to work out what the source is and there are pleanty of biased perspectives/opinions being put about as rock solid FACT !

I'll leave it to the courts to accept or reject FE, on the basis that this is what they do all day, every day, they will be seeing all the evidence, from both the presecution's and defense's perspectives rather than potentially cherry picked bits from somebody who has a dog in the hunt. And as flawed as this judical system is (in line with most other countries) they are still better equipped than I am to work out what FE should stand, what it suggests, and who, if anybody, has been fiddling with it.

I'm taking that postion not least because it would take me hours to track down all the relevant scources of the examples you gave to rule out bias or cherry picking, cross checked all refences that are claimed to be offical in the orginal language to make sure nothing was lost in translation or deliberatly misrepresented, call my sister with the PhD in an ology to help me grasp any concepts I struggled with, then set about discovering the complete cohort of presented and accepted FE, so I can see what sort of wieght the internat forum post examples (that stood up to close scrutiny) carry in in the greater context.

And even after all that effort I'm not sure I'd trust my lack of foundation in the subject matter not to have made a right pig's ear out of it.

So I'd rather not invest the several hundred woman hours required in order to do even a half arsed job.

Not while there are two episodes of CSI NY sitting on the MySky hard drive demanding my attention.

but can't you see... because they got AK to implicate Patrck they couldn't back down without having to explain just how they managed to get a young foreign girl to sign a statement implicating someone else in the murder despite there being no evidence at all to convict him at that point, or afterwards?

The Italian police have never explained why they have no recordings or documentation to show how they questioned her, for how long and in what way. From what I know of the case they managed to get a false statement from her after finding messages from PL on her phone and deciding that he must somehow be something to do with it.

Now I am not saying that I would be stupid enough to make such a statement but or that didn't cause PL harm which should be compensated but as has already been said it still doesn't make her a murderer.

but can't you see... because they got AK to implicate Patrick they couldn't back down without having to explain just how they managed to get a young foreign girl to sign a statement implicating someone else in the murder despite there being no evidence at all to convict him at that point, or afterwards?

If you take the position that it is indisputable that the police/prosecution were prepared to go to that level of manipulation and dishonesty for the sake of a fall guy/girl, it shouldn't be hard to percive them as caperble of painting K as the sort of troubled young woman who makes up false accusations, and makes false confessions.

These people exist, the police are the very people who have most contact with them, perfect fit for the presumed sticky situation really.

The Italian police have never explained why they have no recordings or documentation to show how they questioned her, for how long and in what way

Have you ever heard of the expression "when you are in a hole, stop digging"?

Be it an attempt to fit up a suspect for expediancy, or fail to insitigate protocols cos a suspect has started to talk themsleves into a corner and you don't want to risk them clamming up by formalising proceedure....you are not going to come out of admittting either of those looking like policeman of the year.

It does raise another question regarding why the police did not release K&S with PL when the discovery of G was such a game changer in terms having somebody who was either as guilty as hell, or a much better candidate for a fit up.

The police faced their lack of following protocols coming out. By letting K&S go in favour of G any discrepancies could be relied upon to be smaller news, for a shorter period if connected to a released person.

Not a perfect solution since what has been fucked up cannot be unfucked up, or relied upon to remain unexamined.

But distinctly preferable to having it be a major area which the defense will make as much as possible, during a high profile trial that attracts much international interest, and go on to be constantly refered to for years and years as appeals drag on and on.

Compared to the above, a few uncomfortable months until a fickle media got bored of an arrested then released AK, looks like a bargin.

but as has already been said it still doesn't make her a murderer

And as it has already been said by me, I never said it did.

never said you said it did

ah well, then I never said that you said I did.

Okay, here pin me down, for I have sat enough in court in Amanda's own country.

Truth be told, if you have to pin me down, I think Guede did it and acted alone.

I think not Amanda Beautiful Face nor her former boyfriend, male, well-connected, wealthy Beautiful Face Sollecito did it. I really don't, although I have sat on such trials, as assistant to judge. My gut is that they did not. But again, I am not there in that court, so I cannot truly say.

I think they were only guilty of being stoned, young and stupid. Perhaps unkind, vile housemates, on her part. Entirely possible. Nasty in the way a very beautiful 20-something-year-old girl who knows it can be, but no murderer.

I do not think she was guilty of the crime of which she was convicted on quite questionable evidence. Nor he, though he is an a bit of a side for it seems she is the one who comes in for all the daggers the press can stick in, though he is just as handsome. It seems okay in Italy to do murder if you are white, male, wealthy and well-connected, as Sollecito is. So not a jot aout his being a witch of deception, with his face as symetrically beautiful as hers.

But she is a prisoner of them and theirs. And if she is not guilty, as she claims, then it is no less a tragedy she is locked up, although I see now she has very good Italian.

And if they let him go and not her, then I think there, that says much about them, tbh.

What makes you think she was a nasty housemate? You are, based upon the 'evidence' presented, right to think Guede acted alone but I don't get why you think she was\is a nasty person.

"It seems okay in Italy to do murder if you are white, male, wealthy and well-connected, as Sollecito is."

It is far easier to get away with it it you are white, male, wealthy and well connect like S. It is just a little easier on top of that if you are female becuase Italians have a hard time thinking a woman could kill for the sake of it. Add a little ease on top to the combo if the woman is a mother.

The reason why S is shoved to the side in the press is because the international focus is on K, and the comment about Italy, its national character and its juducal system have rather focused the domestic press on the defendant that is creating most news.

Ask Alberto Stazi how much the press assume you are innocent if you tick the w,m,w,wc boxes.That case was in the press at the same time as the Perugia murder. A young, white, well to do, well connected woman beaten to death and found in a lake of her own blood staining the marble floors of her parents house.

I'm not sure how much help experience in the US system is when looking at the Italian justice system, the entire set up is quite different. Took me ages to discover that a jury here bears little resemblance to what a jury is in the UK and the states.

This article affected my thinking about the case when it was first published. Yes, clearly Amanda Knox's mother is going to think she's innocent - but the explanation for how Patrick Lumumba was originally implicated is chilling.

And the explanation for Foxy Knoxy - that it was about her skills at football - really pulled me up short, and made me realise how little I really knew about her, and how much the media had made me think I did.

This article affected my thinking about the case

Which was presumably why her mother gave the interview.

Well, there's been a lot of spinning against AK - if you're going to have any sort of a balanced view, you need to read both sides. Which is why we have a prosecution and defence

There has been no lack of spin from the K side of the equation. Even in American forums largly critical of Italy there is an acknowledgement that their publicity machine is something of a juggernaut.

I don't suppose many of you have seen the results of the collabortation with the media undertaken by the S family, what with it not being on ITV or FOX or in the Daily Mail or NYT.

It has not been unimpressive. Although the poor guy can never hope to have as much attention as AK does.

Combine that with the stranglehold The Orange One has over the media here. And the glee with which his legal team have leapt on the (mammoth sized) American media's presentation of the Kercher Knox case to tub thump about the whole thing being a clear demonstration of how the Italian judicial system has used its, finally visible to the international community, boundless powers and malevolance to malign and hound the poor little defenceless prime minister with baseless charges and trials....yadayadayada

I honestly don't see how the prosecution is best placed to ensure truely equal disemination of opinion/information from their perspective in the face of the above.

Conversly in other high profile cases the prosecution has been in the far stronger postion, to the detriment of the defendant in terms of public perception of guilt.

Which is why the fundamental concept of hearing from both prosecution and defense is supposed to be in the tribunal, not the court of public opinion.

Trial by media is the least fair, least accurate, least unbiased, least balanced, least encumbered with checks and balances mode of deciding innocence or guilt.

Public gut feelings about guilt and innocent can depend very much on which party (prosecution or defence) had the greater advantage in the media circus surrounding the case, rather than the facts presented in court.

Personally I think the world would be a more just place if the media were more effectively gagged and restricted to bald, substanciated fact when it came to cases that were still in progress.

The national press decended on my town after a murder and behaved like a flock of (pastel coloured) total vultures. Watching how they canvased opinion on a massive scale, then picked out a carefully selected group of interviewees based on an obviously pre chosen slant, and later getting to see the highly edited final product splashed all over the major channels and news stands ...... was something of an eye opener.

I came to the conclusion that I'd not so much had a "gut instinct" about suspects in the past, as been fed a pre packaged one, which I happily swallowed whole as long as it suited my own prejudices.

(who is the orange one?)

"Trial by media is the least fair, least accurate, least unbiased, least balanced, least encumbered with checks and balances mode of deciding innocence or guilt."

absolutely. The Prosecution spent weeks feeding the press information about Amanda Knox, a lot of it false, which has contributed to this 'I have a feeling about her' attitude that a lot of people who have not read up about al of the evidence seem to have.

There are some really vile forums out there which are very anti-Knox (why it matters so much to them I don't know, they are not run my MK's family) and IF she is successful in her appeal her life will be very badly effected by this general feeling that so many people have that she will just be getting off on a technicality and that there is no smoke without fire.

The orange one is Berlusconi. Who owns the media. More or less. His ex-lawyer is acting for Sollecito. (or was until recently IIRC)

Terribletriplets

Berlusconi

DuelingFango

Of course the police had the headstart, they always do. And always will unless we find a way to stop trial by media.

However in this specific case the reality is that between the families's high profile, high octane media based campaigns and Berlusconi's mouth peices making barnfuls of hay out of the critisims they level at Italian justice, the defence has had a monumental and undeniable advantage in the court of public opinion.

Yes there are vile thing unsubstanciated things being said about K&S, there are vile unsubstanciated things being said about individual public officals....and Italy/Italians as a whole.

But that is what happens if the great unwashed are encouraged to convince themselves that watching CSI gives them the ability to read articles (published more for ability to generate revenue than inform) and deduct their way to DA TROOOF !

IF she is successful in her appeal

Then she faces a possible second appeal, brought by the prosecution.

There are up to three trials per case in Italy.

A person can be convicted, appeal, win that appeal and then be found guilty at the third trial which was requested by the prosecution.

Or convicted, lose the appeal they requested, and go on to win the third trial that they sought.

Or like G lose all three.

Or like Berlusconi win all three. Always. All the time.

She stands a fair old chance of winning at least one appeal, the triad set up favours something like 50 percent of convicted people winning at least the final one, if not both.

And the white, well heeled, well connected feature really rather significantly in that 50 percent.

Becuase time typically degrades the prosecution's case. Standards in forensics change knocking previous evidence off the table. Witnesses' memories fade and become eaiser to present as unreliable. Which is kind of useful for a experienced, well staffed, well funded, enthusiatic and privatly engaged defence.

This might not all be over in the early days of October and we could still be discussing it in three years time, which ever way the verdict goes

I just think the victim has been forgotten in all this.

yes, she has. Sadly such a massive miscarriage of justice means that does happen.

what I find strange is that her parents appear to be quite bright people and yet they don't seem able to see the massive problems with the posecution's case.

Imprisoning just anyone is no kind of justice at all.

what I find strange is that her parents appear to be quite bright people and yet they don't seem able to see the massive problems with the posecution's case

OR

Unlike most of the public, they have had access to all of the evidence, from both sides, with the advantage of having their own lawyer helping them understand the weight and meaning of each peice evidence and the extent to which it was accepted/rejected by the court.

And this leaves them somewhat impervious to media comment. Particularly since I don't doubt they have been made well aware of

• the political hay making attached to this case, by a man who controls virtually all Italian media, private and state, and just happens to be the prime minister.

-the incredible connections of the S family, (given that you have all studied the case closely enough to confidently say an injustice has been done, I'm sure you are aware what his lawyer's other job is, and who she defended previously)

-the ever so slightly biased nature of K's family's high volume media campaign.

And their daughter died a horrible brutal death, so if you can understand K's family fighting their child's corner, surely you can understand the Kercher family fighting their own loved ones corner, in her absence, and you have to accept that with ALL the evidence available to them, (and in the Italian system the point of them having their own lawyer in court is just that) they believe (rightly or wrongly) that K&S were involved.

Rather more incomprehensible is people who appear intelligent, yet seem unable to understand the flaws contained within deciding who is innocent/guilty, whose version of events is indisputably true, based on nothing more substantial than media produced fodder.

...media produced fodder and I'd say a fair smattering of too-much-CSI-watching.....

Everyone who "knows" AK and RS are innocent, also know that forensic experts in real life despair of the day CSI etc started, don't you? Because actually, it rarely works like that?

Fastweb, I don't know if you can confirm, but the last thing I read was that it is far more likely RS will get off, given that forensics have "proven" the footprints weren't his etc than AK who is still forensically, where she has always been?

"and you have to accept that with ALL the evidence available to them"

but if the evidence which we all DO know about is so shoddy and so based upon a character assasintion that it may be overturned at appeal, surely if the prosecution have more (Which has not been presented in court and reported on) then they (the prosecution) would have made sure that part of their case was heard?

I can't understand how the Kerchers can feel the conviction of K and S is right based upon what was presented in the courtroom.

Re the forensics, it makes no sense at all for RS to 'get off' while AK doesn't when the prosecution claim to have forensics which put him in the room with Kercher but none at all to place AK in that room.

If I understand correctly, it's the bloody footprint which has turned out to be Guede's, but which the prosecution initially said was Sollecito's. He is still on the bra strap though, although I think that was deemed inadmissable. Knox's is on the knife I think?

Fastweb, I don't know if you can confirm, but the last thing I read was that it is far more likely RS will get off, given that forensics have "proven" the footprints weren't his etc than AK who is still forensically, where she has always been?

Well if it is what I think it is, it is a peice referring to RS's lawyers statement.

Which I have only just seen.

Basically his lawyer is saying none of the evidence points to R, the little evidence there is was transfered from Amanda to him, some people who get a girlfirend aquire a family, he aquired a (murder charge in a) crime. But there is nothing on Amanda either.

I've translated ever so quickly, and the context doesn't tell me if she is referring physical evidence or alluding to the ability of other evidence to migrate from K to S in a sort of "guilt by association"sort of way.

But would that fit with what you read ?

Original here
www.ansa.it/web/notizie/rubriche/topnews/2011/09/27/visualizza_new.html_698279627.html

I can't understand how the Kerchers can feel the conviction of K and S is right based upon what was presented in the courtroom

I know you can't. But perhaps leave room for that being potentially down to your lack of nutrality ?

Re the forensics, it makes no sense at all for RS to 'get off' while AK doesn't when the prosecution claim to have forensics which put him in the room with Kercher but none at all to place AK in that room

Both cases have to proved(or not) on their merits as sperate charges for each individal. The verdict of one is not irrevokably tied to the other.

It doesn't have to make sense as a narrative of what happened.

K's lawyer has to dismantle the evidence against her.

R's lawyer has to dismantle the evidence against him.

One lawyer could be sucessful with specific bits of evidence that relate to their client and win, while the other lawyer fares less well with evidence relating to their client, and loses.

I don't often show an interest in crime stories but this one has really got to me mainly because i think she is not guilty (i don't know why i feel that, i just have a feeling from everything i have seen).

So many people are wrongly accused and banged up for crimes they did not do. I do hope justice is done.

Ah - the knife. The knife that was so big it couldn't have inflcted the wounds on MK!

Knox's DNA is on a knife they found in a flat where RS lived and where they made food together. I think, though the knife did not make the wounds, they found MK's dna on it too and she had never been to RS's flat. Though that MK dna is part of the dodgy disputed dna which may have been contaminated.