Armanda Knox guilty---- again

[PaulaSB12]

I agree with this. I think she knows way more, and I think she's a psycho path. I wont be sad if she is locked up.

You lock people up when they commit a crime, you do not lock someone up because you don't like their character. There has been no evidence linking in the killer with these two kids. The "bloody" footprints they admitted had no blood, the only bloody footprint fitted the killer not the boyfriend. The knife has no dna from victim and is the wrong size for the wounds. There is only evidence of the killer and its is not possible to clean up the evidence of two people and leave only one persons dna. The DNA was on her in her and under her. They have changed their mind from sex crime gone wrong (a crime the prosecutor has been trying to convict people of for a long time) to fighting over money. This case has all the validity of the scientists convicted for not knowing an earthquake would strike. Is Amanda a nice person I don't know but you don't put people in prison for that only if they commit a crime.

 

[nugov2]

Sometimes when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck , it's a duck too. Just saying.

I don't think you can paint someone who commits murder with such a narrow brush. Sometimes people are odd/inappropriate and don't behave in a way that is viewed as social norms, but that does not a murderer make. Sometimes people are charming, completely socially appropriate and loved by many, but are serial killers.

If I only went by my impression of Knox, I would lean toward her being guilty. She is odd in many ways and seems unable to read social cues, often saying things that come across as uncaring or clueless. She can be weird. She acted in ways that made her seem shady. I have come to believe most of that is just Knox being Knox. I really think she is socially inept and just makes blunders that make you say WOW. But that is not a crime.

What I cannot get past is that Guede's DNA is all over the place, including the victim. But K&S's DNA is absent. It's that simple. It is not as if we have:

Knox--Yellow DNA
Sollecito--Blue DNA
Guede--Red DNA

You can't go around and scrub off the yellow and blue DNA and just leave the red intact. It doesn't work that way. There is no special color attached to your DNA so that you can selectively get rid of JUST YOURS and leave the 3rd party's. Blood is blood, body is body waste, saliva is saliva, fingerprints are fingerprints, skin cells are skin cells. There is no way Guede's DNA is plentiful and that K&S were such superior criminals that they managed to erase all trace of their own.

No, I think Knox is the sort that makes people say, "There's something off about that girl," and their radar makes them take a second look at her. But the physical evidence indicates she is not guilty and that Guede is.

You said exactly the way I feel. I truly would be interested in seeing evidence that shows she is guilty if someone has seen it somewhere. I am not set in stone that she is innocent no matter what.

 

[PaulaSB12]

I find the prosecutor in the case to be not credible a man who is fighting to keep himself out of prison for misconduct in the monster of Perugia case
http://www.allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/12/10/giuliano-mignini-the-monster-of-perugia/
Mignini’s problems began in 2002, when he attempted to link the death of a prominent physician, Dr. Francisco Narducci, with a far-reaching criminal conspiracy connected to the Monster of Florence murders. Dr. Narducci’s body was found floating in a lake near Perugia way back in 1985. A police investigation at the time produced no evidence of wrongdoing. The doctor’s family and colleagues believed his death had been a suicide. After listening to the rumors and innuendo being bandied about by various “sources,” Mignini had the bright idea of reopening the investigation. He then started feeding the press a series of elaborate tales involving secret societies, violent crimes, and vast cover-ups.

jewelEarly in 2002, Mignini had Narducci’s body exhumed and examined. He asserted that the body was not decomposed enough to be Narducci’s. A medical examination proved otherwise; the corpse was in fact the deceased doctor. Mignini then theorized that the body had been swapped — not just once, but twice. He alleged that Narducci had been involved in a secret occult group whose members had killed him in order to ensure his silence. According to Mignini, Narducci’s father Ugo, who was a member of a masonic lodge, had masterminded the cover up. Mignini’s web of intrigue spiraled outward to include various government officials and law enforcement officers. He went on to indict 20 people and charge them with various crimes. Tabloid reporters and conspiracy theorists ran wild with this story. The only problem was Mignini had little or no solid evidence to back it up.

People who dared to question Mignini’s methods were subjected to legal threats and intimidation. In April 2006, Mignini had Italian journalist Mario Spezi arrested for complicity in the homicides of the Monster of Florence case and for interfering with the murder investigation. Spezi was held for 23 days, 5 of them without a lawyer. His case stretched on for months. Douglas Preston, who co-authored with Spezi the acclaimed true crime book, The Monster of Florence, has described being hauled into an interrogation by Mignini in which he was accused of being a criminal and a Satanist and threatened with indictment unless he ceased his investigative reporting and left Italy altogether.

Mignini3In 2006, Mignini was charged with abuse of office for allegedly ordering the illegal wiretapping of the phones of various police officers and journalists. In January 2010, a court in Florence found him guilty of exceeding the powers of his office and he was given a 16-month suspended sentence. Mignini appealed the conviction, stating, “My conscience is clear. I know I did nothing wrong.” He was able to remain in office through the appeal process, since Italian law does not consider convictions final until all appeals are exhausted. In November 2011, the Court of Appeal in Florence overturned Mignini’s conviction for lack of jurisdiction and referred the case to the prosecutor in Turin to decide whether to re-file the charges. Italian journalists have pointed out that even if Mignini were convicted, offenses such his are rarely grounds for removing a prosecutor from office.

It wasn’t until March of 2013 (the wheels of Italian justice grind away ever so slowly) that the Supreme Court of Italy refuted once and for all Mignini’s theories and indictments pertaining to Dr. Narducci’s death. The Court ruled that Mignini’s criminal conspiracy “did not exist,” and that Francesco Narducci died by suicide — which is what sensible people had thought all along.

 

[LoveMMC]

Sometimes when it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck , it's a duck too. Just saying.

But she doesn't! She doesn't act like a murderer. She acts like a young girl caught up in a hellish situation. In these situations everyone works to save their own skin, words are twisted and interpreted to serve a purpose. A girl was murdered- a horrible situation. Now an innocent girl's life and reputation is destroyed - it's not right. They have the murderer- a guy who's DNA and has confessed- and if they could make that male make a false confession in interrogation- how do you think a young girl with only a little Italian would hold up.


They have a girl who never committed a crime, as no history of violence before or after, no signs of temper, violence or anything even remotely close to being a murderer.

 

[PaulaSB12]

But she doesn't! She doesn't act like a murderer. She acts like a young girl caught up in a hellish situation. In these situations everyone works to save their own skin, words are twisted and interpreted to serve a purpose. A girl was murdered- a horrible situation. Now an innocent girl's life and reputation is destroyed - it's not right. They have the murderer- a guy who's DNA and has confessed- and if they could make that male make a false confession in interrogation- how do you think a young girl with only a little Italian would hold up.


They have a girl who never committed a crime, as no history of violence before or after, no signs of temper, violence or anything even remotely close to being a murderer.

A young girl who is supposed to have help stab another woman without leaving any evidence of her being in the room. Her only fingerprint was on a glass in the kitchen.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I don't think you can paint someone who commits murder with such a narrow brush. Sometimes people are odd/inappropriate and don't behave in a way that is viewed as social norms, but that does not a murderer make. Sometimes people are charming, completely socially appropriate and loved by many, but are serial killers.




You said exactly the way I feel. I truly would be interested in seeing evidence that shows she is guilty if someone has seen it somewhere. I am not set in stone that she is innocent no matter what.

I'm not going to go through thing piece by piece. I don't feel like going back through it, and I know the responses I'll get so it's just not worth it.
As far as thinking she's guilty, you have to understand the prosecution absolutely believes the murder could not have been committed by one person. They believe there is evidence of a clean up and a staged break in.
Amanda is the only one who had access to the flat. She's lied several times and her alibi is very shaky.

People are convicted all the time with no physical evidence, some innocent and some guilty. I think TV gives people this idea that there should be lots of physical evidence all over a crime scene. It's just not reality.
Look at Caylee Anthony. There wasn't much physical evidence there, a random hair in the car, maybe a few other little things ( I don't remember). Of course she got off but I don't think too many people were cheering when that happened.

I don't think there was much physical evidence against Scott Peterson either. He was convicted.

 

[EMom]

I'm not going to go through thing piece by piece. I don't feel like going back through it, and I know the responses I'll get so it's just not worth it.
As far as thinking she's guilty, you have to understand the prosecution absolutely believes the murder could not have been committed by one person. They believe there is evidence of a clean up and a staged break in.
Amanda is the only one who had access to the flat. She's lied several times and her alibi is very shaky.

People are convicted all the time with no physical evidence, some innocent and some guilty. I think TV gives people this idea that there should be lots of physical evidence all over a crime scene. It's just not reality.
Look at Caylee Anthony. There wasn't much physical evidence there, a random hair in the car, maybe a few other little things ( I don't remember). Of course she got off but I don't think too many people were cheering when that happened.

I don't think there was much physical evidence against Scott Peterson either. He was convicted.

When you let a body rot for a long period of time until it is nothing but scattered bones in a swampy area, you aren't going to get much physical evidence. For that, Casey Anthony was rewarded with a NG verdict. The Italian crime scene had plenty of physical evidence against Guede, just not against K&S. Again, you cannot selectively remove the DNA of two killers, while simultaneously leaving lots of the third killer's DNA. It just doesn't work that way.

As for entry, I have read accounts that Geude would have been able to enter by a window. He knew the place because he had visited the guys who shared the apartment building. And he had a criminal history. But what does it matter that he had one and R&S didn't when the DNA is so telling?

 

[sunshinehighway]

When you let a body rot for a long period of time until it is nothing but scattered bones in a swampy area, you aren't going to get much physical evidence. For that, Casey Anthony was rewarded with a NG verdict. The Italian crime scene had plenty of physical evidence against Guede, just not against K&S. Again, you cannot selectively remove the DNA of two killers, while simultaneously leaving lots of the third killer's DNA. It just doesn't work that way.

As for entry, I have read accounts that Geude would have been able to enter by a window. He knew the place because he had visited the guys who shared the apartment building. And he had a criminal history. But what does it matter that he had one and R&S didn't when the DNA is so telling?

Did he have a violent criminal history? As far as I know he didn't. Theft to brutally murdering someone is a big leap. It's just another way to deflect from Knox being involved in some way.
It's not just the window as an entry point that made authorities question the break in.
I notice you didn't address the conclusion that the murder wasn't carried out by one person. That is talked about in the rulings.
If the court truly believes RG couldn't have acted alone, there was a staging of a break in and evidence clean up, of course they are going to look at Knox. She was the only one with a key in the area.

Lack of physical evidence doesn't prove a person's innocence. It seems that's what many are thinking.

 

[declansdad]

Did he have a violent criminal history? As far as I know he didn't. Theft to brutally murdering someone is a big leap. It's just another way to deflect from Knox being involved in some way.
It's not just the window as an entry point that made authorities question the break in.
I notice you didn't address the conclusion that the murder wasn't carried out by one person. That is talked about in the rulings.
If the court truly believes RG couldn't have acted alone, there was a staging of a break in and evidence clean up, of course they are going to look at Knox. She was the only one with a key in the area.

Lack of physical evidence doesn't prove a person's innocence. It seems that's what many are thinking.

How do you clean up all the evidence except for the evidence that points to one person?

 

[sunshinehighway]

How do you clean up all the evidence except for the evidence that points to one person?

I guess I just don't understand what evidence you guys are expecting. The evidence that was there was obvious, feces, bloody hand print...it'd be easy to leave those things.
I stand behind the idea that there isn't always a lot of physical evidence anyways. It's a TV crime show idea.

Also, it's incredibly arrogant and hypocritical for Americans to sit in judgment of Italy's justice system. Ours is not even close to perfect.
She's been convicted by their system.

 

[declansdad]

I guess I just don't understand what evidence you guys are expecting. The evidence that was there was obvious, feces, bloody hand print...it'd be easy to leave those things.
I stand behind the idea that there isn't always a lot of physical evidence anyways. It's a TV crime show idea.

Also, it's incredibly arrogant and hypocritical for Americans to sit in judgment of Italy's justice system. Ours is not even close to perfect.
She's been convicted by their system.

I think what most people would like is some actual physical evidence that links to the crime. The only evidence that linked to the crime didn't come from her.

Since I'm not American I guess you are not including me in your last point.

 

[sunshinehighway]

I think what most people would like is some actual physical evidence that links to the crime. The only evidence that linked to the crime didn't come from her.

Since I'm not American I guess you are not including me in your last point.

That bloody hand print was the only print of Geude's found in the apartment. So that alone should tell you how much physical evidence is often really left behind (unless there was a clean up of course).
I believe only one print of Knox's was found in the whole apartment. That's the place she lived so either someone did a clean up or it's not as easy to leave phyaical evidence behind as some believe.


My statement about arrogance and hypocracy was not directed at you or anyone in particular, more a general statement.

 

[Planogirl]

You can't clean up the DNA of two people while leaving the DNA of one behind. That seems farfetched at best but then I can't really judge without seeing all of the evidence.

That said I always presume innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Not every other court system uses that which doesn't make their system bad just not one that I agree with. It's not arrogant to disagree with the philosophies of other nations.

 

[nugov2]

I guess I just don't understand what evidence you guys are expecting. The evidence that was there was obvious, feces, bloody hand print...it'd be easy to leave those things.
I stand behind the idea that there isn't always a lot of physical evidence anyways. It's a TV crime show idea.

Also, it's incredibly arrogant and hypocritical for Americans to sit in judgment of Italy's justice system. Ours is not even close to perfect.
She's been convicted by their system.

And that was overturned and she was released from prison and sent home. Now they are saying..oh wait maybe we made yet another mistake, we'd like to try her again.

 

[PaulaSB12]

Did he have a violent criminal history? As far as I know he didn't. Theft to brutally murdering someone is a big leap. It's just another way to deflect from Knox being involved in some way.
It's not just the window as an entry point that made authorities question the break in.
I notice you didn't address the conclusion that the murder wasn't carried out by one person. That is talked about in the rulings.
If the court truly believes RG couldn't have acted alone, there was a staging of a break in and evidence clean up, of course they are going to look at Knox. She was the only one with a key in the area.

Lack of physical evidence doesn't prove a person's innocence. It seems that's what many are thinking.

He was a drug dealer who did have a past using knives. There has been no evidence to show he spoke to either Amanda or her boyfriend. He only told them that they where involved when his sentence was reduced from 30 years to 16. How on earth does no physical evidence not prove a person's innocence? How do two people stab another multiple times without leaving a single fingerprint or piece of dna? How did they manage to get out without leaving a single bloody footprint when Guerde didn't manage it? There is no evidence they were there I mean the prosecutor has gone from they were in the room to standing outside shouting instructions, from satanic sex crime to robbery. Guerde's dna inside her does prove he raped her.

 

[PaulaSB12]

That bloody hand print was the only print of Geude's found in the apartment. So that alone should tell you how much physical evidence is often really left behind (unless there was a clean up of course).
I believe only one print of Knox's was found in the whole apartment. That's the place she lived so either someone did a clean up or it's not as easy to leave phyaical evidence behind as some believe.


My statement about arrogance and hypocracy was not directed at you or anyone in particular, more a general statement.

To say the bloody handprint was the only physical evidence against Geude is wrong there is much more than that. The evidence of Guede’s guilt is irrefutable and should have been more than sufficient to secure a life sentence. Guede admitted he was in Meredith’s room at the time of the attack. His DNA, along with Meredith’s blood, was found on Meredith's purse. His shoeprints, set in Meredith’s blood, were found in the bedroom and in the hallway leading out the front door. As mentioned above, his handprint, in Meredith’s blood, was found on a pillowcase underneath her body. Most importantly, Guede’s DNA was found inside Meredith’s body. So his dna was found on her, under her and in her that is a lot of physical evidence, then there is the handprint under her and the bloody footprint.

 

[sunshinehighway]

To say the bloody handprint was the only physical evidence against Geude is wrong there is much more than that. The evidence of Guede’s guilt is irrefutable and should have been more than sufficient to secure a life sentence. Guede admitted he was in Meredith’s room at the time of the attack. His DNA, along with Meredith’s blood, was found on Meredith's purse. His shoeprints, set in Meredith’s blood, were found in the bedroom and in the hallway leading out the front door. As mentioned above, his handprint, in Meredith’s blood, was found on a pillowcase underneath her body. Most importantly, Guede’s DNA was found inside Meredith’s body. So his dna was found on her, under her and in her that is a lot of physical evidence, then there is the handprint under her and the bloody footprint.

I never said Guede didn't do it. Footprints matching Amanda's were found in many places including a pillow (I think it was a pillow) in Meredith's room.



In case some of you don't know, the judge's reports are availabe to read (in translated English). In them, the Judge explains the reasoning behind the ruling. Yes, they are long but they do show there is more evidence than our media reports. Of course that's to be expected when one hires a PR firm so quickly after being arrested.

 

[sunshinehighway]

And that was overturned and she was released from prison and sent home. Now they are saying..oh wait maybe we made yet another mistake, we'd like to try her again.

That's simply how the Italian process works. You can't think of it in terms of our system.

 

[nugov2]

That's simply how the Italian process works. You can't think of it in terms of our system.

Right, but you say they convicted her. She spent 4 years in prison and then overturned the ruling, I don't think she she be sent back IMO, unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt she is involved. There is just too much evidence that in the instance their justice system is incompetent and without irrefutable evidence it isn't right to subject anyone to that after 2 trials and 4 years in prison.

I don't know for sure, as I haven't read the translated court documents, but there isn't one of her friends that back up anything negative about Amanda. Now the court is changing from sex crime to an argument about hygiene. That kercher complained about the unflushed toilet and they killed her. They have no motive Amanda would kill her and that is what they are using? They are grasping at straws IMO. I again am not saying I can't be convinced, if they had anything that made sense, but from what I have read they don't. They have a lot of proof she behaved odd and did some really inappropriate things, but murder is still just too big of a leap for me.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Right, but you say they convicted her. She spent 4 years in prison and then overturned the ruling, I don't think she she be sent back IMO, unless they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt she is involved. There is just too much evidence that in the instance their justice system is incompetent and without irrefutable evidence it isn't right to subject anyone to that after 2 trials and 4 years in prison.

I don't know for sure, as I haven't read the translated court documents, but there isn't one of her friends that back up anything negative about Amanda. Now the court is changing from sex crime to an argument about hygiene. That kercher complained about the unflushed toilet and they killed her. They have no motive Amanda would kill her and that is what they are using? They are grasping at straws IMO. I again am not saying I can't be convinced, if they had anything that made sense, but from what I have read they don't. They have a lot of proof she behaved odd and did some really inappropriate things, but murder is still just too big of a leap for me.

Irrefutable evidence isn't even our standard .

The document explain the decision and if you read them you'll better understand it's not the story we've been fed.
There are reasons they came to the conclusions they did and it's not just that she behaved oddly.

Yes, there are questions and many unanswered things but this idea that she's just being completely railroaded by an unjust Italian court system is bs. Her family hired a PR firm within days of her being arrested, days. They carefully spun this story. That's the job they were hired for. It's very difficult to find information against Amanda unless you read the actual documents.