Amanda Knox - Acquited of all charges! ^_^ Y

[HELLAFLUSH240SX]

Its a complex situation.
I think she is innocent, although I want to go over the evidence more thorughly.
Seems like the Italians really wanted to nail her, why the hate?

Also, this is the reason I can't see myself visiting outside countries, I would hate to end up in a jail where no one likes me, and I can't talks to anyone.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

...Then why is our local 30 minute TV news making such a big deal of it..

Because it's a high-profile case. When the Libyans rose up to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi, no Australians were involved. Nobody on either side was particuarly famous. And nobody was related to any Australians (at least, nobody was reported to), and yet we got months of coverage.

Seems like the Italians really wanted to nail her, why the hate?

The same reason why people hated Casey Anthony.

 

[shmogt]

So the classic black guy is guilty because he's black?

Haaha that's literally the plan for them. Everyone always assumes it's the black guy so they just blamed it on him and the cops actually believed them and picked him up. Casey Anthony was another pretty white girl that people just don't pick to be your typical insane murder. OJ was like the only black person in history to get off of murder. I don't really know anything about this case I am only hearing about it lately and about blaming the black guy, but could someone give me a small run down of what happened.

Edit: I read some more of the post and it's true the media is portraying these people as awful of course they did it people, but none of you are actually in the court listening to everything and seeing all the evidence. If they managed to justify it there than it could be possible that they didn't do anything wrong and it was just really bad timing sort of thing.

 

[Jay]

Because it's a high-profile case. When the Libyans rose up to overthrow Muammar Qaddafi, no Australians were involved. Nobody on either side was particuarly famous. And nobody was related to any Australians (at least, nobody was reported to), and yet we got months of coverage.

A women on trial for murder vs a Government overthrow.... ok, nice comparison.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

A women on trial for murder vs a Government overthrow.... ok, nice comparison.

It's not like Knox is headline news down here. Watching Ten news, the top stories are a) an Australian killed in a helicopter crash in New York, b) unions accusing Qantas of staging death threats against their CEO to drum up public sympathy, and c) two dogs in Sydney that were mauled to death by a neighbour's dog. Amanda Knox didn't feature until about fifteen minutes in, after the first ad break.

 

[Famine]

Another dissapointing thing I see in this thread is alot of "I know nothing about the case nor care...but she looks guilty to me" or better yet "I've heard from others" are others lawyers that have analyzed this case from both sides that aren't tv pundits looking for their face on the air? Really these comments only make you look a bit ignorant, as if someone else must do homework for you.

I haven't seen any of that. Though I've seen some "She's pretty, so she can't have murdered anyone.".

Sauce for the goose?

 

[Robin]

If an American student had been murdered by an Italian national, then it would be a problem - but here, an American student was accused of murdering an American student.

Meredith Kercher was British, that put off a ton of UK students wanting to study in Italy, especially rural areas. As Knox has been acquitted then we technically still don't know who killed her and it might well have been an Italian national who did it.

I'm sure America would not look kindly on a US national being detained in a foreign country anyway and I think they were trying to extradite her to a US court the whole time. Small amounts of pressure could have put on by the US especially after 4 years to encourage Italy to 'do the right thing'.

 

[Touring Mars]

Meredith Kercher was British, that put off a ton of UK students wanting to study in Italy, especially rural areas. As Knox has been acquitted then we technically still don't know who killed her and it might well have been an Italian national who did it.

Remember that Rudy Guede was convicted in a separate trial, with far more compelling evidence linking him to the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher. He also fled the country after the murder, unlike Knox who went straight back to her house/the murder scene. Guede may get a re-trial based on the degree of incompetence shown by the Italian police and the fact that Knox's conviction has been demonstrated to be unsafe (and hence why it was overturned), but his case is very different to that of both Knox and Sollecito. The assumption that more than one person was involved in Kercher's murder is one based on very shaky grounds.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Meredith Kercher was British, that put off a ton of UK students wanting to study in Italy, especially rural areas.

That sounds like a sensationalised overstatement put forward by tabloids to get readers, "IF YOU'RE BRITISH AND YOU STUDY IN ITALY, YOU WILL BE MURDERED BY DRUG-CRAZED SATANISTS IN A SEX GAME". There were a whole heap of Indian students that got bashed in Melbourne last year, but it didn't deter Indian students from coming over to Australia.

 

[Touring Mars]

Meanwhile, on planet Daily Mail...

To be fair, her facial expression (always a good thing to base a headline on!) was obviously one of anguish, and not of joy! Someone needs to brush up on their Italian, methinks...

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Meanwhile, on planet Daily Fail...

To be fair, her facial expression (always a good thing to base a headline on!) was obviously one of anguish, and not of joy! Someone needs to brush up on their Italian, methinks...

Fixed.

 

[Hun200kmh]

That (Daily Mail story) is bigger news here than the Knox case. Saw it yesterday in one of our "serious" newspapers. With a link to this:

http://www.mailwatch.co.uk/2011/10/03/invented-eyewitness-accounts/

 

[daspianist]

This is off topic:

Remember when I said that Amanda Knox wasn't really model material? I lied:

Give her a Calvin Klein Collection dress and a pair of Yves Saint Laurent shoes .. and she'll be a killer model.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I haven't seen any of that. Though I've seen some "She's pretty, so she can't have murdered anyone.".

Sauce for the goose?

First off that was just a quick sum up...but I've collected a few of the threads where people say they haven't followed the case and don't know much about it. How about some self-knowledging before you spout...just would seem to make this whole debate intellectually sound, dont you think?

I havent been following this closely at all so I have no idea if she is truly guilty or innocent. But after the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony trial, NOTHING surprises me.

I had no opinion on the matter until I saw her statement today. She went from a stumbling, teary girl who was asked if she'd like to sit down to give her statement (in retrospect this looked highly scripted as she answered, to her solictor, "Sitting down won't change the situation") to a ranting, florid, gesticulating, confident speaker for ten minutes before seemingly realising she's supposed to be upset again and stumbling over the last few words.

I have no idea of the details of the case, why she was convicted in the first place nor why she was acquitted today, but she looked like a straight-up liar in that performance.

On the looks comment you made - its a proven psychological phenomenon that people who are 'more attractive' are less likely to be given a heavy punishment or he convicted by a jury as heavily. I don't know anything about the case really but it seems like this may have played a part in the verdict of this case.

And with what famine said someone acting like that is very suspicious and I would agree that that seems very much like a liar. Just my view as a psychology student.

 

[Famine]

First off that was just a quick sum up...but I've collected a few of the threads where people say they haven't followed the case and don't know much about it. How about some self-knowledging before you spout...just would seem to make this whole debate intellectually sound, dont you think?

How about reading the conversation Touring Mars and I had before you accuse me of saying that she "looks guilty"?

Another dissapointing thing I see in this thread is alot of "I know nothing about the case nor care...but she looks guilty to me"

What I said was that, unrelated to the trial or indeed anything other than the single, summing-up statement she made, her behaviour in that summing-up statement made that statement alone look false. I went on to clarify that I was passing no comment on her guilt:

Just a tad disingenious there... You're saying that she appears to you as a liar, as she defends herself in a court of law where she stands accused and convicted of murder, and that's not meant to be a comment on her guilt in any way?

Correct, sort of. I'm stating that, in the instance of that single statement she gave, she behaved as if she was lying.

There's a bit of a gulf between "She looked like a liar giving that statement" and "She's guilty of raping and murdering her best friend and flatmate".

Actually reading the debate before you leap in and dismiss the comments in it would seem to make this whole debate intellectually sound, dont you think?

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

How about reading the conversation Touring Mars and I had before you accuse me of saying that she "looks guilty"?



What I said was that, unrelated to the trial or indeed anything other than the single, summing-up statement she made, her behaviour in that summing-up statement made that statement alone look false. I went on to clarify that I was passing no comment on her guilt:



Actually reading the debate before you leap in and dismiss the comments in it would seem to make this whole debate intellectually sound, dont you think?

Or perhaps you coming off intellectually sound in the first place might have helped instead of sounding like some outsider seeming as if they just heard about the case. When I made that comment that you originally disagreed with, that was before I had read all of your comments with touring. I only brought it up again to show you why I made to comment like you asked. I was just giving you an answer to why I said that like you wanted. So don't act as if I haven't gone back or what not, you wanted an answer you got the answer to why I said that how ever many days ago. I'm not saying I believe that still as far as you go, but that was why I said my first post on this thread. So try not use emotion in an argument and maybe try to understand with reason if we're going to talk about intellectual soundness.

 

[Famine]

Or perhaps you coming off intellectually sound in the first place might have helped instead of sounding like some outsider seeming as if they just heard about the case.

What you infer from my posts is your problem, not mine. I clearly stated that I had no interest in the case whatsoever and was judging Amanda Knox's behaviour over the course of that statement to reflect the validity of that statement.

When I made that comment that you originally disagreed with, that was before I had read all of your comments with touring.

Reading all of a thread - and this one's not particularly long - before you post is a good way to ensure your own contributions reflect the context of the thread.

I am not to blame for what you read into my post nor your failing to read the follow-up that clarified it further before you commented on what you believed I'd said. You are.

I only brought it up again to show you why I made to comment like you asked. I was just giving you an answer to why I said that like you wanted.

I didn't ask why you'd said it. I pointed out that I hadn't seen anyone say "she looks guilty to me" (as you said). I still haven't - though I've seen a few comments along the lines of her being too pretty to murder people...

So try not use emotion in an argument

You've taken it upon yourself to deride others for an opinion that hasn't been expressed. You're reacting emotionally and not rationally - otherwise you'd have read what has actually been said and not made your first comment at all.

 

[Omnis]

Give her a Calvin Klein Collection dress and a pair of Yves Saint Laurent shoes .. and she'll be a killer model.

OH HO! You're good.

You're good, you!

 

[Keef]

Wow. That went over my head for six whole days...and he even italicized it!

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@ Famine, okay sure thing boss. When you say you haven't followed a case nor care what do you expect people to get from that...now you just seem to be splitting hairs. That comment alone makes you seem like you're just here to be here and not put a real perspective on things. I mean I'm not sure what warped rational I should have to understand you? I gave you the comments that show they didn't follow the case. I said people on here have said they didn't follow the case, yet make a comment for what reason...I don't understand why you would comment on a case you didn't follow. It's like trying to talk science but never picking up a book on the subject. "I know nothing about the case nor care...but she looks guilty to me" that is what I said, not just the snippet you used. Meaning they say one part or the other or both. That is what I was getting from a few of you. If you want to disagree as far as your comment goes that's fine cause your words are your words and only you truely know what you're getting at. I said what I said once again cause from the basic understanding of you strung your first post together made you come off as someone here to just talk. Like I said now that I understand it better that's that, but wouldn't have been easier from the get go?

 

[Famine]

but wouldn't have been easier from the get go?

It would have been easier "from the get go" if you'd read the thread before ascribing a paraphrase to the participants of it that could not possibly be arrived at except through logical leaps.

I notice you haven't been similarly disparaging towards the people who've actually said that Amanda Knox is too attractive to have murdered someone - which was the second of my two objections to your post. I wonder why that is.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

It would have been easier "from the get go" if you'd read the thread before ascribing a paraphrase to the participants of it that could not possibly be arrived at except through logical leaps.

I notice you haven't been similarly disparaging towards the people who've actually said that Amanda Knox is too attractive to have murdered someone - which was the second of my two objections to your post. I wonder why that is.

Because most of them are being sarcastic, look if you think she's guilty that's cool. I think she was given a fair trial and released because the spanish police couldn't do their job from the get go, if the evidence was collected correctly she very well may be guilty. Also I see that you live in the UK, but I don't go off and assume you find her guilty because of the tabloids native to that region painting her that way, like Nancy Grace does in my country. So don't paint me like I'm giving a certain group slack. I think it is stupid that people would say she is too cute to put away, but I also said she wasn't cute and have post on here. Yet many seem to think it's more funny to talk about how pretty she is rather than your tangent that they're really saying she is too pretty to put away. I agree with you that I should have read it through the first time on your end but now you're doing the same to me. Let's not have double standards. Don't make leaps and bonds as if I'm being biased due to lack of expressing detail to what you asked of me. I wanted to defend my prior statements first obviously being why I didn't answer your other question yet you make a conspiracy out of it like I'm showing favortism? Wow, just wow

 

[Mazerati]

Her being 'proven innocent' is the most vile decision ever made. She is guilty beyond belief.

 

[Touring Mars]

One of the reasons I picked up on the same comment was because there were clearly people involved in the actual trial how felt the same - that Knox was not being honest and was merely acting when she showed signs of distress etc.. One could be forgiven for thinking that such an opinion, when taken in the broader context, is close to a presumption of guilt. It makes no difference if a disinterested third party thinks this way, but it does make a big difference if the police who arrested and interrogated Knox, who collected and processed the evidence against her, and who investigated the case itself think this way... but I fear this was indeed the case.

Fortunately, the evidence eventually prevailed, albeit after four years. Knox may well have turned cartwheels while in police custody, and she may have smooched with her boyfriend while the world's media were watching - she might have even sat through the whole trial with a big grin on her face for that matter (although she didn't), but if the evidence against her was non-existent, then none of it would/should have mattered. It was the police's own evidence of their spectacular incompetence in the field of forensic science that played the largest part in their eventual acquittal, but it turns out that much of the other evidence was laughably weak as well.

As an aside, I am mildly suspicious of the sentence Knox received for 'slander' - it seems rather convenient that Knox be sentenced to a jail term that she had already served unjustly for a crime that she didn't commit. That the time she has spent in jail has been legitimised by her sentence for slander seems odd to me, not least that it has already been established that Knox's initial interrogation (during which the supposed slander occured) was deeply flawed and potentially illegal...

Her being 'proven innocent' is the most vile decision ever made. She is guilty beyond belief.

Evidence needed.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

She is guilty beyond belief.

Uh, evidence?

 

[Famine]

Because most of them are being sarcastic, look if you think she's guilty that's cool.

I've stated that I have no opinion on her guilt or innocence:

Not at all. In fact I haven't speculated on her guilt or lack of it in any way!

Just a tad disingenious there... You're saying that she appears to you as a liar, as she defends herself in a court of law where she stands accused and convicted of murder, and that's not meant to be a comment on her guilt in any way?

Correct, sort of. I'm stating that, in the instance of that single statement she gave, she behaved as if she was lying.

There's a bit of a gulf between "She looked like a liar giving that statement" and "She's guilty of raping and murdering her best friend and flatmate".

Read all. Then comment. Don't make things up in your head and pretend people said them - which is both the issue with your original post where you accuse people of saying she looks guilty and in this one. Particularly don't do it when there has already been a discussion about the same comment - one carried out more intelligently - and a conclusion reached.

I think she was given a fair trial and released because the spanish police couldn't do their job from the get go

Italian.

Was the first trial fair? The one where she was found guilty.

Also I see that you live in the UK, but I don't go off and assume you find her guilty because of the tabloids native to that region painting her that way, like Nancy Grace does in my country. So don't paint me like I'm giving a certain group slack.

I'll take your word for it - I don't read newspapers and am on record in this forum stating that also.

You made up a paraphrase ("I know nothing about the case nor care...but she looks guilty to me") and said it was disappointing that you'd seen "alot" (sic) of it in this thread. I have seen none of it in this thread. You haven't reacted similarly to people who have been saying that she is too cute to have committed murder. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - if you're going to complain that people are making facile comments about her guilt (which no-one did) you should also complain that people are making facile comments about her innocence (which some did).

I agree with you that I should have read it through the first time on your end but now you're doing the same to me. Let's not have double standards. Don't make leaps and bonds as if I'm being biased due to lack of expressing detail to what you asked of me. I wanted to defend my prior statements first obviously being why I didn't answer your other question yet you make a conspiracy out of it like I'm showing favortism? Wow, just wow

Let's just be clear, my original two objections to your original post were that it was inaccurate and one-sided. It claimed something that didn't exist and only complained about it for people in one camp (claiming people in the "Knox got away with it" group said she "looks guilty"). These are both things you actually said - "conspiracy" has nothing to do with it - and I brought this up in my first response to your first comment. Your response was to quote three posts - including one of mine - that didn't say what you were claiming they said.

And now you are making up a mindset and ascribing it to me in direct contradiction of what I've actually said in this thread - that I think Knox is guilty, when I have no opinion on the matter and have stated that she has no level of guilt, having been found not guilty in an Italian court.

You are simply not reading what has been typed before you comment. If you had, you wouldn't have made your first post, you wouldn't have quoted three posts that did not support your claim and you wouldn't be claiming that I think Knox is guilty.


Intelligent discussion is hard enough when you stick with words on the screen. When one side invents half a discussion in their head and makes posts attacking that, it's nigh-on impossible.


Edit: Well, at least no-one had said it until Mazerati did. So now, at least, you have one instance of it

 

[Mazerati]

Evidence needed.

Uh, evidence?

I don't need any evidence. All the evidence is there, on her smug, evil face.

 

[MagpieRacer]

Innocent until proven guilty.

And they cant prove it.

 

[Touring Mars]

I don't need any evidence.

Is that you, Signore Mignini?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I don't need any evidence.

Where we're going, we don't need no stinkin' evidence!