Armanda Knox guilty---- again

[PaulaSB12]

Firstly the comments made are not universally held by people in the UK americans are friendly and likable and most people I know do not agree with the rude comments. Rudy Guerdo became eligible for parole last year he was doing day trips out to start educating himself (there was even talk about him attending the same university as his victim) this was stopped because of the publicity. So I would hazard a guess when the noise about this story ends he will be released on parole.

 

[dinolounger]

FACT:she was acquitted of the charges.

FACT: So wasn't this fellow. A sobering reminder that aquittal does not prove innocence.

If the Italian PD would have followed protocol and recorded the interrogation there would be no question if she was mistreated or not and if the accusation against Lumumba was forced by the officers.

Translation: when an Italian court makes a decision you agree with (ergo, Knox being acquitted), they are credible, judicious and their decision is inarguable. But when they make one you don't agree with (ergo, convicting Knox of slander against Lumumba), you inevitably go down the path of the evidence was flawed, they didn't follow protocol, they were biased, this is an outrage, etc.

Note the huge restraint the Kerchers were able to show last Friday. People can learn from it.

FACT: I never said others should suffer because she suffered.

FACT: You did, shown below when you said Knox shouldn't have to pay Lumumba (which de facto means depriving him which equates to suffering) when you stated she had already suffered "enough" punishment:

I think serving 4 years in jail for a crime you didn't commit is enough punishment for her crime of falsely accusing him

FACT: Belittling people because they don't agree with you doesn't make your argument stronger

You mean this?

And you are guilty of blindly believing every slander site

FACT: Using big words does not make your argument more valid and the opinion opposite of yours any less valid.

Not big, just precisely descriptive.

 

[Planogirl]

Innocent until proven guilty. Amanda has been acquitted of guilt so therefore she is innocent. That's my belief anyway.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Innocent until proven guilty. Amanda has been acquitted of guilt so therefore she is innocent. That's my belief anyway.

I guess you'd let Casey Anthony babysit then.

 

[topolino]

I just can't with this thread anymore, I can't handle the bias and lack of objectivity. Thank God for posters like Dinolounger and Sunshine Highway whose thoughtful and reasonable statements aren't distorted by a blind devotion to the stars and stripes.

 

[nugov2]

I just can't with this thread anymore, I can't handle the bias and lack of objectivity. Thank God for posters like Dinolounger and Sunshine Highway whose thoughtful and reasonable statements aren't distorted by a blind devotion to the stars and stripes.

But you can't see the bias on the other side LOL. Just because people have a different opinion than you doesn't make their statements distorted by blind devotion to the Stars and Stripes. That is extremely rude and offensive. So we are just naive Americans...OK. The same could be said for anyone outside of this country that you are blinded by the trashy tabloid machine that ran like crazy slandering and selling a great fantasy life of AK. There is a lack of bias and objectivity on both side of the aisle so as I said before....hello pot People who have formed their opinion of guilty and innocent can both be well educated people who read through more that pro or anti blogs. I actually read through the reports as well and still find it very obvious they were not involved.

FACT: So wasn't this fellow. A sobering reminder that aquittal does not prove innocence.

Translation: when an Italian court makes a decision you agree with (ergo, Knox being acquitted), they are credible, judicious and their decision is inarguable. But when they make one you don't agree with (ergo, convicting Knox of slander against Lumumba), you inevitably go down the path of the evidence was flawed, they didn't follow protocol, they were biased, this is an outrage, etc.

Note the huge restraint the Kerchers were able to show last Friday. People can learn from it.



FACT: You did, shown below when you said Knox shouldn't have to pay Lumumba (which de facto means depriving him which equates to suffering) when you stated she had already suffered "enough" punishment:





You mean this?



Not big, just precisely descriptive.

Yes, I get it. There are guilty people who go free. In this case though it is more apparent of her innocence b/c the highest court could have simply sent it back to trial, but they were so compelled of her innocence they ruled as such. We have double jeopardy so you cannot be tried again or we wouldn't have as many issues where the guilty go free(but still think that I is a good thing to have it). She had 4 trials and IMO if you can be found innocent twice then there must be a lot of evidence she wasn't involved. Guess we will know for sure the reasons when they release the reports.

I never said Amanda shouldn't pay Lumumba, only that I felt she should appeal and that IMO had a stronger case she was mistreated and that b/c they didn't follow protocol she may have that decision overturned. I said she was wrong in accusing him, but IMO did so b/c of the mistreatment and has served more than the time she should of for that and the financial restitution should come from the PD. I specifically said that if she is ordered to pay she should in fact pay. Nice try at twisting my words though.

And you can say they are precisely descriptive, but I find it makes you sound quite pompous, but hey what do I know I'm just an American.

 

[sunshinehighway]

But you can't see the bias on the other side LOL. Just because people have a different opinion than you doesn't make their statements distorted by blind devotion to the Stars and Stripes. That is extremely rude and offensive. So we are just naive Americans...OK. The same could be said for anyone outside of this country that you are blinded by the trashy tabloid machine that ran like crazy slandering and selling a great fantasy life of AK. There is a lack of bias and objectivity on both side of the aisle so as I said before....hello pot People who have formed their opinion of guilty and innocent can both be well educated people who read through more that pro or anti blogs. I actually read through the reports as well and still find it very obvious they were not involved.





Yes, I get it. There are guilty people who go free. In this case though it is more apparent of her innocence b/c the highest court could have simply sent it back to trial, but they were so compelled of her innocence they ruled as such. We have double jeopardy so you cannot be tried again or we wouldn't have as many issues where the guilty go free(but still think that I is a good thing to have it). She had 4 trials and IMO if you can be found innocent twice then there must be a lot of evidence she wasn't involved. Guess we will know for sure the reasons when they release the reports.

I never said Amanda shouldn't pay Lumumba, only that I felt she should appeal and that IMO had a stronger case she was mistreated and that b/c they didn't follow protocol she may have that decision overturned. I said she was wrong in accusing him, but IMO did so b/c of the mistreatment and has served more than the time she should of for that and the financial restitution should come from the PD. I specifically said that if she is ordered to pay she should in fact pay. Nice try at twisting my words though.

And you can say they are precisely descriptive, but I find it makes you sound quite pompous, but hey what do I know I'm just an American.

Earlier in this thread you stated you had only read parts of the judge's reports. It was clear you had decided she was innocent. You even linked pro Amanda sites.

You also very clearly said she should not pay Lumumba. You stated the police should pay and even accused them of assaulting her. Of course there's no proof of that. I think her parents were even charged with slander for making such claims.
Why not stand behind the statements you made earlier?

You want irrefutable proof (your words) that she was involved in the murder but at the same time believe she was assaulted and abused by the police with absolutely no proof.

 

[bcla]

I just can't with this thread anymore, I can't handle the bias and lack of objectivity. Thank God for posters like Dinolounger and Sunshine Highway whose thoughtful and reasonable statements aren't distorted by a blind devotion to the stars and stripes.

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. There are many out there. Here's one from a UK foreign correspondant who happened to be in Italy at the time:

Amanda Knox acquitted: Finally they are free. This was an outrageous miscarriage of justice
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...trageous-miscarriage-of-justice-10140573.html

PETER POPHAM Friday 27 March 2015

The verdict of Italy’s Supreme Court, exonerating Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of involvement in the murder of the English student Meredith Kercher, leaves Ms Kercher’s family struggling again to understand how and why their daughter met her terrible end.

But the verdict will come as a huge relief to the many people around the world convinced that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were victims of an outrageous miscarriage of justice. A line has been drawn under the whole affair.

And about time too. I am sick to death of the Amanda Knox case. I am sick of hearing about it, thinking about it, reading about it. Learning that another film director has had the lousy idea of making another lousy film about it. Reading the blog of yet another opinionated know-nothing who sees the horrible, cold-blooded murder of a studious young woman from Coulsdon as the perfect springboard for blogging him/herself to death about the latest ramifications of a case, all of whose significant details were long ago established, and about which there really is nothing more to be said. Except to say – how badly wrong the justice system of a wonderful, enlightened country can go. How deeply mired in controversy a legal system can become when decisive action is taken rashly, before crucial evidence is in.

I had the misfortune to be present in Rome, as the correspondent of The Independent, when Meredith Kercher was killed in November 2007. I was by no means the first to realise that this tale would run and run – credit for that goes to the tabloid freelancer Nick Pisa, upon whom I understand the main journalist in the latest film is broadly based and who wrote millions of words on the subject and can also take the credit for popularising the phrase “Foxy Knoxy”.

But I went up to Perugia the day after the murder, talked to local people, visited the bar where Ms Knox had worked and whose owner she ended up dragging into the case when he had absolutely no connection with it.

I was there again a few days later when the papers announced, quoting police, “caso chiuso”: case closed. Guilty persons identified. Whole thing wrapped up. Marvel at the speed of the Italian authorities when push comes to shove!

 

[nugov2]

Earlier in this thread you stated you had only read parts of the judge's reports. It was clear you had decided she was innocent. You even linked pro Amanda sites.

You also very clearly said she should not pay Lumumba. You stated the police should pay and even accused them of assaulting her. Of course there's no proof of that. I think her parents were even charged with slander for making such claims.
Why not stand behind the statements you made earlier?

You want irrefutable proof (your words) that she was involved in the murder but at the same time believe she was assaulted and abused by the police with absolutely no proof.

That was a while ago.

I meant that she shouldn't be sentenced to pay IMO and that the PD should be responsible for the restitution b/c she already served time in prison for it, but also stated if she can't appeal or does appeal and is ordered to pay she should.

The police knowingly violated their own procedure by not recording what went on. That is a red flag. She says they mistreated her and IMO her statements while being interrogated are in line with a person who has been treated improperly. Again, if the police followed protocol there would be no question. It is on them to follow protocol for this exact reason and because they failed to do so have responsibility in the situation too. She served time in prison for her statement, they should pay the restitution. She IMO isn't the only one who should be held accountable for Lumumba being in prison and being accused.

It isn't about wanting irrefutable proof, it is just b/c the police violated protocol the can not hold only her responsible. That is why those rules are in place. Again, it isn't that I don't think she has no responsibility it is just she is not the only IMO responsible.

 

[topolino]

You're certainly welcome to your opinion. There are many out there. Here's one from a UK foreign correspondant who happened to be in Italy at the time:

Amanda Knox acquitted: Finally they are free. This was an outrageous miscarriage of justice
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...trageous-miscarriage-of-justice-10140573.html

PETER POPHAM Friday 27 March 2015

The verdict of Italy’s Supreme Court, exonerating Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of involvement in the murder of the English student Meredith Kercher, leaves Ms Kercher’s family struggling again to understand how and why their daughter met her terrible end.

But the verdict will come as a huge relief to the many people around the world convinced that Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito were victims of an outrageous miscarriage of justice. A line has been drawn under the whole affair.

And about time too. I am sick to death of the Amanda Knox case. I am sick of hearing about it, thinking about it, reading about it. Learning that another film director has had the lousy idea of making another lousy film about it. Reading the blog of yet another opinionated know-nothing who sees the horrible, cold-blooded murder of a studious young woman from Coulsdon as the perfect springboard for blogging him/herself to death about the latest ramifications of a case, all of whose significant details were long ago established, and about which there really is nothing more to be said. Except to say – how badly wrong the justice system of a wonderful, enlightened country can go. How deeply mired in controversy a legal system can become when decisive action is taken rashly, before crucial evidence is in.

I had the misfortune to be present in Rome, as the correspondent of The Independent, when Meredith Kercher was killed in November 2007. I was by no means the first to realise that this tale would run and run – credit for that goes to the tabloid freelancer Nick Pisa, upon whom I understand the main journalist in the latest film is broadly based and who wrote millions of words on the subject and can also take the credit for popularising the phrase “Foxy Knoxy”.

But I went up to Perugia the day after the murder, talked to local people, visited the bar where Ms Knox had worked and whose owner she ended up dragging into the case when he had absolutely no connection with it.

I was there again a few days later when the papers announced, quoting police, “caso chiuso”: case closed. Guilty persons identified. Whole thing wrapped up. Marvel at the speed of the Italian authorities when push comes to shove!

And here is a quote (translated) from Patrick Lumumba, who was fingered by Amanda though he was completely innocent:

"Amanda saved herself because she is American and she took advantage of America's (political) position. It's a powerful country".

http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronache/amanda-colpevole-se-incontrassi-chiederei-i-soldi-1111456.html?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Link&utm_content="Amanda+è+colpevole.+Se+la+incontrassi+le+chiederei+i+soldi"+-+IlGiornale.it&utm_campaign=Facebook+Interna

He also said that Amanda's acquittal caused him pain and that he is positive that she is guilty.

 

[bcla]

And here is a quote (translated) from Patrick Lumumba, who was fingered by Amanda though he was completely innocent:

"Amanda saved herself because she is American and she took advantage of America's (political) position. It's a powerful country".

http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/cronache/amanda-colpevole-se-incontrassi-chiederei-i-soldi-1111456.html?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Link&utm_content="Amanda+è+colpevole.+Se+la+incontrassi+le+chiederei+i+soldi"+-+IlGiornale.it&utm_campaign=Facebook+Interna

He also said that Amanda's acquittal caused him pain and that he is positive that she is guilty.

But he's hardly an impartial observer. Frankly nobody has been in this case. You, me, everyone. There's a lot of emotional investment in "being right". Heck - I've been accused of that and can't say I'm not guilty as charged.

 

[nugov2]

But he's hardly an impartial observer. Frankly nobody has been in this case. You, me, everyone. There's a lot of emotional investment in "being right". Heck - I've been accused of that and can't say I'm not guilty as charged.

That is the truth. I just don't understand the mentality that just b/c you don't agree she is guilty you are an apologist, blinded by PR or a stuck up American. That whole attitude on this thread is baffling. I don't think Patrick Lumumba's view that AK is guilty means anything more than the Kercher's view that she is guilty. I understand why they have the feelings they do though. Their pain makes it difficult to be objective.

 

[sunshinehighway]

That is the truth. I just don't understand the mentality that just b/c you don't agree she is guilty you are an apologist, blinded by PR or a stuck up American. That whole attitude on this thread is baffling. I don't think Patrick Lumumba's view that AK is guilty means anything more than the Kercher's view that she is guilty. I understand why they have the feelings they do though. Their pain makes it difficult to be objective.

Thinking she's not guilty doesn't mean someone is automatically any of those things. When the reasons someone says she's not guilty include saying things like there's no absolutely nothing that points to her guilt, the police are just out to get her, the Italian justice system is a joke, it's not her fault she led about Lumumba, the police assaulted her, etc, it does make someone sound like they are just regurgitating the story her PR team has sold.
There is forensic evidence, it might be shaky but it's not non existent. There are her lies and inconsistencies with her behavior. It's one thing to say those things aren't enough to make you think she's guilty. It's another to just ignore them or pretend they don't exist.
It seems to me most people who believe she's not guilty believe the tale of her being this naive girl who has been completely railroaded by the Italian police and court system. I think that's wrong and unfair. This idea that they just randomly decided to pick on her (based on absolutely nothing) is not true. That was created by the PR team her family hired within days of her being arrested.

 

[bcla]

Thinking she's not guilty doesn't mean someone is automatically any of those things. When the reasons someone says she's not guilty include saying things like there's no absolutely nothing that points to her guilt, the police are just out to get her, the Italian justice system is a joke, it's not her fault she led about Lumumba, the police assaulted her, etc, it does make someone sound like they are just regurgitating the story her PR team has sold.
There is forensic evidence, it might be shaky but it's not non existent. There are her lies and inconsistencies with her behavior. It's one thing to say those things aren't enough to make you think she's guilty. It's another to just ignore them or pretend they don't exist.
It seems to me most people who believe she's not guilty believe the tale of her being this naive girl who has been completely railroaded by the Italian police and court system. I think that's wrong and unfair. This idea that they just randomly decided to pick on her (based on absolutely nothing) is not true. That was created by the PR team her family hired within days of her being arrested.

Of course when a murder happens the first thing that happens is that the people living/visiting the same house are questioned and possibly checked. However, DNA evidence becomes a little bit harder to pin because someone would have good reason to leave it behind. Suspicion of a roommate is hardly random, but just because it's an automatic first place to start doesn't make it the only place to go.

People do weird things when they witness a death or dead body. I've heard one firsthand account of someone just sort of cleaned up after attempting to help stop the bleeding before someone died, and that person just existed in a daze for the next few days. Here's a story about a man and his wife reacting to the witnessing of a man being killed on the freeway.

http://www.samefacts.com/2011/04/he...happens-to-people-and-how-can-they-be-helped/

People of general good will can disagree on subjects and still be civil to each other. Frankly there's a lack of that on this particular forum.

 

[sunshinehighway]

Of course when a murder happens the first thing that happens is that the people living/visiting the same house are questioned and possibly checked. However, DNA evidence becomes a little bit harder to pin because someone would have good reason to leave it behind. Suspicion of a roommate is hardly random, but just because it's an automatic first place to start doesn't make it the only place to go.

People do weird things when they witness a death or dead body. I've heard one firsthand account of someone just sort of cleaned up after attempting to help stop the bleeding before someone died, and that person just existed in a daze for the next few days. Here's a story about a man and his wife reacting to the witnessing of a man being killed on the freeway.

http://www.samefacts.com/2011/04/he...happens-to-people-and-how-can-they-be-helped/

People of general good will can disagree on subjects and still be civil to each other. Frankly there's a lack of that on this particular forum.

That might all but true but it doesn't address the lies she told or the inconsistencies in her behavior or the inconsistencies with her story.
That's what I mean about pretending those things don't exist.
Of course, many people don't know about those things because it's hard to find any of that stuff.

 

[nugov2]

Thinking she's not guilty doesn't mean someone is automatically any of those things. When the reasons someone says she's not guilty include saying things like there's no absolutely nothing that points to her guilt, the police are just out to get her, the Italian justice system is a joke, it's not her fault she led about Lumumba, the police assaulted her, etc, it does make someone sound like they are just regurgitating the story her PR team has sold.
There is forensic evidence, it might be shaky but it's not non existent. There are her lies and inconsistencies with her behavior. It's one thing to say those things aren't enough to make you think she's guilty. It's another to just ignore them or pretend they don't exist.
It seems to me most people who believe she's not guilty believe the tale of her being this naive girl who has been completely railroaded by the Italian police and court system. I think that's wrong and unfair. This idea that they just randomly decided to pick on her (based on absolutely nothing) is not true. That was created by the PR team her family hired within days of her being arrested.

I've debated this with you before and I never said she didn't do things that were odd that would make her look suspicious, I said nothing concrete points to her guilt It is all circumstantial vs direct evidence. I didn't say the police were out to get her. I said that they didn't follow their own protocol and should be held accountable for that. I think she should be held accountable for her actions accusing him and has been by serving 4 years in jail. I think the PD should also be held accountable and they should pay the restitution. If they would have done what they were supposed there would be no question of if she was mistreated or not. I hope she appeals, but if she doesn't or is still found to pay, then I absolutely think she should pay him...I just feel she should fight it. There is a big difference from saying that and saying that I am claiming it isn't her fault. I am not blinded by her PR team, but that PR works both ways. Just as much smear is out there about her as the PR the other way so that is a moot point IMO. If there was direct evidence she was involved, I would be all for her spending her life in jail...American or not. It has nothing to do with some American pride as some had implied. I don't think American's are at a higher level and their **** don't stink and I find it offensive(not you that said it) some posters have made reference to that. I am not an AK apologist. I do not think she is a saint. Again, I will be very curious to read the judges report for this final acquittal.

 

[nugov2]

That might all but true but it doesn't address the lies she told or the inconsistencies in her behavior or the inconsistencies with her story.
That's what I mean about pretending those things don't exist.
Of course, many people don't know about those things because it's hard to find any of that stuff.

I think sometimes good people lie b/c they are scared or confused by what is going on. I think she was both of those things. Your roommate being murdered in a country where you are not from would be very scary and confusing. I think she felt threatened by the officers(maybe unnecessarily, but people don't always act rationally when they are scared) and that is why she lied. She learned a tough lesson though didn't she?

 

[sunshinehighway]

I think sometimes good people lie b/c they are scared or confused by what is going on. I think she was both of those things. Your roommate being murdered in a country where you are not from would be very scary and confusing. I think she felt threatened by the officers(maybe unnecessarily, but people don't always act rationally when they are scared) and that is why she lied. She learned a tough lesson though didn't she?

That doesn't address the other inconsistencies with her story and things like phone records or what her other roommates had to say.
It's fine to say you think the lack of forensic evidence has greater weight than the rest but that's not the same as saying nothing exists which does call her into question.
I understand you heavily weigh the lack of blood/DNA but after reading the other Judge's reports, can you really say they had absolutely nothing to make them think she was involved?

 

[nugov2]

That doesn't address the other inconsistencies with her story and things like phone records or what her other roommates had to say.
It's fine to say you think the lack of forensic evidence has greater weight than the rest but that's not the same as saying nothing exists which does call her into question.
I understand you heavily weigh the lack of blood/DNA but after reading the other Judge's reports, can you really say they had absolutely nothing to make them think she was involved?

No, I don't think that. I think they have nothing direct. It is all circumstantial She lied about quite a few things, but I think people lie when they are scared and the fact that some of her lies make no sense at all shows even more that her state of mind was off. I think many of her actions were odd, but doing things in an odd way doesn't mean she was involved. For all we know AK is the most self centered, selfish person in the world and was tired and didn't care enough about Meredith to be truly concerned about her well being and the oddities when she came home. Instead she did what she had to do and left. Then when she realized what happened didn't want to be perceived like that so started to lie and then everything just spun out of her control. I don't know why she lied about the things she did, but there are lots of reasons she could have lied that don't also mean that she was involved. Nobody will ever know her state of mind when she came home and what went on, but that is her cross to bear and I think it is a burden she will carry heavily her whole life.

 

[dinolounger]

Innocent until proven guilty. Amanda has been acquitted of guilt so therefore she is innocent. That's my belief anyway.

You're entitled to it, but per my last post, an acquittal does not inarguably prove innocence.

And as time goes on Knox will really begin to understand that (yes, the pale but perpetual cloud of doubt......)