Acquitted at last!
Fantastic news! This ridiculous travesty is finally over.
Case closed for ever!
Absolutely! she's totally innocent as OJ was for Christ sake..
shareExactly, BlueBragon! I totally agree. Knox should be the star of "How to Get Away with Murder"....
shareWhat you both seem to be conveniently forgetting is the standard of proof required in a murder trial.
The standard of proof isn't "Hmm.. sounds a bit fishy to me. She might have done it"
Rather, it is "Beyond reasonable doubt"
The fact is that there is a huge amount of reasonable doubt. So it is perfectly justified to acquit her.
--------------------------------
My God, it's full of stars!
No there wasn't a case for BARD imo and the supreme court actually overturned itself when acquitting her. Very bizarre outcome.
"Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!"
no murder weapon, no murder weapon in Knox's hand, never present period at the murder scene (Meredith's room) nothing resembling a motive. no evidence at all.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
There was a murder weapon, with Knox's DNA on the handle and Meredith's on the blade, stop lying.
The cottage was the crime scne, your non point is dismissed. There was also a size seven female shoe print on the pillowcase in your fabled "murder room", so again, stop lying.
Motive isn't required in any court as I patiently explained to your cognitive dissonant ass many many times before.
There was enough evidence to convict and uphold on appeal, and the SC weren't even supposed to be reviewing evidence.
You disregard all of these discrepancies as you simply care about the verdict.
"Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!"
"There was a murder weapon, with Knox's DNA on the handle and Meredith's on the blade"
no there wasn't repeated tests had shown no Meredith DNA on that knife. nor did the knife match to wounds or the bloody blade impression found.
"The cottage was the crime scne, your non point is dismissed"
the killing took place in the room. Knox was never in the room. if she was never in the room how could she kill. the fact is she couldn't.
"There was also a size seven female shoe print on the pillowcase in your fabled "murder room", so again, stop lying".
footprints were found. none were Amanda's
"Motive isn't required in any court as I patiently explained to"
yet motive was very important to this case and used in court.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
Yes Meredith's DNA was on the blade of the knife and Knox's on the handle which is a matter of court record. Again, stop lying as it's gonna be very difficult debating the issue with you if you're gonna engage in rampant dishonesty.
The crime scene was the house, end of story and a size seven female footprint compatible with Amanda's was found in your fabled "murder room" anyway. The court chose not to make a finding on the matter, which bottom line still shows that Guedce had a female accomplice. Your personal belief on what should constitute where a crime scene begins is neither here nor there and certainly not objective fact.
No it wasn't as yet again, proof of motive is not required in any court, again regardless of your personal belief that it should be.
"Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!"
and every subsequent test shows that Meredith's DNA was not on the knife. the footprint was not Amanda's. nothing of Amanda was found in Meredith's room. you claim Amanda killed Meredith in that room with a knife that has been demonstrated to not be the murder weapon even though Amanda has never been in that room. and you call me dishonest.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
No it didn't, can you go a whole post without lying, is that too much to ask? Please cite the relevant passage in the court's motivational reports at either her trial or Nencini appeal where the court established that Meredith's DNA was not on the knife. The fact that you need to engage in such blatant dishonesty says it all about the strength of your argument for innocence.
The knife most certainly was not demonstrated to be not the murder weapon and was accepted by multiple courts. We don't even know yet if Cassation threw out the knife as they haven't released their report yet. Again, stop lying.
"Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!"
it has been established during the second trial that Meredith's DNA was not on the knife. that is a fact. accept it. a third test confirmed it. that knife was not the murder weapons. and that is no lie.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
Um, there was no second trial. Knox was given a trial and two appeals, something you're clearly unaware of, or else more likely, you're simply being your usual disingenuous self.
The Nencini appellate accepted the knife as the murder weapon. Please cite in Nencini's report where the knife is rejected as the murder weapon, thanks. Please also cite where in Nencini's report it establishes that Meredith's DNA was not on the murder weapon.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
and that is why the Nencini report is garage. second trial/appeal amount to the same thing. to say otherwise is simply playing word games.at the second trial a re-examination of the DNA on the knife showed no Meredith DNA. Nencini ignored valid evidence o repeat falsehoods from earlier action. The knife is not the murder weapon. that the courts say otherwise simply shows how screwed up the Italian system is
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
No it really isn't a play on words, you're simply unable to comprehend the difference between a trial and appeal and I see you've ramped up the stupidity a few hundred notches, which I must admit I didn't think was possible with you at this stage.
Knox's appeal was no more of a second trial than the appeals of Jeffery MacDonald's or the so called cannibal cop Gilberto Valle's. You're simply to obtuse to comprehend or grasp this.
I'm not interested in your proof by assertion fallacy and your lie about Meredith's DNA on the knife is dismissed. Yet again, back up your bs and cite where in either the Massei or Nencini report that the knife wasn't accepted as the murder weapon.
Back up your bs that Nencini is garbage by listing any legal, procedural or systematic errors that he made the way Helman did.
You have nothing but blustering irrelevant noise here when you're not flat out lying.
if you would grow up and stop the childish attempts to insult, we could have a nice rational discussion. but as long as you persist in kissing the collective asses of various judges and courts, I don't think there is really much to say.
neither the Massai or Nencini reports say the knife was not the murder weapon. but that is the problem. it has been conclusively proven the knife is not the murder weapon. I provided the link that proves it. but the courts still simply repeat what has been said before rather than correcting errors. that is why the Italian system has lost all credibility.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
You're incapable of a rational or honest discussion, hence my utter contempt, disdain and scorn for you. Respect is earned not given and your complete and utter flat out refusal to acknowledge established fact as well as your pathological lying, blatant double standards, borderline racism and utter stupidity makes you undeserving of any degree of civility. Discuss the case honestly and you'll be treated civilly.
You keep lying that Meredith's DNA wasn't on the knife.
you keep lying that the knife wasn't the murder weapon.
You keep lying that Guede is the sole killer.
You keep lying that no evidence of Knox existed at the crime scene.
You keep lying wrt what a crime scene actually is.
You keep lying that Defence arguments constitutes as evidence for innocence.
You keep lying that she was subjected to a retrial.
You keep lying that I kiss the asses of judges when I have invited, asked and outright challenged you to cite any legal procedural or systematic errors that occurred at her trial and appeal and why the Defenced never highlighted these errors.
Yet at the same time you appeal to the authority of a website set up by Knox's stepfather and which regularly attacks the Kercher family, Patrick Lumumba and anyone else unlucky enough to have gotten involved with Knox.
You are the biggest idiot I have ever encountered among Knox's toxic little cult and believe me, the competition is fierce.
Discuss the case rationally and you'll be treated with more respect.
No it hasn't been proven conclusively, you complete and utter clown. That is the whole purpose of a court of law- to establish facts. The knife was accepted as the murder weapon after all the experts had their say on it and the Defence gave all their cross examination and everything was presented to two sets of juries who convicted, you moron.
You don't know how a trial is conducted and seem to be under the bizarre delusion that internet commentary "conclusively proved" that the knife wasn't the murder weapon, which is why you're the biggest eejit I've come across among Knox's kool aid brigade. I can actually feel myself getting dumber talking to you.
You didn't provide "a link that proves it", you only provided a link which shows how unutterably thick you are. You seem to think that a court of law should have accepted the biased burblings of a website set up by one of the defendant's stepfather as not only evidence but actual conclusive proof that the knife isn't the murder weapon, by implication having no need for cross examination of witnesses as trial by internet will apparently suffice.
You think the findings of multiple courts of law are "garbage", simply because they came to a verdict you disagree with, while all the while refusing to specify with validity how the court erred and I'll lay bets you haven't even read Massei or Nencini, obtuse blowhard that you are.
You're a whole new species of dim and your nonsensical ramblings are dismissed as nobody rational is gonna dumb themselves down to your level. You turnip.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Btw, I've gone over your pathetic link again for chuckles. Not ONE thing is factual in it. Not one. It also conflates exclusively blood with DNA. It also lies that the knife didn't match the wounds whereas the court established that it did. It also lies about Stefanoni. This is why you're stupid.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
again with you, the court is god when it at best a false god. shame you've sold your soul to a false god and cannot think for yourself. sad
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
Again with the psychological projection from you. It's you who is appealing to the authority of a website set up by Knox's stepfather and claiming it conclusively proves your position when it contains no factual information.
I have consistently asked you to defend your position on how the authority erred, by citing any legal procedural or systematic errors that occurred at their trial and appeal. You've consistently refused to do so. Your argument that the courts were wrong won't be entertained until you credibly specify how.
Do you even realise how stupid you come across here?
How can the knife be the murder weapon if it didn't fit any of the wounds?
shareMassei court found the knife "absolutely compatible" with the fatal wound. The Nencini appellate also accepted it as the murder weapon. How do you justify your bald assertion that the knife "didn't fit any of the wounds"? Lemme guess- a link to a pro Knox site set up by Knox's stepfather Chris Mellas (another ex jailbird) where the Kercher family are constantly attacked? Or maybe an already rejected by the court Defence argument which you'll conflate with actual evidence?
Please highlight where the court decided that the knife was not the murder weapon as "it didn't fit any of the wounds", thanks. The relevant page of the relevant sentencing report will be cool.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Um, because it didn't fit any of the wounds, moron...
...except for the one wound that just about EVERY SINGLE KNIFE ON PLANET EARTH WOULD FIT.
Talk about twisting the evidence to suit your verdict!
Okay. You're clearly...not very bright so...let's try this again.
You're asserting that the knife was not the murder weapon.
Her trial and appeal established that the knife was indeed the murder weapon.
You need to credibly validate how your bald assertion trumps two court of law's findings. See how that works?
Also you just said it didn't fit any of the wounds yet now say it did fit the fatal wound. Again this is why nobody rational takes Knox's groupies seriously.
So what do you have to validate your position that the knife didn't fit any wounds? I'm also still waiting for you to highlight the relevant passage in the relevant sentencing report where the courts rejected the knife as the murder weapon so...whenever you're ready with that, thanks. Good luck trying to find it btw.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
Lol. Coming from you, I'll take that as a compliment.
Also you just said it didn't fit any of the wounds yet now say it did fit the fatal wound.
...except for the one wound that just about EVERY SINGLE KNIFE ON PLANET EARTH WOULD FIT.
If you're too dumb to understand these two sentences, I don't think anyone (other than maybe an English teacher) can help you.
So what do you have to validate your position that the knife didn't fit any wounds?
As someone who claims to have read the court documents, you should know how wide the blade in question is. It doesn't fit any of the wounds. I swear it's like I'm talking to someone with learning difficulties... share
No. You're actually saying that the wound was compatible with t he knife whether you realise this or not. And you've just shown with your rejection of six courts of law on the grounds that "the courts are retarded", that your opinion on this case is less than worthless anyway and that anyone rational would laugh at it, possibly pointing their fingers while laughing.
As someone who has read the court documents, I know the knife was found to be "absolutely compatible" with the fatal wound at her trial and that the Nencini appellate also accepted the knife as the murder weapon. As in they established this after a thorough trial and appeal where the Defence had two shots at arguing their case and cross examining the expert witnesses to their heart's content. Their argument was presented twice to separate juries who rejected it and convicted their clients. Again with your proof by assertion fallacy and just as I predicted earlier, you're conflating lost Defence arguments with established fact and actual evidence. You're stupid.
Now for the last time, either highlight the relevant passage from the relevant report where the courts rejected the knife as the murder weapon- which would actually validate your position- or else quit your irrelevant noise and boring bluster, as your personal stupidity via your conflation of evidence with Defence argument (and rejected lost argument at that) is not my problem or concern.
Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!
[deleted]
Don't forget Casey Anthony. She was *wink-wink* acquitted too so must be innocent as well.
"Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!"