Amanda Knox: Exoneration is just the beginning - Amanda Knox (2016) Discussion

[–] Royalthugz 8 years ago

She didn't care about innocence when she accused Patrik of murdering Meredith. I believe she's guilty, but I'm not going to lead an angry mob of vigilantes through the streets. I imagine Patrik went through the same thing (sans the 4 years), so hopefully she'll use that as an example.

Thanks for posting the article. Much appreciated.

reply

[–] valkor-1 8 years ago

Amanda is innocent but Casey is guilty

reply

[–] Royalthugz 8 years ago

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

I couldn't reach the same conclusion as you, but it's all good, homie. Is there anything in particular that convinces you of her innocence?

reply

[–] I_Luv_Apple 8 years ago

It's all good. You're entitled to your beliefs just like I am. They had no real proof to me she did it. And, I felt sorry for her everyone was picking on this poor innocent, young girl. My heart went out to her. But, I feel bad for Meredith too.

reply

[–] I_Luv_Apple 8 years ago

Casey was found innocent the first time unlike Amanda. The state had no hard proof against Casey just a whole lot of speculation. They could Not even tell how the baby died. The case was full of reasonable doubt. Maybe, Casey's own father did it. He acted very suspicious like he was hiding something. On the stand he would never answer yes or no. He kept trying to avoid the defense's questions. The guy testified against his own daughter for the prosecution. What kind of father does that?

reply

[–] Royalthugz 8 years ago

It's all good. You're entitled to your beliefs just like I am. They had no real proof to me she did it. And, I felt sorry for her everyone was picking on this poor innocent girl.

Well, she was found guilty in two separate courts, and one of the courts which acquitted her was annulled. Do you think the 'totality of evidence' against Amanda is strong? It was strong enough for two courts to convict her.

Even in the acquitting report...

9.4.1. With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial, in the part where she explains how, when she was in the kitchen, after the young Englishwoman and another person went into Kercher’s room to have sex, she heard her friend’s harrowing scream, to the lacerating and unbearable point that she slid down, squatting on the floor, holding her hands firmly on her ears, so as to hear no more of it. On this point, the reliability of the opinion of the judge a quo [of the trial from which this appeal is being heard] is certainly acceptable concerning this part of the accused’s account, based on the plausible consideration that it was she who first mentioned a possible sexual motive for the murder and spoke about the victim’s harrowing scream, when the investigators still did not have the results of an examination of the body or of the post-mortem, nor witness information taken later regarding the victim’s scream and the time it was heard (statements from Capezzali Nara, Monacchia Antonella and others). In particular we refer to the appellant’s declarations of 11/06/2007 (f, 96) in the police station. On the other hand the
Marasca-Bruno Motivations Report v1.2 24 September 2015
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/
http://www.injusticeanywhere.org/ Page 49
calumnious statements regarding Lumumba, which led to her guilty verdict, with a ruling already reached, had as part of the story the presence of the young American in the house on via della Pergola, a fact that nobody at that time - except obviously the other people present in the house - could have known (quotation f. 96).
According to Knox’s calumnious statement, having met Lumumba by accident in piazza Grimana, she came home with him to via della Pergola and there, after Kercher had joined them, Lumumba made sexual advances towards the young Englishwoman, and they went to her room, from where the harrowing scream came. In short, it was Lumumba who killed Meredith and she could state this because she was at the scene of the crime, although in a different room.
Another element regarding her is represented by traces of mixed DNA, hers and the victim’s, in the "small bathroom", an eloquent confirmation that she had come into contact with the latter’s blood, which she tried to wash off (it seems we are dealing with washed away blood, while the biological traces belonging to her are a result of epithelial rubbing).
The data leads to strong suspicion, although not decisive, considering the well-known considerations regarding the certain nature and attribution of the traces in question.
Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood, as a likely attempt to remove the most blatant traces of what had happened, perhaps to help someone or deflect suspicion from herself, without this entailing her certain direct involvement in the murder. Any further and more meaningful value would be, in fact, resisted by the fact - which is decisive - that no trace leading to her was found at the scene of the crime or on the victim’s body, so that - if all the above is accepted - her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.
Another element against her is, certainly, the calumny against Lumumba, which has already been referred to.
It is not understood, however, what pushed the young American to make these serious accusations. The hypothesis that she did so to escape the psychological pressure of the investigators appears extremely fragile, taking into account that the woman must have realised that, sooner or later, these accusations against her employer would have been disproved, considering that she certainly knew that Lumumba had no contact either with Kercher or with the house on via della Pergola. Moreover, the possibility of having an “iron-clad” alibi would then have led to Lumumba being freed and acquitted of the serious accusation.
Marasca-Bruno Motivations Report v1.2 24 September 2015
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/
http://www.injusticeanywhere.org/ Page 50
Nevertheless, the calumny in question also represents circumstantial evidence against the appellant in so much as it could be considered as an initiative to cover for Guede, against whom she would have had an interest to protect herself due to retaliatory accusations against her. All is underpinned by the fact that Lumumba, like Guede, is black, hence the reliable reference to the former, in case the other was seen by someone coming into or going out of the flat.

...and there's a whole lot more than that, especially when we start discussing eyewitness testimony, DNA evidence etc.

reply

[–] I_Luv_Apple 8 years ago

Maybe, Meredith liked it rough and Amanda just thought her friend was just having rough sex. Rudy was convicted too. What the Italian court did was double jeopardy. They would of never been able to get away with that here.

reply

[–] Royalthugz 8 years ago

Maybe, Meredith liked it rough and Amanda just thought her friend was just having rough sex. Rudy was convicted too. What the Italian court did was double jeopardy. They would of never been able to get away with that here.

Huh? What?

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] I_Luv_Apple 8 years ago

It's possible.

reply

[–] alfa-16 7 years ago

Maybe, Meredith liked it rough and Amanda just thought her friend was just having rough sex.

Is there anything in this world more repulsive than trying to exonerate the guilty by incriminating the victim? Shame on you.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] alfa-16 7 years ago

However, the justice system cannot be content with not knowing and it found her guilty of lying, providing false alibis and being present at the crime scene amongst other clearly incriminating evidence that pointed towards her direct involvement.

And of course, once the Free Amanda campaign got going, everyone was drowned in lies and propaganda.

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] I_Luv_Apple 7 years ago

I didn't mean anything by it. So, what if she liked it a bit rough. It doesn't make her a bad person and it certainly doesn't mean she deserved to die for liking it rough.

reply

[–] captkirk_4 7 years ago

This guy knows Casey is guilty, that's the point, lumping her in with someone like Casey or OJ who got off on slick lawyers playing a dumb jury vs comparing her to known innocents later exonerated like the guy in the Thin Blue Line. However, this isn't really as much of a crime story as it is an exposé of massive prosecutorial irresponsibility and media dereliction of duty. Such conduct was reminiscent of the Soviet media during Stalin's show trials. The murder case, once one looks at it was an open and shut case of mundane home invasion escalated to rape-murder by Guede. The frame up, quack motive theories, and bizarre media defamation was the real story of this case.

reply

[–] I_Luv_Apple 7 years ago

Excuse me. You don't know me. I don't know that Casey Anthony is guilty. I believe 100% she is innocent.

reply

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 6 years ago

Based on what? It's she's so innocent, why did she lie,not once,but several times, about working at a place she'd never worked at, made up a story about some maid taking her daughter, which turned out to be completely false, and even lied about where she worked? Why would an innocent person lie about all of that, unless they had something to hide? That's why she spent a couple of years in jail---she kept lying to the police about her daughter's disappearance more than once. Dosen't sound at all like an innocent person to me---sounds more like a guilty one.

reply

[–] Corpus_Vile 7 years ago

 Please highlight examples of how this was a show trial and explain why every single court including the acquitting one are wrong to rule three killers. Knox had a fairer due process in Italy than she would have gotten in the US where her conviction would be final right after her trial with no appeals and she'd still be in prison right now. All you groupies have is hot air hyperbole.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply

[–] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheeMortyToad 7 years ago

Too bad Kanox wasn't exactly "exonerated". I see she avoids mentioning that her calumny charge for accusing Patrick Lumumba was upheld definitely, or that Italy's Court of Cassation, in their final motivations report, still place her at the scene during the murder, even washing Meredith Kercher's blood from her hands, or that it's been ruled by all courts, excepting Hellmann's, that Rudy Guede certainly acted with others. Doesn't take a rocket scientist...perhaps someday she'll own up to these things instead of playing her newfound Netflix audience supporters for the dumb, xenophobic and gullible (and mostly white)Americans that they are.

Normal Is A Myth.

reply

[–] I_Luv_Apple 7 years ago

If you're innocent you don't have to explain anything. All that matters is that you know it. Screw what other people think. Just live your life.

reply

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

She explained why she ended up accusing Lumumba in her book--basically the police harangued her into accusing him because they were pressured into hurrying up and finding a suspect for the case. Do more research before you make up your mind.

reply

[–] I_Luv_Apple 7 years ago

That was not my intention. I really believe Casey is Innocent. There was no proof she did it. State had no case against her. the media brainwashed people into hating her so they thought she was guilty. The media is a powerful thing. People cant think for
themselves including you.

reply

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

OH,please---I don't believe Anthony is innocent at all.

reply