Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito found guilty.

[Lady Star]

Two rich kids bump a girl off and think that their cash will help them get away with it (legal teams, etc)- it seems to be the right thing, and proper sentences too (had she been killed in her own country, Meredith's murderers would be out in far less time than 26 years!)... I hope that it's some comfort to her parents to see these two behind bars, the evil little ****s!

[donkey]

I came to the same conclusion.

 

As well as the DNA evidence (which of course will be disputed)

 

Maybe that is because it is really shakey.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18215-knox-murder-trial-evidence-flawed-say-dna-experts.html

 

, there is the fact that she attempted to 'frame' an innocent Congolese bar owner (why else would she do this, other than to divert attention from herself?),

 

Because the police interogators pushed her to the point where she was prepared to say anything to make them lay off?

 

, plus her callous behaviour after the murder. .

 

.

 

The way she was behaving does not prove 'callousness.' It could just as easily be interpreted as the disturbed behaviour of someone who has undergone an extremely traumatic shock.

 

I came to the same conclusion.

 

She also had a motive, i.e. hatred of Meredith, who had criticised her promiscuity and personal hygiene. Add to this a lethal cocktail of drug-taking and drinking, plus a boyfriend obsessed with knives and Manga comics, and you do have a recipe for murder -

 

This is circumstantial evidence, which is generally not accepted as a strong enough basis for a conviction, because of the sheer number of miscarriges of justce which have occured where there have been convictions without hard evidence. All that has been proved is that knox and sollecito are odd, take drugs and are probably quite dislikable for the majority of people. There's lots of people like that who never murder anyone. In fact, as a group, on statistical analysis,you might find such types are no more likely to be murderers than anyone else.

 

Furthermore, not only is this circumstantial evidence, but it is a second hand version of circumstantial evidence which has been interpreted through a media circus.

 

and you do have a recipe for murder - which was not necessarily planned, but was murder nonetheless.

 

.

 

If this was a spur of the moment, unplanned killing, that makes it all the more strange that there is no substantial forensic evidence, considering the police had access to the murder scene, complete with the body, not long after the killing.

[Linesman]

Maybe that is because it is really shakey.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18215-knox-murder-trial-evidence-flawed-say-dna-experts.html

 

 

 

Because the police interogators pushed her to the point where she was prepared to say anything to make them lay off?

 

 

 

The way she was behaving does not prove 'callousness.' It could just as easily be interpreted as the disturbed behaviour of someone who has undergone an extremely traumatic shock.

 

 

 

This is circumstantial evidence, which is generally not accepted as a strong enough basis for a conviction, because of the sheer number of miscarriges of justce which have occured where there have been convictions without hard evidence. All that has been proved is that knox and sollecito are odd, take drugs and are probably quite dislikable for the majority of people. There's lots of people like that who never murder anyone. In fact, as a group, on statistical analysis,you might find such types are no more likely to be murderers than anyone else.

 

Furthermore, not only is this circumstantial evidence, but it is a second hand version of circumstantial evidence which has been interpreted through a media circus.

 

 

 

If this was a spur of the moment, unplanned killing, that makes it all the more strange that there is no substantial forensic evidence, considering the police had access to the murder scene, complete with the body, not long after the killing.

Maybe she should have had you defending her as you claim to know so much about the case.

[donkey]

Maybe she should have had you defending her as you claim to know so much about the case.

 

Whatever, my obsessive stalker.

[HeadingNorth]

Maybe she should have had you defending her as you claim to know so much about the case.

 

He doesn't appear to know any more than anyone else who's been following the news reports - me, for instance.

 

All of the evidence of which the public has been made aware, is circumstantial and not enough to convict. Whether there's anything else behind it, I don't know, but based on what I do know, I'm not happy with a conviction.

[Berberis]

Because the police interogators pushed her to the point where she was prepared to say anything to make them lay off?.

 

Get real, if you where being accused of a murder you did not commit, would you admit to it just because you where fed up of being asked the same question.

[HeadingNorth]

Get real, if you where being accused of a murder you did not commit, would you admit to it just because you where fed up of being asked the same question.

 

It's been observed in a vast number of cases. Anyone who hasn't been subjected to psychological torture has no business arguing about what they would or would not confess to under it.

[Linesman]

Get real, if you where being accused of a murder you did not commit, would you admit to it just because you where fed up of being asked the same question.

If he was defending her she'd admit to anything if he sung 'Donkey Serenade' all the time.:hihi:

[donkey]

Get real, if you where being accused of a murder you did not commit, would you admit to it just because you where fed up of being asked the same question.

 

Maybe you should pay a bit more attention. I didn't say that.

[Linesman]

It's been observed in a vast number of cases. Anyone who hasn't been subjected to psychological torture has no business arguing about what they would or would not confess to under it.

Don't they have lawyers present in italy in compliance with European human rights directives otherwise the Italians have left themselves wide open?