If you aren't aware of who Amanda Marie Knox is then read up on her on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Knox At any rate she is now going to be retried in an Italy Court but the kicker is she won't be attending and they can't force her to come or go back to jail (They can try extradition but it is likely that the US will not oblige). http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...o-be-retried-for-meredith-kercher-murder?lite So what do you think of this ongoing saga? And is she guilty or not?
I don't know if she is guilty or not (I lean towards not) but why are they going to try her again when they supposedly have someone who confessed and is in jail by the name of Rudy Guede? I assume because they think she was an accomplice?
From what we've heard in the media over here, I'm not sure what they can convict her on. The best evidence was some DNA of hers on the knife used. The knife was from their kitchen. I'm sure some of my knives have my DNA on them as well. And even that evidence was tainted somehow. The prosecutor has been in trouble before and seemed to just want to make a name for himself. The only thing going against her is that she was aloof when it first happened and then 'confessed' have something like 10 or 20 hours of interrogation (in her 2nd language and w/o a lawyer).
Cause having it be a murder over a sex/torture game gone wrong is a much bigger headline. They claim Knox and her boyfriend are accomplices, but I don't think they've ever explained how they would even know the guy who confessed.
I followed the original trial closely and I was convinced of her guilt. Now I see she's writing a couple of books to cash in on all this.
What led you to think she was guilty? Just curious as I didn't follow it super closely, but everything I read pointed to innocent. She was in prison for 5 years for a murder she didn't (possibly) commit. Why shouldn't she write a book and at least get some compensation for losing 5 years of her life.
The evidence was pretty strong that Amanda stabbed Kercher while she was being held down and sexually assaulted. There were some testimony from others about Knox and her boyfriend engaging in drug fueled sex rage and stuff like that. She tried to portray herself as the naive girl next door but her escapades were fairly well known. So when people start lying I usually see them in a negative light. It pretty much all fit together. Her DNA was found on the knife as well as blood from the victim. In the appeal it was alleged the evidence was mishandled, but that was more a theory of plausibility and it was accepted by a court. She also tried to place guilt on an innocent person and divert attention away from her and later said she was beated by Italian police into doing so. It made no sense they would do that when they had the murderers already in custody.
This is a list of evidence from a couple years ago. None of it seems all that strong to me. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/12/04/knox.evidence/index.html The knife wasn't matched to the wounds and having Kercher's blood on the tip could just mean she cut herself cooking. Knox's DNA on hand handle means she used a kitchen knife. The Bra clasp wasn't collected for 6 weeks and apparently was moved around a lot during that time. Bloody footprint that may be her boyfriends Broken window (seems easy to prove whether it was broken from the inside or out) Bloody shoe print was already matched to Guede Confession. I just don't put too much stock in a confession from a someone being interrogated for hours in her 2nd language. Lying about her former boss seems more like deflection by a scared suspect. None of if seems very strong to me. Plus I think I remember one of Guede's cell mates coming forward saying that Guede admitted they weren't involved. I could be remembering that last part wrong though. And prior to this trial, the prossocuter was known for another big murder case in Florence where: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuliano_Mignini
Hysteria. Plain and simple. Just the basic facts of the case point toward the killer being in prison already. Rudy Guede is a drifter/drug dealer with a criminal past. After the murder he fled the country. After presented with evidence matching his semen to victim, he admits to having sex with the victim. He initially claimed he was in the bathroom and "another man" murdered Kercher. There were two witnesses that saw a black man running down the street about the time of the murder. Kercher's purse was emptied of cell phone, cash (300 Euros), credit cards and house keys. The criminal drifter has no alibi. No witness to support his claim he was in the bathroom. No witness to support his theory or any other alternative theories about what happened. Thus, as you would expect he was quickly found guilty. The physical evidence the prosecution used to support their case against Knox was weak to begin with and made completely worthless by being mishandled. The defense team destroyed the claims of physical evidence upon appeal, even though that was hugely embarrassing to the Italians and much political pressure existed to not overturn. So, in all probability they have their man. All evidence points to a rather mundane theft/rape/murder. Why did the Italians go after Knox (and Solecitto) - a college student with her future ahead of her and no criminal past - with such weak evidence? Why did they concoct an implausible theory of a three-way drug fueled sex-crazed orgy/murder? I think all you need to know is that a large amount of the prosecutor's time and energy was spent trying to portray (pretty successfully too) Knox as a sex-obsessed, manipulative "she-devil." Guess what? You can be those things and not be a killer. It was all a morality play. Maybe Knox is a VERY rare female sex obsessed killer. Regardless, the evidence isn't there. What a huge embarrassment for the Italians. Makes them look like backwater, religious nuts.
Where do you get this from? "Strong" evidence? Really? The Italian appeals court begs to differ, and in-fact said there WAS NO EVIDENCE to support this claim made by the prosecutor. What do you do, listen to prosecutor closing arguments to form your opinions?
Here, read these: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/mar/26/amanda-knox-retrial-italian-justice http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/28/rudy-guede-amanda-knox-was-not-there/ http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/my-thoughts-on-amanda-knox.php
She's guilty. She even tried to blame it on some pub owner over there and she was convicted of libeling him.
That's your proof? You do know that she was convicted of "libel" on the basis of a confession that she immediately recanted? You know the facts, right? You also realize that lying does not equal murder? You know that, right? Please. Tell me you know the difference.
Also, your claim is contradicted by the convicted killer Rudy, who admitted he was at the scene of the crime, who had a phone call with a friend while he was on the run where he claimed that Knox was not at the scene of the murder.
