Amanda Knox Innocent or guilty? Page 2

  • Page

    of 14 First / Last

  • nickthegun 6 Jun 2010 17:39:08 56,081 posts
    Seen 16 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Lucky we arent on the jury or we would have had to use her tits as a deciding factor to break the deadlock.

    Justice, eh?

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • Lukus 6 Jun 2010 17:40:30 18,955 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Yeah, it's like when deciding who you want to win during the olympics.

    Paintings & Photographs

  • matt6666 6 Jun 2010 17:41:10 2,620 posts
    Seen 2 years ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    heh
  • Khanivor 6 Jun 2010 17:41:46 39,912 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    If one of her defence lawyers had got their tits out then I think the Italian jury would have been legally obligated to find her not guilty.
  • Khanivor 6 Jun 2010 17:42:30 39,912 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Lukus wrote:
    Yeah, it's like when deciding who you want to win during the olympics.

    So that's why I never want the Chinese women's gymnastics team to win?
  • Lukus 6 Jun 2010 17:43:04 18,955 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Bingo!

    Paintings & Photographs

  • glo 6 Jun 2010 18:27:25 3,415 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    nickthegun wrote:
    I say guilty. Her eyes are too close together.

    quoted for truth. she has the crazy, dead eyes of a killer. ;)

    If you want a more reasoned response then EG is definitely not the place for it. However, imho there was evidence (admittedly quite circumstantial) against her and she clearly told a number of lies over a number of occassions and tried to implicate an innocent man in the murder. she was given plenty of opportunity to revise her statement and clear up a number of inconsistencies and was incapable of doing so. if she was not at the very least involved indirectly in the murder then she was very, very stupid and naiive in her dealings with the police and exhibited some very strange behaviour for someone whose roommate had just being murdered whilst she was under the same roof.
  • Khanivor 6 Jun 2010 18:50:12 39,912 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Being dumb is not evidence of being a murderer. Shit, even the prosecution couldn't come up with a motive. OK, so they did come up with three but satanic sex game is a bit of a stretch.

    The whole thing stinks so badly you gotta wonder whose ass is so important that it needs to be covered by flinging a couple of kids in prison for mist of their life.
  • WrongShui 6 Jun 2010 18:51:35 6,575 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Mist of their life? What did they do to them?
  • Khanivor 6 Jun 2010 18:54:25 39,912 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Stupid iphone
  • FutureDave 6 Jun 2010 19:05:05 535 posts
    Seen 4 days ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Evidence:
    - Knox repeatedly lied about events.
    - Knox accused an innocent barman of cutting Kercher's throat. She says she hid in the kitchen covering her ears from the screams as Kercher's throat was cut.
    - DNA of the 3 accused was found on Kercher's bloodied bra clasp.
    - Knox's bloody footprints were found in the bathroom rug.
    - Kercher's DNA was found on a knife in Sollecito's flat.

    Even without the character 'evidence' against Knox - the peculiar behaviour, sexual activity, hatred of Kercher - she had a lot going for her being involved.

    The defence used arguments of DNA contamination. Unsurprisingly, the very same DNA evidence against Guede wasn't seen as questionable by Knox's defence though!

    Yeah, she did it.
  • Deleted user 6 June 2010 19:10:33
    Haven't been following the case, but what was her reasons for lying about the case?
  • glo 6 Jun 2010 20:06:28 3,415 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    she blamed the italian police for slapping her, shouting at her and not being very nice. wasn't all that convincing imho.
  • Deleted user 6 June 2010 20:24:23
    She persistently lied in a murder investigation because the police mistreated her? :/
  • Khanivor 6 Jun 2010 20:43:18 39,912 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    FutureDave wrote:
    Evidence:
    - Knox repeatedly lied about events.
    - Knox accused an innocent barman of cutting Kercher's throat. She says she hid in the kitchen covering her ears from the screams as Kercher's throat was cut.
    - DNA of the 3 accused was found on Kercher's bloodied bra clasp.
    - Knox's bloody footprints were found in the bathroom rug.
    - Kercher's DNA was found on a knife in Sollecito's flat.

    Even without the character 'evidence' against Knox - the peculiar behaviour, sexual activity, hatred of Kercher - she had a lot going for her being involved.

    The defence used arguments of DNA contamination. Unsurprisingly, the very same DNA evidence against Guede wasn't seen as questionable by Knox's defence though!

    Yeah, she did it.

    She lied after being interrogated for two days straight while being refused access to a lawyer. Young girl, foreign country, accused of murder, I can understand why she'd say and do some things that don't look rational to someone who's never been in that situation.

    The bra clasp was only recovered from the scene almost two months after the murder.

    The footprint was not demonstrably Knox's

    The DNA on the knife was of shite quality, not to mention it wasn't the murder weapon.

    There are loads of other reasons why the case was very shakey indeed, such as forensic reports being with held from the defence and the interaction between the jury and the media during the trial. If the evidence in this case was strong enough to convict then Johny Cochran would have called for OJ to be executed based on the quality of evidence in that murder.
  • jonsaan 6 Jun 2010 21:39:34 25,256 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I thought she was 100% innocent until I saw the photo of her kissing HER BOYFRIEND. FUCKING SLUT SHE'S AS GUILTY AS SIN.

    FCUTA!

  • lucky_jim 6 Jun 2010 21:44:37 5,164 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I dunno. I thought she was guilty, but then (like most of us) I was looking through the prism of the UK media. I'm posting from my iPhone so can't reference this, but the prosecuter guy is a thousand shades of mental and has a scary track record of pursuing paranoid angles on stuff.
  • Khanivor 6 Jun 2010 21:57:18 39,912 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Apparently one of the motives was that they killed her as part of a Halloween ritual. But they missed Halloween by a day because of a party. And the reason they chose Kercher was because she had dressed as a vampire for Halloween and the boyfriend had some Manga with vampires in them.

    No wonder the jury was convinced.
  • brokenkey 6 Jun 2010 22:03:03 6,805 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    FutureDave wrote:

    Even without the character 'evidence' against Knox -, sexual activity, - she had a lot going for her being involved.

    Yeah, she did it.

    Fuck me, when did Italy implement Sharia law?

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • Vice.Destroyer 6 Jun 2010 22:06:18 5,796 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    lucky_jim wrote:
    I dunno. I thought she was guilty, but then (like most of us) I was looking through the prism of the UK media. I'm posting from my iPhone so can't reference this, but the prosecuter guy is a thousand shades of mental and has a scary track record of pursuing paranoid angles on stuff.

    I thought she was guilty as well. But all my american friends thought she was innocent.
    Bizarre, eh?
    :)
  • Deleted user 6 June 2010 22:07:53
    A mention of sexual activity and now they are guilty of sharia law.
  • GiarcYekrub 6 Jun 2010 22:13:33 3,590 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    GUILTY! but I still would
  • Deleted user 6 June 2010 22:24:15
    mowgli wrote:
    A mention of sexual activity and now they are guilty of sharia law.

    This is only funny because it doesn't actually make any sense.
  • heyyo 6 Jun 2010 22:32:07 14,374 posts
    Seen 51 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    squarejawhero wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    A mention of sexual activity and now they are guilty of sharia law.

    This is only funny because it doesn't actually make any sense.

    Sharia law is a crime.
  • Deleted user 6 June 2010 22:37:03
    heyyo! wrote:
    squarejawhero wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    A mention of sexual activity and now they are guilty of sharia law.

    This is only funny because it doesn't actually make any sense.

    Sharia law is a crime.

    Only in places where it isn't legal.
  • 1Dgaf 6 Jun 2010 22:47:07 3,775 posts
    Seen 3 weeks ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Private Eye had some mention of the prosectors in this being involved in a similar 'satanic' case a few years ago, one that reeks of bullshit. IIRC.

    www.hatchetjob.com - more than games. "Seemingly trivial, surprisingly deep"

  • Deleted user 6 June 2010 22:50:16
    squarejawhero wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    A mention of sexual activity and now they are guilty of sharia law.

    This is only funny because it doesn't actually make any sense.
    What are you finding difficult to understand?
  • Deleted user 6 June 2010 22:58:03
    You really don't know?
  • Deleted user 6 June 2010 23:00:01
    Would.

    Or should I say "wood"

    Either works
  • Page

    of 14 First / Last

Log in or register to reply