Amanda Knox

@edgarblythe,

I intimated about questions re Mignini on my first post (I think I did though not naming him, I'm not going back to look.)

Slander, that seems odd in the circumstance, since I figure all sorts of suspects everywhere on earth assert coercion and the justice systems, wherever, deny it, some portions of that being true on either side. Maybe they are tired of what to them would be ridiculous press about nothing.

I still take Oralloy as knowing nothing more than I do on this case.

3 Replies

@ossobuco,

Nothing we say now will change the outcome. At least there is no death penalty.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I go by what I read, as do you.

There is no excuse for justifying the malicious prosecution of clearly innocent people.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Maybe they are tired of what to them would be ridiculous press about nothing.

Maliciously prosecuting an innocent American honors student in order to cover up the fact that the police beat a confession out of her is hardly "nothing".

ossobuco wrote:

I still take Oralloy as knowing nothing more than I do on this case.

I know that Amanda is innocent (same with her ex boyfriend, I forget how to spell his name).

I know that the judges who convicted them knew they are innocent.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Nothing we say now will change the outcome.

So we should just keep quiet and never criticize people who maliciously send innocent people to prison?

In any case, you are wrong. Speaking out against atrocities and not letting them be covered up can lead to justice being done.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

That's true, edgarb. (Or is it, re press and its power?)

I've since read all three Carafiglio books, which generally support doubts re the italian system (well, so do some or most of our crime thrillers about ours in the u.s.) but the writer also supports that there are good guys in place, and I know that from past actual news items - how prevalent good guys are here or there, I don't know.

These mullings don't mean that I take Amanda as innocent, I am a doubter on that. I also don't know she is really guilty.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

You are very repetitive, always with assertions you cannot defend.

Your construct may even be correct, which I am doubting, but you do nothing except yell to prove it.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I didn't advise you to be quiet. As for me, I don't concede that she is obviously innocent.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

You are very repetitive,

That's one of the burdens that come with always telling the truth.

I note though that I only repeat the truth in response to people posting things that are not true. Fewer untruths from everyone else will lead to fewer repetitions of the truth from me.

ossobuco wrote:

always with assertions you cannot defend.

Balderdash. I am completely capable of defending the truth.

No one has even tried to attack any of my assertions on this issue. I'm pretty sure that is because everyone knows they are true, so they try to just sidestep the issue instead of confronting it. However, in the unlikely event that someone challenges those assertions, I'm ready to defend them.

ossobuco wrote:

Your construct may even be correct, which I am doubting,

That the judges intentionally convicted Amanda knowing she is innocent, is indisputable.

That the reason they did this was to cover the fact that the police beat a confession out of her, is speculation. But it seems like the likely motive.

What is the point of doubting this? It is pretty obvious that it's the truth.

ossobuco wrote:

but you do nothing except yell to prove it.

Yell? All I'm doing is pointing out the fact that she is innocent and has been maliciously prosecuted. How is that yelling?

As for proving it, I'm pretty sure I've already pointed out the fact that there is zero evidence against her, the fact that there were a lot of malicious acts on the part of Italian officials, and the fact that there is plenty of evidence that Guede did it alone.

No one has ever even attempted to dispute any of these facts. If anyone ever does attempt to dispute them, I'll defend them further as necessary.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

As for me, I don't concede that she is obviously innocent.

How do you explain the fact that there is no evidence to show she had anything to do with it?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

I know that Amanda is innocent (same with her ex boyfriend, I forget how to spell his name).

I know that the judges who convicted them knew they are innocent.

How in the world do you know all this? Are you in Italy right now? Do you have access to the judges and have spoken with them? You may be sure of some things in your own mind, Oralloy, but to say you know these things to be true implies some greater knowledge than any of the rest of us have.

1 Reply

@Merry Andrew,

Merry Andrew wrote:

Oralloy wrote:
I know that Amanda is innocent (same with her ex boyfriend, I forget how to spell his name).

I know that the judges who convicted them knew they are innocent.

How in the world do you know all this? Are you in Italy right now? Do you have access to the judges and have spoken with them? You may be sure of some things in your own mind, Oralloy, but to say you know these things to be true implies some greater knowledge than any of the rest of us have.

I know she is innocent because:

a) there is zero evidence to show she had anything to do with it, and

b) there is substantial evidence to show that Guede did it alone.

I know the judges intentionally convicted innocent people because they went out of their way to prevent the shoddy forensics from being examined by a competent authority.

The forensics were so shoddy that most judges would have dismissed it all out of hand. But at a minimum, any judge who was interested in the truth would have wanted forensics that shoddy to be looked at by a neutral expert.

These judges, when confronted with extremely shoddy forensics, went out of their way to make sure that they were not examined by a neutral expert.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

I know the judges intentionally convicted innocent people because they went out of their way to prevent the shoddy forensics from being examined by a competent authority.

The forensics were so shoddy that most judges would have dismissed it all out of hand. But at a minimum, any judge who was interested in the truth would have wanted forensics that shoddy to be looked at by a neutral expert.

These judges, when confronted with extremely shoddy forensics, went out of their way to make sure that they were not examined by a neutral expert.

Incidentally, here is a link from when the court refused to have the shoddy forensics examined by a neutral expert:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/411007_knox09.html

The Kercher family also opposed the review. Their opposition to a fair trial for Amanda sort of takes away any cause they might have to complain about the fact that Amanda's conviction resulted in the real killer getting his sentence cut in half.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Slander, that seems odd in the circumstance, since I figure all sorts of suspects everywhere on earth assert coercion and the justice systems, wherever, deny it, some portions of that being true on either side. Maybe they are tired of what to them would be ridiculous press about nothing.

I've asked these two questions of other people, and have yet to get a reasonable answer. I'll pose the same questions to you:

If Amanda was really trying to mislead the police, and her statements were not really coerced, why did she issue a written retraction the very next day?

If the police only went after the innocent bar owner because Amanda was misleading them, why did they ignore the written retraction that she gave the very next day, and continue to go after the bar owner?

0 Replies

Quote:

Knox prosecutor convicted in unrelated case
(The Associated Press, January 22, 2010)

ROME -- The Perugia magistrate who prosecuted U.S. student Amanda Knox for murder was convicted Friday of abusing his office in an unrelated case, officials said.

A Florence court convicted Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini and an Italian police investigator of abusing their positions in a 1985 probe into the death of a doctor thought to be involved in a Satanic group.

Mignini's lawyer, Marco Rocchi, said his client will appeal the conviction and 16-month suspended jail sentence, and will be able to continue as prosecutor.

Mignini told reporters he was bewildered by the verdict. He dismissed reporters' questions about whether the ruling might throw any shadows on his work in the trial of Knox for the 2007 murder in Perugia of her British roommate Meredith Kercher.

"There were jurors who gave a verdict in the Meredith case," the Italian news agency ANSA quoted Mignini as saying in Florence. "Today's verdict, instead, involves me."

Knox and her former Italian boyfriend were convicted last month of Kercher's murder in the Umbrian university town of Perugia, where all three were studying.

She was sentenced to 26 years in jail, while her co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, received a 25-year sentence. Both have insisted they are innocent.

Mignini's lawyer said he is innocent of the accusations by a Florence prosecutor - that he tried to influence officials investigating the 1985 death of an Italian doctor.

At one point, the doctor was believed to have been killed, possibly as part of a cover-up for purported masterminds of the so-called "Monster of Florence" serial killings from 1968 to 1985 of young couples in the Tuscan countryside.

But a Perugia judge ruled later that the doctor's death was not murder. The serial killings were eventually attributed to a farmhand and two accomplices.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

Quote:

Knox prosecutor convicted in unrelated case

It wasn't all that unrelated. In both cases he used the same sort of witch hunt to convict innocent people.

He even started off each witch hunt by accusing the innocents of witchcraft before moving on to maliciously prosecute them on other false charges.

0 Replies

Comedians hold charity bash in support of Amanda Knox:

http://www.komonews.com/news/local/82872417.html

Quote:

"Years of legal expenses and trips to Italy is taking a massive financial toll on the Knox family.

"It's something any parent would do for their child, so you just do what it takes," said father Curt Knox.

But every little bit of extra money helps. Curt Knox just returned from another three-week visit to Perugia, Italy."

. . . .

"I was worried that people would forget that an innocent girl is there," said sister Deanna Knox. "People are still caring and coming here. I'm so grateful. I'm so happy people still care."

0 Replies

I think everyone already understands that the Italian police were lying about the breakin being "staged" (just like they lied about every other aspect of this case).

However:

http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/8628/filomenaroom.jpg

Broken glass on carpet in front of bed.

No broken glass on clothes.

0 Replies

What is the Italian Police's motive to lie about anything? They already had a perp. Why seek to frame other people for the crime?

I think she is guilty.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

What is the Italian Police's motive to lie about anything? They already had a perp. Why seek to frame other people for the crime?

I don't know their motive. But the evidence is indisputable that the Italians lied about every single thing they said.

They say the breakin was staged, and there was no broken glass on clothes.

The crime scene photos show the breakin was not staged, and there was no broken glass on clothes.

The Italians leaked to the media a bunch of nonsense like receipts of bleach purchases.

When it came to the trial, all the nonsense they leaked to the media turned out to be fictitious.

The facts match Amanda Knox's story regarding the interrogation where the Italians were beating confessions out of people, and contradict the Italians' story.

I can speculate on their motive: They are lying to cover up the fact that they beat a confession out of an innocent American honors student.

But in the end it doesn't matter why they are doing it. We just need to go to war and destroy them. God can ask them why they did it if he's interested.

McTag wrote:

I think she is guilty.

That is a bizarre conclusion considering the fact that there is overwhelming evidence that Guede did it alone. Overwhelming evidence that the Italians lied continuously. And zero evidence that Knox had anything to do with it.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know