Hello
Guest

Sponsored Links


Topic: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.  (Read 3774 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2009, 01:11:06 PM »
There doesn't have to be "direct evidence" for there to be a guilty verdict. Circumstantial evidence does not necessarily mean "bad evidence". I find it intriguing that people one or more thousands of miles away from Italy, who presumably got their information about this case from "the media", claim (a) to know that Knox was innocent (b) that the jury (who are in Italy and who have heard all the evidence and seen Knox in court) were influenced "by the media" to find her guilty.

A jury member has said that said no one on the jury had been influenced by the lurid newspaper headlines during the trial. They are Italians, they know their own media.

The New York Times quotes Senator Maria Cantwell, (Dem, Washington) as saying “I have serious questions about the Italian justice system and whether anti-Americanism tainted this trial.” She added, “The prosecution did not present enough evidence for an impartial jury to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Knox was guilty.”

So she raises the spectre of "anti-Americanism" by saying she has "questions" about it. That is a bit like saying "I have serious questions about whether Tremula eats babies" for no other reason than to blacken Tremula's name. Also I don't know how she (or anybody else who was not present at every day of the trial) can possibly know that the prosecution did not present enough evidence to convince an impartial jury. Jury members have stated that they were impartial, and they were convinced enough to bring in the verdict that they did.




  • *
  • Posts: 382

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Oct 2008
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2009, 01:46:46 PM »
The anti-Americanism theory is ridiculous.  Europeans for the most part, may have a problem with the American government and it's foreign policies - but I would never believe that they would actually target individual Americans because of this.

I certainly hope you, Tremula, never find yourself being convicted and incarcerated most of your adult life purely on circumstantial evidence.
Democrats and Republicans - fiddling while Rome burns.


  • *
  • Posts: 2954

  • It's 4:20 somewhere!
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Mar 2006
  • Location: Earth
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2009, 02:02:36 PM »
A jury member has said that said no one on the jury had been influenced by the lurid newspaper headlines during the trial. They are Italians, they know their own media.

One juror cannot possibly comment for all other jurors (unless of course they were kept in isolation from the press and tv).

But the logic that they are Italian and know their own media doesn't wash. That's like saying all people here know the Sun and DM etc yet no one believes them. Unfortunately we KNOW that a lot of people do believe what they read.

I think that Senator Maria Cantwell has a little paranoia she needs to deal with. I really don't think, well certainly in the Western world, that someone would be tried harder because of they are an American. Elsewhere in the world, perhaps.


never find yourself being convicted and incarcerated most of your adult life purely on circumstantial evidence.
Regarding circumstantial evidence, cannot people now, in the US. be convicted of murder without a body being produced? I seem to think that is the case now as I thought there have been cases where Habeas Corpus didn't apply. Perhaps I am mistaken. But if that is true, then I would say that is circumstantial.
Still tired of coteries and bans. But hanging about anyway.


Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2009, 02:06:57 PM »
I certainly hope you, Tremula, never find yourself being convicted and incarcerated most of your adult life purely on circumstantial evidence.

Even if I am guilty?

Like I wrote before, circumstantial evidence is not synonymous with bad evidence. Plenty of criminal cases have been decided because of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence


« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 02:10:36 PM by Tremula »


  • *
  • Posts: 382

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Oct 2008
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2009, 02:14:59 PM »
Even if I am guilty?

Like I wrote before, circumstantial evidence is not synonymous with bad evidence. Plenty of criminal cases have been decided because of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence




I don't know if you would be guilty or not.  But I would want you to have a fair trial just like anyone else.  And not be convicted purely on circumstantial evidence.
Democrats and Republicans - fiddling while Rome burns.


  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 18728

  • Liked: 2
  • Joined: Sep 2003
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2009, 02:21:41 PM »
A couple of points:

1. Seeing as the only reliable witness in most murder cases is the victim, circumstantial evidence has to be used. Some circumstantial evidence is better than other, of course;

2. Apparently hearsay evidence and character assassination is allowed in Italian criminal cases, not so in the US (or UK).  I suspect that is something the good senator will want to query.



  • *
  • Posts: 13025

  • Liked: 4
  • Joined: Oct 2005
  • Location: Washington DC
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2009, 03:30:57 PM »
There doesn't have to be "direct evidence" for there to be a guilty verdict. Circumstantial evidence does not necessarily mean "bad evidence". I find it intriguing that people one or more thousands of miles away from Italy, who presumably got their information about this case from "the media", claim (a) to know that Knox was innocent (b) that the jury (who are in Italy and who have heard all the evidence and seen Knox in court) were influenced "by the media" to find her guilty.

Were you at the trial?  I assume you are getting your information and drawing your conclusions from the media just like everyone else.

I don't know whether she is guilty or not, but I don't believe that the evidence presented (that I have read about) was substantial enough to prove her guilt.  I also don't really know whether the jurors were influenced by the media or not.  I just don't believe she has been proven guilty.  The jurors were convinced by the prosecution.  I wasn't.  The Guardian article pointed out a number of inconsistencies that made the verdict questionable in my mind.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/06/amanda-knox-meredith-kercher-trial-perugia



  • *
  • Posts: 6537

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Jul 2006
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2009, 04:47:41 PM »
I agree.  I don't know, but from the evidence presented in the papers it doesn't seem enough to me. 

Also, Satanic rituals?  Didn't that stop being a theory in the 90s?


  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 18728

  • Liked: 2
  • Joined: Sep 2003
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2009, 05:06:31 PM »
The article I read today said the judge threw out the satanic ritual argument some time ago.


  • *
  • Posts: 712

  • UF College of Vet Med Class of 2010!!
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Oct 2007
  • Location: Durham, Co. Durham!
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2009, 05:32:28 PM »
I don't think that was true but her blood was found on a knife which is believed to be the weapon used to kill Meredith Kircher. The weird thing is, neither Knox or Solectio's fingerprints were found anywhere in the room where the murder too place, although the other guy's were.  I don't see how they could have wiped theirs but not his. Very strange.

That's not true. It was not her *blood* which was found on the knife - but her DNA, which is not the same thing at all. She could have used the knife and left traces of DNA. They can get DNA from fingerprints, even.
"Treat for the treatable" - Uncle Mikey's Maxim # 1


  • *
  • *
  • Posts: 18728

  • Liked: 2
  • Joined: Sep 2003
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #25 on: December 06, 2009, 05:43:29 PM »
My mistake. Makes it all the weirder then.


  • *
  • Posts: 712

  • UF College of Vet Med Class of 2010!!
  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Oct 2007
  • Location: Durham, Co. Durham!
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #26 on: December 06, 2009, 05:52:43 PM »
Makes it all the weirder then.

I agree, the whole situation is weird and I just don't know how its possible that she could have been involved with the murder at all and left no traces behind.


"Treat for the treatable" - Uncle Mikey's Maxim # 1


  • *
  • Posts: 6537

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Jul 2006
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #27 on: December 06, 2009, 07:02:13 PM »
The article I read today said the judge threw out the satanic ritual argument some time ago.

He did, but it was still out there in the press for quite a while.


  • *
  • Posts: 391

    • Mouse Hunting
  • Liked: 1
  • Joined: Aug 2006
  • Location: Twickenham
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #28 on: December 06, 2009, 07:46:50 PM »
Anybody else watch the program the First 48? I'm completely addicted and have seen nearly every episode. The program really focuses on the interrogation aspect of the crimes, and I'm always shocked about how often they get people to confess especially when more than one person is involved.

I find it strange that Rudy hasn't given Knox and Sollecito up. While he was on the run, he even told a friend on Skype that Amanda wasn't at the flat when the murder happened. Unless he's hoping for appeals, he's not got much to lose by implicating Amanda and Raffaele. From what I've seen, suspects usually decided to take everyone down with them once they feel they are going to go down for the crime.

I also find the lack of hard evidence quite disconcerting. These are supposed amateurs, not seasoned killers. How were they able to cover up their tracks so neatly? Especially whilst in a supposed drug fueled frenzy.

Yes, Amanda did act strange under the circumstances. But to find someone guilty of murder beyond a reasonable doubt for simply for acting in a way that I don't understand? Not on my conscience.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2009, 07:54:34 PM by across »
Dated long distance: 2000-2005
Married: May 2005
Both lived stateside: 2005-2008
Moved to the UK/FLR: May 2008
ILR: May 2010
British Citizenship: January 2012
British Passport: March 2012


  • *
  • Posts: 562

  • Liked: 0
  • Joined: Sep 2009
  • Location: Surrey, UK
Re: Knox found guilty, gets 26 years.
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2009, 01:24:34 PM »
This is another Barry George, imho. You didn't have to be on the jury of that trial to know the conviction (based, too, on circumstantial evidence) stank like my husband's gym socks.


DNA on a knife? My god, there isn't a knife in my house that doesn't have my DNA on it and I have the scars to prove it. Someone kills my husband that makes me the killer? Please.

They needed a conviction but quick. Maybe she did it. Maybe she didn't. Flimsy evidence is NOT enough to lock someone away for life. This is not a case where I am comfortable believing a miscarriage of justice hasn't occurred.



Sponsored Links