|
|
Post by ChrisVessey on Oct 3, 2011 20:26:45 GMT
....well, well, she's been cleared.
So who did it?!
That lass is going to make millions from this... maybe crime does pay after all!
|
|
|
|
Post by bamberamber on Oct 4, 2011 7:22:34 GMT
She's as guilty as sin, Italian police couldn't even manage to preserve and thoroughly investigate the crime scene, and now 2 more murderers are free.
|
|
|
|
Post by oliworth on Oct 4, 2011 7:43:14 GMT
I can't believe she got 3 years for defamation, which isn't even a criminal offence here!
|
|
|
|
Post by pappasmurf on Oct 4, 2011 8:21:51 GMT
....if only the dead could talk.
|
|
imp566
Cult hero
Posts: 16,105
|
Post by imp566 on Oct 4, 2011 12:06:45 GMT
A typical American stitch up by the look of it. Can anyone tell me why the verdict was delivered at 10pm CET? Surely it wasn't for the benefit of the American TV audience? I can't imagine any other reason that an Italian court would announce its verdict that late in the evening?
|
|
|
|
Post by lennypack on Oct 4, 2011 16:53:34 GMT
She's as guilty as sin, Italian police couldn't even manage to preserve and thoroughly investigate the crime scene, and now 2 more murderers are free. On what basis do you think that? |
|
|
|
Post by lennypack on Oct 4, 2011 16:54:27 GMT
A typical American stitch up by the look of it. Can anyone tell me why the verdict was delivered at 10pm CET? Surely it wasn't for the benefit of the American TV audience? I can't imagine any other reason that an Italian court would announce its verdict that late in the evening? A typical American stitch up... delivered by an Italians. WHERE WILL THIS AMERICAN GLOBAL CONSPIRACY GO NEXT? |
|
|
|
Post by Russ Greaves on Oct 4, 2011 17:00:43 GMT
Surprised to see some otherwise sensible people are making such absurd comments.
It seems unlikely that anyone here has studied the evidence, or that their exposure to the 'facts' would have come from any conduit other than the media, which has hardly treated the case in a fair-minded way.
Quite how you can come to such definitive conclusions is beyond me.
|
|
bean
On trial
Posts: 288
|
Post by bean on Oct 4, 2011 19:30:35 GMT
I have taken a keen interest in this case, and I believe that there is a lot more to this.
I am sure Knox and Sillocito were involved in the death somehow.
My problem is, why did Knox change her story from "not there" to "I was in the building"
Why did she try to frame the bar owner?
Why was her behaviour so strange after she was arrested? Doing handstands in the police station!
Why did Solicito say he was on the internet all night, but there was no trace of this from his ISP?
Why turn their mobiles off? Young people wanting a night of passion? They still don't turn their mobiles off.
Guede needs to come forward now and tell the truth, but will anyone believe a black man from the Ivory Coast with no political or PR influence?
The US people refused to believe their fresh faced, pretty young American girl was anything other than innocent, and from that moment on the PR machine got involved and she was going to be innocent.
|
|
|
|
Post by lennypack on Oct 4, 2011 20:50:31 GMT
I have taken a keen interest in this case, and I believe that there is a lot more to this. I am sure Knox and Sillocito were involved in the death somehow. My problem is, why did Knox change her story from "not there" to "I was in the building" Why did she try to frame the bar owner? Why was her behaviour so strange after she was arrested? Doing handstands in the police station! Why did Solicito say he was on the internet all night, but there was no trace of this from his ISP? Why turn their mobiles off? Young people wanting a night of passion? They still don't turn their mobiles off. Guede needs to come forward now and tell the truth, but will anyone believe a black man from the Ivory Coast with no political or PR influence? The US people refused to believe their fresh faced, pretty young American girl was anything other than innocent, and from that moment on the PR machine got involved and she was going to be innocent. No one would deny that questions remain over her conduct. But questions remaining over someone's conduct is quite rightly not sufficient for a conviction. Quite clearly some of the things she said (and then went back on) look a bit dodgy, but she was interviewed in a foreign language with no interpreter, and with no lawyer. The interview was so utterly wrong that it was ultimately deemed inadmissible as evidence. Suspects put under duress during interviews are hardly unknown to say whatever they think it is they should say in order to make the interview stop. The main point though is that there was not the DNA evidence required to link her to the crime. No doubt people will say "that's only because the police messed up." How do any of you know that? Have you not considered that there might not be the DNA linking her to the crime because.. she didn't do it? Contrast that with Guede. I'm absolutely amazed how people seem so sure that he's been stitched up because he's black and originally from the Ivory Coast. His DNA was all over Kercher, and inside her. He said that they didn't have sex. How did it get there? His bloody hand print was also found on her pillow. He wasn't found guilty because he lacked Knox's PR machine. He was found guilty because there was a great deal of DNA evidence which connected him to the crime. I'm also somewhat baffled by this idea that Guede "needs to come forward now and tell the truth." Why on earth would he want to protect Knox? |
|
bean
On trial
Posts: 288
|
Post by bean on Oct 4, 2011 22:29:59 GMT
I agree that people say things under duress, but how comes the next day she wrote it all in a 5 page document.
One thing to say it in the heat of the moment, but to then document it the next day?
The thing is, that all my arguments can be used to either "prove" guilt or innocence depending on what you want to believe.
I realise I am guilty of that, but so are you, Lenny.
You say their wasn't the DNA evidence to link her to the crime because that suits your argument, the same as I could use it to suit mine. But there WAS dna on the knife and the bra clasp, it was inadmisable due to allegations of cross contamination.
I agree, Guede's DNA was all over the place, and he admits to oral sex and mutual gratification. There was no evidence of rape.
"He wasn't found guilty because he lacked Knox's PR machine", agreed, but Knox's innocence was pronnounced by one of the biggest PR agencies in Seattle with close ties to the major US TV networks.
Guede, originnaly accused Knox of being part of the murder team, and then retracted it, perhaps now he will tell the truth but that will depend if anyone wants to believe him.
It was also said that 2 knives were used, one was found (if you believe that the knife from Solicittos' flat was one of the weapons) but the second knife never has been.
|
|
Mark of Carnage
Reserve team substitute
Responsibility, Resilience, Respect
Posts: 2,559 
|
Post by Mark of Carnage on Oct 5, 2011 6:04:10 GMT
The credibility of police, forensics, witnesses... everyone involved appears to be so fecked up that couldn't see how court could come to any other conclusion than to go with not guilty. I'm surprised they got a conviction in first place. The Scots have this wonderful verdict 'Not Proven' and I think that applies here. The lack of professionalism of the Italian rozzers over evidence and interviewing suspects is the sort of thing that wouldn't happen in the UK these days. A case would be a stroll in the park for a barrister. No one will ever know the truth about this. Anyway, the system has someone serving 16 years for the murder who has exhausted his appeal rights so I'm guessing that draws a line under it.
|
|
tedbaker79
Youth team star
Onwards & Upwards
Posts: 1,332
|
Post by tedbaker79 on Oct 5, 2011 20:18:36 GMT
You say their wasn't the DNA evidence to link her to the crime because that suits your argument, the same as I could use it to suit mine. But there WAS dna on the knife and the bra clasp, it was inadmisable due to allegations of cross contamination.
im sure i read somewhere or heard on the news that the blade from the knife in question wasnt consistant with the stab wounds. i dont think she did it and now she has to go through it all again as today the prosecution have submitted an appeal.
[/quote]
|
|
bean
On trial
Posts: 288
|
Post by bean on Oct 5, 2011 21:49:34 GMT
There were two wound types, suggesting two knives. One matched the knife found at Solicitto's, the other knife has never been found.
I don't think she'll have to go through it all again as the yanks have already said she won't be extradited to face a further trial.
|
|
imp566
Cult hero
Posts: 16,105
|
Post by imp566 on Oct 6, 2011 10:46:25 GMT
I don't think she'll have to go through it all again as the yanks have already said she won't be extradited to face a further trial. Hence the stitch up comments! |
|
