Verdict Due in Amanda Knox Re-Trial Today

1666769717290

Comments

  • occyoccy Posts: 64,630
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    She's got a new boyfriend apparently.

    She's quite pretty and Sexy
  • bollywoodbollywood Posts: 67,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    fefster wrote: »
    The only miscarriage of justice is that a murderess has escaped to America in my opinion.
    This thread is not about a potential miscarriage of justice for AK. It is about whatever you choose to discuss. You are hijacking this thread with your statements of fact that are not fact and your twisting of the facts - again in my opinion.

    What twisting of the facts? It is illegal in the US for the prosecution to withhold evidence that would be exonerating for the defendant. That was done. And such media suppression of Guede's very troubled past, the likelihood that in killing Kercher he was recreating a bloody trauma from his childhood.
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    bollywood wrote: »
    What twisting of the facts? It is illegal in the US for the prosecution to withhold evidence that would be exonerating for the defendant. That was done. And such media suppression of Guede's very troubled past, the likelihood that in killing Kercher he was recreating a bloody trauma from his childhood.

    Guede's guilt has no bearing on Knox and Sollecito's innocence (or guilt) though. Does it? He acted - the question is whether he acted alone.
  • bollywoodbollywood Posts: 67,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    Guede's guilt has no bearing on Knox and Sollecito's innocence (or guilt) though. Does it? He acted - the question is whether he acted alone.

    It does, in that, in order to make a plea bargain, Guede should have been able to give a credible account of how AK & RS were involved, if they were involved.

    If he could not, and kept changing stories, then his implication of them is just not credible. In addition he had told a similar story of fighting off a man in a house, on another occasion, that he also ( presumably) told to other inmates about an "Italian" ( thought it could have been Sollecito). This account is so utterly flimsy.
  • kippehkippeh Posts: 6,655
    Forum Member
    postit wrote: »
    "I won't go back to Italy for the trial because I don't want to be a distraction". Uh huh

    Thing is though, who in their right mind would go back?
  • shelleyj89shelleyj89 Posts: 16,292
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    fefster wrote: »
    The only miscarriage of justice is that a murderess has escaped to America in my opinion.

    She didn't "escape to America." She was released when they were acquited and she went home, which is what Rafaelle did too. His home just happened to be the country he was already in. Last time I checked, Rafaelle was a convicted murderer also not in prison, so why no uproar about him not being behind bars?
  • Mommie DearestMommie Dearest Posts: 412
    Forum Member
    very disappointed in the documentary. Was led to believe it would be an impartial one, but it was extremely biased against RS and AK IMO. One thing that's always puzzled me - IF the knife was the murder weapon (and I don't believe it was) why on earth would they put it back in RS's drawer? why not dispose of it?

    Hogzilla, I didn't see the bathroom floor "awash with blood..."?
  • towerstowers Posts: 12,183
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    very disappointed in the documentary. Was led to believe it would be an impartial one, but it was extremely biased against RS and AK IMO. One thing that's always puzzled me - IF the knife was the murder weapon (and I don't believe it was) why on earth would they put it back in RS's drawer? why not dispose of it?

    Hogzilla, I didn't see the bathroom floor "awash with blood..."?

    That's true and as someone else has said, nothing has ever been said about any cloths that the killers were wearing during the murder. And considering how brutal the killing was, there must have been an element of hatred towards the victim or mental issues from the killer involved, which police in the US and UK judge a crime scene on quite often.

    But then, if there was a staged break-in, the killer must have been known to the victim.

    There's evidence to both support and disprove Amanada Knox's guilt but either way, if I was a member of the jury on this case, I wouldn't be able to find her guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
  • CitrusBlastCitrusBlast Posts: 111
    Forum Member
    I found the documentary last night really interesting. I've always thought they both looked guilty as hell but now Im swaying more to thinking tat rather than them actually carrying out the crime that maybe they were there at the time and knew what was going on. Maybe they even helped plan the attack and then helped cover it up.

    Weirdest thing for me is why would Amanda go from saying she was at her boyfriends house to then putting herself at the scene of the crime if she was innocent. If she genuinely spent the night at her boyfriends house and knew nothing of the murder why on earth would you then say you took a man back there to sleep with her. Her explanation makes no sense.
  • Mommie DearestMommie Dearest Posts: 412
    Forum Member
    Also, the prosecution said that Amanda's blood was mixed with Meredith's (i.e they both bled at the same time) but surely, Amanda would have been examined physically to ascertain if there were any wounds/cuts/scratches inflicted by the victim or by wielding the knife?
  • Mommie DearestMommie Dearest Posts: 412
    Forum Member
    I found the documentary last night really interesting. I've always thought they both looked guilty as hell but now Im swaying more to thinking tat rather than them actually carrying out the crime that maybe they were there at the time and knew what was going on. Maybe they even helped plan the attack and then helped cover it up.

    Weirdest thing for me is why would Amanda go from saying she was at her boyfriends house to then putting herself at the scene of the crime if she was innocent. If she genuinely spent the night at her boyfriends house and knew nothing of the murder why on earth would you then say you took a man back there to sleep with her. Her explanation makes no sense.

    I know a lot of people sway towards the theory that RS & AK didn't carry out the murder but were somehow involved to a lesser degree.

    If that was the case, then why not confess? both of them would know that they would get a lesser sentence (accessory to murder)

    Also, after spending four years in jail I would think that one or both would crack at some point....
  • AftershowAftershow Posts: 10,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    fefster wrote: »
    This thread is not about a potential miscarriage of justice for AK. It is about whatever you choose to discuss. You are hijacking this thread with your statements of fact that are not fact and your twisting of the facts - again in my opinion.

    Please point out where i've been 'twisting facts'. Otherwise i'm going to have to conclude that you are a liar.

    The topic of the thread is quite clearly about what I stated it was. It clearly isn't "whatever you choose to discuss". I don't see anyone debating Saturday's football scores, or the like.
  • AftershowAftershow Posts: 10,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    very disappointed in the documentary. Was led to believe it would be an impartial one, but it was extremely biased against RS and AK IMO.

    It was laughable for the BBC to ever suggest it'd be impartial, given that the director has been one of the biggest media supporters of Giuliano Mignini throughout this entire episode.

    Still, i'm sure the numerous false statements of fact, and the completely uncritical portrayal of Mignini throughout, were just a coincidence.
  • EnglishspinnerEnglishspinner Posts: 6,132
    Forum Member
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    The BBC Three documentary tonight was rather damning for Knox and Sollecito, I thought - despite presenting both sides of the story the hard evidence did seem to suggest they were present. Especially that DNA expert - anyone see that? Also... the bathroom floor. Didn't Knox shower and claim she'd seen a bit of blood and thought nothing of it? If I don't misremember that - it was astounding as when they showed it on film, the floor was absolutely awash with blood. No way anyone could have waded through that and thought nothing odd had happened. The stuff about Sollecito's DNA on the bra strap was interesting too as apparently it was his entire DNA profile - and cross contamination, as the defence suggested, could not have accounted for that.

    Yes, the defence forensics "expert" with the dodgy specs came out with some preposterous scenarios to explain away the blood - like something out of South Park, with a flat full of girls spraying around menstrual blood, oops I've gone and cut my finger yet again, I'll just walk through it a couple of times, and enough spitting to put the average Premier League team to shame.

    The evidence and scenario mapped out by the initial investigation hasn't really been shifted, despite all the PR froth from the States. Be interesting to see the appeal judgement report when it appears, but everybody's waiting for Sollecito to sing like a canary, whether their umpteenth version of what happened will give the Kerchers some sort of closure less certain.
  • Mommie DearestMommie Dearest Posts: 412
    Forum Member
    Yes, the defence forensics "expert" with the dodgy specs came out with some preposterous scenarios to explain away the blood - like something out of South Park, with a flat full of girls spraying around menstrual blood, oops I've gone and cut my finger yet again, I'll just walk through it a couple of times, and enough spitting to put the average Premier League team to shame.

    The evidence and scenario mapped out by the initial investigation hasn't really been shifted, despite all the PR froth from the States. Be interesting to see the appeal judgement report when it appears, but everybody's waiting for Sollecito to sing like a canary, whether their umpteenth version of what happened will give the Kerchers some sort of closure less certain.

    I doubt that Sollecito will start sing like a canary. I'm sure at some point they've been offered a reduced sentence if they confess, especially RS who prosecutors believe was involved to a lesser degree. The fact that they haven't crumbled speaks volumes to me, especially after 4 years inside. If there was a mountain of evidence against them I think their lawyers would have tried to cut a deal for them. This still looks like the involvement of one man only to me - Rudy Guede.
  • AftershowAftershow Posts: 10,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yes, the defence forensics "expert" with the dodgy specs came out with some preposterous scenarios to explain away the blood - like something out of South Park, with a flat full of girls spraying around menstrual blood, oops I've gone and cut my finger yet again, I'll just walk through it a couple of times, and enough spitting to put the average Premier League team to shame.

    As opposed to the prosecution expert who claimed that Knox was walking around barefoot 'covered in blood', conveniently ignoring that the footprints attributed to her weren't blood?
  • lynwood3lynwood3 Posts: 24,904
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Hogzilla wrote: »
    The BBC Three documentary tonight was rather damning for Knox and Sollecito, I thought - despite presenting both sides of the story the hard evidence did seem to suggest they were present. Especially that DNA expert - anyone see that? Also... the bathroom floor. Didn't Knox shower and claim she'd seen a bit of blood and thought nothing of it? If I don't misremember that - it was astounding as when they showed it on film, the floor was absolutely awash with blood. No way anyone could have waded through that and thought nothing odd had happened. The stuff about Sollecito's DNA on the bra strap was interesting too as apparently it was his entire DNA profile - and cross contamination, as the defence suggested, could not have accounted for that.

    I watched the documentary and I am left with more questions than answers.
    The defense didn't use the evidence from the British expert (said to be the highest expert in his field)which is surprising as it is the only real evidence that links either Sollicito or Knox to the murder.
    It was also said that the footprints that were examined using light technology were not necessarily blood but could have been bleach, yet the film clearly showed, as you say, the floor awash with blood.
    What was the significance of Solliceto's call to the Carabinieri?

    I am not convinced that the knife found in Solliceto's kitchen was the murder weapon. The tiny bit of Meredith's DNA that was found could have got there by various means.
    There was no DNA from either Amanda Knox or Sollicto in the bedroom which I find strange. How did they manage to clean the room without leaving a trace of their own DNA?

    Although the implication is that the break in was faked again there was no evidence that positively links that to either of them.

    It seems that the case for the prosecution depends mostly on strange behaviour and of course Knox naming Lamumba.

    Although not convinced that Knox and Sollicito are innocent, if I was sitting on a jury I would have to find 'not guilty' as they are not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
  • AftershowAftershow Posts: 10,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    lynwood3 wrote: »
    What was the significance of Solliceto's call to the Carabinieri?

    They tried to portray that he only called the Carabinieri after the Polizia Postale had already turned up.

    This 'theory' was discounted in both their initial trial, and their appeal which led to the acquittal. It's a mystery why a journalist with such apparent good knowledge of the case would choose to repeat this.
  • Mommie DearestMommie Dearest Posts: 412
    Forum Member
    I noticed that they also didn't mention the early morning buying of bleach which is now discredited but still used by pro-guilters.

    Did anyone else notice that they chose not to mention that Meredith's friends didn't attend the memorial service either?
  • AOTBAOTB Posts: 9,708
    Forum Member
    fefster wrote: »
    This thread is not about a potential miscarriage of justice for AK. It is about whatever you choose to discuss. You are hijacking this thread with your statements of fact that are not fact and your twisting of the facts - again in my opinion.

    Is this some kind of joke?

    Whilst it is certainly true that there are many posters who 'hijack' the thread with twisted non facts, I find it bizarre that you single out that poster who's done nothing of the sort. In fact quite the opposite.

    Seems like this 'twisting' stuff is contagious eh?
  • AftershowAftershow Posts: 10,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    AOTB wrote: »
    Is this some kind of joke?

    Whilst it is certainly true that there are many posters who 'hijack' the thread with twisted non facts, I find it bizarre that you single out that poster who's done nothing of the sort. In fact quite the opposite.

    Seems like this 'twisting' stuff is contagious eh?

    Thanks.

    It seems like some people would prefer it if their 'theories' were allowed to go unchallenged.
  • Parker45Parker45 Posts: 5,849
    Forum Member
    One thing that's always puzzled me - IF the knife was the murder weapon (and I don't believe it was) why on earth would they put it back in RS's drawer? why not dispose of it?

    Apparently it was listed in the landlord's inventory, which would be a good reason not to dispose of it.
  • Parker45Parker45 Posts: 5,849
    Forum Member
    I know a lot of people sway towards the theory that RS & AK didn't carry out the murder but were somehow involved to a lesser degree.

    If that was the case, then why not confess? both of them would know that they would get a lesser sentence (accessory to murder)

    ...

    An accessory to murder can get as long a sentence as actually committing murder.
  • AftershowAftershow Posts: 10,021
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Parker45 wrote: »
    Apparently it was listed in the landlord's inventory, which would be a good reason not to dispose of it.

    Or he could've just bought another one to replace it - would seem like a more sensible course of action than risking having a murder weapon found.

    Or used one of the numerous knives in Knox's apartment, instead of unnecessarily carrying it there, then carrying it back.
  • bollywoodbollywood Posts: 67,769
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Yes, the defence forensics "expert" with the dodgy specs came out with some preposterous scenarios to explain away the blood - like something out of South Park, with a flat full of girls spraying around menstrual blood, oops I've gone and cut my finger yet again, I'll just walk through it a couple of times, and enough spitting to put the average Premier League team to shame.

    The evidence and scenario mapped out by the initial investigation hasn't really been shifted, despite all the PR froth from the States. Be interesting to see the appeal judgement report when it appears, but everybody's waiting for Sollecito to sing like a canary, whether their umpteenth version of what happened will give the Kerchers some sort of closure less certain.

    What is this enormous blood evidence in the bathroom that you are talking about? There was blood evidence, but not the amount that there appeared to be after the police leaked a photo of a bathroom with luminol, that had dried over time and turned the bathroom red. The actual photo was much less alarming.
Sign In or Register to comment.