User Tag List

First 5131415

Results 141 to 149 of 149

Thread: Amanda Knox

  1. #141
    Senior Member BlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkgraffiti View Post
    Do you think she's guilty?

    I haven't followed this process super up close, but I always found it interesting, and today I was watching this video from the Guardian where she and the bf do their final allegations. Just intuitively, I had a feeling he is guilty. She, on the other hand, seemed pretty genuine during her speech, except for a part in the end where there is a voice intonation change (from 'i didn't kill', which seems honest, to 'i didn't rape, didn't steal', which seemed fake to me). So I also think she's guilty.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011...ges-final-plea

    What do you think?
    I read a whole book written on this. For sure she lied about what happened. She played some role in the murder. The only question is whether or not there is enough evidence to convict her. I know she's guilty but support her release because she's American, and we shouldn't allow our citizens to be abused by the Medieval Italian justice system.

  2. #142
    Senior Member BlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mole View Post
    Amanda employs a Public Relations firm to present her image to the American public.

    And remember Public Relations were invented by an American, Edward Bernays, who wrote the manual called, "Propaganda".

    And remember Public Relations or propaganda are neither true nor false, rather they are plausible. And Amanda is plausible to the American public.

    And so Amanda is plausibly presented by her Public Relations firm, as an innocent American beauty put upon by incomprehsible foreigners.
    Exactly. I read a book about this and have followed it very closely. She's almost certainly either guilty, or played a passive role. But knowing her character, I think she was actively involved. But for the sake of American prestige, she cannot be allowed to face justice.

  3. #143
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkgraffiti View Post
    you know what else is strange? ....the other housemates....why don't you ever hear of them? i beat they are important to testify how amanda and meredich's characters were and how their interactions were etc. does anyone know if they offered any interesting testimonies in court?
    Filomena Romanelli
    http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Interna...6826939&page=1

    Laura Mezzetti
    http://themurderofmeredithkercher.co...%27s_Testimony [it's in italian, though]
    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/artic...nd-1300223.php



    Quote Originally Posted by LION4!5 View Post
    Exactly. I read a book about this and have followed it very closely. She's almost certainly either guilty, or played a passive role. But knowing her character, I think she was actively involved. But for the sake of American prestige, she cannot be allowed to face justice.
    So WTF is her "character"? I mean, I can't say I like her necessarily -- she was eccentric before she even went over there, and I find her socially eccentric even now -- but does that mean she's guilty of murder?

    There is no DNA evidence tying her or Sollecito to the crime, and the room was coated with DNA evidence from Guede. There was even Guede's DNA inside the victim. For her to selectively remove all the DNA evidence of two people out of three is impossible. She was not in the room. ANy other tangible evidence pointing at Sollecito seems more likely to be Guede. (Occam's Razor would suggest the crime can be easily explained by Guede on his own; the only reason Knox and Sollecito were included was to support the prosecutor's crazy idea that it had to be part of some satanic ritual killing and/or sex orgy gone bad, which the media had already plastered all over the place.)

    And the knife DNA and the bra clasp DNA was discredited by every third-party examiner. The knife DNA is far too tiny to show the knife was used in the crime, and the bra clasp was collected 40 days after the crime, after it was kicked around the room, etc.

    And Knox never "pinpointed" her boss, per se -- she never said, "it was him, it was him, he did it" like I see people assuming -- apparently they asked her to envision a black guy, and that was the one she knew. The interrogation (which I described problems with earlier) involved her being forced to "imagine various scenarios" where if she had been in the house, what might she have seen?

    Do you know where they got her list of seven guys she had sex with? They took blood samples, told her that she had HIV, and wanted to know who she had sex with; two weeks later, the prosecution had leaked the names to the media and then they came back and said, "Oh, wait, you actually don't have HIV. Sorry." Just one more smear tactic, apparently, to reinforce their case.

    Now they basically tried to say, "Oh, not really a sex thing, she was actually arguing with the victim about money..." but she had no need for money, she had ten times the amount accessible in her bank account that they were supposedly arguing about. It's been a "fishing for motives" from day #1 . You can't make up a motive as a reason to convict someone, especially if there is no real evidence tying them to the crime.

    I honestly wouldn't even convict Charles Manson and his followers on this kind of case. I don't warm up to Amanda when I've seen her in interviews, but objectively I couldn't convict anyone (or lack of it) based on this. The court system can't even agree over there, and this is their third go-around; it's pretty cray. They hyped up Knox's involvement in the media to the degree that now they can't afford to let go, and people won't think that justice has been done even though it's likely the real killer has already been punished; this is most of all a shame for Kercher's family, now they will never find closure.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  4. #144
    Senior Member BlackDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    MBTI
    NiTe
    Enneagram
    9w8 so/sx
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    So WTF is her "character"? I mean, I can't say I like her necessarily -- she was eccentric before she even went over there, and I find her socially eccentric even now -- but does that mean she's guilty of murder?.
    She's an unknown quantity. Unpredictable. Her whole behavior in Italy was erratic. Students on study abroad behave in certain ways normally, but she didn't fit the mold. That's a strike against her because if she was more normal, people would understand that psychologically the crime doesn't fit. But the reason it does fit is because of her unpredictability. She became a totally different person in Italy. She expressed all kinds of things hidden in her character that weren't known before. I read a book someone wrote about this who was all for her release, and thought she was great, and so on; his biased account in her favor convinced me that she was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    There is no DNA evidence tying her or Sollecito to the crime, and the room was coated with DNA evidence from Guede. There was even Guede's DNA inside the victim. For her to selectively remove all the DNA evidence of two people out of three is impossible. She was not in the room. ANy other tangible evidence pointing at Sollecito seems more likely to be Guede. (Occam's Razor would suggest the crime can be easily explained by Guede on his own; the only reason Knox and Sollecito were included was to support the prosecutor's crazy idea that it had to be part of some satanic ritual killing and/or sex orgy gone bad, which the media had already plastered all over the place.).
    She can be convicted even without the DNA evidence. Her behavior in the days after the event prove that she knew what had happened and didn't report it to the police; instead she fabricated a story. This is why she was strained and unnatural. Just for that, because to this day she has lied about when she knew about the murder, we can presume her guilt unless she was to confess and make sense of what really happened to the court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    And the knife DNA and the bra clasp DNA was discredited by every third-party examiner. The knife DNA is far too tiny to show the knife was used in the crime, and the bra clasp was collected 40 days after the crime, after it was kicked around the room, etc..
    The evidence without that is overwhelming.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    And Knox never "pinpointed" her boss, per se -- she never said, "it was him, it was him, he did it" like I see people assuming -- apparently they asked her to envision a black guy, and that was the one she knew. The interrogation (which I described problems with earlier) involved her being forced to "imagine various scenarios" where if she had been in the house, what might she have seen?.
    Her actions at that time imply knowledge of what really happened. She was unsure of how to act, and thus did nothing. But she was under intense pressure, which is why she did so many weird things. If she was innocent, why? She was guilty. If we presume her guilt, everything makes sense. If we don't presume her guilt, her behavior makes no sense at all. She isn't the kind of person to act as she did without being guilty.

    She implicated him because she thought, after police pressure, that the police thought he was guilty. That's why she did it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Do you know where they got her list of seven guys she had sex with? They took blood samples, told her that she had HIV, and wanted to know who she had sex with; two weeks later, the prosecution had leaked the names to the media and then they came back and said, "Oh, wait, you actually don't have HIV. Sorry." Just one more smear tactic, apparently, to reinforce their case..
    Hey, I don't stand up for the Italian justice system. But they got at the truth, you have to give them that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Now they basically tried to say, "Oh, not really a sex thing, she was actually arguing with the victim about money..." but she had no need for money, she had ten times the amount accessible in her bank account that they were supposedly arguing about. It's been a "fishing for motives" from day #1 . You can't make up a motive as a reason to convict someone, especially if there is no real evidence tying them to the crime..
    There was someone else involved. That's clear. She was weird and unpredictable. She acted like a murderer after the crime. She lied about her story repeatedly. It's absolutely certain she knew something. The fact that she hasn't ever come clear about what indicates she's a murderer, unless she confesses to what really happened and can give an account of why she withheld information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    I honestly wouldn't even convict Charles Manson and his followers on this kind of case. I don't warm up to Amanda when I've seen her in interviews, but objectively I couldn't convict anyone (or lack of it) based on this. The court system can't even agree over there, and this is their third go-around; it's pretty cray. They hyped up Knox's involvement in the media to the degree that now they can't afford to let go, and people won't think that justice has been done even though it's likely the real killer has already been punished; this is most of all a shame for Kercher's family, now they will never find closure.
    No, more than one person was involved in the crime. The Italians made up the money motive because no one knows what really happened or why because no one involved is telling; Guede seems to me like he was a tool, or a participant, not the one who started it all. But there's no way to account for everything without including Amanda. She's guilty of something, for sure. Since she won't say what, the natural thing is to count her in for the murder. Otherwise why wouldn't she confess?

  5. #145
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    You're not offering any specific evidence, nor addressing the reality she was eccentric before she went to Italy, not addressing the conditions and context under which she "made a confession." You're just talking in useless vagaries and show an obvious lack of command of detailed knowledge of the case -- your entire logic is, "She's guilty... because I think she was inconsistent, so she must have been lying = murder and so she must have done it. So it's not a big deal if the Italians have to go fishing for motives until they find one they can pin hard enough to her to not completely fall off."

    You can even walk through the latest decision and see where they introduced errors back into the judgment about what certain pieces of evidence were (such as sneaker prints that were not a woman's sneaker but matched Guede's, or a footprint with a big toe that they are now trying to blame on Sollicito which he couldn't have made based on the actual bone structure of his foot, etc.)

    In the end, there is no actual tangible evidence that she was involved. Forgive me if I'm not impressed by your investigation skills.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #146
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Damn Lion. I hope you're never on the jury if I'm ever accused of a crime. I would have to act exactly how you expect me to act, otherwise you would assume I'm guilty. I'm with Jennifer, I'm not impressed by your investigation skills. Your argument is so weak, I don't even know why I'm bothering to write this post.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."
    Likes Hard liked this post

  7. #147
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Well, hey. Look like she's innocent again. (Sorry, Lion.)
    PLEASE CAN THIS BE OVER THIS TIME?

    Amanda Knox murder conviction overturned - CNN.com
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/28/wo...rial.html?_r=0

    It was the second time that the court, known as the Supreme Court of Cassation, had vacated an appellate court ruling in the case, which had been tabloid fodder for years on both sides of the Atlantic and revealed the arcane workings of the Italian criminal justice system.

    Gasps went up among spectators in the Rome courtroom, where after 10 hours of deliberation, the presiding judge, Gennaro Marasca, announced the decision. The reasoning behind the decision is to be made public within 90 days...

    ...Giulia Bongiorno, Mr. Sollecito’s lawyer, who had asked the court for a full acquittal, looked stunned at first. “They cleared them of the charges?” she asked disbelievingly. “There’s no retrial?”

    A full exoneration in complicated cases is uncommon, and typically the Court of Cassation will send a case back to an appellate court when inconsistencies emerge.

    “It’s very rare, and goes beyond our most optimistic predictions,” said Luciano Ghirga, a lawyer on Ms. Knox’s defense team.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #148
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    From what I've read, it's officially "over over". We can put a fork in it.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  9. #149
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    I think she still owes $54K to the bar owner she was convicted of libeling. But hey, she can go back to Italy any time!

    (I wouldn't go back there. Vigilante justice and all that.)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

Similar Threads

  1. Amanda Bynes is crazy
    By /DG/ in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 74
    Last Post: 10-10-2014, 01:49 PM
  2. Amanda Seyfried?
    By liYA in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-18-2013, 06:36 PM
  3. Amanda Todd
    By Bilateral Entry in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 11-26-2012, 07:54 PM
  4. Enneagram type of Amanda Seyfried (videos included)??
    By liYA in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-21-2012, 09:18 AM
  5. Mickey & Mallory Knox (Natural born killers)
    By Rex in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-05-2011, 08:35 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO