Amanda Knox :guilty or innocent ?

[shlomotvr]

gordian_knot thats a good read
reading it over a glass of white israeli wine .

[shlomotvr]

an anecdote - i was falsely accused of some minor crime and was taken for an interrogation in a police station .i can tell you that - the feeling of beeing falsely accused is like non other , you are furious , wanting to shout out your innocence . i didnt held any words ,i talked to the officers who arrested me , other inmates , and the interrogator like there is no tomorrow , needless to say i had nothing to hide - i talked freelly . about everything with anyone .
that wasnt the case with knox . even after she was acquitted and her words had no legal impactions , she chose her words very , very carefully .it seems as if she had rehearsed
her answers - words and body language .

[Mal Hombre]

I imagine most lawyers would advise Their clients not to "Talk like there is no tomorrow",I expect Knox's advised Her similarly.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by gordian_knot

2. Transcripts of Knox's interrogation contradict everything Knox claimed at her trial. For her to be telling the truth you have to believe that all the police involved are lying, and that the interpreter is also lying. All this supposed bad treatment only came up at her trial. No complaint was made previously.

I regret to say that I find it very easy to believe that the all the police involved were lying, including the interpreter, and that this bad treatment was suppressed until Ms Knox gave evidence at the trial and what she had to say could no longer be concealed from the world. This is exactly what happened at a number of UK high profile criminal trials in the 1970s, notably the Birmingham Six case.

Originally Posted by Mal Hombre

I imagine most lawyers would advise Their clients not to "Talk like there is no tomorrow",I expect Knox's advised Her similarly.

As any competent, professional and honest solicitor would strenuously advise her if she had fallen into the hands of the UK criminal justice system. It has improved since the 1970s but is still very far from trustworthy.

[shlomotvr]

Mal Hombre
YEH i get it . but the girl was acquitted , she was in the usa , far away from the long arms of the evil italians ,her hads NO legal implaction what so ever.

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by shlomotvr

Mal Hombre
YEH i get it . but the girl was acquitted , she was in the usa , far away from the long arms of the evil italians ,her hads NO legal implaction what so ever.

She is still acting quite correctly in her own interests as she is morally entitled to do. She has many enemies as a result of these events and this would be exactly the same regardless of whether she was innocent or guilty. In fact, some people will be her enemies because they believe she is innocent and they still tried extremely hard to fit her up, and can't forgive her for thwarting them and making them look deservedly bad. She needs to keep an extremely low profile and allow a lot of people to forget about her; its the only way she will get to live a semi-normal life.

[shlomotvr]

scoundrel
i would agree with you had she been silent ,but that wasnt the case - she gave interviews , she wrote book , she gave her story to hollywood ( who was very biased in her favour )
and so on .

[gordian_knot]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

I regret to say that I find it very easy to believe that the all the police involved were lying, including the interpreter, and that this bad treatment was suppressed until Ms Knox gave evidence at the trial and what she had to say could no longer be concealed from the world. This is exactly what happened at a number of UK high profile criminal trials in the 1970s, notably the Birmingham Six case.

Of course it's possible, but you could say that about every trial there has ever been. If you take the position that a trial is bent just because the defendant says so you may as well rip up the whole judicial system. In any case how could they have suppressed her from making a statement through her lawyer, or her parents in the States, if she really had been abused? Wouldn't she have wanted that known at the earliest possible moment? The fact that it came out only at her trial suggests, to me anyway, that it was a court tactic.

[shlomotvr]

gordian_knot has a point there , that argument is even stronger if you add in the fact that when she was alone in her jail cell she wrote ( in her diary) that she were indeed present in the murder scene ( that diary is very interesting btw )

[gordian_knot]

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'm not sure which 'her' you're referring to here. Both Meredith's and Amanda Knox's DNA was found on the knife, Meredith's on the blade and Knox's both on the handle and on the blade where it meets the handle. This blade (a kitchen knife) was found in Sollecito's apartment. Neither of the girls lived in that apartment. It is certainly possible that Knox innocently handled the knife while at the apartment but you have to explain how Meredith's DNA was on the blade in an apartment she had never visited.