Bear in mind they are putting their professional reputations on the line. Do you think they would do this just because of some 'Seattle' or indeed American bias?
This particular poster is rather known for her views on the US, and Americans. Despite their claim for having spent years in Colorado or some nonsense, they have a profoundly negative view of the US. It's just one of those things you have to know before reading their posts.
So even NOW, after being convicted of murder, his drug dealing is still only an allegation?
Interesting that!
Of course, because Amanda is an American, she must have masterminded and orchestrated it all, and corrupted and forced all these innocent people in on it, including Guede.
Very interesting. So, he says that there is more than enough evidence to convict her if she faced trial in the US, and would be looking at a life sentence or death penalty. And that if the extradition is decided on the evidence, she will be extradited.
Indeed- and if that's coming from a professor in law at Harvard, then that's good enough for me. Like he says in the video, the only reason she wouldn't be extradited would be for political reasons, and not legal ones.
Well since I personally know some of the people involved in this case, I think I probably am better informed than you'll ever be. Who I am is not your concern, and I don't feel I need to reveal my identity. That's all I'm saying on the matter. You can choose to disbelieve me- at the end of the day, whether you believe me or not is of no consequence to me whatsoever and I won't be discussing that particular element further.
Your answer doesn't make any sense. "If the verdict was innocent I suspect you'll accept that" - what does that mean??
I'm an unbiased bystander - the verdict means nothing to me.
Please explain yourself.
Had Amanda been acquitted of the murder charge, I bet that verdict (the "not guilty" verdict) would have been acceptable to you so yes, it's the court one has to trust.
Not hard according to CNN and BBC experts though. And not at the level of DNA that the prosecution was accepting, that was below the normal level. Saliva from a soda straw?
If you take any one piece of circumstantial evidence, it is attackable. The staged break in? All the signs of stone throw from outside.Yes, but the glass was all over the top of items in the ransacked room, which suggests that the window was broken AFTER the 'burglary'. The heroin user witness ? Not reliable. But there were other credible witnesses, including the lady who heard a scream and heard someone running away from the house, and the man who owned the shop where Knox bought bleach the following morning. The bloodstained bathroom? Look at the real photo, not the stained one. Yeah, we know that the substance in that particular photo is luminol, so what? Motive. Walked it back now. Bloody footprint? Guedes. Knife? Didn't fit wound.Actually, in the judges sentencing report, he said that the knife with Knox's and Meredith's DNA on it was used as part of the attach- I will have to find the link to that particular piece of info
and can any of the Knox supporters tell me how Knox knew that the body was initially put in the wardrobe before the forensic experts knew? I've asked this question a few times now, and posted a link to the judge's report with that specific part, but none of the Knox supporters have attempted to explain that one away. I'll be interested to hear what people have to say.
Had Amanda been acquitted of the murder charge, I bet that verdict (the "not guilty" verdict) would have been acceptable to you so yes, it's the court one has to trust.
No, not at all. I don't have any knowledge of the case, except what I've seen on the telly news, and I'm not biased either way.
As I said before- I care not a jot what any of you think- I don't know you, and none of your opinions mean anything to me. But I will say this- I will endeavour, as many others have/are doing, to counteract the lies/misinformation put out there by the Knox PR machine.
As I said before- I care not a jot what any of you think- I don't know you, and none of your opinions mean anything to me. But I will say this- I will endeavour, as many others have/are doing, to counteract the lies/misinformation put out there by the Knox PR machine.
So you have inside information about what happened. Whose side are you on then?
As I said before- I care not a jot what any of you think- I don't know you, and none of your opinions mean anything to me. But I will say this- I will endeavour, as many others have/are doing, to counteract the lies/misinformation put out there by the Knox PR machine.
And likewise, I'm sure the people who think she has been stitched up will continue to throw the ball back. So have fun.
Yes, he went to the toilet and didn't flush. However, Meredith's room was locked when the police arrived, so how did he leave the room to go to the toilet in the first place? Are you seriously trying to tell me that he climbed through a window that was 8 feet away from the ground and was visible to cars on a public road, killed her on his own, rearranged the murder scene so the broken glass was on top of all the objects in the ransacked room and then walked out andlocked Meredith's door?!
Well I can think of a sequence of events. He breaks into the apartment, rummages around. Decides to use the bathroom. Is disturbed, possibly hearing Meredith. Follows her into her room, ends up killing her. Leaves the room and locks the door. Tries to clean himself up in the other bathroom. Returns to the room he broke in and pulls some of the remaining glass from the window which drops on top of other objects. Climbs out of the window to leave the building.
You refer to far fetched hypothesis. I find the idea of three people murdering someone because of a sexual assault to silence her more far fetched than a man with a track record of breaking and entering armed with a knife doing so that night.
and can any of the Knox supporters tell me how Knox knew that the body was initially put in the wardrobe before the forensic experts knew? I've asked this question a few times now, and posted a link to the judge's report with that specific part, but none of the Knox supporters have attempted to explain that one away. I'll be interested to hear what people have to say.
I'd like to know as well, but no-one seems to know the answer. Strange, that.
I think they are as guilty as Hell; I know it's a hunch, but the pair of them didn't seem to grieve for Meredith. They were only concerned about saving their own skins.
Well I can think of a sequence of events. He breaks into the apartment, rummages around. Decides to use the bathroom. Is disturbed, possibly hearing Meredith. Follows her into her room, ends up killing her. Leaves the room and locks the door. Tries to clean himself up in the other bathroom. Returns to the room he broke in and pulls some of the remaining glass from the window which drops on top of other objects. Climbs out of the window to leave the building.
You refer to far fetched hypothesis. I find the idea of three people murdering someone because of a sexual assault to silence her more far fetched than a man with a track record of breaking and entering armed with a knife doing so that night.
That sounds far fetched to me. Yes he had a track record for burglary and drug dealing but until that night he'd never been violent. Also it's been reported that he was well known to the university students in the area and regularly sold them drugs and smoked dope with them. Why would he break into a house in an area where he was well known?
I think he was invited to the house probably by Knox and Sollecito.
Well since I personally know some of the people involved in this case, I think I probably am better informed than you'll ever be. Who I am is not your concern, and I don't feel I need to reveal my identity. That's all I'm saying on the matter. You can choose to disbelieve me- at the end of the day, whether you believe me or not is of no consequence to me whatsoever and I won't be discussing that particular element further.
I don't believe that any of them set out to kill her- unfortunately situations do get out of hand. As I said before, I'm in no position to hypothesise as I don't know- the only thing I will say is that I think Guede probably came onto her, the other 2 egged him on and restrained her, someone pulled a knife on her and maybe left a mark.
At that point, they probably realised that she'd go to the police- and as she knew her attackers, they knew they wouldn't get away with it.
So unfortunately, murder was their only option. Bear in mind that it's thought this attack happened in the space of about 15 mins- so there wasn't much time to think any decisions through properly. If you've taken part in sexual assault, and you know that the victim will go to the police, then what other choice do you have if you don't want anybody to find out? From the perpetrators' point of view, if they wanted any chance of saving their own skins then the victim had to be silenced. For me, that would be the only logical motive. For the record, I don't believe that anybody set out to sexually assault or kill her- as I said, AK, RS and Guede probably found it funny at first, but it just got out of hand, as sometimes things do. I see all these far-fetched hypotheses being bandied about- personally, I think that the truth is far simpler.
Damn, you've just expressed my thought entirely, but in a much more erudite manner than I could.
I see all these far-fetched hypotheses being bandied about- personally, I think that the truth is far simpler.
I totally agree with the above, but also totally diasgree with your view on what the more probably scenario was.
I tend to side with the opinion of one of the panel of experts in the video I posted on the page before last.
I agree that the most logical explanation is usually the most likely explanation.
Scenario 1)
Rudy Guede is a known burglar who was known to be recently active and known to carry a knife. He throws a rock through the window and as no one came to the window, he has access to the flat, and knows no one is home. This kind of MO is not uncommon. During the robbery he was disturbed by Meredith who has come home mid burglary and so he sexually assaulted and then killed her, leaving his DNA inside her. He took her phone & fled to Germany.
This kind of crime happens somewhere in the world every day.
Scenario 2)
AK and RS (who had only been dating a very short time, and met at a classical concert), decide they want to do a threesome. They choose a known burglar who they personally hardly know to join them. Whist they are at the home, at some point, Rudy Guede then decides he also wants to include AK'd housemate, Meredith resists and so he sexually assaults her and leaves his semen inside her. Knox and RS then take the decision to help the rapist burglar, and not the housemate Meredith.
They hold her down and Knox, who has no history of violence or indeed sexual deviancy, decides to cut her housemates throat alongside her recent boyfriend and a person they had briefly met who is a known criminal, rather than try and help or attempt to escape and get help.
This type of crime, involving not 1 but 3 people (2 of which have no history of violence, and are not known to carry a knife) is incredibly rare.
For me, scenario 1 is by far and away the most plausible, by quite some distance.
Comments
This particular poster is rather known for her views on the US, and Americans. Despite their claim for having spent years in Colorado or some nonsense, they have a profoundly negative view of the US. It's just one of those things you have to know before reading their posts.
Of course, because Amanda is an American, she must have masterminded and orchestrated it all, and corrupted and forced all these innocent people in on it, including Guede.
If the verdict was innocent I suspect you'll accept that so yes, the court!
Indeed- and if that's coming from a professor in law at Harvard, then that's good enough for me. Like he says in the video, the only reason she wouldn't be extradited would be for political reasons, and not legal ones.
Your answer doesn't make any sense. "If the verdict was innocent I suspect you'll accept that" - what does that mean??
I'm an unbiased bystander - the verdict means nothing to me.
Please explain yourself.
I'm Amanda Knox's mum.
Had Amanda been acquitted of the murder charge, I bet that verdict (the "not guilty" verdict) would have been acceptable to you so yes, it's the court one has to trust.
and can any of the Knox supporters tell me how Knox knew that the body was initially put in the wardrobe before the forensic experts knew? I've asked this question a few times now, and posted a link to the judge's report with that specific part, but none of the Knox supporters have attempted to explain that one away. I'll be interested to hear what people have to say.
No, not at all. I don't have any knowledge of the case, except what I've seen on the telly news, and I'm not biased either way.
Which side of the case are these people on?
As I said before- I care not a jot what any of you think- I don't know you, and none of your opinions mean anything to me. But I will say this- I will endeavour, as many others have/are doing, to counteract the lies/misinformation put out there by the Knox PR machine.
Both, which is all I will say on the matter.
Ok. Sorry about that.
So you have inside information about what happened. Whose side are you on then?
No need - just chatting.
Right, so we're just supposed to accept that you're better informed because you claim to know unspecified people 'involved in the case'?
And likewise, I'm sure the people who think she has been stitched up will continue to throw the ball back. So have fun.
I won't be commenting further- so I wouldn't bother trying! ;-)
Well I can think of a sequence of events. He breaks into the apartment, rummages around. Decides to use the bathroom. Is disturbed, possibly hearing Meredith. Follows her into her room, ends up killing her. Leaves the room and locks the door. Tries to clean himself up in the other bathroom. Returns to the room he broke in and pulls some of the remaining glass from the window which drops on top of other objects. Climbs out of the window to leave the building.
You refer to far fetched hypothesis. I find the idea of three people murdering someone because of a sexual assault to silence her more far fetched than a man with a track record of breaking and entering armed with a knife doing so that night.
He's the judge's father's brother's nephew's cousin's former room mate.
That's not the impression I get with said poster since s/he's been quoting from linked sources.
Thanks ;-)
I'd like to know as well, but no-one seems to know the answer. Strange, that.
I think they are as guilty as Hell; I know it's a hunch, but the pair of them didn't seem to grieve for Meredith. They were only concerned about saving their own skins.
That sounds far fetched to me. Yes he had a track record for burglary and drug dealing but until that night he'd never been violent. Also it's been reported that he was well known to the university students in the area and regularly sold them drugs and smoked dope with them. Why would he break into a house in an area where he was well known?
I think he was invited to the house probably by Knox and Sollecito.
Damn, you've just expressed my thought entirely, but in a much more erudite manner than I could.
I totally agree with the above, but also totally diasgree with your view on what the more probably scenario was.
I tend to side with the opinion of one of the panel of experts in the video I posted on the page before last.
I agree that the most logical explanation is usually the most likely explanation.
Scenario 1)
Rudy Guede is a known burglar who was known to be recently active and known to carry a knife. He throws a rock through the window and as no one came to the window, he has access to the flat, and knows no one is home. This kind of MO is not uncommon. During the robbery he was disturbed by Meredith who has come home mid burglary and so he sexually assaulted and then killed her, leaving his DNA inside her. He took her phone & fled to Germany.
This kind of crime happens somewhere in the world every day.
Scenario 2)
AK and RS (who had only been dating a very short time, and met at a classical concert), decide they want to do a threesome. They choose a known burglar who they personally hardly know to join them. Whist they are at the home, at some point, Rudy Guede then decides he also wants to include AK'd housemate, Meredith resists and so he sexually assaults her and leaves his semen inside her. Knox and RS then take the decision to help the rapist burglar, and not the housemate Meredith.
They hold her down and Knox, who has no history of violence or indeed sexual deviancy, decides to cut her housemates throat alongside her recent boyfriend and a person they had briefly met who is a known criminal, rather than try and help or attempt to escape and get help.
This type of crime, involving not 1 but 3 people (2 of which have no history of violence, and are not known to carry a knife) is incredibly rare.
For me, scenario 1 is by far and away the most plausible, by quite some distance.