Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend guilty of Kercher murder.

FlyersFan

Snarl
Did you want evidence of her guilt ... or 'proof' that she committed a crime? Let's be specific.

I asked for evidence showing she committed the crime. A corrupt prosecutor and a broken system that suppressed evidence of her innocence isn't 'evidence of guilt'. It's just a farce.

No, I can't conceded this point to you. The case was tried in a court of law before a jury. The jury weighed the evidence ... and found her guilty. You want someone on ATS to show you 'definitive' proof that she had a hand in the events of the evening. You're not going to get that, and Amanda Knox is still convicted by that court, like it ... or not.

Snarl
You want someone on ATS to show you 'definitive' proof that she had a hand in the events of the evening. You're not going to get that,..

... because it's not there. That's the point.

There is plenty of evidence to show that the Italian court was corrupt and suppressed evidence that would have shown Knox didn't do the crime. But the prosecutor, who is up on corruption charges himself, is still going for Knox to be in jail so he can try to save his job which is hanging by a thread.

Since this is a conspiracy discussion forum, we are discussing that conspiracy.

FlyersFan
... because it's not there. That's the point.

The jury found her guilty. There is no other point.

FlyersFan
But the prosecutor, who is up on corruption charges himself, is still going for Knox to be in jail so he can try to save his job which is hanging by a thread.

What prosecutor's integrity goes unquestioned? Everyone who gets convicted has a beef with 'the system.' The prosecutor had nothing to do with the jury's decision. I wouldn't lean too heavily on that argument in the future. Now, if you think the jury was corrupt ... Also, I don't see any aspersions cast on the judge's character in these disputes. Was he a 'bad guy' too?

Snarl
The jury found her guilty. There is no other point.

The point is this is a conspiracy forum and we discuss conspiracies and when things are 'off' ...
So we are having a discussion. I asked for the evidence that shows she committed the crime.
The evidence that the jury would have based their conviction on. So far ... no one has posted any.

What prosecutor's integrity goes unquestioned?

ABUSE OF POWER
The judge gave him a longer sentence then the prosecution wanted. 16 months in jail.
That's not just 'questioning' his integrity.

The prosecutor had nothing to do with the jury's decision.

I dunno. He runs the prosecution. He has a major say in what is put in front of the court. He is the one who got the evidence suppressed that shows the knife they accused Knox of using didn't fit the victims wounds. He is the one who got the evidence suppressed that shows the couple of dna cells on the knife came from cross contamination in the crime lab and didn't come directly from Knox. He's the one that had to come up with a motive, and so he invented a wild one. ... he has a lot to do with the jury's decision. He's the one that puts everything in front of them .. or withholds information from them.

Snarl
The jury found her guilty. There is no other point.

Lots of juries have found innocent people guilty before, I suppose that means they were all actually guilty anyway, and should have never been released when the facts exonerated them.

Because you know, it's absolutely impossib to convince twelve people of something. Twelve completely average run of the mill human beings, completely fallible, idiotic human beings. Nope if they find you guilty, you dun be guilty.

reply to post by FlyersFan

The way the court is run is determined by the judge. If the prosecutor was out of line, it was the judge's job to deal with that. The prosecutor's job was to win ... and he did. It was the jury's job to weigh whatever evidence was presented and to convict if they considered her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Personally, I think she had a hand in it. I don't see the prosecutor going after Knox and her boyfriend if he didn't think they were in on it too. Why do you think it was that Amanda Knox implicated her boss? You do know they gave her an extra year for that false statement, too.

eNumbra

Snarl
The jury found her guilty. There is no other point.

Lots of juries have found innocent people guilty before, I suppose that means they were all actually guilty anyway, and should have never been released when the facts exonerated them.

This ... I will concede.

Would love to stay and chat, but it's going on midnight and I have to work tomorrow.

-Cheers (and thanks for a great discussion!)

reply to post by eNumbra


Ever read 'Actual Innocence' by Barry Scheck? I did. That's what got me thinking about the death penalty and that was the start of me being against it. A whole lotta people get put in jail for crimes they don't commit. Being put in jail for life, or being put to death with the death penalty, for a crime you didn't commit ... wow ... what a waste of a life. That's why I say that if someone is going to jail for murder ... the court had darn sure had better have absolute infallible evidence of them doing the crime. I'm not seeing it with this case.

FlyersFan
reply to post by eNumbra

 

Ever read 'Actual Innocence' by Barry Scheck? I did. That's what got me thinking about the death penalty and that was the start of me being against it. A whole lotta people get put in jail for crimes they don't commit. Being put in jail for life, or being put to death with the death penalty, for a crime you didn't commit ... wow ... what a waste of a life. That's why I say that if someone is going to jail for murder ... the court had darn sure had better have absolute infallible evidence of them doing the crime. I'm not seeing it with this case.

I have not read it, I might now though. This thread is almost enough to convince me to never trust any judicial system ever again.

Just look at who might end up on the jury.

Snarl
The prosecutor's job was to win ...

The prosecutor's job is to put guilty people in jail in a manner consistent with the law. It's not his job to suppress evidence that shows the person he's prosecuting didn't do the crime.

Why do you think it was that Amanda Knox implicated her boss? You do know they gave her an extra year for that false statement, too.

My guess is that she was young and scared and, during intense interrogation, implicated someone else for the crime to get the Italian authorities to stop harassing her. She may or may not have believed what she said. She shouldn't have done that and should be required to 'pay' for making a statement against an innocent person. Her four years in jail have already covered that payment.

If this verdict is overturned, I wonder if the prosecution and all the rag tabloids over there would have to pay the same price ... a year in jail for making false statements against Knox? That would be a lesson in tabloid smear tactics against an innocent person ...

If I were that age and in a foreign country and being harassed like that .. I might have cracked and blamed someone else too. I'd hope not. But at that age and in that situation, I can't say for sure. (NOW at age 51 I wouldn't.)

Your Attention, Please!!!!

Let's not make this a discussion about other members.....Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

Bickering and personal attacks/criticisms end here and now.
You are responsible for your own posts.

I don't know whether she's guilty or innocent, but the fact they sent her away to the US and now want her back just doesn't sit well with me. There're things I"ve heard that implicate her and things I've heard that make her innocent. I think nobody really knows unless they're part of the prosecution team or the defense.

Maybe they should have some legal experts examine hte case to determine whether they she send Knox back to Italy. Hopefully not to be abused.

If she's innocent then I cannot imagine a more terrible place to be in. If she's guilty and isn't sent back to Italy then at best she'll do herself in somehow. I know it's horrible to imagine her being guilty and escaping the justice system.

What if she's innocent? Breaks me up inside to think that. I guess others are think she's guilty and see as a sort of she-devil. I'm not like that.

And one last thing... her behavior after the crime where she supposedly kissed her boyfriend might have been her way of coping with it all. I'm not a trained psychologist, but there probably are explanations for that kind of behavior.

I don't know why exactly she kissed him like that - if true - but I don't want to use that as evidence implicating her guilt. It's too unclear to me.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Well I am glad you had a chuckle... and I guess we will just have to see it differently.

reply to post by eNumbra


Gave you a star for your reply even though in disagreement of your comment. No I was not trolling. Almost everyone in Europe is allowed a fair trial. That is the law. How is it trolling when someone states it is a kangaroo court I request evidence to how human right laws have been broken.

That is just the way i see it..

reply to post by FlyersFan


Why do you keep bringing this up? It has nothing to do with this case. The court found Amanda Knox guilty of murder and she is on the run trying to get out of her comeuppance. They think she is a Satanist. I believe them. I knew a couple trust-fund kids who were Satanists. She fits the bill there(just my opinion). The motive is there because Meredith said she was skanky or unclean. I think this infuriated Amanda and she killed her in cold blood during the satanic sexual ritual or group sex. I think all of them know a lot more than they're telling. She is done. She is going to prison for murder. There, she will have to shower.

"Flyers Fan"

I asked for evidence showing she committed the crime. A corrupt prosecutor and a broken system that suppressed evidence of her innocence isn't 'evidence of guilt'. It's just a farce.

A corrupt prosecutor alone does not negate the guilt of some one .... Evidence of

innocence is provided by the defence, and twelve 'impartial' jurors consisting of

ordinary citizens debated and discussed the evidence of the defence and

prosecution and arrived at the 'guilty' verdict.


What gets reported to the public (however sensational) is only a small part of the

case ...after all the court sits for the full day, and results in only one or maybe two

pages in the news papers! I would say the judge and jurors are in a better position

to make a judgement than anyone on this thread, (with the exception, that is of

anyone here who may have attended the court?) And it was they who pronounced

a GUILTY verdict ....

QUOTE: Amanda Knox
Interesting choice of words from miss Knox.

Her statement (I suspect) will not bade well with the Italian Magistrate.

"I will never go willingly back to the place where I --
I'm gonna fight this until the very end"

www.cnn.com...

edit on 2-2-2014 by HumAnnunaki because: (no reason given)

reply to post by eletheia


Italy doesn't have Jury trials. The judge alone decides guilt or innocence. They do have the Corte d'Assise, which has 6 lay judges on it's panel, but they really can't be considered impartial as they are not sequestered.

Another thing that I find strange is how the far left, like Hollywood and news medias, like MSNBC, are so hardcore about defending her and claiming that she was an innocent little princess. They get rather nasty if anyone starts going through the testimony and evidence against her. Amanda, her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, her friend Meredith might've had some sexual thing with drug-dealer Rudy Hermann Guede & a bar owner. Knox's original story to police was that bar owner, Diya "Patrick" Lumumba, entered Kercher's bedroom in their shared house on the night of 1 November while she "covered her ears in the kitchen".

Lumumba described Knox as "a lion disguised as a lamb".

Whether or not Lumumba was one of her many sexual partners, who was participating in that nights sextivities, will probably never be known. As it stands, Lumumba thinks that Knox implicated him because he is "black". At one point, Amanda Knox was being tested for AIDS and one of the tests came back positive and the police requested a list of former sexual partners. I believe another test showed that she wasn't HIV positive.

Documents show that Meredith was sickened that Amanda left condoms, among other things, and a rabbit-shaped sex toy on the bed in full view. It appears that there were problems brewing between the two. Maybe Amanda got jealous that something other than sex was being built between her boyfriend and Meredith? That would be motive. There's no doubts that Guede was involved, but at what level? They've told so many lies that it's probable that they were all involved. The judge and jury sure seem to think so and so don't I.

Fylgje
Why do you keep bringing this up? It has nothing to do with this case.

Are you kidding? The corrupt prosecutor has everything to do with the case. He got over a year in jail for abuse of power. He is known to have suppressed evidence that would have proven Knox innocent. He didn't want the truth to come out. He made sure he got a conviction to try to save his job.

They think she is a Satanist. I believe them.

Yeah ... the harebrained fictional 'motive' jinned up by the corrupt prosecutor.
Knox isn't a sex starved satanist. There is absolutely no evidence of that.