Amanda Knox is Free

[skookum]

I think most people who followed the case know the victim's name and do think about whether a person is innocent or guilty. I think you are projecting.

I doubt many of Knox's supporters outside direct family and friends followed the case. In fact is very well known that many Americans can't even point out Europe on a map let alone Italy. This may come as a shock to the US but because of the dramatization of many of their high profile cases The US has made itself the laughing stock when it comes to serving up justice.

[dekker87]

she's guilty as hell...and she'll kill again....the girl is demonic.

AMANDA KNOX: THE NEW MUMIA!

September 7, 2011

Despite liberals' desperate need for Europeans to like them, the American media have enraged the entire nation of Italy with their bald-faced lies about a heinous murder in Perugia committed by a fresh-faced American girl, Amanda Knox.

The facts aren't elusive: In December 2009, the Italian court released a 400-plus page report detailing the mountains of evidence that led the judges and jury to conclude that Knox, along with her Italian beau, Raffaele Sollecito, and a petty thief of her acquaintance, Rudy Guede, had murdered Knox's English roommate, Meredith Kercher, on the evening of Nov. 1, 2007.

Now liberals are howling that the DNA evidence was "contaminated," but they always say that. It wasn't. And the DNA was already thoroughly vetted at trial.

Nonetheless, let's consider only a tiny slice of the evidence available to the police in the first week after the murder -- long before any DNA tests came back.

Murders and murder convictions obviously occurred before 1986 -- the first time DNA was used in any criminal investigation -- so it is possible to establish guilt with no DNA at all.

Knox's first-of-several alibis for the night of the murder was that she was at her boyfriend (and co-defendant) Sollecito's house all night, sound asleep until 10 a.m. the next morning.

A few days later, when that was proved false by telephone records, eyewitnesses and Sollecito's admission that it was a lie, Knox claimed she was in the house during Meredith's murder ... and she knew who the murderer was!

She said it was her boss, Patrick Lumumba, the owner of a popular bar in town:

"He wanted her. ... Raffaele and I went into another room and then I heard screams. ... Patrick and Meredith were in Meredith's bedroom while I think I stayed in the kitchen. ... I can't remember how long they were together in the bedroom, but the only thing I can say is that at a certain point I remember hearing Meredith's screams and I covered my ears. ... I can't remember if Meredith was screaming and if I heard thuds but I could imagine what was going on."

Solely because of Knox's claim that Lumumba murdered Meredith, he was arrested and sat in jail for two weeks before being released when the police discovered about a hundred eyewitnesses who could place him at his bar all night, the night of the murder.

If the police were intent on framing Knox for the murder, they were easily distracted by this wild goose chase.

Knox later said she falsely accused Lumumba only because the police wanted her to do so.

But absent Knox's false accusation, there would have been no reason for the police to consider Lumumba a suspect in the first place. He was a successful entrepreneur in Perugia, married with a child, and had no connection whatsoever to the murdered girl.

Knox's effort to frame an innocent man was nothing but a desperate attempt to throw suspicion off herself. In the process, she inadvertently revealed that she knew something only the police knew about the murder: that Meredith had also been sexually assaulted.

Police first came to the house the day after the murder to investigate a burglary in the bedroom of another roommate, Filomena Romanelli, that had been reported by Knox and Sollecito.

But the break-in turned out to be staged. Among many other reasons, glass from the broken window was on top of the piles of clothes thrown on the floor. (Always remember to break the window before trying to stage a burglary!)

Also, nothing had been stolen from Filomena's room. Of course, that wasn't known by anyone except the fake "burglar" until Filomena returned and determined her jewelry and other valuables were still there.

So it is especially telling that when Sollecito had called the police to report the "burglary" in two separate, recorded phone calls, he said nothing had been stolen -- despite the fact that Filomena had not yet come home. The only way Sollecito would know nothing was stolen was if he had helped stage the burglary himself.

Also highly suspicious, when the police first arrived and Knox was the only roommate there, she lied to them, driving them away from Meredith's locked bedroom door by assuring them that Meredith always locked her door, even to go to the bathroom.

So the police continued to investigate the alleged burglary and ignored Meredith's room, until Filomena arrived, found out Meredith's door was locked and demanded the police break it down, telling them -- contra Knox -- that Meredith never locked her door.

Everyone in the apartment -- the police, Filomena and her friends -- gathered around Meredith's door before it was kicked in. Everyone, that is, except Knox and Sollecito, who moved as far away as possible, to the other end of the apartment, strangely uninterested in seeing what was behind Meredith's door.

Now Knox is back to claiming she was in Sollecito's apartment all night on Nov. 1 -- with no evidence to support that story, but witnesses, phone and computer records contradicting it. Her only alibi witness is her co-defendant, Sollecito, and he's already told the police that he has lied for her.

Based on the wounds on Meredith's body, investigators conclusively determined that she had multiple attackers.

By now, the only people who believe Knox and Sollecito are the usual criminal apologists and their friends in the American media.

[dekker87]

And she did within the first hours of being interviewed. Then over the next 36 hours, the police continued to press her and verbally assault her, she couldn't call a lawyer like she could have if she'd been in the states. She was forced by the police into making false stories and false statements out a hoplessness. There's a reason police aren't allowed to interrogate suspects like this in the USA. It causes people to make false statements, and change their story. This is why in the USA when you are no longer willing to talk to the police you can ask for an attorney and the questioning stops.

ok. lot's of fluff but no substance. please explain why she changed her story repeatedly. try and do this without just saying 'the police bullied her' as that doesn't explain why she kept changing her story.

Again, she'd been up and hounded by the media for 48 hours straight, a 9 hour time change, 2 flights and a full day of court all with no sleep. The poor kid was exhausted. You could see it by looking at her!

'poor kid'! puh-lease!! she didnt have to speak to the media. she enjoys it. she thrives on the attention.

3: why did she point finger at her former employer, as a revenge of being fired, another "intelligent" move

See #1. And lest you forget, the real killer, who is still in jail who was also verbally assaulted by police pointed the finger falsely at Knox and her boyfriend.

sorry?!!? earlier you said the police forced her to make the false accusations...so why did they have a beef with lumumba??

Except she was never at the apartment during or after the killing. She was found 20 minutes after Kercher died at her boyfriends house. I think you may have misunderstood something there. That's not enough time to kill, destroy DNA evidence (which is impossible to destroy anyway unless you're going to pour bleach all over everything, and no bleach was found) get cleaned up, and wait for police at a location across the village, who arrived just 20 minutes later. The time window is too short for all that. Did you know that the police didn't even collect the DNA evidence until a month and a half AFTER the murder? After the scene had been contaminated by police, media, etc... the DNA is in no way reliable.

the dna is totally reliable. the error in police procedure caused doubt to be cast upon it but the actual evidence itself is totally reliable.

That's what the Italian prosecuter said right at the trial. There's no facts or evidence to back that up. Yet, the man, Rudy Guede, who is in jail for 16 years was found with a knife that may have been the murder weapon. No one examined it. He is likely the killer, what few fact there are seem to point to him, but we may never know because the investigation was botched from the beginning.

yeah. it was the black guy that did it. just like troy davis.

Pretty and innocent? She's plain at best. So the media was calling her "Foxy Knoxy" but she is neither pretty or "foxy" ... if you looked at her on the street you'd think to yourself, there goes an average girl, if you even noticed her at all. I'm afraid friend that you've been influenced by the media.

the media were calling her foxy knoxy due to her sexual proclivities. not her looks. she is however pretty.

Everyone talks about Rudy Guede, most people are pretty convinced he did it, he confessed he had. He hasn't really changed his story, they know he was there, but to get a reduced sentence, the prosecuter and police basically forced him to falsely implicate Knox and her boyfriend

exactly what evidence do you have to back this up?

The Italian prosecuter wanted Knox so bad, he lost his mind and damn the evidence or not. He's been known to screw up other cases in the past, he has a very poor track record in his juristiction.

total nonsense. please post these other cases which demonstrate his 'very poor track record'...

[libstaK]

total nonsense. please post these other cases which demonstrate his 'very poor track record'...

Prosecutor convicted of abuse of office while seeking evidence in the Monster of Florence case - you know, the one where 5 people have been tried, convicted and then found to be innocent?

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Amanda-Knox-prosecutor-convicted-of-abuse-of-894312.php

Refer Injustice in Perugia - Giuliano Mignini. In any other country no prosecutor facing the charges he was facing would have been allowed to continue practicing and prosecute the case as he was allowed to do.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Mignini.html

As for Amanda loving media attention and all your other claims - they are not fact, just sensationalist opinion, it appears witch hunts are still popular in the 21st century.

[dekker87]

Prosecutor convicted of abuse of office while seeking evidence in the Monster of Florence case - you know, the one where 5 people have been tried, convicted and then found to be innocent?

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Amanda-Knox-prosecutor-convicted-of-abuse-of-894312.php

Refer Injustice in Perugia - Giuliano Mignini. In any other country no prosecutor facing the charges he was facing would have been allowed to continue practicing and prosecute the case as he was allowed to do.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Mignini.html

As for Amanda loving media attention and all your other claims - they are not fact, just sensationalist opinion, it appears witch hunts are still popular in the 21st century.

no. opinion is stating that 'police bullied her into her confessions' as there exists no evidence that this happened.

as for mignini - what he was convicted of was politically motivated and didnt involve the falsification of any evidence.

which is stated in the first link you posted.

the second link is biased and full of untruths.

so please...post his very poor track record for clarity..

the one where 5 people have been tried, convicted and then found to be innocent?

your idea of 'proven innocent' is rather novel....explain how these men were proven innocent.....

[Antilles]

I have followed this case in the media quite regularly, I have also watched a couple of docos on it - wish I could remember the titles, maybe 48 hours or some such but there was enough there to convince me there was nothing there when it came to her guilt - I just do not see it, and so far what I have seen from those who do is the type of rash trial by media judgements that would be thrown out of any court of law anywhere.

Do you really believe this is somehow racist? That would be incongruous at best but gee thanks for the rash judgement

I equate this to the Lindy Chamberlain fiasco we had here in Australia - do you know who she is "Dingo took my baby?"

Well, what do you know, millions of dollars in court case, a conviction, appeals, overturning of the verdict and a destroyed family later, after all was said and done, the simple answer turns out to be the most correct - the Dingo did take her baby.

Bottom line, I've seen this all before, quite a few times actually.

Where did you get racist out of my post? And if the media has been on anyone's side it's been on Knox's side. Where have her mother and stepfather got all the money to continually fly back and forth between Seattle and the land where there is no justice.Sorry. Italy.

[Antilles]

no. opinion is stating that 'police bullied her into her confessions' as there exists no evidence that this happened.

as for mignini - what he was convicted of was politically motivated and didnt involve the falsification of any evidence.

which is stated in the first link you posted.

the second link is biased and full of untruths.

so please...post his very poor track record for clarity..

your idea of 'proven innocent' is rather novel....explain how these men were proven innocent.....

Good points. Where is the corroboration for all Knox's statements:the Italian authorities smacked Knox around the head..Knox was sexually abused...Knox was threatened...Knox was intimidated.

Interesting how all the side issues like the slander and libel trials have been pushed to the back page. Along with the fact that Meredith Kercher's family believe Knox and Sollecito are guilty.

And you can't be proven innocent. She'd been found guilty, overturned on appeal.

[libstaK]

Where did you get racist out of my post?

right here

Or perhaps because the Italians are not US based (even though you're not) anyone from the US is automatically innocent.Damn those Italians. How dare they have a justice system of their own.

Inconsiderate b*******.

How am I to read this other than that you are implying that I believe Italy targetted Knox because of her nationality? Your own words with sarcasm implicitly noted "How dare they have a justice system of their own."

The implication is clear that you think that is my opinion. Can you point to where I have said that? How do you justify muddying the waters with assumptions about the nature of people who believe she is innocent?

Dismissing an opposing view by attributing nationalistic or racial slants to the speaker is a low blow don't you think?

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?

And if the media has been on anyone's side it's been on Knox's side. Where have her mother and stepfather got all the money to continually fly back and forth between Seattle and the land where there is no justice.Sorry. Italy.

This is relevant to her guilt or innocence how exactly? - 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.

Yet through some strange sleight of hand this is additional proof of foul play and Knox's guilt? No, it is just proof of familial love and support.

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.

Edited October 14, 2011 by libstaK

[libstaK]

no. opinion is stating that 'police bullied her into her confessions' as there exists no evidence that this happened.

as for mignini - what he was convicted of was politically motivated and didnt involve the falsification of any evidence.

which is stated in the first link you posted.

the second link is biased and full of untruths.

so please...post his very poor track record for clarity..

your idea of 'proven innocent' is rather novel....explain how these men were proven innocent.....

Oh please, I am not going to divert with an expose of each of these men - why are you diverting the discussion? And my words were "found" to be innocent NOT "proven" not that it matters one iota.

Finally, it doesn't matter why he was convicted "politically motivated" or otherwise, the point is he was a prosecutor and yet was under investigation for innappropriate behaviour - how is he the correct person to represent the "people" in any case until he is found innocent - oh, but he wasn't was he - no he was convicted.

So if someone thinks that Amanda Knox who has been set free through lack of evidence is guilty - they are basing their information on fact. BUT

If someone believes a travesty of justice occurred they are basing their opinion on bias and untruths.

Yet the final outcome of due process is that she is free - interesting.

-BTW the link stands as evidence that not everybody thinks well of this man aka: "poor track record" (although please be aware you have taken those words from another's post) - please list the untruths and biases in the link together with the correct facts with sources for clarity if you wish.

Edited October 14, 2011 by libstaK

[cluey]

An old song comes to mind!!!!.......................'Money talk's,money talk's..................dirty cash i want you,dirty cash i need you"

[MissMelsWell]

she's guilty as hell...and she'll kill again....the girl is demonic.

Dude, I disregard ALL of this article until you post the source. I want to see what source you pulled this out of. Post a link to the original file please. It's actually part of the rules here on UM that you have to link to the source.

Edited October 15, 2011 by MissMelsWell

[thatRobGuy]

An old song comes to mind!!!!.......................'Money talk's,money talk's..................dirty cash i want you,dirty cash i need you"

Must be talking about the Italian justice system??? Amanda sure doesn't have any nor does her family, especially now.

[MissMelsWell]

Must be talking about the Italian justice system??? Amanda sure doesn't have any nor does her family, especially now.

This is true. Her family doesn't have any money. They were middle class at best, now they're pretty much in the poor house. Even her grandmother double-mortgaged her house. How did they pay for everything? They're in debt up to their eyeballs and they did a LOT of charity fundraisers in their home town. I heard about events all the time.

[thatRobGuy]

People can look at this case anyway they want to, but you have to respect what her family gave up and went through. I have a son and you can bet your #$% I would absolutely give it all up for him. I'd lie, beg, cheat or steal for my little man. I couldn't even imagine the cost financially and mentally that they endured. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to forget about the victims family. A lot of people went through a LOT. I just personally believe the right person is already in prison. The evidence is there.

[Antilles]

right here

How am I to read this other than that you are implying that I believe Italy targetted Knox because of her nationality? Your own words with sarcasm implicitly noted "How dare they have a justice system of their own."

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.

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?

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.

This is relevant to her guilt or innocence how exactly? - 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.

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.

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.

[libstaK]

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?

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.

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.

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]

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.

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 October 15, 2011 by libstaK
abusive language and racial flaming.

[libstaK]

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 October 15, 2011 by libstaK

[Antilles]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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?

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.

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 October 15, 2011 by libstaK

[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

[Keel M.]

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

Why Amanda Knox is free

[Antilles]

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]

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]

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.