Because you are committing an appeal to authority logic fallacy. I have eyes and ears, and a mind to reach my own very valid conclusion regarding the circumstances. The media had a field day with Knox. Explain to me how this would not have biased the jury against her.
Should Amanda Knox be freed, extradited, returned to the USA?
- Thread starter WillNever
- Start date
Because you are committing an appeal to authority logic fallacy. I have eyes and ears, and a mind to reach my own very valid conclusion regarding the circumstances. The media had a field day with Knox. Explain to me how this would not have biased the jury against her.
She's not. She's guilty of being present during a murder, not reporting it to the Police, and conspiring to pervert the course of justice by cleaning the crime scene at the very least.
Seems you are forgetting a young woman had her throat slit and drowned in her own blood. Would you rather a participant in that act walk free, or get a slightly longer sentence?
Media attention doesn't detract from the facts of the case, that Knox was identified waiting outside a shop for it to open by the owner, and then went and bought cleaning products, and then used them to try and conceal the murder.
Maybe if she'd come clean, told the truth from the outset, and not lied, attempted to implicate a 3rd party, and not changed her story so often, she'd have had an easier time?
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
American lawyers would be working outside of their own legal system which wouldn't help her one bit. Basically she is at the mercy of the local justice system and their legal procedures concerning appeals.
Ah, but media attention does impinge on her right to have the 'facts' heard by an impartial jury.
Supposition.
She most likely did tell what she believed to be the truth from the outset, until she was interrogated for more than 13 hours.
Can you please post the part of the transcript where she did so?
Whether she changed her story is an irrelevancy. What matters are the facts, something which are lacking in this case.
Many a good case is ruined by bad procedure.
She may both be guilty, and have suffered injustice.
A long, unrecorded interview without any lawyer present, followed by a confession, would throw great doubt on the matter in the UK and the US.
I can hardly believe that this can still happen in Italy.
It used to occur in the UK in the 70s and 80s, but it resulted in so many bad judgements that we changed our procedure.
OJ was rightly found innocent in the US due to overenthusiastic police making the evidence useless.
Last edited:
Witness testimony.
No, her first story was a lie.
It's a matter of public record that she implicated the bar owner where she worked, and that he was exonerated. Or is this a little trap you are trying to spring because transcripts are not available for the entire course of interrogation?
A girl got her throat slit, that's a fact. The flat was cleaned after the murder, that's a fact too. Knox bought the cleaning products. She may not have directly participated, but she's involved, and she didn't come forward to Police and there she is guilty of conspiracy.
I believe that's quite likely. But I'm not going to complain that someone who tried to cover up a murder and failed as a citizen to report the crime got a longer sentence than they should.
they got her dead to rights. i dont think she killed the woman directly but she certainly didnt do the right thing. There have been numerous cases similar to this. the only thing i dont agree with afa the sentencing is no life sentences for the killer and i dont think she or her BF used the knife. this is what i gather from reading reports and extrapolating.
She is not basing her new trial on jury problems. I am not saying you can't make an argument for it, but she is not...
I would have found her guilty based just on the bleach. No DNA needed.(well, kind of hard to find when the place is cleaned up)
Would you care to make the "innocent" case for the boyfriend? After all, if she is innocent, he must be too...
Is Amanda Knox about to walk free and make millions?
The jury in Amanda Knox case could deliver verdict today:
So, what do you think? Will she be released or convicted? Do you think she is guilty or not? Who is guilty (if not her)?
The jury in Amanda Knox case could deliver verdict today:
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/10/03/amanda-knoxs-appeals-verdict-expected-in-italy/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15143629
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/09/30/the-changing-faces-of-fox_n_988423.html?1317637525
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/03/us-italy-knox-idUSTRE7920N620111003
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15143629
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2011/09/30/the-changing-faces-of-fox_n_988423.html?1317637525
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/03/us-italy-knox-idUSTRE7920N620111003
So, what do you think? Will she be released or convicted? Do you think she is guilty or not? Who is guilty (if not her)?
Since all I'm told is what the media writes I can't be certain what should be done with her. I do know one thing for a fact and that is she confessed to murdering the other girl along with her companion, if she were innocent why would she admit to her involvement and guilt? :shrug:
"Knox was arrested on the morning of 6 November. Later that day she wrote a note to the police saying that she felt confused because she had been told in the interrogation there was hard evidence that placed her at her flat at the time of the murder so that memories and "flashes of blurred images" had begun mingling in her mind during the interrogation. She partially retracted her earlier statements. Knox wrote, "In regards to this 'confession' that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly."
WIKI
"Knox was arrested on the morning of 6 November. Later that day she wrote a note to the police saying that she felt confused because she had been told in the interrogation there was hard evidence that placed her at her flat at the time of the murder so that memories and "flashes of blurred images" had begun mingling in her mind during the interrogation. She partially retracted her earlier statements. Knox wrote, "In regards to this 'confession' that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly."
WIKI
Last edited:
???
"I did not do the things they say I did. I did not kill, rape or steal. I was not there," Knox said in Italian.
http://news.yahoo.com/jittery-amanda-knox-awaits-verdict-murder-trial-064031107.html
"I did not do the things they say I did. I did not kill, rape or steal. I was not there," Knox said in Italian.
http://news.yahoo.com/jittery-amanda-knox-awaits-verdict-murder-trial-064031107.html
Sometimes, people tried to erase evidence out of paranoidity, even if they are not guilty. Imagine for example one day as you were jogging in a forest, you found someone laying on the ground facing down. You thought that the person faint or something, so you tried to turn his body to face you, but you found that the person was stabbed in his chest, but still alive. So out of spontaneity, you took out the knife and tried to stop the bleeding, but then the person died. Now you have blood everywhere on your hand, and your DNA was on the knife's handle. What would you do in that situation? Now there was a possibility that you might become the suspect of the murder. You could either call the police and took the risk to be suspected, or you could try to escape, maybe you throw the knife to a nearby river to damage the fingerprint, then you wash your cloth and take shower and pray that police wouldn't look for you. Just an example :shrug:
In this case, what happened if she (Knox) entered the house in the night of the murder, entered the bathroom (and stepped on the bloody floor without realizing it) and realize later when she saw her bloody footprint everywhere in her own bedroom's floor? She probably then checked where did the blood came from and when she opened the victim's room, she found the body. She was afraid to enter the crime scene and called her boyfriend to ask what to do. As she was at the crime scene with bloody footprint, maybe then her bf said, let's clean up everything tomorrow before we call the police. This could explain why the bloody footprint of Knox's shoes were found in her room and in the bathroom, but not in the victim's room.
Alternatively, it might also happened that the actual murderer (let say for example that other guy, Guede) staged the footprint. Police said they found the footprint which matched Amanda shoes (#37), but isn't it possible that the murderer used her shoes to divert the blame? Then when she found out that there was bloody shoes footprint in her room and in the bathroom, maybe she then try to clean it with the bleach out of fear she would be suspected for something she didn't do?
I mean, it is a mistake to cover up evidence, but doesn't mean that someone is guilty. If she indeed innocent but covering up the evidence, she should be held responsible for lying.
Mrs.Lucysnow
Valued Senior Member
Amanda Knox is now free.
PERUGIA, Italy — An Italian appeals today overturned the murder conviction of Amanda Knox in the 2007 killing of her British roommate, but found Knox guilty of defamation.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/...tion-overturned-by-italian-appeals-court.html
PERUGIA, Italy — An Italian appeals today overturned the murder conviction of Amanda Knox in the 2007 killing of her British roommate, but found Knox guilty of defamation.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/world/...tion-overturned-by-italian-appeals-court.html
I'm not but the idea of someone's fate being determined by a tainted jury makes me ill.