Amanda Knox :guilty or innocent ?

[shlomotvr]

here are some links
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...redith_Kercher

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAupL2vggSM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erla7Ley4Tw

my english is not the best and the case is very complexe but all and all , i think she is guilty and got away scot free due to italian bad police work .
one thing that always puzzle me is how "innocent knox " never showed any sorrow for m .b or curiosity of who is the killer .

[Motorboater]

You can't put away a hot chick to jail...

[charliels531]

First, I need to make a couple of disclaimers. I live in Seattle, Ms Knox's home town. My daughter lived for a year in the same dormitory at the University of Washington, though they never met. I ignored the trial until after her first conviction.

Since I had done a fair amount of criminal defense in the U.S. system, I was curious about the Italian system and I dug into what information was available in translation.

All the "evidence" went back to the deranged testimony of the actual killer, Rudy Guede, whom the Italian police knew to have lied to them on numerous occasions. While the Italian system has aspects similar to the U.S. system, the rules of evidence are bizarre--Italian courts accept lay opinion evidence, down to such useless trash as the opinion that Ms Knox had "crazy eyes"--and seem to have little regard for forensic evidence.

To me the conclusive evidence that the court got it wrong was the prosecutor's concealment of the deal he had made with Guede--Almost half off his sentence if Knox was convicted.

Was Knox guilty? Not by any reasonable standard of evidence.

[shlomotvr]

what about the knife that had both m.b dna and knox dna ?
and the fact that she didnt called the police when she saw that the house was invaded ?

[charliels531]

...and why did the prosecutor lie about the deal he made with Guede? In this country that costs you your card.

We could hash the forensic details all night, but the police admitted that they did nothing that would come close to good forensic work. Why was her DNA on the knife? She lived in the fucking apartment.

[Brecht]

I don't know if she's guilty but I can't get this out of my head reading this thread.

[hamham67]

Originally Posted by charliels531

...and why did the prosecutor lie about the deal he made with Guede? In this country that costs you your card.

We could hash the forensic details all night, but the police admitted that they did nothing that would come close to good forensic work. Why was her DNA on the knife? She lived in the fucking apartment.

I think the knife was suspicious not because Knox's DNA was on the knife handle, but because Kercher's was on the blade. Granted, from a legal standpoint, the amount of Kercher's DNA was so small it doesn't count as being hers. Personally, the bias nature of the recent documentary and her wikipedia page puts a bad taste in my mouth--whether or not its justified in wake of her complete character assassination by media.

Logic says that Knox didn't have anything to do with the murder, but there are still several unanswered questions, that due to police persistence that she was the killer, will probably remain mysteries. I can see how someone would peg her as a killer--she seems to have a natural suspicious personality. When I hear Sollecito talk about the crime, I think he's completely innocent--but the way Knox talks about the crime makes me think she's guilty. Granted one can't be innocent without the other being guilty, so I think this is due to Knox's persona. Legally calling her guilty based on this however, is completely unethical.

[charliels531]

One of the reasons I tend to be excessively curt about stuff like this is that I worked for forty years in a world where there was a simple rule: If you can prove it, lay out the evidence; if you can't prove it, shut up. Suspicion, thank the gods of evidence, doesn't count.

[Lurk_D]

Our legal system in the US is built on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. This best translates this way:

If you say something about yourself, even without proof, everyone must, or at least should, believe it. Why? Because you're talking about yourself, and you are the one person that would know without proof. If anyone disputes what you say, they must present proof, or they are wrong. If they refuse to prove their dispute, they're lying.

Conversely, if you say something about someone else, especially without proof, you're wrong. If you refuse to prove it, you're lying. Why? because you're talking about someone other than yourself, and therefore have no firsthand knowledge about them that can be supported without proof.

Put simply, you can say anything you want about yourself, and only if someone else can prove you're lying do you have to worry about your reputation. But if you talk about someone else, you better back it up, or everyone will know you're a lying asshole.

[scoundrel]

Is there any particular reason why Meredith Kercher (poor, poor girl) and Amanda Knox are topical at the moment? Just curious.

But since the question is asked, I am at this distance in time inclined to believe that Amanda Knox is innocent of the actual crime. Observing the whole progress of her trial, during which she spent years in an Italian prison while the mere process went on at a contemptible snails pace. What really really offended me and got right up my nose was that she was acquitted on appeal and then the state appealed against the acquittal. This is called "double-jeopardy": it violates really basic standards of common decency and fair play.

Somebody murdered Meredith Kercher and that's a fact. No one seems to dispute that Rudy Guerde is the actual killer, and frankly I would crush him to death under a steam roller if I was calling the shots. I'd do it in public and sell tickets. But what strikes me about Amanda Knox is that she was shifty and looked suspicious, and didn't wail and cry with grief in public, and so she antagonised public opinion and made herself look guilty in many peoples eyes. I've seen this before. Lindy Chamberlain in the dingo-baby case and Joanne Lees in the Bradley Murdoch case (both in Australia as it happens) were victims of hostile press and public opinion. I still remember the palpable rage and frustration of the Australian media when Joanne Lees was proven to be innocent; they had so, so wanted her to be guilty.

For what it is worth, my personal opinion is that Amanda Knox was very probably innocent of any direct participation in the crime, but has things she should feel guilty about. Her role in the story is one only she could ever really divulge; she was there and no one else can know what she did or said or saw that evening. I'm pretty sure she isn't telling anything like the whole truth, but much less sure that she's actually lying about anything. I think she was most likely up to no good that evening, but not with any criminal intentions, merely behaving badly in ways in which young women who are in a strange place where they can cover their tracks afterwards sometimes enjoy behaving. Suddenly the public spotlight is on her and the folks back home are watching and she isn't mad keen to state in public that she was being a naughty girl. If that's what it was, then actually I have some sympathy. But she owes it to Meredith Kercher's family to come clean with them, at least privately, so they can know whatever she knows about what happened. I don't need to know about Amanda Knox's private life (there is a reason why we call this a "private life") but Meredith Kercher's family are entitled to know whatever is relevant.