Amanda Knox Found Guilty

Higgledy wrote:
Robear wrote:

Ah, yes... The "Zimmerman Effect".

She's been back in the US with nary a problem for... how long?

Not all murders are the start of a cereal killer spree. Especially if the circumstances, other people involved, who may have been instigators, are no longer present.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/C1ogMTV.jpg)
IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/x1KPRgI.jpg)

Higgledy, I'm just saying, they don't usually come out of the blue either. If she had issues in Italy, she'd have them here, too.

Higgledy wrote:

Not all murders are the start of a cereal killer spree.

Though most bong hits are.

Robear wrote:

Higgledy, I'm just saying, they don't usually come out of the blue either. If she had issues in Italy, she'd have them here, too.

It's unlikely we'd know what issues she's having short of her breaking the law.

She comes across as a hard working sensible woman and that is one of the reasons I feel she perhaps wasn't involved in the murder.

I recently watched a documentary that presented the evidence for and against Amanda Knox being innocent and there are some elements that are hard to ignore in the evidence for her guilt. As I mentioned up thread she actually gave evidence against an innocent man, claiming she went to the house with him. He was jailed until people provided him with an alibi. She now says that, at the time, she felt like it was true that he had gone to the house even when in truth he hadn't, which is a pretty weak explanation.

After the murder someone staged break in at the house. I can't think of a reason why Rudy Guede would do that. It wasn't his place. Which leaves the question why Raffaele alone or Raffaele and Amanda would, on finding Meredith's body, not just report it to the police as found rather than setting the scene for a burglary gone wrong?

The forensic evidence sounds dodgy in many cases but the sheer amount of it suggests it can't all be the product of botched recovery or to have come about through innocent activities.

I find the case perplexing and infuriating. Partly because it isn't clear what the heck happened and probably largely because an young English girl is dead and the people who killed her may or may not be paying for that crime.

None of us, including me, should really be speculating on the case because we are seeing evidence through the lens of the media but I feel that you can't assume someone is innocent by how they appear now or the lives they lived before the incident especially if, as seems to be the case with Amanda, they have a large PR firm working on their behalf.

I don't think she was involved, either. Maybe you interpreted my initial comment backwards? I was noting the *lack* of the kind of behavior that Zimmerman is showing.

Note that she was interrogated under stress conditions and exhaustion for several days. That's known to cause people to confess to anything.

Guede on the other hand was matched to the scene forensically. He had a bloody shoeprint there, and a bloody palmprint, and he took a dump in the bathroom. He had a history of break-ins where he would do that, and he had previously threatened people who interrupted his burglaries with knives. The kitchen knife at the scene with Knox's dna on the handle did not match the wounds. He also lied about the scene and events, and initially did not implicate Knox. He did, though, and that helped convict her - and got him 14 years off of his sentence three weeks after her conviction.

I don't know whether she has a PR firm working things, though.

Robear wrote:

I don't think she was involved, either. Maybe you interpreted my initial comment backwards? I was noting the *lack* of the kind of behavior that Zimmerman is showing.

Note that she was interrogated under stress conditions and exhaustion for several days. That's known to cause people to confess to anything.

Guede on the other hand was matched to the scene forensically. He had a bloody shoeprint there, and a bloody palmprint, and he took a dump in the bathroom. He had a history of break-ins where he would do that, and he had previously threatened people who interrupted his burglaries with knives. The kitchen knife at the scene with Knox's dna on the handle did not match the wounds. He also lied about the scene and events, and initially did not implicate Knox. He did, though, and that helped convict her - and got him 14 years off of his sentence three weeks after her conviction.

I don't know whether she has a PR firm working things, though.

I was actually leaning towards her being involved in some way :).

The stuff about Guede is interesting. The documentary I saw appeared to be very even handed and thorough but they never went into Guede's history which is a pretty huge, and likely deliberate, over sight. It certainly puts a whole new light on events.

I wish the Italians had done a proper job with this case so we knew for certain what happened.

Yeah, with her deliberately putting the finger on some random person, I'm not at all sure of her innocence.

Higgledy wrote:
Robear wrote:

I don't think she was involved, either. Maybe you interpreted my initial comment backwards? I was noting the *lack* of the kind of behavior that Zimmerman is showing.

Note that she was interrogated under stress conditions and exhaustion for several days. That's known to cause people to confess to anything.

Guede on the other hand was matched to the scene forensically. He had a bloody shoeprint there, and a bloody palmprint, and he took a dump in the bathroom. He had a history of break-ins where he would do that, and he had previously threatened people who interrupted his burglaries with knives. The kitchen knife at the scene with Knox's dna on the handle did not match the wounds. He also lied about the scene and events, and initially did not implicate Knox. He did, though, and that helped convict her - and got him 14 years off of his sentence three weeks after her conviction.

I don't know whether she has a PR firm working things, though.

I was actually leaning towards her being involved in some way :).

The stuff about Guede is interesting. The documentary I saw appeared to be very even handed and thorough but they never went into Guede's history which is a pretty huge, and likely deliberate, over sight. It certainly puts a whole new light on events.

I wish the Italians had done a proper job with this case so we knew for certain what happened.

I remember watching a news special when she was acquitted on the re-trial and seem to recall a few points. There was zero forensic evidence pointing toward Knox or her Italian boyfriend and as Robear said, a whole mountain of forensics pointing towards Guede. The Judge/prosecutor zeroed in on Knox and her boyfriend because they were seen/photographed smiling after the murder, which they interpreted as evidence of guilt and led to the hours long interrogation of Knox that produced her accusation against the third party. It is pretty widely accepted scientifically that given enough time and pressure, many people will confess or give false statements when confronted with aggressive interrogation, likewise, perceptions of "appropriate" emotional responses as evidence of guilt have been mostly debunked. People respond unpredictably in stressful situations.

I seem to recall that the Judge/prosecutor's original theory of the case involved ritual sacrifice before morphing into a sex game gone wrong, yet again, there is zero evidence that Guede and Knox/boyfriend knew each other. I believe the reporting indicated that the prosecutor was aware of some of these inconsistencies but basically didn't care and that he was also being investigated for serious crimes of his own during the Knox investigation and trial and it was speculated that he used the original trial as an attempt to distract from his own legal issues.

In this day of CSI crime tech, I think the simplest explanation is that Guede committed a random act of murder while breaking into their apartment and then took a gift reduction of his sentence.

I say it's possible for an otherwise good person to snap and kill someone who really, really pissed them off. Eg, you come home and find your spouse banging your best high school buddy. Or you're tired of being sexually assaulted and bury an ax in your stepdad's back. But what the prosecutor is alleging is that Amanda tortured her roommate to death for sadistic sexual pleasure. That's hardcore sociopathic behavior in the vein of John Wayne Gacey or Ted Bundy. Those kind of killers don't just stop, which is why IMHO Knox's lack of a record before or after the murder is very pertinent.

Im also comvinced of her innocence because there is no hard DNA evidence connecting Knox to the crime, the prosecutor relied on unreliable witnesses that were known to be informants for hire, and that during the retrial the judge allowed the jury to be swayed by media reports. In America the retrial would definitely be overturned for prejudice.

http://www.news.com.au/world/judge-i...

Badferret wrote:

I remember watching a news special when she was acquitted on the re-trial and seem to recall a few points. There was zero forensic evidence pointing toward Knox or her Italian boyfriend and as Robear said, a whole mountain of forensics pointing towards Guede.

We are all seeing the evidence in this case presented through programmes that have an agenda, even if they appear to be giving you the whole picture. The programme I saw was trying to preserve the 'Is she guilty is she innocent?' aspect by down playing Guede's past. Programmes originating in the US may have an interest in presenting Amanda as completely innocent (which she might be) and therefore could be downplaying any evidence that doesn't fit with that narrative.

The break in had some inconsistencies. There was glass lying on the disturbed items in the room and a rock that was too big to be hefted in through the high window it was supposed to have broken (but perhaps Guede threw it at the window from inside the room for reasons best known to himself.)

The forensics are disputed but there was a lot of it that implicated Amanda. Her DNA mixed with Meredith blood in many, many places and a woman's foot prints in Amanda's size that appeared to have tracked blood through the house before being cleared up.

Badferret wrote:

The Judge/prosecutor zeroed in on Knox and her boyfriend because they were seen/photographed smiling after the murder, which they interpreted as evidence of guilt and led to the hours long interrogation of Knox that produced her accusation against the third party. It is pretty widely accepted scientifically that given enough time and pressure, many people will confess or give false statements when confronted with aggressive interrogation, likewise, perceptions of "appropriate" emotional responses as evidence of guilt have been mostly debunked. People respond unpredictably in stressful situations.

The whole smile thing is ridiculous. People don't become automatons when stuff like this happens. I can see Amanda being under stress. The thing that gives me pause is that she stuck with the accusation for a long time afterward.

I can see now that it's possible that Guede alone killed Meredith.

The only article I ever read about the trial seemed to portray Knox as socially inept, completely loopy in her own "not homicidal" way and that because she was just such an odd bird it was easier for the local authorities to pin the murder on her because she was just "off" in all of her social interactions.

I don't know that I have very strong opinions about Amanda Knox but I do find it interesting that we have a 4 page thread about this.

Would we have that much discussion if she was wrongly convicted person serving in an American prison is solitary confinement for 15 years like Damon Thibodeaux?

I think it is because it is some other country doing it to an American rather than Americans doing it to Americans. It is really easy to pile on the evils of "them"

farley3k wrote:

I don't know that I have very strong opinions about Amanda Knox but I do find it interesting that we have a 4 page thread about this.

Would we have that much discussion if she was wrongly convicted person serving in an American prison is solitary confinement for 15 years like Damon Thibodeaux?

I think it is because it is some other country doing it to an American rather than Americans doing it to Americans. It is really easy to pile on the evils of "them"

Could it just be that there's more coverage of this because it's not local media?

Duoae wrote:

Could it just be that there's more coverage of this because it's not local media?

Perhaps. I also bet nationalism sells and a pretty girl don't hurt.

farley3k wrote:
Duoae wrote:

Could it just be that there's more coverage of this because it's not local media?

Perhaps. I also bet nationalism sells and a pretty girl don't hurt.

Well, I had access to UK and Maltese/Italian media and it didn't seem like there was no discussion and coverage... in fact, there was a lot of coverage. I don't doubt that the fact she is a vaguely attractive (though not particularly above average in my opinion) might have played a part and the fact that she's a middle class white person may have also played a part (past experience in coverage of kidnapped persons bears this theory out) but there was a lot of discussion here and it would be weird if the US media just completely ignored that...

farley3k wrote:

I don't know that I have very strong opinions about Amanda Knox but I do find it interesting that we have a 4 page thread about this.

Would we have that much discussion if she was wrongly convicted person serving in an American prison is solitary confinement for 15 years like Damon Thibodeaux?

I think it is because it is some other country doing it to an American rather than Americans doing it to Americans. It is really easy to pile on the evils of "them"

Obviously, there is that component. But It actually didn't catch on over here real early on. I think once some of the info on how batsh*t the prosecutor was started trickling out, that's when the attention level went up a bit.

I agree that it may not be fair that this case gets so much more attention than many others but, well, news is entertainment now. Had you rather read a story about a guy who tripped over a curb that had fallen into disrepair because of city budget cuts and broke his arm or about a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model who was attacked by a rabid penguin while on a photo shoot in Antartica causing her to run screaming into a polar bear who, in his shock, stumbled backwards and somehow fell onto her arm breaking it? News outlets are going to report on whichever story gets them the most eyes. It seems like it's becoming the responsibility of bloggers and niche news agencies to bring attention to things that need to be addressed but that aren't glamorous.

farley3k wrote:

I don't know that I have very strong opinions about Amanda Knox but I do find it interesting that we have a 4 page thread about this.

Would we have that much discussion if she was wrongly convicted person serving in an American prison is solitary confinement for 15 years like Damon Thibodeaux?

I think it is because it is some other country doing it to an American rather than Americans doing it to Americans. It is really easy to pile on the evils of "them"

It is one of our (many) national hippocracies. 9/11 killed roughly 3500 people and we spend billions on the war on terror. 34,000 people died in motor vehicle accidents in 2012 and I don't recall any major campaigns to fix it.

Nevin73 wrote:

9/11 killed roughly 3500 people and we spend billions on the war on terror.

Um, just under 3000 I think. Including the hijackers.

Yeah! Besides engineering roads, traffic stops for sobriety and safety checks, passing seat belt laws, having vehicle inspections, requiring airbags, engineering crumple zones, doing speed studies, having highway patrol officers, increasing safety standards for vehicles, having strict sobriety laws, testing and licensing drivers, requiring child safety seats, and passing distracted driving laws what are we doing about it? Nothing! Well maybe some other things... but I see your point.

LouZiffer wrote:

Yeah! Besides engineering roads, traffic stops for sobriety and safety checks, passing seat belt laws, having vehicle inspections, requiring airbags, engineering crumple zones, doing speed studies, having highway patrol officers, increasing safety standards for vehicles, having strict sobriety laws, testing and licensing drivers, requiring child safety seats, and passing distracted driving laws what are we doing about it? Nothing! Well maybe some other things... but I see your point.

IMAGE(http://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.436666.1339759782!/image/1157330727.png_gen/derivatives/landscape_640/1157330727.png)

LouZiffer wrote:

Yeah! Besides engineering roads, traffic stops for sobriety and safety checks, passing seat belt laws, having vehicle inspections, requiring airbags, engineering crumple zones, doing speed studies, having highway patrol officers, increasing safety standards for vehicles, having strict sobriety laws, testing and licensing drivers, requiring child safety seats, and passing distracted driving laws what are we doing about it? Nothing! Well maybe some other things... but I see your point.

Only... that stuff isn't in response to the 34,000 number. It's what brought the number down to 34,000.

Q-Stone wrote:

Only... that stuff isn't in response to the 34,000 number. It's what brought the number down to 34,000.

If Fedaykin hadn't already said it, I would have.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
LouZiffer wrote:

Yeah! Besides engineering roads, traffic stops for sobriety and safety checks, passing seat belt laws, having vehicle inspections, requiring airbags, engineering crumple zones, doing speed studies, having highway patrol officers, increasing safety standards for vehicles, having strict sobriety laws, testing and licensing drivers, requiring child safety seats, and passing distracted driving laws what are we doing about it? Nothing! Well maybe some other things... but I see your point.

Only... that stuff isn't in response to the 34,000 number. It's what brought the number down to 34,000.

Yeah. We're already doing something about traffic deaths and have been for ages. I understand the waste of the stupid wars (well, Iraq more so), but there's no relationship between those two things. Comparing thousands murdered with tens of thousands killed in accidents and calling us hypocrites? How does that make any sense?

Point out the civilians killed in our armed conflicts. Maybe then you'll have something. (You being Nevin.)

The War on Terrorism has been about as effective as the War on Poverty.

The point I'm trying to make is that we lose our sh*t over being attacked and incurring 3000 dead. But there isn't any heavy, active campaign on the scale of the War on Terror to cull or mitigate far greater numbers of deaths resulting from other sources. It is hypocritical in that aspect.

LouZiffer wrote:

Yeah. We're already doing something about traffic deaths and have been for ages. I understand the waste of the stupid wars (well, Iraq more so), but there's no relationship between those two things. Comparing thousands murdered with tens of thousands killed in accidents and calling us hypocrites? How does that make any sense?

Point out the civilians killed in our armed conflicts. Maybe then you'll have something. (You being Nevin.)

It makes sense in the realm of - we have X numbers to send what way would keep the most American's alive. However outside that kind of musing it isn't all that useful.

Nevin73 wrote:

The point I'm trying to make is that we lose our sh*t over being attacked and incurring 3000 dead. But there isn't any heavy, active campaign on the scale of the War on Terror to cull or mitigate far greater numbers of deaths resulting from other sources. It is hypocritical in that aspect.

The irony is that the 'War On Terror' (tm) has pretty much nothing to do with mitigating deaths at all (quite the opposite in fact).

jibboom wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

The point I'm trying to make is that we lose our sh*t over being attacked and incurring 3000 dead. But there isn't any heavy, active campaign on the scale of the War on Terror to cull or mitigate far greater numbers of deaths resulting from other sources. It is hypocritical in that aspect.

The irony is that the 'War On Terror' (tm) has pretty much nothing to do with mitigating deaths at all (quite the opposite in fact).

It also has nothing to do with Amanda Knox.

Epic thread derail!!!!