Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #15

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
redheadedgal said:
and the jury got the verdict wrong right?




another comment about "lingerie"?

would a female not want clean underwear? especially when it's "that time of the month"?




http://www.innocenceproject.org/




"burglary+murder+cases": http://www.bing.com/search?q=burglary++murder+cases&qs=ds&form=QBRE
Click to expand...


Of course there is nothing wrong with buying underwear. However, it was the WAY she drew attention to herself in such a manner to even be remembered buying it.
Do people notice you buying underwear in a Target type store? Would anyone remember you and what you bought? No. I believe she made a spectacle of herself with RS as she was selecting them. All IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
redheadedgal said:
someone -i thought it was you- stated no police force would miss a staged break in... the pittsburgh case posted refuted this...
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that a mistake was made. It is still part of the job description for investigators to recognize a staged break in. That a mistake was made in Pittsburgh is not reason to conclude that investigators are not trained to recognize a staged break in.
 
I'm only on page 3 of the current thread, so please forgive me if I'm butting into a conversation with my opinion....

I've not followed the case closely, but I have read up on it in recent months. I still have a lot to learn. I've only seen a few interviews with Amanda, and I can honestly say that she comes across as very insincere. Granted, I don't know how I would react in front of a camera, but I feel like she feigns emotion (speaking like she's choked up but NOT a SINGLE tear), and I feel like she tries to use big words and sound...superior (for lack of a better word.)

Again, just my opinion, for what it's worth! Back to page 3 for this girl.....carry on!
 
Originally Posted by otto

Any thoughts on why Steve Moore claims that Knox was tortured for 53 hours prior to falsely accusing Mr Lumumba of murder? We know that Knox arrived at the police station at about 11PM on Nov 4 and that she signed the statement at 1:30AM Nov 5. We also know that the signed statement was excluded from the trial proceedings. Why is Steve Moore so confused about this?

i believe he says "interrogated for 43"... http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html

where does SM say she was "tortured for 53 hours"? and by 53, do you mean straight or over the course of several days as he asserts with his assertion of 43? tia.


Why does Steve Moore claim that he attended the trial when he doesn't speak Italian and was in Perugia for only a couple of days?

cite?


Did anything odd happen in the courtroom when he attended court on those one or two days with his wife?

cite?


Any thoughts on why Steve Moore states that Knox confessed when it's a well known fact that she accused another man of murder, which is significantly different than a confession?

this has been answered ad nauseum in these threads.


Is it acceptable for the a retired FBI person to skew the facts?

unproven.
 
otto said:
It's unfortunate that a mistake was made. It is still part of the job description for investigators to recognize a staged break in. That a mistake was made in Pittsburgh is not reason to conclude that investigators are not trained to recognize a staged break in.
Click to expand...

it surely DOES disprove the assertion made -- that police around the world would recognize a staged break in.

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #15
 
redheadedgal said:
yes, the US can keep him !!




how much dna was found on the clasp vs. on the purse? sweater?

was there dna of other males found on the purse or sweater, like the clasp?
Click to expand...

I believe RGs was considered minimal compared to MKs as it was a mixed sample.

I also believe one instance was only RGs Y haplo.
 
jjenny said:
So should she be convicted because she is white and pretty? They already let her out. Sounds to me like they have a mess of case.
They have a guy in prison with strong evidence against him.
I don't think they have anything beyond a reasonable doubt when it comes to her.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They've always had a mess of a case. I think as time goes on you will see more people really looking into both of the things that matter: 1) the evidence and 2) the very flawed trial process.

Without a shred of doubt if anyone here were accused of a crime not a one would think these procedures were appropriate or fair for themselves. No, we would want a lawyer. We would want to be questioned in their native language. We would not want evidence presented in the Guede trial, which they were not allowed to question or rebut to be then be used against them. We would insist on the highest standards and best practices in evidence collection and testing. We would want a change of venue due to insane pretrial publicity, and on and on. Yet some have no issue with someone else being convicted that way. I can't understand for the life of me the justification behind that line of thinking.
 
otto said:
He did. He crossed the border into Austria. At 1AM police went to his hotel, woke him up, took him to the police station, and stamped his passport with No Exit.
Click to expand...
That is what I thought, so what is the excuse? He forgot that he is on trial for murder including travel restrictions?
 
m1279 said:
I'm only on page 3 of the current thread, so please forgive me if I'm butting into a conversation with my opinion....

I've not followed the case closely, but I have read up on it in recent months. I still have a lot to learn. I've only seen a few interviews with Amanda, and I can honestly say that she comes across as very insincere. Granted, I don't know how I would react in front of a camera, but I feel like she feigns emotion (speaking like she's choked up but NOT a SINGLE tear), and I feel like she tries to use big words and sound...superior (for lack of a better word.)

Again, just my opinion, for what it's worth! Back to page 3 for this girl.....carry on!
Click to expand...

I have found her to be incredibly authentic and sincere. But we're all entitled to our own opinions and we won't always agree. I don't think she uses big words - I think she talks like a pretty normal, intelligent person.
 
m1279 said:
I'm only on page 3 of the current thread, so please forgive me if I'm butting into a conversation with my opinion....

I've not followed the case closely, but I have read up on it in recent months. I still have a lot to learn. I've only seen a few interviews with Amanda, and I can honestly say that she comes across as very insincere. Granted, I don't know how I would react in front of a camera, but I feel like she feigns emotion (speaking like she's choked up but NOT a SINGLE tear), and I feel like she tries to use big words and sound...superior (for lack of a better word.)

Again, just my opinion, for what it's worth! Back to page 3 for this girl.....carry on!
Click to expand...

Also the big words could be because of overactive imagination....which she has an abudance of. I believe it is partly her imagination which has gotten her into this mess (creative idea for burglary prank.....creative idea of how to stage everything....creative idea of stories to tell....imagining herself to be innocent until she truly began to believe it.....imagining she has nothing to do with this and everybody is out to "get her"....imagining story for her defense....creative lines to memorize for her press appearances....imagining what an innocent person would say....and the list goes on and on....).
 
aa9511 said:
Oh, please. Doesn't she have more pressing things to worry about?
Click to expand...

Um, no. This isn't a traffic ticket, it's an international murder case with national diplomatic considerations, and the defendant is her constituent. Many of her other constituents are pretty passionate about this case as well, so if she's there to do more than earn a paycheck, and is actually there to be the voice of her constituents, she's doing exactly what she needs to be doing.
 
Irish_Eyes said:
Exactly. They've always had a mess of a case. I think as time goes on you will see more people really looking into both of the things that matter: 1) the evidence and 2) the very flawed trial process.

Without a shred of doubt if anyone here were accused of a crime not a one would think these procedures were appropriate or fair for themselves. No, we would want a lawyer. We would want to be questioned in their native language. We would not want evidence presented in the Guede trial, which they were not allowed to question or rebut to be then be used against them. We would insist on the highest standards and best practices in evidence collection and testing. We would want a change of venue due to insane pretrial publicity, and on and on. Yet some have no issue with someone else being convicted that way. I can't understand for the life of me the justification behind that line of thinking.
Click to expand...

She's not even an Italian citizen, and they are giving her so many chances to defend herself on a crime which happened on their soil. She has had a fair trial - she had her chance to defend herself. It's not like they just locked her up in jail and threw the key away and everyone forgot about her (!!). She has had due process. All of the things above, her defense could have addressed, pre-trial and during the trial. They could have told the jury all of that stuff. It's not like she wasn't allowed to have her say in court or to defend herself.
 
m1279 said:
I'm only on page 3 of the current thread, so please forgive me if I'm butting into a conversation with my opinion....

I've not followed the case closely, but I have read up on it in recent months. I still have a lot to learn. I've only seen a few interviews with Amanda, and I can honestly say that she comes across as very insincere. Granted, I don't know how I would react in front of a camera, but I feel like she feigns emotion (speaking like she's choked up but NOT a SINGLE tear), and I feel like she tries to use big words and sound...superior (for lack of a better word.)

Again, just my opinion, for what it's worth! Back to page 3 for this girl.....carry on!
Click to expand...

The "choked up" observation is interesting. I had avoided all video comments from Knox until the verdict, and I was quite surprised with her manner, countenance, Big Word soup and pauses to accompany tears, but no tears, just facial expressions for tears ... then onto the next question. The tone of her voice really surprised me. Part of me hoped that she was somewhat demure, but there was nothing of demure in Knox.

Meredith's sister seems classy, demure and polite.
 
Irish_Eyes said:
Um, no. This isn't a traffic ticket, it's an international murder case with national diplomatic considerations, and the defendant is her constituent. Many of her other constituents are pretty passionate about this case as well, so if she's there to do more than earn a paycheck, and is actually there to be the voice of her constituents, she's doing exactly what she needs to be doing.
Click to expand...

You mean she wants to grab some of the spotlight?
 
Myvice said:
I have to admit that for quite a while I viewed RS more as just going along with AK. With the things that have come to light in the last week or two my opinion of him has changed. And not for the better.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. At first I believed that he was duped, but apparently he has some abnormal sexual proclivities, and has had them for some time. Some kind of Japanese mugn? Never heard of it before.
 
aa9511 said:
Also the big words could be because of overactive imagination....which she has an abudance of. I believe it is partly her imagination which has gotten her into this mess (creative idea for burglary prank.....creative idea of how to stage everything....creative idea of stories to tell....imagining herself to be innocent until she truly began to believe it.....imagining she has nothing to do with this and everybody is out to "get her"....imagining story for her defense....creative lines to memorize for her press appearances....imagining what an innocent person would say....and the list goes on and on....).
Click to expand...


Ya nailed it! IMO!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
aa9511 said:
She's not even an Italian citizen, and they are giving her so many chances to defend herself on a crime which happened on their soil. She has had a fair trial - she had her chance to defend herself. It's not like they just locked her up in jail and threw the key away and everyone forgot about her (!!). She has had due process. All of the things above, her defense could have addressed, pre-trial and during the trial. They could have told the jury all of that stuff. It's not like she wasn't allowed to have her say in court or to defend herself.
Click to expand...

And then they let her out.
They themselves decided there was not enough case against her and let her out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 58 more.
Total: 237 (members: 59, guests: 178)

Online statistics

Members online
59
Guests online
178
Total visitors
237
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,584
Messages
18,255,844
Members
234,696
Latest member
Avangaleen414
Back
Top