Amanda Knox and ex-boyfriend guilty of Kercher murder.

reply to post by boymonkey74


LOL
There is nothing there that would even remote me believe she did it.
"It accepted that footprints made by Amanda Knox, containing her and Meredith Kercher's DNA, were made in blood."

It is accepted? I believe it would be pretty easy to prove, but it sure doesn't say "proven." Why would it have both their DNA? It wouldn't.

The evidence was contaminated by the police everyone knows this.

I'm sorry if you can't see that this was a botched job, but take solace in the fact that they caught the murderer.
I mean.. come one a sex game gone wrong? That is just a b.s. theory. There is NO evidence of that whatsoever, it's like it was drawn from a hat.

Sorry nothing on that (clearly biased) page is worth the space it takes up online. THe court was very hard on her. They act like they went easy on Knox, but she would have gone away the first time if people didn't call out how horrible he investigation was.

reply to post by boymonkey74


That's quite a website you've linked to, and I have not delved into the case even a tenth that deeply. To really study it would take hours, something I'm not willing to do right now, but thanks for the link. You've likely read through most of it, and came to your conclusion, so I can't fault your opinion based on the total accumulated evidence, as I have not studied it in depth. I am glad that Knox is well away from the Italian legal system, because there is still probably not enough evidence to say with certainty one way or the other. Except her eyes (lol - and I'm one who only write lol when I am lol) - ah, those eyes.

Just consider that the Italian court system is not finished yet as there is going to be at least one more appeal.

Regardless, even if Knox loses in the Italian court system they still have to request extradition.

There are far much smarter qualified Judges, prosecutors and legislators (U.S. Department of State) in the U.S. that will not allow an American to be extradited with such a flimsy case lacking any physical evidence. It just is not going to happen.

The victims family have their closure with the conviction of Rudy Guede and all the evidence that points to him alone. Thier weak argument that somebody else had to hold the victim down while Guede stabbed her is unrealistic. Large men can easily overpower a small woman. The Kercher's campaign using their power and media connections to spread the delusional prosecutor's Mignini's lies in an attempt to destroy the lives of two innocent youngsters has and will continue to backfire on them prolonging their pain. Once they realize their error - they will eventually have to live with that too. Time is not always linear, sometimes we are punished for our future actions.

stumason

A double jeopardy would be her being found not guilty and them trying her again with no new evidence just to try and secure a conviction.

And just for info, in the UK we disposed of the double jeopardy rule if new evidence comes to light after the original trial, which makes sense.

New evidence?

What new evidence?

There was new evidence? OR - do you simply think it's ok to bend your own juridical system around to get the results the pitchfork-wielding mob wants?

reply to post by Jefferton

So when she was found not guilty, did you think that she was innocent then? If so, why the change of heart? How can 2 pieces of circumstantial evidence be enough to determine her guilt? Just because a person has been found guilty does not mean they are guilty. Lets not forget Italy's ex -Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi who was running the country at the time...

Silvio Berlusconi has an extensive record of criminal allegations, including abuse of office, defamation, extortion, Child sexual abuse, perjury, mafia collusion, false accounting, embezzlement, money laundering, tax fraud, corruption and bribery of police officers and judges. Berlusconi has been tried in Italian courts in several cases. In three of these cases accusations were dropped by the judiciary because of laws passed by Berlusconi's parliamentary majority shortening the time limit for prosecution of various offences and making false accounting illegal only if there is a specific damaged party reporting the fact to the authorities

He's been to court 32 times and convicted once only - the final time, of tax evasion.
Anyone know the Italian word for corruption?
Do you trust the Italian legal system that was under Berlusconis Government to be fair and just?
At the end of the day, no matter what country, there are always three sides to a story - the defendants version of the truth - the prosecutions version of the truth - and the actual FACTS - which, unless caught on tape usually never come out.
Thing is, with the legal system, cases are tried based on so called 'evidence' The prosecution presents this evidence to the jury with selected witnesses and cleverly worded "facts" to back up their argument. When all is said and done, it is left in the hands of the jury to decide the defendants fate. People.The power of suggestion, use of buzz words that can stir emotion and the selective nature of evidence and chosen witnesses lends to a system that is imperfect.fact that the deciding force is the panel of peers that have been told the story by the legal team The human mind can very easily be led, shaped and ultimately changed by the the reality it is presented - be it pure simple fact or fiction driven by alterior motives . I'm not saying that all guilty people are innocent and all prosecution lawyers are charlatans - I am merely trying to point out the very weakness of the justice system and its ultimate flaw - the fact it is created and ran by people, who by nature, are imperfect.

reply to post by nenothtu


Someone needs to learn how to read properly...

I never said there was any new evidence, what I said was this isn't a case of double jeopardy as it is a continuation of the original judicial process, so anyone crying about double jeopardy is barking up the wrong tree.

I even stated that I don't believe the verdict to be safe and also that the Italian Judicial system to be chaotic at best.

EDIT: The bit I added about the "new evidence" was actually in reference to double jeopardy cases in the UK - just as an interesting if unrelated bit of info - If new and compelling evidence is found, a new trial can be ordered. It is stupid to rule out any new trial if new and damning evidence comes to light, which is why we disposed of the DJ rule in Murder cases in the UK in 2003.

we're talking about different scenarios I'm sure .. I've never heard of an outright acquittal being overturned or appealed in the U.S .. that's the whole point of double jeopardy .. maybe you're referring to a mistrial type scenario or something like that where the defendent gets off but is not really in the clear yet or some other scenario like that .. if a defendent here is legitimately acquitted by a jury or judge then it's over .. prosecution can't go after him again on the same charge .. nor does the prosecution have any legal standing to appeal that and the not guilty verdict can't be overturned .. again that would override the double jeopardy law

Zaphod58
reply to post by dude77

 

An aquittal in the US can too be overturned for various reasons and can be appealed. It has happened but is rare. It is also not double jeopardy if it hsppens.

nt

reply to post by dude77


I must point out the obvious here, the Italian Justice system is not like the US system, hence the differences.

In Italy, it would appear, no verdict is final until approved by Court of Cassation, whether it be a guilty or not guilty.

Knox and Sollecito were jailed for Miss Kercher's murder in 2009 but the verdicts were overturned in 2011 and the pair were freed.

However, the acquittals were themselves overturned last year by the Court of Cassation, which returned the case to the Florence court.

BBC

This is not a case of double jeopardy, but more akin to a re-trial.

Zaphod58
reply to post by dude77

 

They can be overturned in the US as well, the difference is that here the standards are very high to do it. I have heard of a couple of cases where it happened though. There is no double jeopardy here though since it is a retrial.

I'd like to see some of these cases you reference where an acquittal was overturned in the US. So far as I know, I could be tried for murder and get an acquittal and then go around admitting my guilt and I still could not be tried for the same crime again. In the US, new evidence is not grounds for a retrial of a previous acquittal.

no I'm aware .. I'm just pointing out the law in the U.S. .. I've read that there was an acquittal in her case .. so if we go by U.S. law, this is technically double jeopardy and I can't see the U.S. extraditing her based on that .. but who knows

stumason
reply to post by dude77

 

I must point out the obvious here, the Italian Justice system is not like the US system, hence the differences.

In Italy, it would appear, no verdict is final until approved by Court of Cassation, whether it be a guilty or not guilty.

Knox and Sollecito were jailed for Miss Kercher's murder in 2009 but the verdicts were overturned in 2011 and the pair were freed.

However, the acquittals were themselves overturned last year by the Court of Cassation, which returned the case to the Florence court.

BBC

This is not a case of double jeopardy, but more akin to a re-trial.

reply to post by alldaylong


That depends on weather or not she is a leftie, as the theory - and thats all is is - a theory - only applies to right handed people.
Also...I hate to burst your bubble, but maybe you should dig a bit deeper for truth when you decide to rely on a persons eyes to play judge and jury in determining their guilt.

The commonly held theory is that when a person looks up to their right, they’re lying. If they look up to their left, they’re said to be telling the truth.

But in three separate experiments testing that theory, researchers from Edinburgh University and Hertfordshire University found no connection between eye movements and whether people were being truthful. “This is in line with findings from a considerable amount of previous work showing that facial clues (including eye movements) are poor indicators of deception,” wrote the authors of the study published in the journal PLoS ONE.

The authors attribute the popular wisdom about “lying eyes” to claims made by practitioners of neuro-linguistic programming (NLP). The therapy method, which attempts to improve people’s communication skills by teaching them about eye-movements and thought, says that when people look up to their right they are visualizing a “constructed” event, and when they look to the left, they’re visualizing an actual “remembered” memory.

The notion that “constructed” means “lie” became popular, despite the fact that there’s little scientific evidence to back up the claim.

(MORE: Why The Rich Are Less Ethical)

In the first experiment, the researchers videotaped 32 right-handed participants as they either lied or told the truth. (The NLP theory pertains to right-handed people, so left-handed folks were excluded from the study.) Then the researchers carefully analyzed the volunteers’ eye movements, and found that they were equally likely to glance upward and to the right or upward and to the left, regardless of the truthfulness of their statements.

In the second experiment, researchers recruited 50 participants and randomly educated half of them about the NLP lying-eye trick. Then the participants watched the videos of the 32 people from the previous experiment and were asked to indicate whether they thought each person was lying or telling the truth, and how confident they were in their assessment. Result: there was no difference in accuracy of lie detection between the 25 participants who were told about the eye-movement theory and those who weren’t.

In the third experiment, the researchers watched videos of 52 people publicly appealing for help in finding their relatives who had gone missing. the videos were gathered from news agencies in several countries, including Australia, Canada, Britain and the U.S. In half cases, the family members were known to be lying; in the other half, they were telling the truth. The researchers monitored and coded their eye movements, counting the number of times people either looked up and to the right or up and to the left. There was no link between eye movements and whether or not the people were telling the truth.

(MORE: Can Patients Handle the Truth? Getting Access to Doctors’ Notes)

That’s not to say that eye movements have nothing to do with what a person is thinking. In an interview with ABC News, Howard Ehrlichman, a professor emeritus of psychology at Queens College of the City University of New York, who has done considerable research on the topic, said: “I found that while the direction of eye movements wasn’t related to anything, whether people actually made eye movements or not was related to aspects of things going on in their mind.”

He noted that people tend to move their eyes, about once per second on average, when they are retrieving information from their long-term memory. “If there’s no eye movement during a television interview, I’m convinced that the person has rehearsed or repeated what they are going to say many times and don’t have to search for the answer in their long-term memories,” he told ABC News.

Ehrlichman also confirmed that none of his research connected the direction of eye movements to lying.

The NLP, for its part, maintains that its teachings about eye movements were never specifically meant to be applied to lie detection. Rather, eye movements indicate how a person is processing information — whether it’s visual, auditory or physical information, or whether it’s remembered or created, said Steven Leeds, a co-director of the NLP Training Center of New York.

healthland.time.com...

So, and you will have to excuse the pun, is she still guilty in your eyes?

LeatherNLace
So far as I know, I could be tried for murder and get an acquittal and then go around admitting my guilt and I still could not be tried for the same crime again. In the US, new evidence is not grounds for a retrial of a previous acquittal.

So it would seem, which is to be honest, downright bloody stupid. If new evidence comes to light, be it DNA or an admission, it's a smack in the face of Justice that you could not be tried for it.

stumason
reply to post by nenothtu

 

Someone needs to learn how to read properly...

OR - someone needs to learn to write properly...

I never said there was any new evidence, what I said was this isn't a case of double jeopardy as it is a continuation of the original judicial process, so anyone crying about double jeopardy is barking up the wrong tree.

Uh, no, no you didn't. What you said was:

stumason

A double jeopardy would be her being found not guilty and them trying her again with no new evidence just to try and secure a conviction.

And just for info, in the UK we disposed of the double jeopardy rule if new evidence comes to light after the original trial, which makes sense.

Unless, of course, your contention is that the Italian justice system is in the habit of letting convicted murderers just walk away...

Now, to be fair, that may be the case, and it may be exactly what you are attempting to say. I've never had any reason to study up on the Italian justice system. What the poster you were responding to said was that it would be against US law to extradite for a trial that amounts to double jeopardy, and without new evidence, it is just that - double jeopardy.

Unless the Italians simply allow convicted murderers to walk, with a recall clause in case they ever decide to get around to punishing them...

Somebody linked a website I looked at and this is part of it

www.injusticeinperugia.org...

Former FBI forensics guy. Lots of details of the crime scene, timelines, photos and blood evidence as well as documented contamination of the crime scene and evidence. Real police photographs showing evidence being moved and later recovered. Blood stained evidence pushed under the bed???

A big part of the courts evidence was the barefoot prints found with luminol. He explains that luminol will pick up on many substances besides blood.

He also goes on to reveal that those barefoot prints contained no DNA of the victim so they could not have been blood yet the prosecutors talked about the "bloody footprints" yet never disclosed that they contained zero DNA of the victim.

One website I read this morning... themurderofmeredithkercher.com... claims no defensive wounds on the victims hands or arms.
This retired professional points out many defensive wounds on the victims hands and forearms as well as other bruising made possibly by slamming against furniture.

A big piece of evidence was the bra clasp that contained the DNA of Rafeal, Knoxs' bf. He shows how it certainly could have been contaminated, actuall photos of the contamination happening. And just my 2 cents, If he and Amanda did have sex with the victim it is certainly possible he unhooked the bra....

In conclusion, you read one website you will think she is guilty, read the other and convinced of her innocence.

I think, based on the conclusions of the FBI guy that she is innocent. Innocent and adorable

I don't think she is guilty of murdering her roommate myself. I do think she knows what happened and may be guilty of covering it up. I don't know about her boyfriend. The evidence they used to convict her was not evaluated properly. I think she may be involved somehow but I do not think she personally killed her. If I saw evidence to prove she was guilty, I would change my mind. The police wanted a killer and decided to pin it on someone, no matter if they were guilty or innocent of the crime.

I think Amanda knows what happened but is a compulsive liar so this lying got her into the mess she is in. I understand why the police there are mad at her and think she is guilty. I know a few people who are compulsive liars. I don't like dealing with them much. I don't believe a quarter of what they say.

reply to post by nenothtu


Nope, you still have a chronic reading comprehension problem

You're also not quoting my whole post, so it's out of context... This is what I said:

stumason
Whilst I am also dubious about the guilty verdict and I am certainly aware of the shocking Italian Justice system, this is not a case of double jeopardy - she had the trial, was found guilty, was released on appeal with conviction quashed, then that too was overturned by Italian courts so now we're back to square one - it is a continuation of the original trial, not a new one.

A double jeopardy would be her being found not guilty and them trying her again with no new evidence just to try and secure a conviction.

And just for info, in the UK we disposed of the double jeopardy rule if new evidence comes to light after the original trial, which makes sense.

Nice try to put words in my mouth, but in the end an epic fail none the less.

I was simply pointing out that this is not a double jeopardy situation - I personally think the Italian Justice system is a joke and so convoluted and tediously slow it is surprising anyone gets anything done, but this still not a double jeopardy case - it is a continuation of the original legal process and is, in effect, a re-trial, not a new trial.

From an Italian source, explaining the decision (in English!):

Grounds for new Kercher murder conviction revealed

To me, Knox still looks guilty as sin. As she probably won't be extradited, she is now stuck in the USA as she can be nabbed from anywhere else on the planet. And frankly, if the US won't authorise her extradition then it should call into question all extradition procedures from Europe to the USA.

I can't claim to have any satisfaction from this verdict though. Kercher is still dead and Knox looks like she won't be serving any time for it soon. A sad situation all round really.

And as for the evaluation by the ex FBI man, exactly what relevance is that to this issue? Someone with no legal authorization in Italy thinks it is the wrong decision? Big whoop. Not like the FBI ever get anything wrong...........

I certainly believe that Amanda had a motive. A rift tore between her and the woman the she killed, because, if I read it correctly, The woman claimed that Amanda was very unclean/unhygienic, claiming that Amanda dropped a deuce without flushing, and the woman called Amanda on it, embarrassing her, so, as the story goers, Amanda got that crazy lunatic look in her beady-eyes and murdered this woman in cold blood. What I'm confused about is if it was during or after the group sex that Amanda seemed to like.

And again, I don't know what US law is in this case, but if Italy puts a nice bounty on her head, it would be a quick way to make some cash and deliver her to the hands of justice. Dog The Bounty Hunter is probably already licking his chops.

reply to post by ManFromEurope

Was Amanda Knox in jail in the US for murder? Could you provide a link to the blog in question, please? Because I don't understand the logic in this case.

Nope... I doubt the little blog in question wants the focus and traffic a link here would bring...and I really enjoy reading law school faculty as well as grad students debating current issues at an academic level.

I mentioned the blog as reference though...not source..and Article VI does seem to be the section most directly covering it by simply reading it myself. I'm not using the logic of what I read on a blog for it, as much as that worked as a reference to start with and become aware of the specific legal issues involved here.

Is she considered to have been through one process and into another? VI comes into play..it would seem. Is she still within one continuous and ongoing process? VI wouldn't apply, I'd think. Who knows... My major isn't law so I can't do more than offer an educated opinion for how it looks.

I think it's safe to say this is nowhere near as easy or simple as it first appears tho.