Amanda Knox - Guilty or Innocent

[Horace]

Horace - Sorry, did I say one foot on the plane from Rome to Seattle, I meant two feet and just the fact that the Italians are supposedly errecting a statue in Perugia in memory of Meredith Kercher says it all to me. Don't get me wrong as there is nobody more disturbed about Meredith's violent murder than me however Amanda Knox didn't kill her.

 

How can the fact that Perugia officials are erecting a statue in memory of Meredith "say it all"? How can it be construed as an acknowlegement that Amanda Knox didn't kill her?

[Rhodes]

Horace - Well surely that's as plain as the nose on your face, it tells you that Perugia 'Officials' have made their own minds up about the case and are trying to put one over on Amanda, and her unpopular family, by erecting a Memorial to the woman she supposedly murdered. Like I said there is nobody more disgusted about Meredith Kercher's horrific murder than me however why put the blame at Amanda Knox's door when she is clearly innocent.

[Horace]

Horace - Well surely that's as plain as the nose on your face, it tells you that Perugia 'Officials' have made their own minds up about the case and are trying to put one over on Amanda, and her unpopular family, by erecting a Memorial to the woman she supposedly murdered. Like I said there is nobody more disgusted about Meredith Kercher's horrific murder than me however why put the blame at Amanda Knox's door when she is clearly innocent.

Edited November 26, 2010 by Horace

[Rhodes]

A very informative link from the CBS Website with pictures and video clips, roll on 11 December!:

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/24/earlyshow/main7085694.shtml

[Rhodes]

Here's a real 'treat' for your folks, a very forthright and informative interview with Amanda's heartbroken parents ahead of their beloved daughter's appeal:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTIv0OHQamQ

[Rhodes]

A highly interesting link by a chap called Ron Hendry, a so called forensic engineer who's speciality is accident reconstruction and he is quoted as saying 'Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito would never have been regarded as persons of interest, much less suspects, had the Police correctly done their jobs from the start'. Hendry's brief is to come in behind the Police and spend a great deal of time on cases such as Amanda's that occurred months or years before, his unique technique is to study photos and acquire enough information to do a meticulous scale layout, analysing and interpreting the physical evidence and reviewing how it corresponds with dubious witness accounts, again, such as in Amanda's case:

 

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december042010/amanda-know.php

[Loose]

Oh Rhodes, don't tell us that you've been taken in by this doddering old fool let alone expecting us to be? This is old stuff debunked weeks if not months ago.

 

Ron Hendry (Forensics ACCIDENT "expert") carried out his analysis without the benefit of the autopsy report.He doesn't address most of the evidence. He doesn't provide a plausible innocent explanation for the multiple conflicting alibis or repeated lies. He completely ignores the double DNA knife and Sollecitos DNA on Meredith's bra clasp. Sollecitos bloody footprint on the bathroom mat. The five instances of Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood and the luminol footprints.

 

You never seem to have any answers to counter the weight of evidence Rhodes, you're just merely content to regurgitate any old bol lox spoon fed to you.

[Rhodes]

Loosely - You really don't know what you are talking about, if you can't be supportive of Amanda in her hour of need do you mind not posting on this thread, thanks in advance.

Here's another interesting link folks containing a radio interview with former FBI agent Steve Moore who stakes his life on Amanda being innocent:

 

http://www.mynorthwest.com/?nid=577&a=22884&p=10&n=Northwest+Nights

[Ian_W]

Loosely - You really don't know what you are talking about, if you can't be supportive of Amanda in her hour of need do you mind not posting on this thread, thanks in advance.

 

Could have sworn the title of this thread was 'guilty or innocent'.

[Loose]

Loosely - You really don't know what you are talking about, if you can't be supportive of Amanda in her hour of need do you mind not posting on this thread, thanks in advance.

 

Could have sworn the title of this thread was 'guilty or innocent'.

Thanks Ian. I really think that Rhodes should be prevented from starting these topics if he only wants his opinion agreed with.

 

Now Rhodes, what answers do you have to counter the weight of evidence against Amanda Knox? Or are you just going to throw your toys out of the pram again?

[Rhodes]

Could have sworn the title of this thread was 'guilty or innocent'.

Ian - I'm surprised you have time to comment as I PM'd you recently but you didn't respond. Yes this thread is 'Guilty or Innocent' however if I said Amanda Knox was guilty as charged Loosely would say she was innocent.

[Ian_W]

Loosely - You really don't know what you are talking about, if you can't be supportive of Amanda in her hour of need do you mind not posting on this thread, thanks in advance.

 

Could have sworn the title of this thread was 'guilty or innocent'.

Thanks Ian. I really think that Rhodes should be prevented from starting these topics if he only wants his opinion agreed with.

 

 

He can start any topic - however like anyone posting on any forum, everyone has to accept the ability for people to post both sides of any argument.

[Loose]

 

 

He can start any topic - however like anyone posting on any forum, everyone has to accept the ability for people to post both sides of any argument.

 

That will be the day Ian when Rhodes can bring himself to admit that.

 

 

 

[Rhodes]

Loosely - If I had created this thread saying Amanda Knox was guilty as charged and that she should rot in hell I guarantee you would have said she was innocent, that's the point I'm trying to make

[Loose]

Rhodes, don't judge other people by your own standards it makes you look even smaller minded and more pathetic than you already are. You will recall that I recently agreed with you on a subject and said so, you however would not have the decency or be big enough to do likewise.

 

We differ on this topic because unlike you I appreciate facts and substance whilst you worship sensation and the superficial.

Edited December 6, 2010 by loose

[Rhodes]

Loosely - You're priceless you really are, the thread you recently agreed with me on was about the New Zealand miners who were coldly left to die when nobody lifted a finger to even attempt to rescue them, even you couldn't disagree with me on that one.

Anyway back to Amanda Knox and 11 December, as well as 18 December, will see her Lawyers present their appeal to the Court for justice, they will ask for a complete and independent review of the 'wooly' forensic evidence used to convict Amanda during her criminal trial in what appeared at the time to be a Kangaroo Court. The Lawyers will also ask the Judge to consider the lack of motive and the absence of proof of sexual abuse and rule that neither should have been used to convict her, the Jury will then deliberate and rule on this request on 18 December. If this is granted then an independent review of the evidence will take between 60 and 90 days, a final verdict must be handed down by June 2011, if Amanda's high profile Legal Team can successfully convince the new Judges and Jury that she was unfairly convicted she will be on the 'next' flight from Rome to Seattle. If in the unlikely event this doesn't happen then Amanda must await a second appeal to reach the High Court which could well take years.

[Loose]

Rhodes you plonker, you haven't been keeping up have you? Remaining true to your reputation of not being in the loop shouldn't surprise any of us.

 

The appeal will focus on new evidence as any appeal must. The Amanda Knox Defence Team hope to be allowed to introduce evidence in the form of two "Jailhouse Letters" - one from a convicted child killer, the other from a former mafiosi who has been proven before to have sent spurious claims, each letter claims that "someone else did it", one that Rudy acted alone, the other letter claiming that another new individual killed Meredith. The judges will have to pick the bones out of that choice.

 

The defence has to introduce new evidence that the DNA forensics in the original trial was faulty. Good luck with that since 16 independent judges have already reviewed the case and found no fault. For a new judge appointed to the appeal to find against the weight of his/her bretheryn will be a brave decision made in isolation not just of the facts.

 

Poor out of the loop Rhodes, must try harder it seems.

[Loose]

The cat seems to have got your tongue yet again Rhodes.

 

Not only out of the loop but no doubt busy trying to dream up more inaccuracies and made up facts.

[Rhodes]

Loosely - Well I know all of that, obviously Amanda's high powered Legal Team are going to bring to light new evidence as they can't go down the same road they did originally, rest assured they have a trick or two up their sleeves and the new Judge, namely Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, will be eating out of the palm of their hands, he will be urged in no uncertain terms to see that Amanda's crazy murder verdict was based on mere hypotheses. The incompetent Italian Judicial Authorities decision to bring in Judge Hellmann instead of the expected Judge Sergio Matteini Chiari is a strange one and they may well have dropped a clanger as Hellmann has a reputation for making radical judgments. In 2000 for example he was one of a three man Court that famously overturned the conviction of supposed wife murderer, Massimo Pisano who had spent nearly eight years in jail, losing appeal after appeal, until Hellman and his fellow Judges freed him virtually overnight.

[Loose]

Oh well, if you knew all that ..... then why did you spout all this bol locks?

Anyway back to Amanda Knox and 11 December, as well as 18 December, will see her Lawyers present their appeal to the Court for justice, they will ask for a complete and independent review of the 'wooly' forensic evidence used to convict Amanda during her criminal trial in what appeared at the time to be a Kangaroo Court. The Lawyers will also ask the Judge to consider the lack of motive and the absence of proof of sexual abuse and rule that neither should have been used to convict her, the Jury will then deliberate and rule on this request on 18 December. If this is granted then an independent review of the evidence will take between 60 and 90 days, a final verdict must be handed down by June 2011, if Amanda's high profile Legal Team can successfully convince the new Judges and Jury that she was unfairly convicted she will be on the 'next' flight from Rome to Seattle. If in the unlikely event this doesn't happen then Amanda must await a second appeal to reach the High Court which could well take years.

 

Because you are full of (sh)it.