PDA

View Full Version : Amanda Knox Verdict Today



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

cruisin
10-06-2011, 03:45 PM
From what I recall, Amanda was basically convicted for being a nasty American bitch. Not because there was any evidence she murdered anyone. This whole attack played out in the trial and heavily in the media. The jurors were never sequestered so they were able to watch the news and were fed all this vicious stuff about Knox. It seriously makes me never want to go to Italy, just in case...

I'm going to address this as well (late). Please don't feel that way. Plenty of people go to Italy, every year, and nothing like this happens to them. Italy is a beautiful country, filled with exquisite history. The people are warm and charming. I understand that there are problems with the judicial system and politics, but don't let that keep you from experiencing an amazingly beautiful place.

elbeep
10-06-2011, 04:09 PM
At night? I would not think anybody would call me during the night.

I remember reading there was 12 minutes cap in the time they turned their phones off. Amanda did it first (assuming they didn't run out of battery). And if they went to sleep, why did they wake up so early?

For whatever reason their cell phones were off, how does that favor the heinous murder of a roommate scenario over a night in at the boyfriend's for sex?

elbeep
10-06-2011, 04:15 PM
I'm going to address this as well (late). Please don't feel that way. Plenty of people go to Italy, every year, and nothing like this happens to them. Italy is a beautiful country, filled with exquisite history. The people are warm and charming. I understand that there are problems with the judicial system and politics, but don't let that keep you from experiencing an amazingly beautiful place.

As someone who was actually in Itally just after this all happened, I'd like to second that. All countries have problems with their justice systems. Most are trying to do the best they can, but mistakes can be made. No system is perfect. Italy is a fabulous place, full of beauty, history, art, good food and many good people. Like all places on earth, it's not perfect, but most people who go in come out, not only unscathed but vastly enriched. Don't miss out!

duane
10-06-2011, 04:37 PM
As someone who was actually in Itally just after this all happened, I'd like to second that. All countries have problems with their justice systems. Most are trying to do the best they can, but mistakes can be made. No system is perfect. Italy is a fabulous place, full of beauty, history, art, good food and many good people.
And, Italy's judicial system actually deserves some praise for its swift appeals process. Many people wrongly convicted here in the states with nothing but a false confession and/or very suspect circumstancial evidence spend decades in prison. Look at those released through the Innocence Project--some who spent years on death row.

Nekatiivi
10-06-2011, 04:43 PM
For whatever reason their cell phones were off, how does that favor the heinous murder of a roommate scenario over a night in at the boyfriend's for sex?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7131195&page=1


Sollecito has always maintained that he was home in his apartment the night of the murder and initially told police his father had called him at home around 11 p.m.

Phone records later showed that he received no such call.

Police investigator Letterio Latella testified today that Knox and Sollecito's cell phones were inactive most of the night, and activity on the cell phones stopped almost simultaneously. Sollecito's phone was inactive from 8:42 p.m. until 6:52 a.m. the next day, while Knox's phone was quiet from 8:35 p.m. on Nov. 1 and didn't show any activity until 12:07 p.m. the next day, when she tried to call Kercher.

Latella said that he did not find any evidence of a similar "blackout" of Knox and Sollecito's phones in the month preceding the murder. Normally, investigators have said, both Knox and Sollecito's phones were on until late at night and would come back on in the late morning.

Sollecito also said that he was on the computer all evening, but computer experts testified last week that although his computer was on all night, no had used it from 9:10 p.m. until 5:32 a.m. the next day.

Why to lie about lie about the phone call and the use of the computer?

And as I wrote million times before, I don't think they killed Meredith. Maybe they found out earlier about what happened to Meredith but failed to report to the police. That could easily happen if they were very stoned.

Of course they might be innocent but very stupid individuals who just do not understad that is not wise to lie for fun if you are in the middle of an murder investication.

elbeep
10-06-2011, 05:11 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=7131195&page=1



Why to lie about lie about the phone call and the use of the computer?

And as I wrote million times before, I don't think they killed Meredith. Maybe they found out earlier about what happened to Meredith but failed to report to the police. That could easily happen if they were very stoned.

Of course they might be innocent but very stupid individuals who just do not understad that is not wise to lie for fun if you are in the middle of an murder investication.

MO, they don't remember exactly what happened that night or precise timing because they were zonked on drugs at Rafaelle's where Amanda had spent all night every night since she met him. Then, they passed out and woke up in the morning but that's just my thinking. Turning off the cell phones makes sense to me if what I've read is true that Amanda was Rafaelle's first girlfriend. He was enamored and experiencing his first sex/ romance and she was in Italy having a romance with her Italian Harry Potter. Seems logical, they just wanted to be lost in the druggy fog of "love" and/or lust. I read this past week that Rafaelle's hard drive was fried while in police custody, so that no independent appraisal is now possible as to what his computer was doing that night. Don't know if that's true or not and I'm not sure what analysis was done prior to the drive being fried. Do find it suspicious if the drive got fried though. Could have been an honest mistake, I suppose.

Vagabond
10-06-2011, 05:17 PM
Of course they might be innocent but very stupid individuals who just do not understad that is not wise to lie for fun if you are in the middle of an murder investication.

As has been pointed out numerous times upthread:

The ostensible "lies" were statements coerced out of them during interrogations that were not recorded and at which there were no defense attorneys present. If police coercion is your idea of "fun," Heaven help us. :scream:

If anyone was lying for fun, it was the police, not Knox and Sollecito.

There is not really any extrinsic evidence other than the coerced confessions that corroborates Guede's self-serving accusation that Knox and Sollecito were his accomplices. Instead, there is a series of supposed "facts" (buying bleach, switching off cell phones, etc.) to which the prosecution persisted in attaching some sinister meaning but which could have been entirely innocuous. It's not even clear that the "facts" are facts. They could be evidence manufactured by police, the prosecution, or even the media.

Even if it is true that they switched off their cell phones for the first time in a month, so what? It doesn't necessarily make them accomplices.

ETA:

Amanda Knox judge says she may have 'been responsible' after all (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/06/amanda-knox-judge-responsible)


The judge who presided at the trial of Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, has reportedly said they may be guilty after all.

Speaking just two days after he and his fellow judges handed down a full acquittal on appeal, Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, said the court's verdict "is the result of the truth that was created in the proceedings. But the real truth may be different. They may be responsible, but the evidence is not there."

This is precisely the point. The prosecution had four years to come up with evidence. The prosecutors thought they had that evidence, but it turns out that they were mistaken.

loulou
10-06-2011, 05:28 PM
So are you saying it's possible that it wasn't Guede's DNA but Amanda and her boyfriend's, and with more resources, this could have been shown?

I'm not, why should I?

All I'm saying is that DNA that was initially linked to Sollecito's was then said to be un-recognizable.
If Sollecito's didn't have enough resources to make it through the second degree of trial, the test that got him free would never have been made.

Guede didn't have resources to make it through the second trial.
If additional tests on the DNA that was initially linked to him had been made, who knows what the outcome would have been.
-- "who knows" doesn't mean Knox's or Sollecito's, it just mean that maybe additional tests wouldn't have been able to state that DNA as Guede's without question.

Do you think that, generally speaking, resources, power and lobbing don't have any influence on trials?
Do you think, generally speaking, that justice is fair to everybody in the same way?

I believe not.
And I have no reason to think this trial was any exception.
Guede was convicted as "an accessory in the murder of Mez, which was committed by Knox and Sollecito". Clearly, something is wrong here for him.


-- BTW. Reportedly: Knox's bill is over a million dollars. Sollecito's lawyer takes over a thousand dollars per hour.



Not only that but it seemed other independant labs had refused to test it because the sample was so small. I am not sure additional resources could change that.

But they just did!
If Sollecito's hadn't enough resources to make it through the second degree of trial, he would have been stuck with the previous analysis, that linked the DNA to him and got him convicted.



I think it's more in Berlusphony's Berlusconi's interest to defend the apparatus of the state than to cozy up to the U.S. But I'm a foreigner and do not claim to be intimately familiar with his philosophy of government (such as it is). If you think he's more interested in foreign than domestic opinion, I'd love to hear why.

I think you already got your answer by kia_4EverOnIce.
Berlusconi's only good news of the week was that sentence, which he fully exploited. As if that wasn't the country he's running, his responsability.

Also, generally speaking, US citizens tend to be lucky with italian justice.




On the other hand, also Berlusconi is philo-US, he pretended (don't know if it's true) to be close to Bush, and though now he's not so close to Obama, he still his philo-US, so that's a second reason why he surely wouldn't have been to pleased to sadden US (for example, on another topic, especially after the new wikileaks files, I have would expected politics to protest against the trial of Ashby in the US and pretend some form of repayment).

Wikileaks revealed letters from Bush's ambassador in Italy.
He wrote the man was a joke and needed US international approval to hold up. Plus, a picture of Bush and Berlusconi shaking hands was considered very valuable by Berlusconi in terms of domestic consensus.
That was perfect for the US: with a smile and some patience, they could get Italy to help out in every way the US needed.
Soldiers in their wars, taking in former Guantanamo prisoners, and so on.

agalisgv
10-06-2011, 05:42 PM
I don't understand why people insist that the confessions were coerced based only on Knox's statement after the fact. In the US, what Knox described as transpiring during the interrogation would not constitute coercion. She raised no objections during the interrogation, and she requested no legal representation. In the US, that would be indication no coercion took place, and she only regrets what she said after the fact.

Supposedly she accused the police of physically brutalizing her, but from what I understand, she backed off the claim as there wasn't any indication of such, she didn't initially make such an accusation, and is now facing a defamation lawsuit for that apparent false allegation.
Guede, a small-time drug dealer who fled Italy after the killing and was extradited from Germany to face the charges, acknowledged he was in Kercher's room the night she died but said he didn't kill her...During his appeals trial, Guede claimed he heard Kercher and Knox argue minutes before the Briton was slain in the apartment they shared.

He said he was at the house with Kercher when he fell ill and went to the bathroom with his iPod. He heard Knox and Kercher argue over money, then heard a "very loud scream" coming from Kercher's bedroom, and rushed to it. There, he said, he saw an unidentified man who tried to attack him. Backing into the hallway, Guede said he heard the man say, "Let's go. There's a black man in the house."

Knox initially told prosecutors that she was home the night of the murder and had to cover her ears against Kercher's screams while she was attacked by Diya "Patrick" Lumumba, a Congolese man who owned a bar where Knox often worked...Knox didn't explain why she didn't try to help Kercher, and subsequently changed her account.

...In her final appeal to the court on Monday, Knox said she had been "manipulated" during her police interrogation. She previously accused police of beating her — a claim that landed her another indictment on slander charges, a case that remains open.

...In addition to Guede's testimony and Knox's own initial statement, a homeless man testified for the prosecution that he had seen Knox and Sollecito near the apartment the night Kercher was killed.

The defense insisted his testimony was unreliable, and the witness damaged his own credibility by admitting on the stand to being a heroin addict.

Knox changed her account of her whereabouts. She and Sollecito concurred they were at his apartment the night of the murder, though Sollecito said he wasn't sure if she spent the whole night with him. Knox maintained they had smoked hashish, watched the French film "Amelie" and made love.

Prosecutors also claimed the apartment was unnaturally cleaned of any traces of Knox's presence. The only fingerprint belonging to Knox was on glass, while many more traces were left by two other Italian flatmates and visitors, they said.

...The room of another flatmate had been ransacked and a window smashed with a rock on the night of the murder, but Mignini said evidence showed the window was "quite probably broken from the inside."

...Knox's behavior in the hours after the killing raised eyebrows and continues to raise questions about why she would display such apparent disregard after her friend had been brutally murdered.

The American turned cartwheels and did splits at the police station as she waited to be questioned by police, according to investigators and Kercher's friends during the first trial. They said Knox sat on Sollecito's lap, making faces at him, crossing her eyes and sticking her tongue out, while giggling and kissing him.

A lingerie shop owner testified that he saw Knox and Sollecito kissing and hugging in his shop the day after Kercher's body was found. He said Knox bought a G-string and talked about having "hot sex" once the couple — who had been dating just a week — got home.

Knox explained her actions as the result of being someone who "tends to act a little silly" under stress.FWIW, if someone gave false statements to the police, the person placed themselves at the scene of the crime by their own admission, there appeared to be physical evidence the person cleaned up the crime scene after the fact, and there was circumstantial evidence that the person's behavior that night deviated from previous patterns and was in keeping with covering up a crime, that would be more than sufficient for police to vigorously investigate that person and for prosecutors to bring charges. I don't know in what universe people are living if they think that doesn't happen every day in the US.

Any particular piece of circumstantial evidence can be explained away. But it's the totality of the evidence which can result in convictions. Scott Peterson was convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence, and while no one piece was dispositive, the totality of it allowed jurors to sentence him to death beyond a reasonable doubt.

IME, people tend to get very supportive of US citizens accused of crimes committed abroad in a way they don't if that same person were accused and charged in the US. Maybe it's a kneejerk reaction--I don't know. But it's not logically consistent with how crimes are routinely investigated and tried in the US.

skatingfan5
10-06-2011, 06:04 PM
Prosecutors also claimed the apartment was unnaturally cleaned of any traces of Knox's presence. The only fingerprint belonging to Knox was on glass, while many more traces were left by two other Italian flatmates and visitors, they said. :confused: For some reason this section doesn't make a lot of sense to me. How does one clean an apartment to selectively remove traces of oneself? How can a person be able to remove their own fingerprints in their apartment without also removing fingerprints of others? Unless they have such a phenomenal memory that they can remember each and every item that they had ever touched and wipe/clean only those things, it would seem that any cleaning done would have also removed fingerprints/DNA traces of others. No wonder some called her a "witch".

Vagabond
10-06-2011, 06:04 PM
Supposedly she accused the police of physically brutalizing her, but from what I understand, she backed off the claim as there wasn't any indication of such, she didn't initially make such an accusation,

Yes, she did:


Transcript of Amanda Knox's note

By Malcolm Moore in Perugia1:14PM GMT 22 Nov 2007

Transcript of Amanda Knox's handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6, the day she was arrested:

....

The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

The last sentence that I've quoted from the transcript makes me go :eek:

zippy
10-06-2011, 06:31 PM
Regarding the interrogation, here's an interesting article (http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html) written by an FBI agent who says that a confession obtained by interrogating a suspect for 8 hours or more, especially overnight, would in his experience NOT be admissible in a US court:


In the instance of the latter confession, I met with the suspect at about noon at the FBI office. I read him what are known by the public as “Miranda Rights”, and then immediately took him to lunch at a hole-in-the-wall restaurant down the street. The conversation got more serious as the evening went on, and I ordered take-out for dinner. Later that evening, the suspect tearfully confessed. However, because the interview went 8 hours, and occurred in the FBI office, the United States Attorney’s Office refused to enter the confession into evidence because they believed any federal court would consider the circumstances of the confession “inherently coercive”. The individual was never prosecuted for that crime. This is the diligence with which federal courts protect an individual from even possible coercion.

Amanda Knox was interrogated for 8 hours. Overnight. Without food or water. In a police station. In a foreign country. In a foreign language. By a dozen different officers. Without being allowed a lawyer.

Not at all saying that doesn't happen in the US or anywhere else in the world, just that the usefulness of those confused statements in the middle of the night seems awfully questionable. I'll also throw out something that will probably get me in trouble, so I'll preface it by saying that I love Italy with my whole heart, it's got to be one of the most beautiful countries on earth, filled with so many kind, fun-loving, welcoming people. I'd move there in a nanosecond. But, I always think of my experiences of dealing with Italian authorities as... well, a little scary. A lot of us Americans growing up these days are so sheltered, and there's often a certain politeness/distance when dealing with authority figures. I'm particularly thinking of customs agents when my luggage was held in Rome for a week, who called me all sorts of names like "stupid American b!tch" as I was trying to get my stuff back. I was super intimidated and probably just turned to mush, and I never got my stuff back until the Italian woman I was working with took up my cause and got right in their face and yelled at them even louder. I just had no clue how to do that. I think I read some statement by Amanda where she said she struggled with assertiveness, and there could be some cultural norms at play that contributed to the interrogation going south if they expected her to respond with some aggressiveness/assurance and instead she crumbled and got confused.

The article also includes an audio of Amanda describing the interrogation, and there are several fascinating discussions of the physical evidence of the crime on that site. Of course the site has an obvious bias toward Knox/Sollecito here, so take that for what you will, but it does highlight how much misinformation is out there about the evidence.

cruisin
10-06-2011, 06:31 PM
Yes, she did:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

The last sentence that I've quoted from the transcript makes me go :eek:

Oddly, it sounds like something she was told to say. She says she was hit and then excuses it - weird.

Jackie Sparrow
10-06-2011, 06:36 PM
IME, people tend to get very supportive of US citizens accused of crimes committed abroad in a way they don't if that same person were accused and charged in the US. Maybe it's a kneejerk reaction--I don't know. But it's not logically consistent with how crimes are routinely investigated and tried in the US. I am glad someone said it, someone American ;)

zippy
10-06-2011, 06:36 PM
The last sentence that I've quoted from the transcript makes me go :eek:

Stockholm syndrome?



IME, people tend to get very supportive of US citizens accused of crimes committed abroad in a way they don't if that same person were accused and charged in the US. Maybe it's a kneejerk reaction--I don't know. But it's not logically consistent with how crimes are routinely investigated and tried in the US.

I guess I should point out my bias; one of my family members was arrested for murder while living in South America. It was a totally outlandish, crazy thing, almost comical if it wasn't so serious (and, you know, if someone hadn't wound up dead). It was almost like a small-scale Amanda Knox story; she was really vilified in her community, wild stories were made up about her personal life, her face was on the news all the time, and after she was released she couldn't go anywhere without being recognized and called a murderer or something - she finally had to move to another part of the country. So I do sympathize with Amanda a bit. But I do recall how much more divided Americans were on her innocence/guilt around the time the first trial ended. I think the role of the media is huge here; a couple years ago there were many more anti-Amanda articles out there, and now there's a huge media push for the "Amanda is innocent" bandwagon. We're all just pawns :drama:


:confused: For some reason this section doesn't make a lot of sense to me. How does one clean an apartment to selectively remove traces of oneself? How can a person be able to remove their own fingerprints in their apartment without also removing fingerprints of others? Unless they have such a phenomenal memory that they can remember each and every item that they had ever touched and wipe/clean only those things, it would seem that any cleaning done would have also removed fingerprints/DNA traces of others. No wonder some called her a "witch".

Probably a more likely scenario is that she hadn't been spending much time at the place lately, being all caught up with her new man, so she had less fingerprints, etc., than other roommates. I'm not sure that there's any other evidence of a cleanup besides not finding much of Amanda's DNA.