Amanda Knox - Guilty or Innocent

[Ian_W]

You mean her fault for just happening to be the flat mate of Meredith Kercher

 

That would not make her guilty of a crime.

 

She was found guilty and given 4 months (I believe) and that was the time that she served in prison. The length of time might be wrong.

[cup of tea]

Cup of Tea - You must be reading another thread, it's Brounmoney who has been taking Loosely to the cleaners, as per usual he hasn't got a clue

 

To be honest, I'm just trolling

 

Mind you, Amanda Knox is going to make a reputed $4M out of the book deal, and she did lie and that lie ended up with an innocent man being put into jail for 2 weeks so I haven't got that much sympathy for her.

[Brounmoney]

Cup of Tea - You must be reading another thread, it's Brounmoney who has been taking Loosely to the cleaners, as per usual he hasn't got a clue

Rhodes will you be reading Amanda's book?

[Big J R]

Rhodes will you be reading Amanda's book?

 

Reading it ?

 

He probably co-wrote it !!

[Brounmoney]

Reading it ?

 

He probably co-wrote it !!

I will look for Rhodes name in the first couple of pages. Edited April 30, 2013 by Brounmoney

[Big J R]

His 'dedication' should be interesting !!

[Brounmoney]

His 'dedication' should be interesting !!

Oh good. I guess I will have to read the dedication then.

[missunderstood]

Oh good. I guess I will have to read the dedication then.

 

Are you allowed to read books in you asylum?

[Brounmoney]

Are you allowed to read books in you asylum?

Oh wait no I am not. I guess I will have to wait until they release me again.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Brounmoney

[Loose]

Cup of Tea - You must be reading another thread, it's Brounmoney who has been taking Loosely to the cleaners, as per usual he hasn't got a clue

 

Lol, Rhodesy slipping in from his alternate universe again. I'd have said that you and Brounmoney were pretty evenly matched for intellect but then there's a fine line on the IQ scale between imbecile and idiot. At least you've definitely got a lot in common, both of you only read what you want to read.

[Rhodes]

Rhodes will you be reading Amanda's book?

Is the Pope Catholic

[Rhodes]

Here we go folks, an extract from Amanda's interview today with Diane Sawyer from ABC News, enjoy:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/amanda-knox-diane-sawyers-exclusive-interview-19069363

[Brounmoney]

Here we go folks, an extract from Amanda's interview today with Diane Sawyer from ABC News, enjoy:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/amanda-knox-diane-sawyers-exclusive-interview-19069363

I watched the whole interview, and it was pretty interesting. It again made me ask how after Rudy Guede's confession Amanda was still convicted. Yes I know he told them Amanda took part, but the evidence does not match that. The hand print was Rudy's, the shoe print was his, and all the DNA found in the room was his. There is no evidence in the room to link her. It really does seem like Amanda made it very easy for them to accuse her. My only thing is I have no idea how I would deal with some that crazy happening. Yes Amanda's actions made her appear to have a part, but the evidence has to back those actions up.

[Rhodes]

Brounmoney - Yes that's exactly right, how Guede was allowed to implicate Amanda in his heinous crime is amazing, okay she might have acted a bit naively following the murder when the incompetent Italian Police were sniffing around but doing a cartwheel and kissing her boyfriend doesn't automatically make her guilty of murder does it.

[Brounmoney]

Brounmoney - Yes that's exactly right, how Guede was allowed to implicate Amanda in his heinous crime is amazing, okay she might have acted a bit naively following the murder when the incompetent Italian Police were sniffing around but doing a cartwheel and kissing her boyfriend doesn't automatically make her guilty of murder does it.

No it does not. It made it easier for the prosecution to convince the judge that she was guilty. Again I have no idea how I would react to something so horrible. She was scared and had no idea what to do. Now had they had some hard evidence saying she was in the room, and we have that behavior. Then sure it would be clear she did it, but if she is this cold blooded killer everyone suggest that she is. Would she have not been smarter than to conduct herself that way?

[Big J R]

Lets assume that after her interview, and your comments above, that she IS innocent.

 

Then I would have thought that she should have no fear of getting back out there as soon as possible and clearing her name.

[Eastside Urchin]

If you are innocent though and been cleared in a court of law,why would you want to go back out there when you simply don't have to.

[Brounmoney]

Lets assume that after her interview, and your comments above, that she IS innocent.

 

Then I would have thought that she should have no fear of getting back out there as soon as possible and clearing her name.

Did you see any of the interview? From the way it sounded to me she wanted to defend her name. Now I don't know if that means her going back, but her lawyers might tell her it is not a good idea.

 

Now if I was innocent and got the chance to leave. I am not sure that I would ever go back. People in Italy still believe she did it, and you can't tell me all the bad media she got does not have an affect on what the judge decides. We are human we can't help but hear those things, and it not influence our decisions. If several people tell me that Wayne Rooney is a huge jerk before I ever get a chance to meet him. I will have preconceived thoughts of him. Fair or not we as humans do this all the time, and the judge in these trials is no different. That is why I say a completely fair trial is impossible at this point, and that is why I say there would be no chance for her to defend herself.

[Rother]

Not a chance in hell I'd go back.

 

Publish the book, get the £4m and fcuk 'em would be my call.

 

(Still think she's a crazy bitch though.)

[missunderstood]

Did you see any of the interview? From the way it sounded to me she wanted to defend her name. Now I don't know if that means her going back, but her lawyers might tell her it is not a good idea.

 

Now if I was innocent and got the chance to leave. I am not sure that I would ever go back. People in Italy still believe she did it, and you can't tell me all the bad media she got does not have an affect on what the judge decides. We are human we can't help but hear those things, and it not influence our decisions. If several people tell me that Wayne Rooney is a huge jerk before I ever get a chance to meet him. I will have preconceived thoughts of him. Fair or not we as humans do this all the time, and the judge in these trials is no different. That is why I say a completely fair trial is impossible at this point, and that is why I say there would be no chance for her to defend herself.

 

 

Are you saying she should remain in the USA rather than attend a trial for a crime  which she may possibly be guilty?. What about justice for the Kercher family, and when are you returning to your padded cell.