I didn't.

I knew that, but thanks for confirming.

Do you think all the people convicted by forensic evidence should be released?

I see Donald Trump is supporting Knox now which is good, and they recently convicted the corrupt prosecutor in this disgraceful case Giuliano Mignini for abuse of office. After the face saving measures are done they will have to let Knox and Sollecito free on appeal because there is no evidence whatsoever that Knox or Sollecito did this crime, absolutely zero evidence, regardless of what BS witchhunting lynchmob types spew.

Too bad Rudy Guede came on the scene to screw up the railroad job for them. How many hours does Guede ROTFLHAO of his cell a day? This worthless dirtbag went to rob and rape someone and caused this huge international incident, I bet he never dreamed that he would cause all this mess. Gets a big kick out of it I'm sure.

He's baaaaaaaaack!

Is it you're intention to make us all ROTFLOAO with that statement? Well done, Mission accomplished.

Poker91, go look at the poll. You are in the minority. Are delusional or just intentionally misrepresenting the general opinion of guilt in this thread?

I can't help how people vote in polls, just like I can't help it that there is no evidence that Knox and Sollecito did this crime. Wishing that there is actual real evidence doesn't make it so. Now that you brought the poll up it may surprise you how I voted in it, which is... "There is reasonable doubt here and should be found not guilty."...I don't think she did it of course, but I'll never claim that I know she is 100% innocent. All I know is that there is no real evidence whatsoever presented to this point that she did do it, ZERO.

"Giuliano Mignini...You're Fired," The Donald.

She's not ugly enough to be a female murderer.

I will state what I did earlier in this thread. Due to the U.S. media onslaught, I came into this thread thinking Knox was innocent and being done a great injustice.

After actually reading this thread and the evidence prevented (which Poker and AKA apparently have not done) it becomes glaringly obvious how guilty she was. There is no question whatsoever in my mind that she is guilty.

My story is pretty much the same. Anyone who came to this thread with an open mind seems to have become convinced she most likely did it.

Im not an expert in the field and cannot debate the evidence or lack there of. But its pretty clear there is little (note little is not zero) forensic evidence they did it but no forensic evidence they didnt. There is however a HUGE amount of other evidence that points to guilt. You dont get to point to no evidence as proof of innocence whilst ignoring all the other evidence (including that she lied in court!) that indicates guilt. The court weighed it up in several pre trial hearings and the actual trial and they all thought she did it.

Convicting someone without forensic evidence isnt particularly rare. Just like in the US its not rare for juries to not be sequestered (and even when they are it doesnt always work out right, see OJ) but that is regularly brought up by Knox supporters.

As for the last sentence, thinking someone should be convicted without forensic evidence is not nearly the same as releasing people who are convicted because of it. Forensic evidence is awesome, but its not the only evidence and there was a LOT of other evidence against Knox.

-----

Re the prosecutor being convicted, his crime was to illegally bug police officers and journalists to gather evidence on a different case. I mean its not great dont get me wrong but its not nearly the same as taking bribes or convicting innocent people. In fact if anything this supports Knox being guilty as it proves he is a guy who will stop at nothing to expose the truth.

Since the phrase has cropped up again, can someone please explain, assuming Knox is innocent and will be released upon appeal, what face are the Italians saving here?

I can only assume that Knox supporters do not understand what the phrase means. They could have pointed out her constant lying as reason to continue investigating and let her go after they already caught and convicted Guede. "Hey, mistakes happen when stupid girls lie to cops repeatedly, we had no choice but to hold her and investigate further". This is clearly more optimal face saving than "oh yeah, we convicted her and then let her go on appeal, our bad".

All this Italy bashing is absolutlely ridicilous they have excellent law schools and a great history in that scientific field (glossators etc.) Although bribary may be an issue in southern europa it does not apply here.

Your tears say more than real evidence ever could imo

Free Amanda!

You can't commit a sex murder without leaving physical traces of your presence. So no, it's not merely a lack of physical evidence: given the nature of the case, a lack of physical evidence tying her to the scene is exoneration. She was exonerated before the trial even began, and no number of authorities ruling to the contrary will retroactively put her where she wasn't.

A proper analysis is qualitative, not quantitative. The evidence of innocence is of sufficiently high quality that unless you can somehow prove that the apparent forensic evidence was not there after all there's simply nothing else worth considering.

Irrelevant comparisons on both points. Not all cases are such that physical traces identify the guilty party, and not all cases get massive, sensationalistic, inaccurate coverage.

So it only goes one way? How about other sorts of evidence? Perhaps we should decide that eyewitnesses placing the accused elsewhere don't count either.

It's pretty ridiculous that you are claiming the coverage outside of the U.S. was sensationalistic and inaccurate when the exact opposite is the case.

does she have an alibi? if not - guilty

I'm a purist

You've taken leave of reality.

I think most of us are tired of arguing with the equivalent of Knox advocates. It's obvious you and poker91 made up your minds way before you ever found this thread and are willfully ignoring any shred of circumstantial or physical evidence that doesn't bolster your case. Most of the rest of us came to this thread with an open mind and a real interest to learn more and discuss the case.

So have fun, but don't think you're winning just because we don't feel like playing prosecutor to your defense lawyer.

Wow, lol.

Yeah, this is my last response to these clowns.

I came into this thread absolutely convinced that a poor American college girl was getting railroaded by a corrupt Italian system.

Then instead of acting like a moron, I began reading the facts of this case, not the bizarre BS slathered all over U.S. by the PR firm Knox's parents were paying. I am now convinced that she is clearly guilty and all of the thoughts to the contrary were mechanism of a PR machine and nothing more.

The very fact that you claim the U.S. coverage was unbiased when it was created by a PR firm whereas much of the non-U.S. reporting you claim is biased is in fact actual journalism shows how clearly you have divorced yourself from reality.

FWIW, I bumped the thread because her family was appearing on Oprah and I thought some people might be interested in what they had to say etc.

Thank you for doing so because it reminds clear thinking, rational people that they shouldn't forget that there is absolutely zero evidence that Knox or Sollocito did this crime and that a terrible miscarriage of justice has been done in this tragic case by those that disgracefully abuse their position of authority, hopefully soon to be corrected. Thanks again.

Seriously give it a rest you flag totting, ignorant moron.

This is like a politard thread. I am pretty sure the Poker and AKA have not read any of the links and posts here and just keep throwing up the same BS in response to every post.

If you are going to continue to troll without responding to anyone's points, go to some BS friends of Amanda website. Your absolute lack of objectivity is stunning even for the internet.

She's getting chunky and she's got the herp. I'd still do her obv.

Question is would you do her while you still know that she is guilty or are you doing her because you know she is guilty?