Page 514 of 536 FirstFirst ... 14414464504510511512513514515516517518524 ... LastLast
Results 7,696 to 7,710 of 8026

Thread: Amanda Knox gets 26 Years

  1. #7696
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    Matt, as you can see, the thread is very long and almost all of these questions were discussed to death many hundreds of pages ago. The confession, the knife, the rape, OH MY GOD, MAN, there were hundreds of pages of that stuff...PUHLEEEEZ don't put more gas in the troll's tank.

    At this point it's a back and forth over silly speculation on everything from who who carries knives to Knox's knickers *again and again* yet still no presentation of PROOF that has stood up to reputable scientific scrutiny.

    If you want answers to your questions, I suggest starting from the beginning of the thread. If you want to get to the root of the matter focus on one thing: the actual evidence of Knox's guilt in the murder. It was discussed thoroughly (time-saving hint: there was none. Zero. Zip. Nada).

  2. #7697

    Default

    There are two things that I've found to be consistent among people who are absolutely convinced that Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito are guilty:

    1. The investigative and judicial teams are completely competent, evidence collected is always reliable, information in the court record is absolutely true, there is no bias or misconduct.

    Not to make what may be a long post pages longer, I'll just note that the investigation made a huge blunder on day one by not taking the temperature of Meredith Kercher's body. So the time of death was not narrowly determined - inconvenient for the truth, but not inconvenient for the prosecution, who could now slide the TOD around to match various scenarios.

    2. Snippets of information are presented as "evidence," like Post-it notes put up on the big Guilty Bulletin Board. You just count up all the little notes.

    So you get items like "good well-to-do Italian boys don't carry knives" on the Guilty Bulletin Board. But what does this mean in the overall picture of the crime; is it a predictor of behavior? Experienced competent crime investigators looking for an UNSUB (unknown subject) will tell you that, in the absence of a motive (and we don't have one here), past behavior predicts future behavior. Shouldn't the fact that in Sollecito's past there is no history of violent behavior, threats with knives, or police record render that knife carrying note not-relevant? Same for Knox; all the press could dig up was some police report in Seattle, noise at a party.

    Since these people have such high regard for the court record as truth, Massei noted in his report that there was no history of psychoses or violent behavior by the defendants.

    -----------------------------------------------------------

    I'll indulge another "evidence" snippet: "That is, I know that she had seen him before, but I donít know why she let him into the house."

    When Knox said this to her father, what was her frame of mind; did she mean "but I donít know why she [that fool Meredith] let him [that lowlife Guede] into the house"? This introduces another element into the murder - was there a sexual attack on Kercher or was the sex consensual. I won't go into this; the snippet is used to established that Knox was present at the scene. But if you accept that, then you must concede that Knox did not want Guede in the house, which further clouds what her alleged involvement might have been.

    So how does this fit into the big picture.

    I won't accept that Knox had anything to do with the murder, or even Sollecito. His DNA presence is highly questionable - a Y-hyplotype that isn't unique to him, contamination. And the minute amount in one tiny spot isn't consistent with a violent struggle where abundant physical evidence of Guede was found.

    In light of this, why didn't Knox just call the police? Even if she had to lie, she could have made something up about an intruder that killed her roommate and ran off. She belonged in the cottage; Guede didn't. Was she afraid of Guede? That only makes sense until he was apprehended.

    If Knox had been protecting Guede, why stage a break-in that suggested a robbery and pointed to Guede?

    Why didn't Knox and Sollecito establish real alibis - go somewhere where they could be seen, as Guede did?

    Why go back to the cottage the next day. They could have just gone away for the weekend as planned. Kercher's body may not have been discovered for days, further clouding the TOD.

    Why this convoluted behavior of taking a shower, running back to Sollecito's apartment, back to the murder scene, Filomena, postal police? Invent a pretext for speaking to Kercher, run out screaming and babble hysterically to someone in the street that something is wrong in the cottage.

    Fast-forward to today. While the only person who everyone agrees had an active hand in the murder has steadily seen his sentence reduced, Knox has seen herself become the fall-guy for the murder. She wound up with the stiffest sentence [Mignini didn't think that was enough and appealed for a life sentence], still faces the loss of her youth in prison, and even if she is never extradited, years of legal battles. Guede's sentence was reduced supposedly because he was the only one that apologized to the Kercher family. But that's a joke. His apology was that he couldn't save Kercher. Lies to the parents of as murdered girl; what a scumbag.

    In the crazy world of Perugian justice, Knox lies and gets plus 3 years; Guede lies and gets minus 10 years.

    In the five and one-half years of this saga, if this is really the truth of Knox's involvement, at some point she would have reasoned that the best course of action would be to reveal this truth. Or her attorneys with her family would have explored this option. More than getting Knox, I'm sure the Italian judiciary would like to put an ending to the case, and the Kercher family would be grateful for a resolution as to what happened to her daughter.

    Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.

  3. #7698

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MidtownGuy View Post
    Matt, as you can see, the thread is very long and almost all of these questions were discussed to death many hundreds of pages ago. The confession, the knife, the rape, OH MY GOD, MAN, there were hundreds of pages of that stuff...PUHLEEEEZ don't put more gas in the troll's tank.

    At this point it's a back and forth over silly speculation on everything from who who carries knives to Knox's knickers *again and again* yet still no presentation of PROOF that has stood up to reputable scientific scrutiny.

    If you want answers to your questions, I suggest starting from the beginning of the thread. If you want to get to the root of the matter focus on one thing: the actual evidence of Knox's guilt in the murder. It was discussed thoroughly (time-saving hint: there was none. Zero. Zip. Nada).

    Point taken. That is exactly what I do not want. That said, I find very few links to any actual evidence presented at trial by either side. I am a trial lawyer, and I a pretty much want to see the evidence and read the transcripts before I come to conclusions. That is very, very hard to do in this case. I tire of seeing links to news reports, judge's interpretation of the evidence, or just WAGs about what it was. (A "WAG" is an oilfiled term for Wild Ass Guess).

    My own impression at this point is that Knox is innocent of murder but involved in the aftermath for some reason we have not yet discerned. That is not an invitation to debate with you or anyone else. I just thought it fair to tell you.

    I will sign off here. But please, if anyone has links to actual, hard evidence, provide them.

  4. #7699

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Jones View Post
    My own impression at this point is that Knox is innocent of murder but involved in the aftermath for some reason we have not yet discerned.
    My impression too is that Knox was involved in the murder. At the very least in the aftermath.

    Knox even admits as much in her handwritten note to the police: "Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think."

    That quote is not from her confession to the police, but from a handwritten note she wrote on her own, by her own volition, that morning after sleep and food.

    ---

    Re: evidence. Putting aside the DNA evidence.... the case is made up of circumstantial evidence, the weight of which points to Knox and friend.

    The case is similar to the Scott Peterson case. Lots of circumstantial evidence.... no hard evidence. Mr. Peterson is facing the death penalty.

    Every piece of circumstantial evidence against Peterson means nothing on it's own. It is the totality of the circumstantial evidence.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson

    Remember too: the DNA evidence (the hard evidence) in the Knox case is disputed.... not disproven. We'll see more about that in the new trial.

    ---

    I'll be back with more later.
    Last edited by Fabrizio; May 30th, 2013 at 04:44 PM.

  5. #7700

    Default

    So, how does this....

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Jones View Post
    I a pretty much want to see the evidence and read the transcripts before I come to conclusions.
    jive with this?

    My own impression at this point is that Knox is innocent of murder but involved in the aftermath for some reason we have not yet discerned. That is not an invitation to debate with you or anyone else. I just thought it fair to tell you.
    Maybe I am missing something, but where is the hard evidence you require (as indicated in the first quote bubble) to support she was involved in the aftermath?

    Also with regard to this:

    That said, I find very few links to any actual evidence presented at trial by either side.
    Does the defense need to produce evidence to induce a not-guilty plea? In the absense of evidence isn't she presumed innocent for the murder and any 'aftermath' crime (once again, apologies to NH)? And isn't she entittled to that presumption in both a court of law and for that matter elsewhere?

    - Deputy Sheriff Barney Fife.
    Last edited by eddhead; May 30th, 2013 at 06:40 PM.

  6. #7701
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabrizio View Post
    I'll be back with more later.
    Wow! really?

    And will it be more speculative, illogical horseshit?
    Goody. We all can't wait.

  7. #7702
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    The bullcrap about the DNA being disputed is technically true in the silly sense that everything in the world is disputed by SOMEBODY. I can dispute the findings of the man on the moon. So what. That fact alone isn't worth much.

    To whom shall we assign more credibility... the highly respected international experts who conducted the latest and most thorough DNA analysis, or the bungling boobs in Perugia who couldn't locate a pair of gloves? I guess we all know who the troll believes.


    ---
    I'll be back with more later. This is the first of seven parts. First I have to go stuff my lasagna... but I will be back! You wait! Parts six and seven rock!!

  8. #7703
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    Does the defense need to produce evidence to induce a not-guilty plea? In the absense of evidence isn't she presumed innocent
    Not for these people. They go with their guts.

    ---

    That was part three. I'll be back with more later. Could be 5 minutes. I don't know. We'll see.

  9. #7704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eddhead View Post
    So, how does this....



    jive with this?
    Conclusions are not impressions. Impressions are not conclusions.



    Quote Originally Posted by eddhead View Post
    Maybe I am missing something, but where is the hard evidence you require (as indicated in the first quote bubble) to support she was involved in the aftermath?
    As they say in the British Parliament, I refer the honorable gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by eddhead View Post
    Also with regard to this:

    Does the defense need to produce evidence to induce a not-guilty plea? In the absense of evidence isn't she presumed innocent for the murder and any 'aftermath' crime (once again, apologies to NH)? And isn't she entittled to that presumption in both a court of law and for that matter elsewhere?
    Yes. But the rule obtains when there is an absence of evidence presented in a court of law at trial. It does not apply to the absence of evidence on the internet. My impression is that there is a great deal of evidence presented by both sides at trial that is not available in English if at all on the internet.

    Quote Originally Posted by eddhead View Post
    - Deputy Sheriff Barney Fife.
    Well, Brother Fife, put your lone bullet back in your pocket, doff that uniform, don the salt and pepper sport coat, go grab a blue plate special down at the diner with Thelma Lou, then come back and re-read this carefully:

    "That is not an invitation to debate with you or anyone else."

    Post evidence if you have it, lawman.

  10. #7705
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,832

    Default

    Let's all post later.

  11. #7706

    Default

    I can understand Matt Jones' interest, as a lawyer, in trial evidence. That's the arena in which this battle is going to be fought.

    But there are many, myself included, who believe the case against Knox and Sollecito should never have come to trial. So everything that happens going forward is tainted. Anything is possible. They can reaffirm the bullshit that occurred in trial #1 and convict them (which I think is going to happen). Or they might take a sober, more rational look at what they have (or don't have), and do the right thing.

    This case got away from the prosecution when they foolishly arrested Knox, Sollecito, and Lumumba before they had evidentiary confirmation. From that point on, the prosecution was dragging along the baggage of their reputations. The torch & pitchfork crowd demanded answers.

    The big break in the case should have been the identification of Guede as a suspect, a lucky circumstance that immigrants in Italy have their fingerprints on file. Instead it turned to embarrassment - they arrested the wrong man by breaking a silly naive girl in interrogation. No pats on the back, just scrambling at damage control.

    So they stubbornly substituted Guede into the Lumumba-Knox-Sollecito troika. I can understand the hatred that the pig Mignini has for Knox, making a fool of him by just doing what he wanted.

    -----------------------------------------------

    I think this murder is straightforward.

    Guede is a known thief. He had been caught in a school in (I think) Milan with a knife. Past behavior predicts future behavior.

    The night of Nov 1 2007 (Thurs) and Friday were holidays in Italy. People leaving Perugia. Also the first of the month, there might be rent money in some of the homes. Good opportunity for a burglar. Guede is on the road which is level with the 2nd floor windows. One might ask - why didn't Guede go down to the cottage to break a window, rather than in plain sight on the road.

    Maybe two reasons. First, if there was someone in the house or someone happened by, he wasn't on the property, and had an escape route.

    Second, he wanted to make noise to determine if anyone was in the cottage. If a light came on, he could simply run away.

    He throws the rock, nothing happens in the cottage, so he goes down the path, climbs up, and enters the cottage. Convinced that the cottage is empty, he takes his time. Nature calls and he goes to the bathroom. He hears someone enter the cottage. He can't flush the toilet without being discovered, which explains the turds in the bowl.

    He either tries to sneak out or rushes out and confronts Meredith. What happens next is anyone's guess, but Guede and Meredith wind up in her room, they struggle, and he kills her.

    He leaves the cottage and returns home by a circuitous route, deciding that the cell phones he stole aren't worth the risk, and dumps them. He goes home and cleans up. He goes out and makes sure he is seen in public, establishing an alibi - something an experienced thief would do, but not something an innocent person would think was necessary.

    At some point, he sees his situation as precarious, and flees. Typical behavior.

    There are other ways this could have played out, but I see the above as a coherent murder story consistent with the evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fabrizio
    Re: evidence. Putting aside the DNA evidence.... the case is made up of circumstantial evidence, the weight of which points to Knox and friend.
    Tell us a murder story that makes sense. You haven't done it once in this thread.

  12. #7707
    Chief Antagonist Ninjahedge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Rutherford
    Posts
    12,777

    Default

    But that doesn't mean blah blah blah.....


    p.s., NP 'edd'

  13. #7708

    Default

    Again Fabrizio attempts to draw similarities with the Knox case and others by noting that the Scott Peterson case involves circumstantial evidence. And again - like the other examples - there are factors from which you can develop a murder story for the Scott Paterson case that don't exist for the Knox case.

    Scott Peterson and the victim - Laci - were married. She was pregnant and aware of at least one of his extramarital affairs. He had motive.

    At he time of his arrest, he was fleeing, having disguised his appearance.

    You can write a murder story for Scott Peterson.

    We are waiting for a murder story for Amanda Knox.

  14. #7709

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Past behavior predicts future behavior.
    Not under American evidentiary rules:

    Rule 404(b): Evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act is not admissible to prove a personís character in order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in accordance with the character.

    You cannot use a prior robbery to convict on a later robbery. Here, you could not use the "prior bad acts" of Guede to prove that he acted in the same way on a later occasion.

    There are some exceptions, but I do not think any would apply here.

    I am sure you were speaking simply from a common sense perspective. And this may not be the rule in Italy. But here, there is no chance the finder of fact would consider his prior criminal history.

    (If he had been convicted of those acts, in many states, it might keep him off the stand as a practical matter, but that is neither here nor there.)

  15. #7710

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Jones View Post
    Not under American evidentiary rules:

    ...

    I am sure you were speaking simply from a common sense perspective.
    Yes, I'm looking at it from the perspective of an investigation into the crime. I'm aware that even if the above Guede story is exactly true, if it cannot be proved in court, he should be acquitted.

    ------------------

    Amanda, what the hell are you doing back in the cottage taking a shower? Wash out that blood in the sink; you committed murder last night.
    Last edited by ZippyTheChimp; May 31st, 2013 at 08:33 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. London's Congestion Charge Two Years On
    By ablarc in forum News and Politics
    Replies: 192
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2008, 11:43 AM
  2. New Years Eve in Time Square
    By clasione in forum Social Club
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2005, 07:18 PM
  3. Airtrain Newark, two years and still growing
    By STT757 in forum New York Metro
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 27th, 2003, 11:17 PM
  4. Almost 2 years later, the events of 9.11.01 still hurt
    By Qtrainat1251 in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 10th, 2003, 11:34 PM
  5. Where to live? - Possibly moving to NYC in a few years...
    By Jonny in forum Moving to New York
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May 21st, 2003, 12:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software