do you think she is innocent?
Amanda Knox killed Meredith Kercher in 'unstoppable crescendo of violence' - Telegraph
do you think she is innocent?
Amanda Knox killed Meredith Kercher in 'unstoppable crescendo of violence' - Telegraph
The 2009 trial was little more than a Halloween inspired witch hunt. Look at the following story from the Daily Star:
Daily Star: Simply The Best 7 Days A Week :: News :: Amanda Knox ‘led ritual killing’
I don't know how the defence managed to let the prosecution get away with some of the things they did. Was it the language barrier or perhaps the families concerned didn't have enough funds to hire a proficient enough legal team?
Innocence: another luxury RESERVED FOR THE RICH.
Mignini was in the room during the interrogation when Knox was allegedly hit and forced to confess.
Mignini was sentenced to 16 months for involvment in phone tapping during the re-investigation into the Monster of Florence case.
During the appeal case an American woman called out to Mignini, “You are evil!”
Giuliano Mignini: Knox prosecutor who believes he is the conspiracy victim | World news | The Guardian
Last edited by galexander; October 6th, 2011 at 01:35 PM.
It is hard to say. From the testimony of all concerned, it strikes me Ms. Knox engaged in some rather risky behavior. She may or may not be criminally negligent or guilty of murder. It strikes me she is guilty of rather bad judgement at the very least. However, that doesn't equate to being a murderer.
Italy is not renown for a spotless and efficient police and court system. Certain aspects of what was reported struck me as 'curious'. (I spent some twenty-eight years as a U. S. federal lawman. Listening to crime news is sort of a habit.)
The bottom line is, none of us will probably ever know. The only sure way to find out is for the actual murderer - whoever he, she or they are - to confess and offer corroborative evidence. Even then, the Italian police might simply cover it up and ignore it.
what sends you to jail or to death all over the world is LOGIC, one little detail and you are out.
(3) US [police fabricating proofs] is not any better than anywhere else in the world, as for judiciary just remember: O.J.Simpson on one hand and the baby-sitter sentenced to life imprisonment for shaking a baby on the other hand.
2) the issue here is not bad judgement. If you have not been present at a crime-scene you cannot know its details, if you know just one, you have been there, right? if this premise is true: Amanda declared that the murderer was black and he was Lumumba. She pointed her finger to the wrong murderer, but she knew he was black. ergo: She was there.
1) if she had been there and was not guilty of anything, she would say so and describe what really happened there. She didn't, she found a false alibi.
Now this second part is not as cogent as first. She surely lied, she was there. Did she [help] do it? you take your own conclusion.
Okay she was filmed exchanging kisses in front of the house where the murder took place and she was photographed apparently arguing with police outside the same building. Although this behaviour may seem questionable to some, the important point is that it wasn't that bad at all. And it certainly doesn't prove guilt. Someone who has murdered doesn't hang around at the crime scene afterwards if they can at all avoid it. Rudy Guede, who probably is the murderer and who is still in jail, didn't hang around, he left the country. Knox was young, her judgement was not bad, it was the judgement of the media and the prosecution that was bad.
Certainly, certain aspects of the case were curious. Like when the prosecution kept changing their motive for the crime. It was a satanic cult murder, a sex game gone wrong, a murderous robbery over drugs money, a drug inspired killing. The whole prosecution case was a tragic farce as was the media coverage.
I've already answered this one. Rudy Guede.The bottom line is, none of us will probably ever know. The only sure way to find out is for the actual murderer - whoever he, she or they are - to confess and offer corroborative evidence. Even then, the Italian police might simply cover it up and ignore it.
I agree with galexander. The evidence against Amanda Knox was circumstantial and extremely weak. The forensic work was pitiful. The supposed motives were laughable. I don't see how she was convicted. I hope this was not typical of the Italian justice system.
you ignore the main points of the case, and I hope not deliberately, because everyone in the world who has read one newspaper knows that 1) Amanda lived there, at the crime-scene. Would you expect her to run away to Germany like Rudy? and you are ignoring, and this time deliberatly I suppose, what I just brought to your attention: she knew the murderer was black, she accused Lumumba and has been convicted [3-year-sentence] for that. Her behaviour was not risky: was simply criminal. That is a hard fact. I am not taking sides or expressing subjective judgements.
2) of course that doesn't prove, but confirms, strengthens the suspicion she is guilty. There are many other proofs that are not widely known
Rudy is the convicted murderer, of course, but, again, surely she was there, what was her role?
3) whatever her motive it is obviously futile, trivial, strange, probably casual. Trivial, casual motives make it a hard case for prosecutors
On the Lumumba case, this quote from Wiki says it all:
Let's face it "logic", if you forcibly question a young female student who has already been traumatized because a friend of hers has just been murdered for hours on end without proper legal representation, she is bound to make mistakes. And I bet you the police in question along with the prosecutors who were also present, really were trying to prise the truth from her.The jury affirmed Knox's conviction of calunnia for accusing her former employer Diya "Patrick" Lumumba of the murder. Knox's lawyers argued that Knox made the statement "after '14 hours non-stop questioning' from police and prosecutors who had 'breached her civil rights'."
The prosecutors did not conduct themselves in the best interests of justice either before or during the court case.
1) do you understand she lived there? that was her house? how do you make yourself scarce from your home?
2) if police put you on burning coals for 14 hours, could you imagine murderer is black?
Amanda Knox was behaving in a casual manner in that she kissed out side the building and then took the liberty of arguing with the police. This is not the behaviour of someone with a guilty conscience.
And what is this cryptic statement you make:
Please be more specific.2) if police put you on burning coals for 14 hours, could you imagine murderer is black?
You must not spell it out to me, but to yourself, because you have "a thing" about this risky behavior, kissing and arguing..., I never mentioned it. You harp on this string, a trivial detail that hasnothing to do with conviction.do I honestly have to spell it out to you? Amanda was behaving in a casual....
my statement is not cryptic, I stated clearly: if you have not been present at the crime scene, you CANNOT know the details of the murder, even if police torture you.
You may make all kind of "mistakes", [Edit] under duress you may falsely confess you have done it, you may confess you murdered Julius Caesar, but cannot imagine/guess/describe a true detail: that a black man was there and that he was the murderer, one week before police ascertain the murderer is black and has name Rudy. Can you grasp that?. Edit: if you do, you are a soothsayer. [alas, poor-devil, you go to jail, but win the pools!]
She was under the influence of pot, she confessed, so her mind, her memories were confused, she rememberd vaguely the scene of the murder, she remembered a black man, but she didn't know him personally, Rudy was not a friend nor an acquaintance, probably she met him there for the first time [this is forensic evidence]. When she was questioned, unders stress, she gave the name of the first black man that came to her mind, the publican's.
I can't be any clearer, sorry!
Last edited by logic; October 9th, 2011 at 06:17 AM.
Wiki then continues:Starting at 11 pm that evening, Knox was questioned first by the police alone and, later that night, in the presence of a prosecutor. She claimed that she was initially interviewed in Italian – although she had been studying the language for only two months – without an attorney present and without being recorded. These claims were denied by prosecutors. She later claimed that she underwent a hostile interrogation of 14 hours, that she was struck and yelled at, denied food and water, and caused to make incriminating statements. In the end she signed a statement in Italian saying, in part, that she had seen Patrick Lumumba (Knox's boss) and Kercher enter Kercher's room.
And I would like to point out you are making a huge leap in judging circumstantial evidence when you suggest it cannot be a coincidence that Lumumba was coloured and so was Guede.Knox stated that during her interrogation the police asked her to imagine what might have happened at her flat had she been there, and that she explained this vision of Lumumba at the crime scene in response to that question. Lumumba was arrested on 6 November 2007 as a result of Knox's statements.
Yes, Knox had said Lumumba had entered Kercher's apartment but the fact that both Lumumba and Guede were both coloured is entirely a coincidence.You may make all kind of "mistakes", you may falsely confess you have done it, you may confess you murdered Julius Caesar, but cannot imagine/guess/describe a true detail: that a black man was there and that he was the murderer, one week before police ascertain the murderer is black and has name Rudy. Can you grasp that?
Indeed it's logic like yours that made this case the tragic farce it was.
I am not justifying police, I am not saying she is guilty, I am not saying anything but what I said. I followed the case because I read for months local newspapers [one is Corriere della Sera - International], I know much more than wiki, but I did not use it because I do not want to make a case for/ against anyone. I am not prejudiced, I did not jump to conclusions. Please respect the truth
I am stating only one fact, if you want to be fair to yourself , and not to me, imagine that in the flat next to yours someone is murdered, you are not guilty.
The police question you for a day. What would you say? I know nothing, I was not there!, they beat you up, they torture you for a week, yell at you: murderer, confess! what do you say? ask yourself and imagine all possible scenarios...
and see if you could ever ever answer: it has been Joe, the black pub-owner round the corner, I saw him running out of the flat with a big knife full of blood!. If you would ever do that, go on stating your case, otherwise please admit you have been unfair.
If you do and they catch the murderer and he is black, I am sorry for you, you'll be the victim of your own logic, not mine
Whatever your conclusion , I will not try to convince you.
Regarding your hypothetical situation and a murder next door, I would have to admit that 1) I am not female, 2) I am not a young and impressionable 20 year old, and 3) I do not live in a foreign country where my knowledge of the language is poor.
Regarding the press you read, are you sure you have not been unduly influenced by media hounds out for a good story? I wonder if a "trial by media" in the Knox/Sollecito case was not the cause of an unfair trial?
Out of interest is your first language Italian and are your 'local' papers anywhere near Perugia?
you are saying and repeating that any innocent person, only because s/he is 1) female 2) young (20) and impressionable 3) lives abroad and speaks poor language, when questioned about a murder is inevitably bound to accuse her employer of that murder, and anyone who says that that is stupid or crazy, is a fool who is influenced by media.
you sure you know what you are (not) talking about? (...under any... influence?)
Last edited by ray; October 10th, 2011 at 08:45 AM.
I don't know why you can't understand this simple fact?
Her questioners also asked her leading questions (Wiki):
If she had played along with that scenario would that have counted as a legal confession?
Also Knox objected to her interpretor's rendition of what she had actually said:
Knox clashes with interpreter over Meredith Kercher 'confession' | World news | guardian.co.uk
In the end she was only prepared to sign a statement to the following effect (Wiki):
In the end she signed a statement in Italian saying, in part, that she had seen Lumumba and Kercher enter Kercher's room.
Last edited by galexander; October 10th, 2011 at 01:17 PM.
There is some interesting content in the Guardian article I quoted from:
Knox clashes with interpreter over Meredith Kercher 'confession' | World news | guardian.co.uk
This part of the 'confession' comes across as entirely unrealistic. If Kercher had screamed so loudly that Knox had needed to cover her ears, then everyone in the building would have heard. Indeed probably everyone in the neighbourhood.In the early hours of 6 November 2007, Knox signed a statement saying she covered her ears to block out Kercher's screams as the 21-year-oldLeeds university student was stabbed to death by a Congolese bar owner, Patrick Lumumba.
It doesn't take a Hercule Poirot to tell you there is something very wrong with the whole content of the alleged 'confession'. It's surprising that the judged ever allowed it as admissible evidence.
Also the following quotes are rather revealing as to the general commitment on the part of the questioners when it comes to ascertaining the actual truth:
Taking advantage of her right under Italian law to intervene in her trial for murder, Knox quoted the interpreter as saying that "probably I didn't remember well because I was traumatised. So I should try to remember something else".
Knox again testified that she was slapped in the head during a lengthy overnight interrogation and was called "a stupid liar".
The police interpreter, Anna Donnino, had earlier denied the police used violence. Under cross-examination she described her role as that of a "mediator" rather than a mere translator of words.Donnino said that after Knox was asked if she wanted to make a voluntary statement, "she kept putting her hands to her head. She was shaking her head, saying he was bad."
And does this strike you as the behaviour of a guilty party? Both Knox and Sollecito are extremely diligent in making numerous phone calls when they realised something untoward had happened:
According to early investigations and post-mortem examination, Kercher died in the flat between 9 and 11 pm, later revised to between 9 pm and 4 am.
At 12:07 pm the next afternoon, Knox called Kercher's UK mobile phone, ringing for 16 seconds. Knox testified that Kercher had always carried that phone since she expected calls about her mother's recent illness. One minute later, she called her flatmate, Filomena, telling her that she had returned to the flat and found the front door open, and blood in the small bathroom. Knox called Kercher's second mobile phone and called the first phone again. The flatmate called Knox back three times. During the final call, which commenced at 12:34 pm, Knox said that the window in Filomena's's room was broken and that the room was a mess. At 12:47 pm, Knox called her mother in Seattle, who told her to call the police. Sollecito then made two calls to the emergency number 112, at 12:51 and 12:54 pm. He reported a break-in, blood, a locked door and a missing person.:57–61 Before theCarabinieri (National Guard) arrived in response to these calls, two officers of the Post and Communications Police arrived to investigate the discovery of Kercher's mobile phones near another house. Knox and Sollecito were outside and told the police that they were waiting for the Carabinieri, that a window had been broken and that there were spots of blood in the bathroom.:61–62
For those who may still think Knox and Sollecito were guilty, please do not forget the following:
Rudy Guede is still in prison serving a 16 year sentence for the murder of Meredith Kircher. He opted for a fast-track trial in order to obtain a reduced sentence.
Although Guede was acquitted of the charge of stealing 300 Euros, two mobiles phones and two credit cards, he had previous convictions for theft.
Guede became a suspect based purely upon his DNA being traced from his previous convictions. By that time Knox had already been forced to confess and it was only Guede’s arrest that led to the ultimate release of Knox’s boss, Lumumba.
Knox and Sollecito’s defence argued that Guede had acted alone. I tend to agree. Guede tried to defend himself by claiming he knew Kircher and the prosecution responded by claiming Knox had bought drugs from Guede.
But who is to say Guede is not making this all up in order to obtain a reduced sentence and that he was a burglar, acting alone, who then indulged himself in sexual assault and then murder?
As I have said already, I believe the prosecution case against Knox and Sollecito was little more than a Halloween inspired witch hunt. Ironically even Guede was publically paraded dressed as a vampire telling everyone, “I will drink your blood!”
I know it usually isn't recommended that we pay too much attention to "conspiracy theories" but the following is a well thought through and researched account of what could have caused the Knox/Sollecito legal fiasco.
An anonymous source calling himself 'Denver' informs us that the prosecution knew of Rudy Guede's guilt as early as November 3rd based upon DNA evidence. Guede's adoptive parents had wealth and influence but had washed their hands of their trouble making son. Denver claims that Guede's family had used their influence through the prosecutor Mignini who had then attempted to frame Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba. The end result was that Guede received an extremely lenient 16 years for murder.
In past legal cases Guede's defence lawyer has apparently been seen driving a Lamborghini Diablo...............
AMANDA KNOX: â€śCONSPIRACY THEORYâ€ť | GroundReport
Adding to the above I’ve recently been reading Mark Waterbury’s, “The Monster of Perugia: The Framing of Amanda Knox” and I would recommend it to anyone. Some of the stuff in it is completely shocking, it’s so just so blatant.
The Polizia knew that Rudy Guede was a burglar and was capable of threatening violence but they repeatedly failed to detain him and let him go. If the Polizia had detained Rudy Guede then the murder of Meredith Kercher would never have happened. The authorities are entirely to blame for the whole thing.
Only six days before the murder Rudy Guede broke into a nursery school where he was found with breaking and entering tools and a kitchen knife. However the Polizia let him go on the flimsiest of excuses! Apparently someone had told Guede that he was welcome to stay at the nursery school and for this advice he paid the individual 50 Euros! Wow, is this a good excuse or what?!
Guede also broke into the home of a private individual and when confronted threatened him with a jack knife. But again the Polizia let him go.
I mean is this really believable? I think the problem is that Italy is such a corrupt and sleazy country just about anything goes. Look at the antics of Silvio Berlusconi before he finally left office.
During the prosecution the court decided that Rudy Guede had not broken into the building where Meredith Kercher lived but had instead had been let in through the front door by Amanda Knox. It was the night before the rents were collected and Guede knew the students would have large amounts of cash in their apartments. From all the evidence it is clear who the real killer was, so why involve Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito based upon the flimsiest of evidence?
This case makes me wonder if the whole witch hunt was just a way for some Italians to try to stick it to an American who became a target of opportunity.
However, eventually they let her go because their economy is a mess, and they fear loss of tourist revenue.
The chief prosecutor Mignini has been sticking it to his fellow Italians as well and Knox and Sollecito were comparative easy prey to the bigwigs from Florence he tried to fell in the failed "Monster of Florence" case.
Mignini's head is on the chopping block itself as in the Monster of Florence case he was charged with prosecutorial misconduct and sentenced to 16 months in prison. However because of the appeals procedure in Italy he has the right to continue to practice law but if his appeal fails his legal career will be over once and for all.
Rather ironic really.
O.K., maybe it was just one obsessed prosecutor. It sounds like his vendettas are catching up to him. It makes me feel a little better about possible travel to Italy.
"The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind to powder."
I am not sure where that quote came from.
What I also find shocking is the brutal treatment Knox received while in custody. She claims to have been sexually harassed while in prison:
Amanda Knox: I was sexually harassed in Italian prison
"[The prison administrator] was fixated on the topic of sex, with whom I'd done it, how I liked it, if I would like to do it with him. When I realized that he really wanted to talk to me about sex I would try to change the subject...I realize that he was testing me to see if I reacted badly, to understand me personally. He wanted to get a reaction or some information from me. I did not get the seriousness of the situation," Knox allegedly wrote, according to CBS "48 Hours Mystery."
She was also told that she was HIV positive as a ploy to get hold of a list of all the sexual partners she had over the past few months. This is just a blatant abuse of her basic human rights and everyone involved should be utterly ashamed.
Amanda Knox Prison Life: Accused Killer Believed She Was HIV Positive For Two Weeks - International Business Times
While in prison, "Knox was subjected to all manner of outlandish, misogynistic behavior," Burleigh, who interviewed Amanda while incarcerated, writes. In one instance, a prison doctor informed Knox that a blood sample had tested positive for HIV, and demanded that she list the names of her previous sexual partners. Two weeks later, after those names were published in a British tabloid, Knox was then informed she was not in fact HIV positive.
Whilst I think that many people may have their own opinions about this case the fact is she has now been found inocent. People accepted it and believed it when she was found guilty now it is time to accept she has been found inocent.
Whilst everyone will have great sympathy for Meredith Kercher's parents we should also have some sympathy for the plight of someone wrongly convicted and sent to prison in a foreign country for a crime she didn't commit. I think also credit should go to her family who struck by and supported her throughout.
I would say that this whole case raises big questions about the way the investigation and subsequent trial were carried out, and that now Meredith Kercher's parents have been left with no sense of closure knowing that their daughters killer is still out there some where.
Altogether the whole thing seems one big mess with much unnecessary suffering.
|« crime and punishment and the circumstantial criminal | How the number of violent crimes affect American economy »|