Fun poll: Amanda Knox - guilty or not guilty

[voice]

wonder how much was spent to get the result, millions were raised to get her off. So after killing Meredith she'll get a nice book deal, oh and compensation no doubt for having the Italians having the cheek to convict an American in the first place.

[Deleted]

I say, I say, I say: an attractive American woman, a wealthy Italian boy and a poorblack immigrant all go to court and get sent to prison. Which one is still there at the end of the sentence?

No, really. You couldn't make it up. I predicted precisely this outcome long before re-trial started.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

There didn't really seem much evidence to convict really, was there?

Not saying she didn't do it mind, just the evidence was flimsier than a very flimsy thing.

[Scooby Do]

She was found not guilty, some people need to accept that.

[Deleted]

So what? She was previously found guilty, so in my book it's nil-nil. I'm not saying that she was necessarily directly involved, but I do believe she was involved and certainly knew what went on.

[flatandy]

At the moment, nobody's been found guilty (well, at least not enough people have, I think, for it to be a convincing case), and the evidence used to convict Knox was very, very dodgy.

What we know was the conviction was unsafe; not that she necessarily didn't do it.

[lala]

Oct 4, 2011 7:17:36 GMT Scooby Do said:

She was found not guilty, some people need to accept that.

What an odd idea. Must we accept every decision without quibble? Because the overwhelming majority of climate scientists declare human activity to be cause significant global warming, may I now brush off all dispute by procliaming, "Some people need to accept that"?

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2011 7:30:03 GMT flatandy said:

At the moment, nobody's been found guilty (well, at least not enough people have, I think, for it to be a convincing case), and the evidence used to convict Knox was very, very dodgy.

What we know was the conviction was unsafe; not that she necessarily didn't do it.

Yeah, that seems about right. I doubt she did actually do it, but she's involved. She may have just got carried away and things got out of control but I believe she knew what happened. Let's not forget she tried to stripe up the other black geezer too.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

Burn her.

[Deleted]

I see Amanda Knox's parents are due to stand trial on charges of criminal slander for having made untrue, defamatory statements about their daughters arrest and interrogation. The trial is adjourbed until January 2012: anyone willing to take a bet that they will rock up for that?

[Chromo]

On circumstantial evidence and racial profiling, the black North African lying drifter did it!

Foxy Knoxy wud neva!

[flatandy]

Oct 4, 2011 7:45:32 GMT @baloo said:

Oct 4, 2011 7:30:03 GMT flatandy said:

At the moment, nobody's been found guilty (well, at least not enough people have, I think, for it to be a convincing case), and the evidence used to convict Knox was very, very dodgy.

What we know was the conviction was unsafe; not that she necessarily didn't do it.

Yeah, that seems about right. I doubt she did actually do it, but she's involved. She may have just got carried away and things got out of control but I believe she knew what happened. Let's not forget she tried to stripe up the other black geezer too.

Nah. I think it's entirely unreasonable to assume that she knew what happened, was associated or any other stuff.

We just don't know.

All we know if that the conviction was unsafe.

Frankly, if the entire Italian justice system was creating huge volumes of false evidence of my involvement in a murder, I'd be liable to try and implicate someone else. I don't think her stitching up a barman means anything other than that she stitched up a barman.

Assuming anything else is doing the job of the jury, but without the evidence. So, basically, pure prejudice.

[mids]

As I thought. Extremely not guilty. And, obviously, would.

[wetkingcanute]

Well I've watched all the news - read everything you guys have said, weighed up all the evident for and against - and I go with the considered opinion of Ming the Mammonist.

[Minge är en jävla besserwisser]

and I go with the considered opinion of Ming the Mammonist.


Make that a general rule in life and you'll go a long way.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2011 8:15:16 GMT flatandy said:

Oct 4, 2011 7:45:32 GMT @baloo said:

Yeah, that seems about right. I doubt she did actually do it, but she's involved. She may have just got carried away and things got out of control but I believe she knew what happened. Let's not forget she tried to stripe up the other black geezer too.

Nah. I think it's entirely unreasonable to assume that she knew what happened, was associated or any other stuff.

We just don't know.

All we know if that the conviction was unsafe.

Frankly, if the entire Italian justice system was creating huge volumes of false evidence of my involvement in a murder, I'd be liable to try and implicate someone else. I don't think her stitching up a barman means anything other than that she stitched up a barman.

Assuming anything else is doing the job of the jury, but without the evidence. So, basically, pure prejudice.

Not so. I am as likely to be swayed by prejudice as the next man, but there are compelling facts which make it more than probable that she knew what went on: she tried to frame another black man, for a start. This is a fact, not a matter of conjectue for a jury.

[mids]

Looking at it the other way, you have to wonder if the prosecutors were worried about sticking a black man in the dock alone and felt pressured, subconsciously or otherwise, to charge Knox and the other bloke too, despite the flimsiness of the evidence.

[Deleted]

Oh, and:

There was the bizarre behaviour displayed by Knox when she was arrested four days after the killing, including turning cartwheels in the police station. And, though it was later deemed inadmissible, there was her “confession,” wherein Knox — widely known in the gleeful media coverage as “Foxy Knoxy” — admitted being in the apartment when Kercher was murdered and overhearing her cries.

Knox retracted that confession, characterized by her defence team as a “false memory.” She also pointed the finger of blame at a Congolese bartender, Patrick Lumumba, who turned out to have a solid alibi.

The appeal court upheld Knox’s conviction for slandering Lumumba, sentencing her to three years — time served. She had originally been sentenced to 26 years, Sollecito to 25.

So Knox is still a liar, but not lying about her non-involvement in the murder. Knox and Sollecito maintained they were at his house that evening, watching a video and smoking marijuana. Yet Sollecito’s computer had never been turned on and both their phones were turned off until 6 a.m. the next day. And Knox changed her story at least eight times.

As I say, I doubt she was directly involved, but I believe she knew what happened.

[Deleted]

Oct 4, 2011 9:21:20 GMT mids said:

Looking at it the other way, you have to wonder if the prosecutors were worried about sticking a black man in the dock alone and felt pressured, subconsciously or otherwise, to charge Knox and the other bloke too, despite the flimsiness of the evidence.

Positive discrimination, eh? In Italy?

[unclejunior]

www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/knox-to-be-trained-in-how-not-to-look-shifty-201110044377/

hopefully this training will help in future .......