What do you think about the Kercher/Knox murder trial?

[Kathyis6incheshigh]

Latest here

I find it hard to believe she did it - seems very trumped up. So much of the evidence seems to be to do with Knox not behaving 'appropriately', but how would you behave if something so shocking happened as the murder of your flatmate? I can imagine it taking a while to sink in.

Just an observation...but why is Knox smiling in virtually every picture taken of her throughout this trial? There are endless pictures of her looking 'relaxed'.

Here

Here

Here

and here

you can easily find pictures of her not smiling. Maybe there are more of her looking 'relaxed' because the press is more likely to publish pictures which 'fit' the idea that she is behaving in a guilty manner.

You are saying she must be guilty because she is smiling?

It is possible to feel sympathy for the victim of any crime while also feeling that the evidence is not strong enough to convict the accused.

I personally believe that Guide is the right person to be behind bars and I think it would be doing the victim of any case like this an injustice to persue a conviction of the wrong person.

not happy

certainly not smiling

happy?

No, I made an observation that she is smiling alot and found that peculiar. I made no comment about whether she is guilty or not.

And let's not forget, there are two people still on trial. No one seems to have much of an opinion on Raffaele Sollecito.

I know Joanne Lees - she is just a very together woman who got absolutely fucking shafted by the media for maintaining composure. She was never on trial so I find it really distasteful that she's being mentioned in the same breath at Amanda Knox.

There's something terribly misogynistic about this villifying of the women involved in murder trials.

Fair enough - it was just an observation. I just wondered if there was some significance or importance to it.

WRT to Meredith's family and their opinion - I would imagine they have far more pressing concerns than getting their opinion about Amanda Knox/Rafaele Sollecito into the public domain.

I do note that Ms Knox was very quick to implicate a man who was later found to be completely innocent. Why on earth would she do that?

Spicemonster I think you are spot on about Joanne Lees. She was treated appallingly by certain sections of the press.

I would imagine Amanda Knox is getting so much attention because she's young, female, attractive and accused of a horrible crime.

I don't find it so hard to believe she did it. I don't know. But it isn't impossible is it?

Mind you, I would want to see the evidence before I nailed an opinion to the mast.

Madeleine McCann's mother didn't show enough emotion apparently, and that annoyed me when people said hat. I thought that was ridiculous. Different people react to the same things differently.

If we're going to talk about gut instinct, I knew joanne Lees was innocent. Innocent and stitched up. I felt angry on her behalf. She made the crime of wearing a t-shirt that showed was slightly too small and other 'crimes'.

I agree spicemonster. If you can show that a woman was late bringing back her library books with a bit too much make up on, then it's trial by media.

"I do note that Ms Knox was very quick to implicate a man who was later found to be completely innocent. Why on earth would she do that?"

you didn't read the stuff I linked to above?

It gives an account of the length of time the police questioned Knox, the pressure they are alleged to have put her under, the fact that they lied to her about her boyfriend's statements, the fact that they took a text message she sent in reply to the man she implicated to mean she was planning to meet him later.

As I said earlier I strongly believe from the evidence easily available in the court reports that she was pressured into making that statement and it's certainly true that she withdrew the statement she made.

You know what her realtionship was to the man she implicated? And that the police already thought he was involved when they questioned her but couldn't take him to trial because he had a cast iron alibi?

Oh and it wasn't very quick. She implicated him days later after the police suggested him to her having read the text messages on her phone. This was at something like 1.45 am when they were still questioning he. She is questioned at 3.30 am and signs the confession at 5.45 am.

surely this kind of intensive late night/early morning questioning should be questioned?

The strength of your opnion suggests you may have a vested interest in this case DuellingFanjo. Why are you so keen to convince everyone here she is innocent when in reality our opinion will make no difference whatsoever to the verdict.

Bottom line is, the only people who can decide that are the jury in her trial.

And again, they will have access to evidence and information that we don't. It's not possible to reach ANY verdict without having ALL the evidence and nobody posting on here has that.

"And that the police already thought he was involved when they questioned her but couldn't take him to trial because he had a cast iron alibi?
"

But how could he be involved and the police wanting to take him to trial if he had a cast iron alibi? Even the most corrupt police officer would have a job explaining that away!

Amanda Knox has some pretty impressive PR going on there...!

Where did the authors of that site get their information from? Is it publically available?

Not at all. infact even though I was vaguelly aware of the case it's only in the last couple of days that I have done any research into the case after seeing a report in the paper that the defence and prosecution were begining their summing up.

Everything I feel about this case comes from just reading the evidence I can find online and sifting through all the crap which has been published.

My first post in this thread was merely me saying that based upon the DNA evidence I couldn't see how they could find either defendant guilty.

I know my opinion won't make a difference, but I hope the evidence does. When I searched the case on here to see if anyone else had been discussing it, this thread came up and I was very surprised at the amount of people who thought she was guilty.

My strength of opinion is just, well, me. I kind of get a bee in my bonnet about things and this is one of those things. Personally I can't see how anyone would think they are guilty. Everything I say is really only based upon my utter disbelief that anyone could find these two people guilty with the evidence that has so far been presented. of course there's more of the trial to go and things could change and my opinion could change but based upon the evidence I have seen and read I just think they are both not-guilty and it would be such a bad thing for the victims family as well as for the accused if they were to be found guilty.

As I already said earlier I really hope the people on the jury are not like a lot of people in this thread who seem to thinkk she (they?) are guilty without really knowing any of the facts of the case or the evidence.

I just wanted a bit of debate about it.

Janos, I am still not sure if you think they are guilty or not? And if you do what you would be basing that on.

"Where did the authors of that site get their information from? Is it publically available?"

yes.

"During the first session, judge Giancarlo Massei rejected a request by the Kercher family to hold the trial behind closed doors. He ruled that the trial will be public, but closed sessions will be decided on a case-by-case basis."

source

Well I think that's fair enough DuellingFanjo. I can understand all that because it's a very 'button pushing' sort of case.

I have to say, I'm not hugely convinced by the friends of Amanda site. Some of it seems to be a bit 'purple prose' and of course they are coming from a biased standpoint.

Do I think they did it? Well, they could have. I don't know. I'm not convinced they didn't.

It's true to say that none of us knows how we would behave if we came home to a slaughtered flat mate - but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't do cartwheels at the police station and tease the detectives about whether or not i was wearing any knickers.

I never believed Joanne Lees played any part in her boyfriend's murder - and, yes, she was treated badly by sections of the media. But she was unco-operative and prone to changing her story which caused the suspicion.

She certainly struck me as somebody that was revelling in the attention. From the 'cheeky monkey' t-shirt incident right through to her bahaviour at the trial with the daily fashion parade and pouting for the cameras.

Well she's not in the media anymore is she Nancy? And she could be, believe me. I think that says something ...

Yes but why did Knox tell so many different and contradictory stories, in the process defaming an innocent man?

And having finally exhausted a number of false stories, end up with "can't remember" as her defence.

Sorry if I have been a bit 'rraarrgghhh' about my views and opinions.

Of course there is stuff no one knows and perhaps I will be surprised by new info as the trial progresses.

Am still really interested to know what evidence convinces people that the two accused are guilty.

Lenin- Knox and her boyfriend who is also accused smoked some spliffs the night of the murder.