Its not in the slightest bit rare, what planet do you live on? I'll name you half a dozen cases right now where exactly those things happened, and I don't even need to stop and look.
The Norfolk Four
The Guildford Four
The Beatrice Six
The Central Park Five
The West Memphis Three
Ryan Ferguson and Charles Erikson
That's without even bothering to google. If I googled for 30 seconds I bet I could find half a dozen more.
Nope.
The Norfolk Four were offered a bargain to implicate others. Knox was not.
The Guildford four admitted guilt after torture. They didn't implicate others. She was not tortured for a week.
I could go on with the others.
Trying to suggest Knox was subjected to the same kind of coercion that the Guildford four were subjected to is risible.
Anyone who still thinks Knox and Sollecito are guilty must also believe that it's possible to selectively and completely clean your own DNA and bloody footprints from a crime scene while leaving another persons DNA and footprints undisturbed. There are other nonsensical things you have to accept too, but this is the most incredible.
Those who insist they must be guilty, because that was how it was presented by the media all along, can now comfort themselves with the idea that it was US government pressure that created this final verdict. Not complete the lack of evidence of guilt.
The Norfolk Four were offered a bargain to implicate others. Knox was not.
The Guildford four admitted guilt after torture. They didn't implicate others. She was not tortured for a week.
I could go on with the others.
Trying to suggest Knox was subjected to the same kind of coercion that the Guildford four were subjected to is risible.
No, Gerry Conlon admitted guilt and named the three others after torture. The Norfolk Four didn't "implicate others", they accused each other, and not for any bargain either - in America police officers are not allowed to promise leniency in return for confessions.
If you could go on with the others, please do. Explain to me how Charles Erikson was tortured when his entire police interrogation is posted on You Tube. Or Jessie Miskelley, tell us about what the West Memphis police did to torture him.
The suggestion that false confessions/accusations can only be induced by torture is naive in the extreme. Psychological pressure can produce false statements as effectively as waterboarding or beating.
I found her performance after the news squirm making. And I do think it was a performance. Sob - tremble - quivering voice....
Nauseating
Does anyone seriously believe she is innocent? If she didn't kill Kercher, it would beg the question who did and why there is no evidence pointing in the direction of another suspect.
No, Gerry Conlon admitted guilt and named the three others after torture. The Norfolk Four didn't "implicate others", they accused each other, and not for any bargain either - in America police officers are not allowed to promise leniency in return for confessions.
If you could go on with the others, please do. Explain to me how Charles Erikson was tortured when his entire police interrogation is posted on You Tube. Or Jessie Miskelley, tell us about what the West Memphis police did to torture him.
The suggestion that false confessions/accusations can only be induced by torture is naive in the extreme. Psychological pressure can produce false statements as effectively as waterboarding or beating.
Conlon was certainly "admitting" to a crime he hadn't committed......we now know he and the other three had never even set foot in Guildford before the bombings.
Does anyone seriously believe she is innocent? If she didn't kill Kercher, it would beg the question who did and why there is no evidence pointing in the direction of another suspect.
Does anyone seriously believe she is innocent? If she didn't kill Kercher, it would beg the question who did and why there is no evidence pointing in the direction of another suspect.
I honestly cannot tell if this post is serious or sarcastic.
Innocent or not.Knox is clealy a really horrible person.what kind of person tell police she was in the flat at the time of the murder and put her hand over her ears when the murder was taking place....landing someone she knew in jail with her false accusations?
I wonder if she will put that scene in her next big selling book or big budget movie to come...
She came across really badly, saying she was there when it happened and implicating an innocent man was totally stupid. The way she acted afterwards was totally inappropriate. I mean who thinks it's acceptable to be all over your boyfriend in public straight after your room mate is brutally killed? If I'm being kind I would say it was immaturity but I still don't get that mind set. Still none of that means she is a murderer. From stuff I read about the case there were reasons to raise suspicion but none strong enough to convict. It's surprising to me it went on for so long.
Rudy Guede and....who else? There were others according to the Supreme Court. Who were these mysterious killers?
There didn't have to be other killers. There are precedents of one person committing a crime like this. A forensic re-creation showed that it was impossible for three persons to be in the room, or the blood spatters would have been blocked. Depending on Guede's state of mind and/or drugs he was using, he could have been quite energized. It's probably not even a rare occurrence.
It's equally as amusing to see not one single person who still thinks she is guilty offer up any kind of tangible evidence or dissection of the case to bolster their point other than "it's how i feel" or "how she comes across".
I hope you're not aiming that post at me. The issue of her personality and behaviour is separate from the issue of whether or not she's innocent. Some don't seem able to separate the two though
There didn't have to be other killers. There are precedents of one person committing a crime like this. A forensic re-creation showed that it was impossible for three persons to be in the room, or the blood spatters would have been blocked. Depending on Guede's state of mind and/or drugs he was using, he could have been quite energized. It's probably not even a rare occurrence.
The other people they suggest were involved relate to assisting him getting in, or so I thought. As a practiced burglar I don't think this would have been a problem for him. It certainly wouldn't necessarily have taken more than one person to commit the murder. The idea of several people probably started with the prosecutions original, totally unsupported, theory of a sex orgy gone wrong.
All this thread proves to me is. If you have to place your future in the hands or more precisely the minds of a jury weighing up the evidence - be very afraid. Be careful what you wear. Don't smile as it means you're smug and did it. Watch what you're doing with your eyes. They are able to determine your whole personality. If you look at them funny you are a psychopath.
The other people they suggest were involved relate to assisting him getting in, or so I thought. As a practiced burglar I don't think this would have been a problem for him. It certainly wouldn't necessarily have taken more than one person to commit the murder. The idea of several people probably started with the prosecutions original, totally unsupported, theory of a sex orgy gone wrong.
Yes it was shown how he could have easily scaled the wall, why the glass splinter patterns showed that a rock was probably used from the outside to open the window, he had scaled walls before, he would get up at night and do things in a somnolent state, very bizarre. The idea that a sex orgy occurred in a room in which Knox left no trace, is very unlikely.
All this thread proves to me is. If you have to place your future in the hands or more precisely the minds of a jury weighing up the evidence - be very afraid. Be careful what you wear. Don't smile as it means you're smug and did it. Watch what you're doing with your eyes. They are able to determine your whole personality. If you look at them funny you are a psychopath.
Best of Luck.
Also don't be accused in a country where the prosecution can brief against you in the media months before the trial begins. And don't do any yoga in case it gets referred to as turning cartwheels.
What I would like to know is what all the pro-Knox people on this thread have to say on the subject of multiple attackers.
If, as you all suggest, that we all must now abide by the court ruling because they know best, just who were the other attackers in this case, bearing in mind that we now must believe there were more than one because the court have ruled it so.
It's not about being "pro-Knox" or pro-Sollecito I might add, seeing as nobody else seems to mention him, it's about believing two people who were accused of murder didn't do it. I have never bought the multiple attackers theory.
I assume you were happy to "abide by the court ruling because they know best" when it found them guilty though? Where have you got the idea that this court ruled there were multiple attackers? We don't yet have the explanation of the annulled convictions. Or are you talking about the original prosecutor and his sex game theory?
I honestly cannot tell if this post is serious or sarcastic.
Serious, I can assure you. It seems illogical that she had no act or part in the murder given the the numerous inconsistencies in her testimony. Certainly Kercher's family seem to be absolutely convinced of Knox's involvement.
If this really had been a genuine wrongful conviction like the Guildford Four etc, I doubt there would still be such a huge shadow of suspicion hanging over Knox.
Serious, I can assure you. It seems illogical that she had no act or part in the murder given the the numerous inconsistencies in her testimony. Certainly Kercher's family seem to be absolutely convinced of Knox's involvement.
If this really had been a genuine wrongful conviction like the Guildford Four etc, I doubt there would still be such a huge shadow of suspicion hanging over Knox.
The distress I feel at such naivete from an Irish person is deep. Rudy Guede's hand print was found on the bedroom wall, his DNA was found inside her vagina, and he pleaded guilty in court.
How on earth can you say that Knox is guilty on all the same silly little insinuation grounds that The Sun et al used against the Guildford Four after they were acquitted?
The distress I feel at such naivete from an Irish person is deep. Rudy Guede's hand print was found on the bedroom wall, his DNA was found inside her vagina, and he pleaded guilty in court.
How on earth can you say that Knox is guilty on all the same silly little insinuation grounds that The Sun et al used against the Guildford Four after they were acquitted?
Some people here are obsessed.
None of us can know whether she was guilty or not.
I don't think she was, but I honestly don't know.
I wouldn't trust anybody who sweepingly and absolutely claims she was or was not guilty. If somebody is able to jump to such conclusions so abruptly it means I doubt their ability to make impartial and balanced decisions.
It's a complicated case and the evidence is too mixed. Now too much time has gone by and the courts have demonstrated themselves to be nothing but a circus unable of finding the truth, whatever it may be. We will never know. Period.
None of us can know whether she was guilty or not.
I don't think she was, but I honestly don't know.
I wouldn't trust anybody who sweepingly and absolutely claims she was or was not guilty. If somebody is able to jump to such conclusions so abruptly it means I doubt their ability to make impartial and balanced decisions.
It's a complicated case and the evidence is too mixed. Now too much time has gone by and the courts have demonstrated themselves to be nothing but a circus unable of finding the truth, whatever it may be. We will never know. Period.
All of which put together, means that if I was on a jury, I would have reasonable doubt. So..........not guilty is my verdict. Period.
Comments
Nope.
The Norfolk Four were offered a bargain to implicate others. Knox was not.
The Guildford four admitted guilt after torture. They didn't implicate others. She was not tortured for a week.
I could go on with the others.
Trying to suggest Knox was subjected to the same kind of coercion that the Guildford four were subjected to is risible.
Those who insist they must be guilty, because that was how it was presented by the media all along, can now comfort themselves with the idea that it was US government pressure that created this final verdict. Not complete the lack of evidence of guilt.
No, Gerry Conlon admitted guilt and named the three others after torture. The Norfolk Four didn't "implicate others", they accused each other, and not for any bargain either - in America police officers are not allowed to promise leniency in return for confessions.
If you could go on with the others, please do. Explain to me how Charles Erikson was tortured when his entire police interrogation is posted on You Tube. Or Jessie Miskelley, tell us about what the West Memphis police did to torture him.
The suggestion that false confessions/accusations can only be induced by torture is naive in the extreme. Psychological pressure can produce false statements as effectively as waterboarding or beating.
Does anyone seriously believe she is innocent? If she didn't kill Kercher, it would beg the question who did and why there is no evidence pointing in the direction of another suspect.
Conlon was certainly "admitting" to a crime he hadn't committed......we now know he and the other three had never even set foot in Guildford before the bombings.
Rudy Guede seems to be a plausible candidate.
I honestly cannot tell if this post is serious or sarcastic.
Rudy Guede and....who else? There were others according to the Supreme Court. Who were these mysterious killers?
What physical evidence did they leave?
Are you for real? The majority of Americans I've met absolutely love the Brits. I get treated like a celebrity when I'm over there.
She came across really badly, saying she was there when it happened and implicating an innocent man was totally stupid. The way she acted afterwards was totally inappropriate. I mean who thinks it's acceptable to be all over your boyfriend in public straight after your room mate is brutally killed? If I'm being kind I would say it was immaturity but I still don't get that mind set. Still none of that means she is a murderer. From stuff I read about the case there were reasons to raise suspicion but none strong enough to convict. It's surprising to me it went on for so long.
There didn't have to be other killers. There are precedents of one person committing a crime like this. A forensic re-creation showed that it was impossible for three persons to be in the room, or the blood spatters would have been blocked. Depending on Guede's state of mind and/or drugs he was using, he could have been quite energized. It's probably not even a rare occurrence.
I hope you're not aiming that post at me. The issue of her personality and behaviour is separate from the issue of whether or not she's innocent. Some don't seem able to separate the two though
Best of Luck.
I read this as you saying you were a practised burglar, before I got the proper meaning!
Yes it was shown how he could have easily scaled the wall, why the glass splinter patterns showed that a rock was probably used from the outside to open the window, he had scaled walls before, he would get up at night and do things in a somnolent state, very bizarre. The idea that a sex orgy occurred in a room in which Knox left no trace, is very unlikely.
My secret is out. Curses.
It's not about being "pro-Knox" or pro-Sollecito I might add, seeing as nobody else seems to mention him, it's about believing two people who were accused of murder didn't do it. I have never bought the multiple attackers theory.
I assume you were happy to "abide by the court ruling because they know best" when it found them guilty though? Where have you got the idea that this court ruled there were multiple attackers? We don't yet have the explanation of the annulled convictions. Or are you talking about the original prosecutor and his sex game theory?
Serious, I can assure you. It seems illogical that she had no act or part in the murder given the the numerous inconsistencies in her testimony. Certainly Kercher's family seem to be absolutely convinced of Knox's involvement.
If this really had been a genuine wrongful conviction like the Guildford Four etc, I doubt there would still be such a huge shadow of suspicion hanging over Knox.
The distress I feel at such naivete from an Irish person is deep. Rudy Guede's hand print was found on the bedroom wall, his DNA was found inside her vagina, and he pleaded guilty in court.
How on earth can you say that Knox is guilty on all the same silly little insinuation grounds that The Sun et al used against the Guildford Four after they were acquitted?
Some people here are obsessed.
None of us can know whether she was guilty or not.
I don't think she was, but I honestly don't know.
I wouldn't trust anybody who sweepingly and absolutely claims she was or was not guilty. If somebody is able to jump to such conclusions so abruptly it means I doubt their ability to make impartial and balanced decisions.
It's a complicated case and the evidence is too mixed. Now too much time has gone by and the courts have demonstrated themselves to be nothing but a circus unable of finding the truth, whatever it may be. We will never know. Period.
All of which put together, means that if I was on a jury, I would have reasonable doubt. So..........not guilty is my verdict. Period.