Will Amanda Knox win or lose her appeal?

[HumanityBlues]

Hey, congrats. JREF got it right! Good prediction!

 

[Sideroxylon]

So which case of injustice are you lot going to debate in excruciating detail, now?

 

[yeti101]

they're still guilty

 

[Sideroxylon]

they're still guilty

That's the kind of attitude that could squeeze another month out of this with a bit of effort.

 

[Slayhamlet]

So which case of injustice are you lot going to debate in excruciating detail, now?

You need two sides for a debate. Do you know of any other obvious miscarriages of justice with a large number of people willing to argue for guilt? Let us know.

 

[blobru]

So which case of injustice are you lot going to debate in excruciating detail, now?

If Michael Jackson's doctor ever does a cartwheel, that ought to be good for about 6,000 pages.

 

[Sideroxylon]

You can't force these things. They just happen.

If I understand rightly, you deserve credit for this recent forum phenomena? It was the cartwheel thread, wasn't it?

 

[angrysoba]

Hey, I have not followed any of this case and do not even know what it was about but did you see that the Daily Mail really earned their status as the Daily Fail with this one:

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/10/mailonline-makes-up-events-quotes-from.html

 

[lionking]

Hey, I have not followed any of this case and do not even know what it was about but did you see that the Daily Mail really earned their status as the Daily Fail with this one:

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2011/10/mailonline-makes-up-events-quotes-from.html

The article was captured and posted on the main thread before it was quickly deleted.

 

[dafydd]

The problem was that the DNA was not collected until forty days after the crime and they used the template method. The DNA evidence would not have got as far as a court in the USA and the UK.

 

[psionl0]

I am unclear exactly how being innocent and being innocent in a legal sense vary. I don't suppose it really matters to my point; I just wanted to say I'm not sure that there is a difference between the two.

Being found guilty of a crime in a court doesn't necessarily mean that someone is actually guilty of the crime. It simply means that the evidence that was presented was persuasive enough to convince a judge or jury of the defendant's guilt. Ditto for innocence.

 

[Freddy]

I know this website is obviously biased, but these five articles are by a 25 year veteran of the FBI who, once he looked at the case in detail, is scathing in his criticism. He seems to know what he's talking about, and his conclusion is that the evidence proves that Knox could not possibly have done it. After reading it, I'm convinced Knox is actually innocent (as opposed to not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt), but by all means judge for yourselves. The take-down of the police and prosecutors is nothing short of epic, and it seems pretty airtight to me (and I don't consider myself a credulous person).

An excerpt:

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]My name is Steve Moore; I retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008 after 25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. My entire investigative experience was in the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. In my last such assignment, I was the Supervisor of the Al Qaeda Investigations squad, following which I ran the FBI’s Los Angeles-based “Extra-Territorial Squad”, which was tasked with responding to any acts of terrorism against the United States in Asia and Pakistan. I have investigated murders throughout the United States and the world.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I do not know Amanda Knox. I have never met or spoken with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families. In my 25 years in the FBI, I had come to believe that if you were arrested, you were probably guilty. I never had a person I took to trial who wasn’t convicted. I was especially tired of guilty persons claiming their innocence.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I had heard snippets about the Knox case from the news, and believed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were certainly guilty. But then I began to hear statements from the press that contradicted known facts. Wanting to resolve the conflicts, I looked into the case out of curiosity. The more I looked, the more I was troubled by what I found. So I looked deeper, and I ended up examining every bit of information I could find (and there’s a lot of it). The more I investigated, the more I realized that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito could not have had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Moreover, one reason that they were falsely convicted was that every rule of good investigation was violated.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]I spent years of my life working on cases in the federal courts, from simple murder to mass shootings to weapons of mass destruction. In the U.S., the totality of the evidence and the hunches of the investigators in this matter would not have been sufficient to get a search warrant, much less take somebody to trial. The case is completely flawed in every way. The physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is wrong, contrived, misinterpreted, and (to put it kindly) misstated. The other “evidence” is made up of (embarrassingly naïve) hunches and bias. The “DNA” evidence is particularly inaccurate. The alleged motive and modus operandi of Knox/Sollecito is so tortured (and constantly-changing) that it defies belief. [/FONT]​

Link

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If Michael Jackson's doctor ever does a cartwheel, that ought to be good for about 6,000 pages.

You are focusing on the wrong elements of interest. There's no injustice so far in that case. I doubt people are upset about Jackson's cause of death (except the family who have a right to be). There are disappointed Jackson fans, but he was a drug addict. He contributed to his own death in addition to the idiot doctor they foolishly hired.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

If I understand rightly, you deserve credit for this recent forum phenomena? It was the cartwheel thread, wasn't it?

In this forum. But the Net was awash with threads and whole forums dedicated to the discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...An excerpt:

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif].... The case is completely flawed in every way. The physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is wrong, contrived, misinterpreted, and (to put it kindly) misstated. The other “evidence” is made up of (embarrassingly naïve) hunches and bias. The “DNA” evidence is particularly inaccurate. The alleged motive and modus operandi of Knox/Sollecito is so tortured (and constantly-changing) that it defies belief.[/FONT]​

Which is what confuses me regarding the way the discussion went in this particular forum.

 

[Ranb]

I know this website is obviously biased, but these five articles are by a 25 year veteran of the FBI who, once he looked at the case in detail, is scathing in his criticism. He seems to know what he's talking about, and his conclusion is that the evidence proves that Knox could not possibly have done it.

Link

That was interesting reading. Anyone here qualified to know if the info in this link is reliable?

Ranb

 

[Katody Matrass]

That was interesting reading. Anyone here qualified to know if the info in this link is reliable?

Ranb

I think the acquittal is the best answer.

Before it, the concerns about evidence collection and crime scene handling were confirmed by the independent expertise ordered by the judge.

 

[Freddy]

Which is what confuses me regarding the way the discussion went in this particular forum.

The Italian press didn't help by repeating the prosecutor's lies (and there were blatant and provable lies). Few people dig deeper than press accounts. I admit that I didn't until the acquittal on appeal, although I barely followed the case at all. All I knew was that the police had done a shoddy job, but I didn't know the extent of it, and I didn't know whether it was OJ shoddy (i.e., still guilty despite a few irregularities) or Innocence Project material.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Some form of crazy here, apparently if her appeal is successful she will act like an innocent person would and return home "...We know that if the verdict is overturned, there will be an immediate escape overseas...." If that isn't evidence that she is guilty I don't know what is.

*chuckle*

The prosecution also pointed out she had condoms, and a vibrator.

I'll be in my bunk.

Not only is it crazy, but why are statements like these allowed in court?

I guess you missed the OJ trial.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph, WHY?
Rolfe.

Saved for posterity.

No - I predicted it well ahead of time; the tremendous lag on the website kept it from being posted until afterward! I demand my million!!!

Second this motion.

Yes, I am well-informed on this case, so I know it was a modern day witch trial,

You lose, she does not weigh as much as a duck.

they're still guilty

AK, of being hot: guilty.
RS, of being Italian: guilty.

In this forum. But the Net was awash with threads and whole forums dedicated to the discussion.

Possibly a supporting data point for the internet needing a kill switch in the worst possible way.

 

[slingblade]

Being found guilty of a crime in a court doesn't necessarily mean that someone is actually guilty of the crime. It simply means that the evidence that was presented was persuasive enough to convince a judge or jury of the defendant's guilt. Ditto for innocence.

Ah, I rather thought it was something like that, but it wasn't clear to me. Thanks.