Amanda Knox - Guilty or Innocent

[Rhodes]

Lets try to stay on topic folks. I see that Amanda was interviewed in New York recently by respected German newspaper 'de Bild' and their reporter Alexandra Würzbach, it's a real treat for anyone who can read German, enjoy!:

 

http://www.bild.de/news/ausland/amanda-knox/amanda-knox-im-bild-interview-30233764.bild.html

[Brounmoney]

Loosely - What I'm trying to say is that Amanda Knox is a role model and people look up to her as well as her family

She is no role model. No one here in the states are telling their kids "look at Amanda, she went to Italy and got put in jail for murder. Then she appealed and won. That is now being appealed. She may have been in jail for 4 years for a crime she did not commit. She is a women you should look up to". No one in their right mind is using her as a role model. She is just a normal American women.

 

I am pretty sure we see her very different. I agree with you that I think she is innocent, and I also do not call her a convicted criminal. You see her as some kind of hero to look up to. I am really not sure why. What has she done to be a role model? Being put in jail for 4 years then to be release does not say role model to me.

[Brounmoney]

So IanW cannot express an opinion without you belittling it?

Really?

[Eastside Urchin]

Wasn't referring to Ian W

Was referring to 800 odd or however many pages of back and fro with Rhodes chipping in every now and then,to which you all get your knickers in a twist,pointing out the same garbage time and time again.

I have lost count the times I have heard " she is a convicted criminal"

Really,I didn't know that?

Edited May 18, 2013 by Eastside Urchin

[Brounmoney]

Wasn't referring to Ian W

Was referring to 800 odd or however many pages of back and fro with Rhodes chipping in every now and then,to which you all get your knickers in a twist,pointing out the same garbage time and time again.

I have lost count the times I have heard " she is a convicted criminal"

Really,I didn't know that?

I know he was not referring to Ian. I can't believe he would saying anything about someone belittling someone for expressing an opinion. Look at these past 800 post. I have been belittle time and time again for saying she was not guilty. I expressed an opinion that contradicted half the people posted believed. I even called him out several times on it.

 

And I do agree with you on the "she is a convicted criminal" thing.

[Loose]

I do feel sorry for what poor Urchin has had to endure, I honestly don't know why you'd open a thread you had no interest in if you've heard enough.

 

I think it is quite strange that people continue to deny certain facts but if someone wants to set them straight on the girl's status which in fact IanW has himself a number of times then please understand in future that Urchin who has no interest in the subject may have to open the thread and see your comments, poor lad.

[Brounmoney]

I do feel sorry for what poor Urchin has had to endure, I honestly don't know why you'd open a thread you had no interest in if you've heard enough.

 

I think it is quite strange that people continue to deny certain facts but if someone wants to set them straight on the girl's status which in fact IanW has himself a number of times then please understand in future that Urchin who has no interest in the subject may have to open the thread and see your comments, poor lad.

Alright, I will do this the calmest way I can. You have told me several times that it works differently in Italy. You are guilty until proven innocent. I am keeping that in mind. So Amanda claims she was at her boyfriends house all night the night of the murder. She says she knows nothing. She says she was never there. Her behavior after Meredith's body was found made many start to question her. The police even start to get suspicious. They question her, and she says she was there and then throws a name of a man that has nothing to do with into the mix. She later tries to say she was pressured into confessing. Who knows, but her and the police.

 

With all that said she is guilty until proven innocent. The first trial relied on DNA from a bra clasp and kitchen knife. Both which later would be thrown out. Loose I also believe you point out a foot print, and hand print on the wall. There is also blood drops on the bathroom sink. The hand print and shoe print were both found to be Rudy's. The blood drops were mix with Meredith's DNA. What we would need for Amanda to be proven innocent would be no evidence of her being in the room. There is no DNA of Amanda nor does the hand print or finger print match. If she had been in the room there would be evidence. Without evidence is she not proven herself innocent? You may ask what about the bathroom. Sure there is DNA of both Meredith and Amanda because they share a bathroom, but there would need to be some kind of connection from the bedroom to the bathroom. There is none. If she had of been involved would there not be her DNA in the bedroom too? The bathroom alone proves nothing other than Meredith and Amanda sharing the space.

 

Now anyone can discuss these points, but please let's try to keep it under control. I will not answer these stupid question about the American government that have nothing to do with Amanda or the murder, so don't even bother.

[Loose]

Alright, I will do this the calmest way I can. You have told me several times that it works differently in Italy. You are guilty until proven innocent. I am keeping that in mind. So Amanda claims she was at her boyfriends house all night the night of the murder. She says she knows nothing. She says she was never there. Her behavior after Meredith's body was found made many start to question her. The police even start to get suspicious. They question her, and she says she was there and then throws a name of a man that has nothing to do with into the mix. She later tries to say she was pressured into confessing. Who knows, but her and the police.

 

With all that said she is guilty until proven innocent. The first trial relied on DNA from a bra clasp and kitchen knife. Both which later would be thrown out. Loose I also believe you point out a foot print, and hand print on the wall. There is also blood drops on the bathroom sink. The hand print and shoe print were both found to be Rudy's. The blood drops were mix with Meredith's DNA. What we would need for Amanda to be proven innocent would be no evidence of her being in the room. There is no DNA of Amanda nor does the hand print or finger print match. If she had been in the room there would be evidence. Without evidence is she not proven herself innocent? You may ask what about the bathroom. Sure there is DNA of both Meredith and Amanda because they share a bathroom, but there would need to be some kind of connection from the bedroom to the bathroom. There is none. If she had of been involved would there not be her DNA in the bedroom too? The bathroom alone proves nothing other than Meredith and Amanda sharing the space.

 

Now anyone can discuss these points, but please let's try to keep it under control. I will not answer these stupid question about the American government that have nothing to do with Amanda or the murder, so don't even bother.

Excellent post Brounmoney and all very detailed however hardly relevant because Amanda was also convicted of Slander - when she tried to implicate the bar owner? Right? Remember? - This conviction not waived, upheld, still in force, whichever way you put it, so quite apart from the murder case which will only bring Urchin out in hives still leaves Amanda....... a convicted criminal (oops, I said it again, that Urchin, it'll send him round the bend again).

 

Amanda Knox, felon. Convicted criminal (omg I said it again, that poor Urchin, what on earth is he going to do if he accidentally opens this thread which he has no interest in and sees that phrase yet again. Poor poor lad.)

[Eastside Urchin]

I feel tormented now loosely

[Loose]

I feel tormented now loosely

I can only apologise that yet again through no fault of your own that you've... accidentally... found your way in here yet again Urchin..

 

Somehow this accidentally business reminds me of this joke -

 

A guy went out bear hunting one day. He saw a bear and shot it. It was a perfect shot in the head. He walked over to retrieve the dead bear and it wasn't there on the ground. He was wondering where it went. Then he felt a tap on his shoulder. He looked back and it was the bear. The bear said, "Grab your ankles."

So the hunter did and the bear started ramming him up the ass.

The next day, the hunter went back out hunting with a bigger gun. He thought, "I am going to get that damn bear this time!"

He saw the bear, shot him twice, then he noticed the bear was again not on the ground when he tried to retrieve it.

He got another tap on the shoulder. You guessed it, the bear again, saying, "Grab your ankles."

He rammed the guy up the ass again.

The next day the guy went out again, this time he had a 50 caliber machine gun with Armor piercing, explosive tip rounds.

He saw the bear and went crazy on him and filled him full of lead!

Then he got another tap on the shoulder. He looked back and saw the bear.

The bear said,  

 

 

"You know, "I am beginning to think that you are not really coming out here for the hunting"

 

 

 

 

 

All this mock horror. Call it a coincidence but perhaps since it keeps happening.... well...

[Eastside Urchin]

Ah bless,great story,but wasted on me I am afraid.I simply don't care too much for it

[BUFC]

You lot are cracking me up

[Eastside Urchin]

You cracked up years ago mate

[Loose]

Ah bless,great story,but wasted on me I am afraid.I simply don't care too much for it

It's okay, I only did a cut and paste job, I couldn't be ar sed to spend a lot of time on your poor sensitive nature.

[Brounmoney]

Excellent post Brounmoney and all very detailed however hardly relevant because Amanda was also convicted of Slander - when she tried to implicate the bar owner? Right? Remember? - This conviction not waived, upheld, still in force, whichever way you put it, so quite apart from the murder case which will only bring Urchin out in hives still leaves Amanda....... a convicted criminal (oops, I said it again, that Urchin, it'll send him round the bend again).

 

Amanda Knox, felon. Convicted criminal (omg I said it again, that poor Urchin, what on earth is he going to do if he accidentally opens this thread which he has no interest in and sees that phrase yet again. Poor poor lad.)

If I remember correctly she served her time for that right? Did you not say before she was a convicted criminal because she was found guilty of murder? Edited May 18, 2013 by Brounmoney

[Loose]

When slander become a felony? Also if I remember correctly she served her time for that right? Did you not say before she was a convicted criminal because she was found guilty of murder? Even thought that was appealed.

I can't keep going over this with you Brounmoney, it upsets Urchin too much.

 

Slander in Italy is NOT a civil offence but Criminal. Yes, she was released after time served. No, I said she was a - shh.. Convicted Criminal - which she remains, having been... convicted and - No, she has not appealed or successfully appealed that crime.

 

 

Sorry Urchin, but then, hopefully you haven't accidentally opened this thread yet again.

Edited May 18, 2013 by Loose

[Rhodes]

Surely after 81 pages Mr Rhodes has dug himself a hole deep enough

Karen - Welcome to this thread, it's the jewel in Ian's crown isn't it and the goose that laid the golden egg, every page has an advertisement

[Brounmoney]

I can't keep going over this with you Brounmoney, it upsets Urchin too much.

 

Slander in Italy is NOT a civil offence but Criminal. Yes, she was released after time served. No, I said she was a - shh.. Convicted Criminal - which she remains, having been... convicted and - No, she has not appealed or successfully appealed that crime.

 

 

Sorry Urchin, but then, hopefully you haven't accidentally opened this thread yet again.

No I mean she has appealed the murder charges. Of course she is not going to appeal the slander. She served her time. So you are agree there that she has proven her innocence?

[Rhodes]

Of course she is not going to appeal the slander

Like I've said before I'm sure Patrick Lumumba had something to do with Meredith Kercher's murder

[Loose]

No I mean she has appealed the murder charges. Of course she is not going to appeal the slander. 

 

Ah...OK... then you agree that Amanda Knox is a (I don't know how long we're going to get away with hurting Urchin here)... (but)... Convicted Criminal and with your edit of your previous post you obviously realise now that Slander is a Criminal Offence in Italy and indeed across much of Europe (If only Britain were much like Europe (You watch Mayor of Simpleton, Urchin and Big JR go up like spontaneous Catherine Wheels at that one Brounmoney...).

 

Also that she has not appealed that (OMG...) Criminal Conviction...

 

Thank God.

 

 

 

So you are agree there that she has proven her innocence?

 

Uh... no. She has not yet proven her innocence since in Italy and yet again... much like most of Europe... there is no presumption of Innocence and we await the appeal which many have the sense to suggest that she never return to Italy... and parts... of Europe.

 

Amanda Knox unfortunately (I can't believe I'm going to say it yet again...) is still and remains convicted (since the Italian Appeal Court overturned the original appeal... denying her innocence...) of.... the charge of Murder....

 

 

 

That's it, those remain the unfortunate and accurate facts. Many including myself feel she has some way to go in proving she is innocent and I can't change that for you, our Rhodesy or my good friend... Urchin the poor and tormented fella. 

 

I wish you all the best Brounmoney, I feel you've manfully and misguidely misunderstood the facts but these are they. I can't change them. Tara fer now matey, here in the UK it's a big night for us with the Eurovision Song Contest and we nearly always win it. (I lied just there but you might not notice).