Amanda Knox: What's in a face?

Page 3 of 3 [ 41 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

11 Oct 2011, 5:12 pm

GreyDay wrote:

We won't know what was rejected, if anything, until the judges report is made public. In interviews he was pretty non-committal saying it was still very possible Knox and Sollecito were there, doesn't sound like they were exonerated more than benefitting from the raising of doubt.

There's been a lot of discussion of how the DNA evidence was debunked, that some of it wasn't even really DNA evidence but overinterpreted results, and how the knife wasn't actually used in the murder.

Quote:

You don't think she is majorly responsible for that by blaming an innocent man, avoiding the memorial service, giving different stories about where she was, kissing in the lingerie department the following day, writing a fictitious email home saying the panic she felt when she realised the door was locked yet all witnesses present said she said the door being locked did not seem to her in the least bit odd, telling the Postal Police they had reported the break-in when they actually reported it after they had arrived, I could go on...

1) The "blame an innocent man" scenario happened during intense interrogation, in which the interrogators apparently asked her to imagine the scenario in which this innocent man murdered Meredith Kercher while Amanda was in the apartment. The next day she said that she had said this under extreme duress and exhaustion.

2) Kissing is irrelevant to the case. Seriously, you're trying to use "she kissed her boyfriend" as evidence that she is one of the killers. Her shopping for underwear was also misrepresented, as she apparently didn't have access to her own clothes and needed to buy some until she could get access again.

3) I can't make sense of your complaint that she told the postal police they had reported the break-in when they actually reported the break-in.

4) Being someone who can feel an emotion and not express it in the moment, I have no idea what she really thought or not, but it strikes me that witnesses probably can't describe what she was thinking at the time.

Quote:

That is not true, her interpreter's name that night was Anna Bonino, she even testified at the trial. You say further down that she was interrogated for days when she 'confessed' on her first night of questioning after hearing that Raffaele had 'come clean' about Knox not being at his house. She repeated the accusations the following day of her own accord, even asking for the paper and pen to write it all down (all admitted during the trial).

Her claim went like this: 'I am telling you I wasn't there, but if there is proof that I was then it was a black man that did it while I sat covering my ears in the kitchen'. Neat trick.

All I can point to is this, again: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheInterrogation.html

It answers all of your assertions here.

Quote:

It wasn't just the papers and prosecutors that thought her behaviour was inexplicable, the two boys who drove pair to the police station said they were so concerned about the conversation and their behaviour that when the pair got out they searched their car for any incriminating evidence they might have planted. We all saw her playing up to the cameras at the trial, wearing an 'All you need is Love' T-Shirt to the court, writing in her diary how cool it was that men writing to her in jail wanted to have sex with her.

Wearing a particular t-shirt is a sign of guilt? That makes no sense. The press took parts of her diary out of context - they ignored what she wrote about being sexually harassed by a guard, for example. These are both examples of sensationalist claims made by the press to cement Amanda's guilt in the public eye.

Quote:

After reading her diaries and observing her testimonies, I think she is a good candidate for a serious psychological evaluation, a view expressed by Sollecito in a letter to his father saying she is completely out of touch with any firm reality.

Is this why you're whinging that Amanda was released but not saying a word about Sollecito being released?

He also wrote:

Quote:

I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda I know ... lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure ... But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me.

I hardly think a boyfriend's desperate attempts to avoid up to 30 years of imprisonment can be used as a reasonable basis for a psychiatric evaluation.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

11 Oct 2011, 5:23 pm

GreyDay wrote:

The curious thing about the claims in that link is that Amanda directly contradicted them in her own testimony and in phone calls from prison. They falsely suggest it was only after days of intensive interrogation that she 'broke down', it was the first night. She did not have a lawyer as she was not called for questioning, she was waiting for Sollecito when her strange behaviour made the police suspicious. They answers she gave were not admissible because of this, therefore the claim this was an illegal interrogation are spurious. The answers were not presented at the trial. The letter she wrote of her own accord was admissible.

It's funny, because I can't find any information anywhere that the interrogation was only one day. I keep finding references to five days and 53 hours.

Most of your arguments seem to come from the same sensationalist press that you seem to decry. I think I'm doing trying to have a rational discussion with you.

Verdandi
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 56
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)

11 Oct 2011, 6:24 pm

Throwing this link in because GreyDay kept appealing to bizarre interpretations of Amanda Knox's behavior (as promoted by the sensationalist press) as evidence of her alleged guilt:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 1659.story

Quote:

After a few weeks in Perugia, I saw that there was something very wrong with the narrative of the murder that the authorities and the media were presenting. There was almost no material evidence linking Knox or her boyfriend to the murder, and no motive, while there was voluminous evidence — material and circumstantial — implicating a third person, a man, whose name one almost never read in accounts of the case. It became clear that it wasn't facts but Knox — her femaleness, her Americaness, her beauty — that was driving the case.

In person, in prison and in the media, Knox was subjected to all manner of outlandish, misogynistic behavior. A prison "doctor" (he has never stepped forward publicly) tested a sample of Knox's blood and then informed her she was HIV-positive, prompting Knox to list every man she'd had sex with. Authorities passed the names of seven men to reporters from the British tabloid pack, who printed it. Soon thereafter, Knox was told the doctor was mistaken and she didn't have AIDS.

Outside prison walls, Italian criminologists were opining in the media and eventually on the witness stand that because the body had been covered with a blanket, the killer was surely female because such an act was evidence of feminine "pieta."

Finally, there were the prosecution's operatic closing arguments, repeated almost verbatim in the appeal that ended last week. Knox was a "luciferina" — a she-devil — capable of a special, female duplicity. She was "dirty on the inside." Always, even from the defense lawyers, the closing arguments ended with appeals to God, in a medieval courtroom with a peeling fresco of the Madonna on the wall and a crucifix hanging above the judge.

...In her "prison diary," a document police handed to reporters after she'd scribbled in it for a month, Knox was often upbeat, blithe, clearly a devotee of positive thinking. The reporters who read the diary explained it as evidence of a psychopathic mind. Tabloid reporters from Britain concentrated on the few instances where she appeared to have sex on her mind — when she wrote about the fan letters Italian men sent her in jail, for example. They ignored pages she filled with details about being sexually harassed by a prison guard...

ialdabaoth
Snowy Owl

Joined: 20 Aug 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 166

11 Oct 2011, 6:48 pm

We judge people primarily based on how we "feel" about them, and those "feelings" generally come from information utterly unrelated to their actual moral worth as people - facial expressions, attractiveness, socioeconomic class, portrayed confidence, etc.

Given such realities, does "justice" or "truth" really matter, in a pragmatic sense? If people only react to "injustice" when they feel uncomfortable with an outcome and are capable of exerting power, shouldn't we concern ourselves less with "justice" and more with making the powerful as comfortable as possible, in proportion to their power?

Certainly, there's always the risk of the downtrodden finding a way to rise up and gain power, thereby threatening the power hierarchy, but why do cultural hegemonies focus on "justice" instead of addressing those risks directly?

Especially when I look at the works and philosophies of Kissenger et.al., I wonder why we don't have a concept of "Realrecht/Machtrecht" to match our ideas of "Realpolitik/Machtpolitik".

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

11 Oct 2011, 7:03 pm

I still think she got away with something. Thanks to poor evidence gathering the truth may never be known.

GreyDay
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

Joined: 9 Oct 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 5

12 Oct 2011, 7:23 pm

Verdandi wrote:

GreyDay wrote:

Well I hope at least you see the irony of claiming I am relying on 'sensationalist press' when you have only linked to and repeated pro-Amanda sites and newspaper articles. I am really perplexed by your remark that you are done trying to have a rational discussion, all I would ask is that you read the Massei and Micheli reports, and the Hellman one when it becomes available. The Massei report in particular is extremely detailed in its arguments, weighs up both the defense arguments and the prosecution and in perfectly rational and logical fashion demonstrates that the couple did have an involvement in the death of Meredith and cleaned up the traces of their presence (except of course the print of Sollectio's foot on the bathmat and various traces of Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom, hall and the room with the staged break-in).

The Massei report is almost 500 pages long, it demonstrates through weighing up a very long series of 'coincidences', lies, forensic/technical evidence, witness testimony and logical reasoning that Guede did not act alone (as ruled by three courts so far including the Supreme Court), that the break-in was staged to cover for the fact that Guede was let into the house by someone with a key, that someone cleaned up most traces of their presence (but none of Guede's, surprise surprise), that Knox and Sollecito had given various conflicting and unconvincing accounts of their movements that were contradicted by computer and phone records as well as rather odd stories about why they might be wandering around with mops and giving Sollectio's kitchen a really good clean even though he had a cleaner. Believe me, if you read the Massei report it will demonstrate that the case against them was very, very strong based on good evidence and witness testimony while exposing much of the sympathetic press coverage in the non-Italian countries to be completely off the wall and erroneous.

If you remain skeptical, I can try and list the relevant page numbers from the report that demonstrate the blatant misinformation and fabrications found throughout that 'injusticeinperugia' website.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

12 Oct 2011, 7:39 pm

That's a very good question. All this cleaning took place yet there were unflushed turds in the toilet belonging to Guede. Isn't that a bit...odd? If he cleaned, why would he leave so much of his own evidence behind? Seems like he would have gone out of his way to make sure NOTHING was left. There is evidence that someone cleaned.
Who knows why Knox and her boyfriend were really let out. Maybe someone got paid off by their wealthy parents?

Another strange thing is the location of Kercher's cell phone the morning after her murder. Why would someone rob her of her phone, only to toss it a neighbor's garden unless it was to make it look like the phone had been stolen by whomever killed Meredith.

One more thing I noticed. Kercher's bra clasp. There wasn't much Sollecito DNA anywhere in Kercher and Knox's shared flat even though Sollecito visited Amanda there (his foot prints were all over the place) yet when the bra strap was finally collected as evidence it was dripping in it. Now how is this possible. How can we go from practically no DNA to virtually drowning in it in the same room? Even the mistakes in evidence gathering doesn't explain it.

Vale
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

Joined: 8 Oct 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 57
Location: London

13 Oct 2011, 3:17 am

She was convicted on evidence not her facial expressions.

I find all of the unreserved support for her and others like her very creepy, much the same as i found support from certain sections of society for OJ Simpson creepy.

A young woman was murdered and there was a fair ammount of evidence pointing to Amanda and her boyfriend, her odd behaviour and manner just compounded that.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

13 Oct 2011, 10:21 am

The creepiest irony of them all? Amanda Knox was seen out cruising about with her bodyguard in tow. I face palmed when I read that one! Really. Who, exactly, is in need of a bodyguard? I should think anyone who is her future room mate.

Page 3 of 3 [ 41 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3

Jump to:

Amanda Knox: What's in a face? Post Reply New Topic

Amanda Knox: What's in a face?