Amanda Knox - Guilty or Innocent

[Loose]

Appeal Judges know that Amanda was there - she said so herself!!! Amanda Knox lets this fact slip whilst under surveillance talking to her parents, the evidence used in Guede's trial can now be used as fresh evidence in the appeal to debunk any claims otherwise. What is just as interesting is that her parents have known the truth all along and yet began this media and viral campaign slurring the Italian Judicial system.

 

http://www.seattlepi...tml?source=mypi

Edited February 28, 2011 by Loose

[Loose]

Definitely a serious setback for Amanda!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/setback-for-knox-appeal-2226091.html

[Rhodes]

Loosely - Is that what you call a setback, you seem to have somehow missed reading the detailed comments beneath the article you posted

including the following:

 

'Richard ... People in England should be grateful that there is the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). Mignini's claims about this case would have never pass muster there, and these Innocent kids would have been home a long time ago. There is Not one shred of believable Evidence in this case'.

 

'This is the weakest conspiracy theory I've ever heard. The prosecution ignored the absence of conspiring in the conspiracy. They ignored the absence of a motive. They ignored the lack of the proper murder weapon. They ignored the alibi. They ignored the cell phone pings. They ignored the lack of prints in the murder room. They ignored the lack of bloody footprints by Amanda. They ignored the lack of bloody footprints by Raffaele. They ignored the absence of blood stained clothes. They ignored the ToD. They ignored what the gist of what Amanda and Raffaele said during their interrogations. They ignored what Guede said about Amanda not being there. The prosecution is ignorant of this crime'.

[Loose]

Rhodesly, it's no use parroting comment after the article, that is just opinion from someone who clearly hasn't followed the case, besides, don't shoot the messenger. I was rather surprised that you hadn't posted the articles yourself but then I realised that it didn't suit your own opinion. Anyway, in full the articles are as follows, not the biased rantings of one of your mates:-

 

Setback for Knox appeal

 

 

By Michael Day in Milan

 

 

Amanda Knox has suffered a setback in her bid to clear her name of the murder of British student Meredith Kercher in 2007 after Italy's supreme court declared that more than one person took part in the killing.

 

 

 

In revealing why it rejected fellow murder convict Rudy Guede's appeal against a 16-year sentence for his part in the crime, the Supreme Court of Cassazione also noted on Thursday evening that Guede had not acted alone.

 

Observers said the ruling might undermine the claim of Knox and her Italian ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, that Guede was the sole perpetrator.

 

Knox and Sollecito are appealing against 26-year and 25-year sentences respectively, in a separate court in the central city of Perugia. Defence lawyers for the Knox and Sollecito say there are numerous gaps in the prosecution's case.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and the previous article:-

 

 

 

 

Italian judges' report: Amanda Knox says she 'was there'

By ANDREA VOGT

SPECIAL TO SEATTLEPI.COM

 

MILAN, Italy -- A sentencing report just released by the highest Italian appeals court sheds new light on why so many Italian judges have maintained Amanda Knox was involved in her roommate's murder.

 

The document, among others, cites a conversation Knox had with her parents while under surveillance during a prison visit in which she said "I was there," apparently referring to the night of the murder.

 

The debate over Knox's guilt or innocence has intensified in the wake of a controversial Lifetime film that aired on U.S. television a week ago. But that was fiction.

 

In real life, the sentencing report on Ivory Coast immigrant Rudy Guede by the Supreme Court of Cassation in the Meredith Kercher homicide case was deposited in Rome late last week. The next appeal hearing is slated for March 12, and forensic reviews of two pieces of major evidence are under way. This Guede's final appeal.

 

Obtained by seattlepi.com, the 23-page report concludes that Guede was guilty of killing Kercher, Knox's British roommate, on Nov. 1, 2007, but didn't act alone.

 

Others took part in the "brutal, collective conduct" of violence and sexual assault that ended in murder. And while the judges refer specifically to the others being Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, they noted that it is not up to them to decide whether or not the evidence against Knox and Sollecito will stand up in court.

 

Seattle native Knox, her Italian ex-boyfriend Sollecito and Guede have all been convicted for Kercher's murder.

 

Knox and Sollecito, convicted in the same trial, maintain their innocence and are appealing.

 

Guede (who was convicted in a separate fast-track trial) appealed, but his conviction was upheld. The sentencing report signed by judges Enzo Iannelli and Giordano Umberto, explains why.

 

They agreed with the previous findings of other judges that Guede committed the murder with accomplices. They are careful to not enter too deeply into the case against Knox and Sollecito.

 

But the judges' report makes ample reference to evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

 

Though not raised during her first trial, the "I was there" prison conversation reference is tucked into a long paragraph detailing the evidence pointing to Knox's involvement.

 

Also included are Knox's DNA on a knife alleged to have been used in the murder; Guede's own statements about Knox's presence that night; Knox's bare footprint revealed by Luminol (a chemical agent used to detect blood traces); mixed genetic traces of Kercher and Knox in the sink and bidet; and the testimony of neighbors Nara Capezzali and Alessandra Formica, and homeless man Antonio Curatolo.

 

The report also lists evidence against Sollecito.

 

The appeals court decision factors into the Knox appeal because now that Guede has completed his last legal recourse, all his trial documents can be used by the defense and prosecution in appeal arguments.

 

"They have already been deposited," said Guede's attorney Valter Biscotti.

 

Guede chose a fast-track trial that was closed to the public and allowed him a reduction in sentence (halved to 16 years on appeal). Knox and Sollecito were sentenced to 26 and 25 years, respectively.

 

The fact that Knox and Sollecito factor so heavily in the document describing the reasons for Guede's conviction raises questions about just how "separate" these two trials were.

 

Separate, perhaps, but intertwined: Much of the same evidence was heard and reviewed in both trials. Forensic evidence places Guede at the scene of the crime: his bloody shoe prints and palm prints were found around Kercher and a skin cell trace of his DNA was identified from a vaginal swab.

 

He had claimed he and Kercher had started to become intimate, but stopped when they didn't have a contraceptive, but the court said it was unlikely Kercher even kissed Guede, much less had consensual sex with him.

 

Guede has claimed that he was in the bathroom when a fight over money broke out between Kercher and someone who sounded like Knox. He claims the Briton had already been stabbed when he came stumbling out of the bathroom to find a man with a knife who said "black man found, black man guilty" before running out.

 

He claimed he tried to stop Kercher's bleeding but eventually panicked and fled. The court, however, said that based on the 43 wounds to Kercher's body (and the time it would take to inflict them) that it was more probable that Guede and two others forcibly held Kercher down, threatened, taunted and eventually fatally stabbed her.

 

Guede is not credible, the judges wrote, and his stories are full of "blatant inconsistencies."

 

The report, however, also highlights a number of contradictions that defense attorneys will likely pick up on for Knox's appeal.

 

For example, the court concludes that two knives were likely used in the homicide, a theory given only cursory consideration by prosecutors. The document also reveals that a potentially important witness was never heard by the court because of the limitations agreed to in a fast-track trial. The witness said he was with Guede later on the night of Nov. 1, some time after Kercher had been killed, and told a lawyer (who was secretly posing as a friend of his when she contacted him via the Internet) that he had been with Guede along with three other friends on the same night.

 

The three other friends told authorities that they did not see Guede that night. Allowing the fourth man's testimony would have implied they were lying to keep themselves on the case's periphery and not be called as witnesses.

 

The document also recounts how Guede's story evolved. First, he told the basics to German police in Koblenz on Nov. 21, 2007, then gave more information to an Italian judge in December 2007, and produced the most details in sessions with Italian prosecutors on March 26 and May 15, 2008.

 

Guede's story generally remained the same, but the details changed, and nearly five months went by before he eventually placed Amanda Knox at the scene of the crime.

 

Though experts cannot say with certainty whether sexual assault occurred, the court concludes that Kercher was undressed as part of the sexual assault during the escalation of violence, not as part of the simulated theft later.

 

One element of proof against Guede was a segment of a Skype conversation with a friend (police were listening in) while on the run in Germany. During that Nov. 19 chat, Guede told his friend he was "afraid they would put the blame only on me."

 

There was one niggling credibility obstacle throughout the document, however: Amanda Knox's name is repeatedly misspelled: First its "Knok," then "Xnox," then "Xnok." Once they even refer to her as "Anna Xnox"

 

 

 

 

Rhodesly, read the articles next time.......

 

 

[Rhodes]

Here's a fascinating Website folks with everything you wanted to know about Amanda's case but were afraid to ask, it is apparently even rumoured that she had links to

Seattle's most famous son Kurt Cobain and his infamous suicide particularly as he made a previous unsuccessful suicide attempt whilst touring in Rome, surely that can't just be coincidence can it:

 

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2007/12/08/amanda-knox-whats-seattle-got-to-do-with-it/

[Loose]

Apparently that guff is over three years old Rhodesy. Scraping the bottom of the barrel - you must be getting desperate.

[Rhodes]

Loosely - Well even if that is the case, which I'm sure it isn't, there are some very informative links which more or less prove Amanda's innocence from day one, she should never have even been questionned in the first place let alone charged and convicted of Meredith Kercher's murder

[Horace]

Loosely - Well even if that is the case, which I'm sure it isn't, there are some very informative links which more or less prove Amanda's innocence from day one, she should never have even been questionned in the first place let alone charged and convicted of Meredith Kercher's murder

 

 

 

Should never have been questioned????? Housemate gets horribly murdered. First people to question would be other occupants of house surely?

 

 

[Rhodes]

Horace - Well not if they had nothing whatsoever to do with the crime and weren't even there

[Loose]

Loosely - Well even if that is the case, which I'm sure it isn't, there are some very informative links which more or less prove Amanda's innocence from day one, she should never have even been questionned in the first place let alone charged and convicted of Meredith Kercher's murder

 

Well Rhodesly, it IS the case, honestly it's not rocket science, the date 2007 is on the top of the article. Obviously very early on in the case and the usual gung ho reporting from the Pro Amanda drums. I sometimes wonder why you prefer to see the murderess of a british girl get off scot free.

 

Obviously a good job she was questioned, you seem to be forgetting that Knox firstly claimed she was there, then she wasn't, that she saw someone else do the crime (her boss - who was later exonerated) and then tried to shunt all the blame on someone else. Then she was "tortured" by the honest and hard-working police officers, and more recently the revelation that she told her parents while she thought it was safe that she was actually present.

 

I do wonder sometimes how you hope to get away with banging the drum yourself when you don't even read any of these articles you regurgitate!

[Brounmoney]

Appeal Judges know that Amanda was there - she said so herself!!! Amanda Knox lets this fact slip whilst under

surveillance talking to her parents, the evidence used in Guede's trial can now be used as fresh evidence in the appeal

to debunk any claims otherwise. What

is just as interesting is that her parents

have known the truth all along and yet

began this media and viral campaign

slurring the Italian Judicial system.

 

 

 

Ok loose it looks like you are on the side of Amanda being guilty which if you are from London would not be a surprise at all. You guys all want Amanda to have done it, and thinks she did. The reason that she is jail right now is because she is American, and you can not tell me other wise. The reason her boyfriend is there is well is that if she did it he must have had a part. You posting this artical about her saying she was there is just BS. have you ever heard of the media twisting things around. Come on and the part of the artical at the end when it said she was switching her story from the very start is wrong. Look at the reports. She said she was with her boyfriend that night and she said that until they pretty much made her change her story. I agree that this was a really bad thing, and I am praying for Merediths family, but to just jump right on the American come you can do better than this. Please take a lot at some other info on this case and then maybe you can come up with an informed opionion.

 

 

 

http://www.seattlepi...tml?source=mypi

[Loose]

Appeal Judges know that Amanda was there - she said so herself!!! Amanda Knox lets this fact slip whilst under

surveillance talking to her parents, the evidence used in Guede's trial can now be used as fresh evidence in the appeal

to debunk any claims otherwise. What

is just as interesting is that her parents

have known the truth all along and yet

began this media and viral campaign

slurring the Italian Judicial system.

 

 

 

Ok loose it looks like you are on the side of Amanda being guilty which if you are from London would not be a surprise at all. You guys all want Amanda to have done it, and thinks she did. The reason that she is jail right now is because she is American, and you can not tell me other wise. The reason her boyfriend is there is well is that if she did it he must have had a part. You posting this artical about her saying she was there is just BS. have you ever heard of the media twisting things around. Come on and the part of the artical at the end when it said she was switching her story from the very start is wrong. Look at the reports. She said she was with her boyfriend that night and she said that until they pretty much made her change her story. I agree that this was a really bad thing, and I am praying for Merediths family, but to just jump right on the American come you can do better than this. Please take a lot at some other info on this case and then maybe you can come up with an informed opionion.

 

 

 

http://www.seattlepi...tml?source=mypi

 

No, not from London, at least not since I was 5 years old.

 

I don't want anyone to have done "it". I'd rather no-one had committed such a despicable crime but I'm afraid even Americans commit murder. I have nothing in particular against Americans, just the ones who believe that they can make up or distort facts to suit their opinions and think that creating a viral campaign to convince the rest of their world that Italy is a backward country with dishonest law officials and corrupt prosecutors aided by a biased judiciary, a description that could so easily fit your own country if OJ Simpson and Rubin Carter are anything to go by.

 

Don't play the racist card please, it's not your best game.

[Rhodes]

Ok loose it looks like you are on the side of Amanda being guilty which if you are from London would not be a surprise at all. You guys all want Amanda to have done it, and thinks she did. The reason that she is jail right now is because she is American, and you can not tell me other wise. The reason her boyfriend is there is well is that if she did it he must have had a part. You posting this artical about her saying she was there is just BS. have you ever heard of the media twisting things around. Come on and the part of the artical at the end when it said she was switching her story from the very start is wrong. Look at the reports. She said she was with her boyfriend that night and she said that until they pretty much made her change her story. I agree that this was a really bad thing, and I am praying for Merediths family, but to just jump right on the American come you can do better than this. Please take a lot at some other info on this case and then maybe you can come up with an informed opionion.

Brounmoney - Welcome to the debate, I couldn't agree with you more

[Brounmoney]

Oh loose you are far far away in saying I am calling you racist. I don't think that at all. What I am saying is her being American and not knowing the language and all those kinds of things got her in trouble. Please if you could give me something in stone that puts Amanda at the crime scene and her taking part in the murder. Please show me this, and I will agree that she took part, but until then there is nothing other than forced statements from her that say she was there. Please don't try to tell me they were not force on her either. Why if all the other rooms are filmed was that one on that night only not filmed. Loose please again I say look at the information that is given and then I will start to listen to your opinion until then you have no opinion. I just want one thing that oust Amanda there that night and we can start talking.

 

Oh and by the way your crap with OJ everyone in America knows he was guilty, an yes our system is not perfect, but with what info we have our court system could have never put her in jail, and please tell me that you don't think great Britian would have put her in jail either. I saw a report from a british journalist that said with what they have there is no way she would have been charge here for the murder. So just hate on our system cause your system would see it the same way.

[Rhodes]

Please if you could give me something in stone that puts Amanda at the crime scene and her taking part in the murder. Please show me this, and I will agree that she took part, but until then there is nothing other than forced statements from her that say she was there.

Ok Loosely, what are you waiting for

[Loose]

I'm sorry Brounmoney, you don't know what you are talking about and I don't know what you think you are talking about but it's not about fact. It's not "my crap" with OJ, I'm naming one of two miscarriages of justice, the list could be endless,

 

Unfortunately British journalists are as unreliable as any worldwide.

 

I do not have to place Amanda Knox at the scene, she did that herself. She told her parents that she was there, she first told investigators that she was there, then she changed her story. Which is true?

 

Witnesses place her outside the apartment on the night and at a nearby shop the next morning buying cleaning materials at a time that she claimed that she was asleep in her boyfriends bed, in his apartment. What is the truth?

 

She claimed she slept until 10 am on the morning after the murder took place and yet her mobile phone showed calls made from it. Explain this inconsistency please.

 

There are many more instances of hard evidence even excluding the DNA which is questionable apparently, I don't propose putting the list up here now, read the judge's summary and explain away the evidence summed up in that before asking me to disprove your opinions please.

 

Thanks for your time.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Loose

[Brounmoney]

Ok loose you really need to take a look a little deeper than you British media to look at the facts. Fist of all Amanda said from the beginning that she was at Raffaele's place all night, so there is your first mess up. The first time that she changed her story was when she was being question for 14 hours. I saw the guy that wrote a book about a murder in that town say he was question by the same dude that Amanda was and he was not guilty, but he almost was broken down enough to say what he wanted him to say. Also Mignini was under investigation while this was going on and never should have been able to be a part of it. My biggest complaint about how this was handled was that the jury was able to watch tv and read newspaper of the bias media, which would not happen in America or Great Britian.

 

Your next point was that someone put Amanda outside the cottage. Please tell me where you saw that. I have seen nothing about this.

 

Your next point was that someone saw them buying cleaning supplies the next morning. Well first of all that person was thrown out because they changed there story and were unreliable. Also a forisic guy said that there would be no way that Amanda could not have cleaned only the stuff that would link her back to the crime scene.

 

So do you have something else cause none of that is solid?

[Loose]

Its good of you that you took the time to come on here and show me where I've been going wrong but you really must stop making assumptions, I don't just read the British media. I've read your media - some of which do not believe your rosy tinted version of events - but I've also read some of the Italian media and not least of all the Judges' Summary of the trial where he outlines and lists all of the evidence as well as his own conclusions based on that fact, he also includes his own opinions as to motive and opportunity, but mostly fact. Please don't make assumptions, it makes you look as foolish as Rhodes.

 

Personally I couldn't give a stuff which guy told you anecdotal evidence about his experience with the investigator, I could find a next door neigbours aunt whose dogwalkers uncle has been questioned by the same guy and probably wanted to confess to assasinating JFK, it's not evidence of anything much is it?

 

I don't know whether you know this but currently 14 Distract Attorneys in the US are under investigation for one thing or another from fiddling their expenses, through to accepting bribes, not all of them will be guilty, most of the Italian Judiciary will have been through the same at one time or another, it's the way of the world and accusations are always cheaper then proof. Even Berlusconi is under investigation but the majority of Italians would tear their right arms off for him.

 

You need to get your facts in order, firstly Knox claimed that she "Must have been there" that she "remembered hearing a scream. Then she claimed that she saw her boss commit the murder. Then she changed her story and said that she was not there. She is recorded following the interrogation talking with her parents and saying that she WAS there. The trouble is - which time was she lying and you don't even know which order events took place according to the trial evidence.

 

"So do you have something else cause none of that is solid?" - I refer you back to:-

"read the judge's summary and explain away the evidence summed up in that before asking me to disprove your opinions please." To be frank, you are only giving me your opinions, what you want to believe is true, this didn't happen, that guy is a liar, read it from the horses mouth, so far all you have is horse-sh1t.

[Brounmoney]

Oh really all I have is horse crap? Well how about you read the book 'Murder in Italy' by Candace Dempsey then you can tell me I have read the facts. That is just as much facts as you have. I do not read much or none at all of the US media because it is pretty much crap. Nothing is in the middle it is all one sided. I also don't read very much of the British media cause well again that is one sided so that would be stupid too. I have looked at the Italian media stuff and took it with a grain of salt. I mean why would they not want to make Amanda look bad after Mignini had said they had found the murders. I mean the media wants you to see what they want you to see. I was thinking the way you did after I saw AN AMERICAN movie about a week ago about the murder. It was all American and they made her look like she was guilty, but you know I

did research I did not just go by what I

was told. All the the stuff that I stated

was documented not made up look it up.

Would you please list one of the things

that the jury said that they had and

made them believe that she was guilty

cause from all the stuff I have read

there was also another side of things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe I was making assumptions about

you but that is only because The way you talked made you one sided not like you have done any research what so ever. Maybe you have but I see nothing telling me that would be the case.

 

Oh and by the way I have read no were other than that BS artical you listed that Amanda said to her parents that she was there. You need to give me some hard facts cause it sounds like you are pulling stuff from your butt. Just saying.

[Loose]

If that was an apology for making faulty assumptions then you pretty much suck...

 

Plenty of links to articles saying pretty much the same thing chap but I admire your stamina in being boring.I refer you back to.... the Judges' Summary, do your own research chap and then come back without the playground stuff, first the racist card, then the "you only read British rags", followed by more assumptions.

 

Still, your twice as informed as Rhodes in playing the court of public opinion game but it's still nothing to crow about.

Edited March 4, 2011 by Loose