127 replies to this topic

[libstaK]

Quote

Try reading it through the eyes of the media that have portrayed Knox as a sweet,Catholic girl all alone and far away from home. You say you've done some reading on this case. Read more. Especially try the Seattle and Washington papers. You want racial bashing? Go there and read it.

So the media coverage is sensationalist on all fronts - that I think we agree on.

Clearly there are some serious generalisations which are contributing to your position on Knox and on her supporters.  These generalisations have no basis in fact, they are just your opinion based on your biases, it's a good thing she wasn't being tried by you IMO - oh wait, she has been hasn't she?

Quote

I really enjoy people who bring in the good old term generalisations when they have no idea what they are talking about. Like I said, read more thoroughly. Don't set yourself up as an expert when you aren't.

Not setting myself up as an expert at all, far from it, just happen to believe the opposite of what you do based on the evidence available in this case.  Why are you so sure of your position btw when clearly the courts upon review of all the evidence have set her free?  Were you there? Hiding in the bushes?  How do you know anything for sure?

You believe she is guilty  - the premise is innocent until proven guilty, a court of law agreed that proof did not exist, do you know something they do not?  Her promiscuity is NOT evidence of murder, her "evil looks" or so called "shifty behaviour" is not evidence of murder.  Her changing story to the police is not evidence of murder (that, quite frankly, is evidence of fear) as for blaming her boss lets just speculate for a moment is it not possible:

- That she did not like her boss and found him untrustworthy from past experiences with him.

- That when pressed about what she knew again, and again, and again and asked the question "If it wasn't you then who could it be?"  Would not het frazzled mind of someone in grief who has just lost their friend in the most horrible of circumstances have wondered the same thing and be looking at everyone they knew for possible suspects.

- you would want to know, wouldn't you? You would have a list of people that from past experience you think the police should question and eliminate from the suspect list wouldn't you?  If you were pressed for suspects outside yourself by the police over a 24 hours questioning you would name some names, you might even think you were helping by giving police a place to start their inquiries wouldn't you?

- If you felt there was someone you knew who you even did not know well enough to eliminate from the suspect list, you would possibly name them too if pushed hard enough because of the pressure to answer pointed questions in an interrogation again and again and again.

- Finally, if you were a suspect to murder and you were innocent but everyone is treating you like you are guilty no matter how much you protested your innocence, how terrifying would that be? Every word and action constantly twisted to match their predisposition to believe you guilty?  What I have seen of her and the evidence suggests to me she is and was one terrified and confused young lady but not that she was guilty.

Quote

Is it really anybodys business how her parents have pulled together the funds they needed to be with their daughter?  You are using the fact that they have not abandoned her no matter what it may have cost them against them? What parent anywhere would not get really resourceful really quickly if their child was in that situation. Get real.

They aren't that rich. Where do you think money came from? Media outlets ready to flog Knox's story to the world.

Can you prove that?  And if you can - what of it? In and of itself it is an attempt to raise funds to be with their daughter and for her defence - I'm genuinely curious, what would you do if you were in their shoes?

I think that the way this whole case has been presented across the media has brought out the lynch mob mentality in a lot of folks.

Quote

A lot of folks don't need a lynch mob. A lot of folks want to see justice done. And it hasn't been done in this case.

In the Casey Anthony case justice was not done IMO, in this case, however, I think it has finally now been done. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but it remains where I stand on this case.

[prscustom]

libstaK, on 15 October 2011 - 08:05 AM, said:

So the media coverage is sensationalist on all fronts - that I think we agree on.


You believe she is guilty  - the premise is innocent until proven guilty, a court of law agreed that proof did not exist, do you know something they do not?  Her promiscuity is NOT evidence of murder, her "evil looks" or so called "shifty behaviour" is not evidence of murder.  Her changing story to the police is not evidence of murder (that, quite frankly, is evidence of fear) as for blaming her boss lets just speculate for a moment is it not possible:

- That she did not like her boss and found him untrustworthy from past experiences with him.

- That when pressed about what she knew again, and again, and again and asked the question "If it wasn't you then who could it be?"  Would not het frazzled mind of someone in grief who has just lost their friend in the most horrible of circumstances have wondered the same thing and be looking at everyone they knew for possible suspects.

- you would want to know, wouldn't you? You would have a list of people that from past experience you think the police should question and eliminate from the suspect list wouldn't you?  If you were pressed for suspects outside yourself by the police over a 24 hours questioning you would name some names, you might even think you were helping by giving police a place to start their inquiries wouldn't you?

- If you felt there was someone you knew who you even did not know well enough to eliminate from the suspect list, you would possibly name them too if pushed hard enough because of the pressure to answer pointed questions in an interrogation again and again and again.

- Finally, if you were a suspect to murder and you were innocent but everyone is treating you like you are guilty no matter how much you protested your innocence, how terrifying would that be? Every word and action constantly twisted to match their predisposition to believe you guilty?  What I have seen of her and the evidence suggests to me she is and was one terrified and confused young lady but not that she was guilty.



Can you prove that?  And if you can - what of it? In and of itself it is an attempt to raise funds to be with their daughter and for her defence - I'm genuinely curious, what would you do if you were in their shoes?

I think that the way this whole case has been presented across the media has brought out the lynch mob mentality in a lot of folks.

[i]

In the Casey Anthony case justice was not done IMO, in this case, however, I think it has finally now been done. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but it remains where I stand on this case.

ahahah evidence of fear? i think the only evidence we get from here is *snip*
anybody with a proper sense of logic and intelligence can see the obvious, but apperantly such people are rare,.

Edited by libstaK, 15 October 2011 - 10:49 AM.
abusive language and racial flaming.

[libstaK]

prscustom, on 15 October 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

ahahah evidence of fear? i think the only evidence we get from here is *snip*
anybody with a proper sense of logic and intelligence can see the obvious, but apperantly such people are rare,.

I have edited your post to remove personal attacks.

Refer to the Forum Rules if you have any problems with this or PM me.  

If you have something to contribute that negates that she may have felt fear at being interrogated by the police for over 12-24 hours, just as anyone would be right after the death of a friend in such terrible circumstances then please share.  Outside of that I really don't understand the point of your comment at all, except to provoke a reaction.

Edited by libstaK, 15 October 2011 - 11:25 AM.

[Antilles]

libstaK, on 15 October 2011 - 08:05 AM, said:

So the media coverage is sensationalist on all fronts - that I think we agree on.

Clearly there are some serious generalisations which are contributing to your position on Knox and on her supporters.  These generalisations have no basis in fact, they are just your opinion based on your biases, it's a good thing she wasn't being tried by you IMO - oh wait, she has been hasn't she?

Now who is being sarcastic? Oh I forgot. You don't like that do you. Except when it's you being sarcastic. And you're back to generalities. I love a good generality myself. You look at everything that casts doubt on Knox's appeal being accepted as a generality. I didn't say she was found innocent because she wasn't. That's a generality you need to come to terms with.

Not setting myself up as an expert at all, far from it, just happen to believe the opposite of what you do based on the evidence available in this case.  Why are you so sure of your position btw when clearly the courts upon review of all the evidence have set her free?  Were you there? Hiding in the bushes?  How do you know anything for sure?

Here comes the sarcasm again. I thought you didn't approve of that. Except when it's you being sarcastic.


WTH is Casey Anthony and what does she have to do with this case? Knox lied from the start about where she was, what she was doing. She told the cops that Patrick Lumumba, her boss,had killed Kercher and he was hauled in until he could prove he was innocent.

That's the turning point for me and you can argue up and down and sideways for all I care. She told the cops that Lumumba murdered Meredith Kercher.She told the cops she had been there while Lumumba murdered Kercher. Which was a blatant lie and everything else that she has said is a lie. Knox couldn't lie straight in bed.

You believe she is guilty  - the premise is innocent until proven guilty, a court of law agreed that proof did not exist, do you know something they do not?

She was found guilty at the original trial. It was her appeal that upheld and there's another to come but she won't be there for that one.


I won't reply to the rest of your post. It doesn't have anything to do with the facts.

Her promiscuity is NOT evidence of murder, her "evil looks" or so called "shifty behaviour" is not evidence of murder.  Her changing story to the police is not evidence of murder (that, quite frankly, is evidence of fear) as for blaming her boss lets just speculate for a moment is it not possible:

- That she did not like her boss and found him untrustworthy from past experiences with him.

- That when pressed about what she knew again, and again, and again and asked the question "If it wasn't you then who could it be?"  Would not het frazzled mind of someone in grief who has just lost their friend in the most horrible of circumstances have wondered the same thing and be looking at everyone they knew for possible suspects.

- you would want to know, wouldn't you? You would have a list of people that from past experience you think the police should question and eliminate from the suspect list wouldn't you?  If you were pressed for suspects outside yourself by the police over a 24 hours questioning you would name some names, you might even think you were helping by giving police a place to start their inquiries wouldn't you?

- If you felt there was someone you knew who you even did not know well enough to eliminate from the suspect list, you would possibly name them too if pushed hard enough because of the pressure to answer pointed questions in an interrogation again and again and again.

- Finally, if you were a suspect to murder and you were innocent but everyone is treating you like you are guilty no matter how much you protested your innocence, how terrifying would that be? Every word and action constantly twisted to match their predisposition to believe you guilty?  What I have seen of her and the evidence suggests to me she is and was one terrified and confused young lady but not that she was guilty.



Can you prove that?  And if you can - what of it? In and of itself it is an attempt to raise funds to be with their daughter and for her defence - I'm genuinely curious, what would you do if you were in their shoes?

I think that the way this whole case has been presented across the media has brought out the lynch mob mentality in a lot of folks.

[i]

In the Casey Anthony case justice was not done IMO, in this case, however, I think it has finally now been done. I don't expect everyone to agree with me but it remains where I stand on this case.

[libstaK]

Quote

Clearly there are some serious generalisations which are contributing to your position on Knox and on her supporters. These generalisations have no basis in fact, they are just your opinion based on your biases, it's a good thing she wasn't being tried by you IMO - oh wait, she has been hasn't she?

Now who is being sarcastic? Oh I forgot. You don't like that do you. Except when it's you being sarcastic.

My original post was noting "your own words, sarcasm implicitly noted" in regards to your belief about peoples views of the Italian Justice system.

I noted your sarcasm and I took what you said as sarcastic, that is all, I did not say I had a problem with it - show me where I did?  All I did was read it in the context you supplied it which was sarcastic, which I noted  and thereby interpreted what you meant based upon that.  What you mean based on that in my reading of it was that my position on Knox's trial in Italy was that their legal system was inferior somehow - that is what i objected to because that is not the case at all.  

Quote

And you're back to generalities. I love a good generality myself. You look at everything that casts doubt on Knox's appeal being accepted as a generality. I didn't say she was found innocent because she wasn't. That's a generality you need to come to terms with.

I am not "back' to generalities - that statement is exactly the same as it was in my original post. I just left it there to keep the context and flow of our conversation.  

I don't have to come to terms with something that I am not having an issue with.  My position remains that she is innocent, yours remains that she is guilty.  We are discussing why we believe this, I have not been given specific incontrovertible evidence by yourself or anyone to change my position.  Do you have something like that?

Quote

Not setting myself up as an expert at all, far from it, just happen to believe the opposite of what you do based on the evidence available in this case. Why are you so sure of your position btw when clearly the courts upon review of all the evidence have set her free? Were you there? Hiding in the bushes? How do you know anything for sure?

Here comes the sarcasm again. I thought you didn't approve of that. Except when it's you being sarcastic.

I am asking what your proof of her guilt is - can you supply this?  

Quote

WTH is Casey Anthony and what does she have to do with this case? Knox lied from the start about where she was, what she was doing. She told the cops that Patrick Lumumba, her boss,had killed Kercher and he was hauled in until he could prove he was innocent.

I mentioned Casey Anthony, because she was a consumate liar by any standard.  The case against Amanda Knox includes a similar claim against her and I don't agree that it is proven in the case of Knox.

Quote

That's the turning point for me and you can argue up and down and sideways for all I care. She told the cops that Lumumba murdered Meredith Kercher.She told the cops she had been there while Lumumba murdered Kercher. Which was a blatant lie and everything else that she has said is a lie. Knox couldn't lie straight in bed.

Where is her statement saying she was there when Lumumba murdered Kercher?  As per below, she thought her former boss was crazy and therefore he did it - an hysterical friend would make that kind of leap in a heartbeat - it's the police's job to ascertain if there is any substance to it.Refer this link - it makes no mention of her being there when he murdered her at all, it just says that while she was being questioned she accused him because he is crazy according to her:

http://www.telegraph...ck-Lumumba.html

Last week the court heard that Miss Knox, who worked part-time as a waitress in Mr Lumumba's pub, pointed the blamed at him after police asked her to provide the names and telephone numbers of Miss Kercher's friends.

Scrolling through the contacts list on her mobile phone, she reached that of Mr Lumumba and allegedly started crying, telling a police officer: "It was him, it was him, he was crazy, he killed her."

Edited by libstaK, 15 October 2011 - 01:31 PM.

[libstaK]

Here is a link to the evidence that was used to convict Amanda Knox and the defence's arguments against this evidence

My link

[Kasey2601]

Update: the Italian court offers an explanation regarding why it set Amanda Knox free.

Why Amanda Knox is free

[Antilles]

Offeiriad, on 15 December 2011 - 07:56 PM, said:

Update: the Italian court offers an explanation regarding why it set Amanda Knox free.

Why Amanda Knox is free

Thanks for posting that.

Does nothing to change my mind about her, not that it matters anymore. She lied about Lumumba and her alibi and Sollecito's don't match.

Maybe Meredith Kercher wasn't murdered at all. I don't notice the Italians moving their asses to find out who the 'real' murderers were. Psst. Look in Seattle...

[libstaK]

Antilles, on 16 December 2011 - 07:13 AM, said:

Thanks for posting that.

Does nothing to change my mind about her, not that it matters anymore. She lied about Lumumba and her alibi and Sollecito's don't match.

Maybe Meredith Kercher wasn't murdered at all. I don't notice the Italians moving their asses to find out who the 'real' murderers were. Psst. Look in Seattle...

From the article:

A third defendant in the case, Rudy Hermann Guede of the Ivory Coast, was convicted in a separate trial of sexually assaulting and stabbing Kercher. His 16-year prison sentence — reduced on appeal from an initial 30 years — was upheld by Italy's highest court in 2010.

They have an upheld conviction for the murder -  why would they need to "move their asses" any further?

[FurthurBB]

prscustom, on 15 October 2011 - 09:53 AM, said:

ahahah evidence of fear? i think the only evidence we get from here is *snip*
anybody with a proper sense of logic and intelligence can see the obvious, but apperantly such people are rare,.

I think it is really funny how people assume that if others do not agree with their opinions they must be unintelligent or illogical.  This is a case that has a lot of room for speculation because nothing is clearly known.  In cases such as these there is going to be differing opinions and it is unintelligent and illogical to assume that yours is the right one.

[Antilles]

libstaK, on 16 December 2011 - 02:07 PM, said:

From the article:

A third defendant in the case, Rudy Hermann Guede of the Ivory Coast, was convicted in a separate trial of sexually assaulting and stabbing Kercher. His 16-year prison sentence — reduced on appeal from an initial 30 years — was upheld by Italy's highest court in 2010.

They have an upheld conviction for the murder -  why would they need to "move their asses" any further?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-16209973

Miss Knox has returned to her hometown of Seattle in the US, and is looking to sign a deal to write a book about her experiences.

Rudy Guede, an Ivorian, was found guilty and sentenced to 16 years' jail in a separate trial.

He is now the only person serving time for the murder although prosecutors said he could not have killed Miss Kercher by himself

[libstaK]

Antilles, on 18 December 2011 - 10:54 AM, said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...europe-16209973

Miss Knox has returned to her hometown of Seattle in the US, and is looking to sign a deal to write a book about her experiences.

Rudy Guede, an Ivorian, was found guilty and sentenced to 16 years' jail in a separate trial.

He is now the only person serving time for the murder although prosecutors said he could not have killed Miss Kercher by himself

Exactly why couldn't he?  The prosecutors want that to be the case to show why they went after Knox in the first place, I don't see any evidence that suggests he could not have acted alone.

Also from the article:

The court said the forensic evidence could not ultimately prove the couple were at the scene of the crime on the night of the murder.

It pointed to what it said were flaws in collecting forensic evidence and testing DNA traces originally linked to the defendants.

The prosecutors' case could not stand, the court added.

The document said: "The bricks of that building just gave way. It's not just a case of reassembling the bricks... but rather a lack of the necessary material for the construction."

Referring to a motive, it said: "The sudden choice of two young people, good and helpful to others, to commit evil for evil's sake, without any further reason, seems even more incomprehensible (if it is) to support the criminal act of a young man they had no relation to."


The fact that they had no relation to Guede speaks for itself in addition to the fact that Guede received a reduced sentence for doing a deal with the prosecution and claiming (without evidence to support it) that they acted with him because that is what they (the prosecution) asked of him - would you deny yourself a reduced sentence if all it took was to support some Prosecutors' wish to blame someone else for your deed? Not if you are already capable of murder IMO.

[Myles]

From where I'm sitting, she may have got away with murder.

[Antilles]

Myles, on 20 December 2011 - 03:32 AM, said:

From where I'm sitting, she may have got away with murder.

She did, buddy, she did.

http://www.telegraph...easons-why.html


FIVE REASONS KNOX IS GUILTY


1) The confession.


Knox confessed that she was in the house on the night of the murder and that she heard Miss Kercher scream, identifying a Congolese bar owner, Patrick Lumumba, as the assailant. She told the court during the trial that the confession was made under duress but then repeated the entire account in a five page memorandum the next morning.


2) The false accusation.


The prosecution said the fact that Knox falsely accused Lumumba of being the killer was a sign of her own guilt and an attempt to throw them off her trail. He was arrested in a dawn raid by armed police and spent two weeks in jail. It was only by chance that a Swiss businessman read about the case and came forward to say he had been talking to Lumumba in his bar on the night of the murder — offering him a rock-solid alibi. Lumumba says Knox nearly ruined his life and is suing her for defamation.

3) The alibi.

Sollecito could not back up Knox’s alibi on the night of the murder.

She claimed she spent the evening with him, smoking marijuana, watching the French film Amelie and making love. But Sollecito told police he could not remember if Knox was with him that evening or not.

Even assuming his memory was hazy because of the drugs, it seemed odd that a young man who had just embarked on a new relationship could not recall whether he had spent the night with his girlfriend or not.

4) Computer and telephone records.

Sollecito claimed he used his computer to download and watch cartoons and Amelie. But computer experts told the court that there was no activity on his laptop between 9.10pm on Nov 1, and 5.32am the next morning — the time frame in which the murder took place.

Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones on the night of the murder, from around 8.40pm, and turned them back on at around 6am, inviting further suspicion.

5) The staged break-in.

A bedroom belonging to one of Miss Kercher’s Italian flatmates was ransacked on the night of the murder, with a window smashed with a rock. But police said the break-in was staged - broken glass from the window was found on top of clothes scattered on the floor, suggesting the window was broken after the contents of the room were messed up. Prosecutors accused Knox and her boyfriend of staging the break-in to make the killing look like a burglary that had turned into rape and murder.


The article also gives 5 reasons why Knox is innocent so before I'm accused of being one eyed there you go.

Numbers one, two and three above are very interesting to me. She can't explain them. No-one who bothers going on about how innocent she is (cough) explains them either.

[FurthurBB]

Antilles, on 20 December 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:

She did, buddy, she did.

http://www.telegraph...easons-why.html


FIVE REASONS KNOX IS GUILTY


1) The confession.


Knox confessed that she was in the house on the night of the murder and that she heard Miss Kercher scream, identifying a Congolese bar owner, Patrick Lumumba, as the assailant. She told the court during the trial that the confession was made under duress but then repeated the entire account in a five page memorandum the next morning.


2) The false accusation.


The prosecution said the fact that Knox falsely accused Lumumba of being the killer was a sign of her own guilt and an attempt to throw them off her trail. He was arrested in a dawn raid by armed police and spent two weeks in jail. It was only by chance that a Swiss businessman read about the case and came forward to say he had been talking to Lumumba in his bar on the night of the murder — offering him a rock-solid alibi. Lumumba says Knox nearly ruined his life and is suing her for defamation.

3) The alibi.

Sollecito could not back up Knox’s alibi on the night of the murder.

She claimed she spent the evening with him, smoking marijuana, watching the French film Amelie and making love. But Sollecito told police he could not remember if Knox was with him that evening or not.

Even assuming his memory was hazy because of the drugs, it seemed odd that a young man who had just embarked on a new relationship could not recall whether he had spent the night with his girlfriend or not.

4) Computer and telephone records.

Sollecito claimed he used his computer to download and watch cartoons and Amelie. But computer experts told the court that there was no activity on his laptop between 9.10pm on Nov 1, and 5.32am the next morning — the time frame in which the murder took place.

Knox and Sollecito turned off their mobile phones on the night of the murder, from around 8.40pm, and turned them back on at around 6am, inviting further suspicion.

5) The staged break-in.

A bedroom belonging to one of Miss Kercher’s Italian flatmates was ransacked on the night of the murder, with a window smashed with a rock. But police said the break-in was staged - broken glass from the window was found on top of clothes scattered on the floor, suggesting the window was broken after the contents of the room were messed up. Prosecutors accused Knox and her boyfriend of staging the break-in to make the killing look like a burglary that had turned into rape and murder.


The article also gives 5 reasons why Knox is innocent so before I'm accused of being one eyed there you go.

Numbers one, two and three above are very interesting to me. She can't explain them. No-one who bothers going on about how innocent she is (cough) explains them either.

Really only the third one is odd.  Lots of people let the police lead them to say things that are not true.  When I was a kid I got in trouble for shoplifting with my friends.  The police were trying to get me to say all kinds of things for hours telling me they knew it was my friends responsible for some string of shoplifting.  I kept my cool and never said anything because there was nothing to say, but one of my friends was tricked into saying all sorts of things that were not true, including accusing her own brother of something he didn't do.  The police can be intimidating if you do not grow up in a family of lawyers.