The innocent person you are referring to was in jail because of police misconduct, and that’s nothing compared to what Knox and Sollecito went through because of that same misconduct.
The lead prosecutor did, and in fact he was cited for gross misconduct in another high profile case and wouldn’t even be allowed in court at all if judges didn’t waive that part of his sentence.
The judges have demonstrated gross incompetence and bias, if nothing else.
Well, she didn’t say he was guilty in any real confession. She was told to imagine a scenario if he were involved and then they tried to portray it as a real admission. It’s classic police frame up The Innocence Project has documented a number of such cases.
…police misconduct? Cite to a primary source?
So you agree and conceed that the judges did not lie. What evidence do you have that Mignini lied in court in this case?
For more information on Mignini’s misconduct, read this blogpost:
I think you forgot to add the disclaimer “in my opinion.” Not everyone believes this to be true: and the evidence doesn’t bear this out. Unless you’d like to provide some?
So says Amanda. The police, of course, tell a different story. And of course there wasn’t any real confession, because Amanda never confessed: she accused someone else. And just because the Innocence Project has documented cases of police misconduct leading to false confessions doesn’t mean it happened here and this is not evidence of a “classic police frame up.” What evidence is there that this was a complete frame up? If the evidence is as weak as you have been asserting since the start of this thread, why was Amanda found guilty?
Mods: I couldn’t quite figure out if this deserved it’s own thread. If in your opinion it does, please lock this and let me know, and I’ll start a new thread about the slander charges.
:eek:
She is already serving a 26 year sentence for a murder they can’t place her at, and now they are trying to tack more years on to that sentence. WTF do the authorities have against this woman? Combined with the stuff that went on over a 30 year period involving the Monster of Florence case, it makes me want to avoid Perugia if I ever go to Italy.
Also, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of jail time for slander before. I thought it was a civil crime, not an offense that could get you locked up. Is that a uniquely Italian thing, or am I just ill informed about slander laws in the US?
Actually, it’s more like it’s the modern American trend to make slander/libel exclusively a civil tort; many countries around the world, including a lot in Europe, have criminal defamation statutes and there even are (according to Wiki, so the grain of salt is implicit) 17 states and territories of the US that still have some form or another of criminal defamation clauses in their laws (whether applied or not - ours in PR was struck down by by the courts as late as the 1990s but the legislators insist on keeping it on the books).
So confusing. They deny they called her a liar before, and their defense is that she’s a liar? 
I think you’d be OK if you can prove you have never been a member of a Satanic cult. 
…ummm, she’s a convicted murderer?
Sorry, but that’s a ridiculously vapid and ignorant comment.
Being convicted as a murderer is not the same thing as being a murderer. Saying they are out to get her because she is a convicted murderer is nonsense because they were acting that way long before she was convicted. Hell, that was the only reason she was convicted in the first place.
The police and judges were on a witch hunt, pure and simple. Anyone who looks at the actual evidence without wanting to justify a conclusion they already jumped to can see who the real killer is and that Amanda and Raffaele had nothing to do with it.
When the lead prosecutor in the case was already convicted of gross abuse of power for pulling exactly these kinds of stunts, and the officers in question care more about anyone daring to question their behavior and skills than running a proper investigation, this case going forward just underscores how corrupt they are. The best move they could have done was drop the whole thing so people would forget about the case, but now anyone with an open mind is going to see this as petty and pointless face-saving by the police who already got the people they wanted behind bars. Maybe some of those observers who never thought about the situation much will realize that any officials who could let this kind of injustice move forward are the kind of people who would gladly convict innocent people to save face. So there’s potentially a lot of good to come from these toads showing their true colors.
To respond to some earlier comments by the same poster:
Same sources previously cited. Please read the thread for content instead of jumping in with the same old nonsense.
The innocent man being referred to in that part of the discussion got there because police learned that Amanda had told him “See you later” and interpreted it to mean “See you tonight at my house where we can kill someone” instead of the basic goodbye every sane person knows it means. They also extracted a so-called confession from her implicating this person by making her imagine a hypothetical scenario and then presented it to the world as if she said it was real and what actually happened. This is police misconduct by any reasonable definition.
And the misconduct continued in other aspects of the case, most notably by an alleged forensic scientist who ran tests she was not qualified to run and which experts note for being highly susceptible to contamination while taking no steps to prevent contamination. This kind of behavior should get someone fired and prevented from working in the field completely, but instead she was rewarded.
I said they showed bias and incompetence. Why are you instead focusing on that particular turn of phrase instead? Trying to make it sound like I said something other than what I really did, or what?
Again, not what I said. But when you have an official actually convicted of lying and official misconduct on a gross scale, what kind of idiot would assume he would have suddenly started being honest in another high profile murder case?
No, sorry. Anything written by Barbie Latza Nadeau is a very poor source. She repeatedly could not get even the most basic and easily checkable facts straight in her coverage, and she demonstrated clear bias from the start. There are plenty of better articles to read about Mignini, and some of them have already been linked to. You act like you are providing the source as if you are trying to educate people who do not already know about the topic when instead you picked a shallow and already well-publicized source.
The evidence has already been provided. And actually it is you who have provided none to support your side.
Of course they do.
The claim that she confessed was paramount to the arguments of the people who wanted and got her convicted. Have you actually read anything more than a few paragraphs on this case? How can you come up with comments like this and expect to be treated seriously?
The evidence already discussed. Pay attention. And of course evidence that police misconduct and railroading of innocent people happen elsewhere does not prove it happened in this case, but it makes your next sentence completely vapid as an argument:
So the only way anyone ever gets convicted of anything is solid and legitimate evidence? Wake up to the real world sometime here.
Your whole debating tactic here seems to consist of ignoring everything already said, stating some sort of challenge for someone to prove you wrong (even though the info already provided that you ignore basically did already) and then declare you are right. That might help you trick yourself into thinking you had any real point to make, but it doesn’t fool anyone who is paying attention.
…Dan Norder, you were the OP of this thread. By my count you’ve posted to the thread sixteen times. From your OP alone you make the following assertions:
**
-Knox and Sollecito are the victims of a witch hunt
-The police force that made a snap judgment that Knox was suspicious
-The police never let facts get in their way
-Yellow journalism that presupposes that they must be guilty or else they wouldn’t have been arrested in the first place
-Rumors that have since been proven to be false that got published uncritically.
-The only clear DNA evidence shows someone else entirely did it
-The lead prosecutor believes a conspiracy of Masons commit Satanic murders through sexually orgies and originally tried to fit this case into it but dropped the Satanic angle when the press made fun of him
-The lead forensic scientist performed DNA tests she’s not certified to do and which are about the most likely to suffer contamination and then misrepresented the results in court.
-Police originally thought Amanda and the boss at the bar she sometime worked at did the crime together because she used the words “see you later” to him on the day of the murder.
-The police claim Amanda confessed
**
Thats just a sample of your allegations from your OP. You claim all of these things as fact, but in the following fifteen posts you have provided no evidence to back up your claims whatsoever.
Not one cite.
And you keep on going. I mean you just posted this:
Are you talking about Patrizia Stefanoni? Because I’ve read the criticism, I’ve read the counter criticism, I’ve looked at the people criticizing Stefanoni and I’ve looked at their qualifications. It is however hard for anyone to comment on your allegation without knowing for sure you are talking about Stefanoni or not. How about you name some names?
I’m amazed that you are challenging my debate style: accusing me of only having read a couple of paragraphs about the case. You have made several serious allegations about not only the police of another country but their judicial system. You attack every cite that runs counter to your narrative but fail to supply your own.
Do you want us just to trust you? Is that it? Would you rather we all lay down and accept every word that you say as gospel? Is that how you wish Great Debates to work? “Read the thread” you say. Well, guess what? I have. Now, are you going to support the positions you have put forward?
It appears your debate style appears to be to post unsubstantiated unsupported allegations and when challenged to support them you yell louder or change the subject. When presented by citation you attack the person behind the cite, not the information itself. Is this a fair representation of your debate style? No? Then stop personalizing this debate by attacking me and start treating this debate like a debate. If you have something to say about my debate style then feel free to do it in the pit.
I have already shown you where I have gotten my information on the case: I followed along with the Randi thread back when it started in December 2009. At its absolute peak that thread was growing at a rate of approximately ten pages a day. I read every page of that thread. Yeah, I read most of the links cited on that thread. No, I didn’t understand everything. Yeah, for a while there, I had no life. 
I followed along until the eventual thread closure, and stopped following along when it became thread number two.
The original thread is a wealth of information that has, at some stage, debated nearly every single aspect of this case. As you can imagine there is “citation overload” in that thread from both sides of the debate: and both sides indeed give there all.
My conclusion after following along in that thread is that the evidence strongly suggests that Amanda Knox is guilty of Meredith’s murder. I’m completely open to being convinced otherwise and would not be upset if the conviction was overturned if the evidence were to show otherwise. I have no emotional attachment to the guilt or innocence of Amanda. I stuck around the thread because initially I actually thought that the Knox supporters had a point: but the shear weight of evidence eventually convinced me otherwise.
So to address your other points:
Thanks for the compliment. I do my best.
Sure. Thats why I called her a…wait for it…convicted murderer. Would you actually prefer me to call her a murderer? If thats what you would prefer, then I’ll stick with that. Amanda Knox is a murderer.
Actually, I was answering the question posed by Snowboarder Bo. He asked:
The answer, quite obviously, is that they believe Amanda Knox is a convicted murderer. They believe that Amanda lied when she said she was assaulted and they are perusing the appropriate remedy under Italian Law.
This is your opinion: personally based on my reading of the case I do not believe that either the police or the judges are on a witch hunt.
:: waves hands :: . I’ve looked at the evidence. I’ve looked at a lot of the actual evidence. Sorry, I can’t agree with your conclusions.
Cite for what the Lead Prosecutor was convicted of please, as well as the nature of the “stunts” that in your opinion makes him unsuitable for this case.
Cite that the officers didn’t care about this investigation and cite that they didn’t conduct a proper investigation.
Cite for corruption please.
Why should the Italian Justice system not follow its laws?
Well, you haven’t provided any cites yet. A number of other people, however have. Which ones do you want me to read? aceplace57? Mr Miskatonic?
So back to police misconduct. Show me what you’ve got.
So I googled “See you tonight at my house where we can kill someone” and, of course, it points only to this thread. So this is obviously not a direct quote from the trial or a direct quote from the interrogation. Can you provide a cite for this? This is not my understanding of how the interrogation went at all.
From Page 74 of the Motivations File, a quote from Amanda:
Is this what you are referring to? Can you expand a bit more? Cite?
And you really need to provide a cite for this. Firstly who are we talking about here? Are you claiming the forensic scientist isn’t really a scientist? Which tests were she not qualified to run? Why should she have been fired? Who are these experts you are talking about?
A simple question was asked: “Did the judges lie?”
You could have chosen not to answer the question: it wasn’t addressed to you. However choosing to do so, you decided to accuse the lead prosecutor of lying, then accused the judges of demonstrating gross incompetence and bias.
I focused on “that turn of phrase” because that was the question that was asked. You did absolutely everything but answer the question. Look at my comment as a request for clarification. But lets try and be absolutely clear here for those following along: do you think the judges lied? Yes or no?
Well, in a thread about Amanda Knox, where a question “did the judges lie?” was asked and where you choose to respond "The lead prosecutor did, and in fact he was cited for gross misconduct in another high profile case and wouldn’t even be allowed in court at all if judges didn’t waive that part of his sentence," it is not unreasonable to conclude that you were claiming Mignini lied in this case. In fact, rereading the sentence this is exactly what you appear to be claiming.
So for starters: how about some cites for what Mignini was convicted of. Then you could clarify for us: do you think Mignini lied in this case?
I’m sorry I didn’t run my cites through the Norder approval process.
I am well aware of the reputation that Nadeau has in the Knox trial circles. Unfortunately everybody who has an opinion on this case has got a reputation: and your out of hand dismissal of this cite based on your opinion of Nadeau is disappointing. When I went looking for this cite I initially read it, checked on a few basic facts, saw nothing factually wrong with it so linked to it.
So what did Nadeau get wrong in the article?
ROFL!!!
Firstly, please explain to me what side I am on. Secondly, please show me where you have provided evidence the Judges have demonstrated gross incompetence and bias. Thirdly, I have no obligation to provide citations for positions I have not put forward.
But if you really are interested in “the other side of the arguement”, then I will present the motivations report.
So, as I stated, and as you agree, Amanda never confessed. Why are you arguing with me when you agree with me? And yes, I have read a little bit more about this case than a few paragraphs. How much have you read?
Who are these people you are claiming Amanda confessed? How did they influence the trial?
…oh, okay. If you insist.
…this should be good.
You do realize that most of the time the legal system gets it right. Occasionally, it gets things wrong. Over in NZ the most memorable instance of wrong-doing was the case of Arthur Allan Thomas.
Thomas was found guilty of the murder of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe in 1971, and the conviction was subsequently upheld in 1973. It wasn’t until 1979, after lengthy campaigning by the likes of Dr Jim Sprott and Pat Booth, that Thomas was pardoned and released.
I think that it is laudable that people fight for the likes of Thomas. I think that it is laudable for you to fight for Amanda. But if you are going to fight for Amanda, then fight for her. At the moment you are preaching to the converted. This does Amanda, if she is innocent, no good at all.
I personally believe the evidence is good enough to convict and have no problems with the guilty verdict. I do not believe the evidence is as weak as has been asserted and this is why Amanda was convicted of murder. I sincerely look forward to seeing you try to prove me wrong.
And apologies for reviving a month old thread, but the above information just came down this morning.
The rather basic step of having outside experts examine the alleged DNA evidence is long overdue. It should have happened during the original trial, but unfortunately the judges refused and just went with whatever claims the prosecution made.
Since he is the only one actually convicted, what was Guede’s final version on the events?
He doesn’t have a final version of events. It has always changed to whatever he thought would get him the least prison time. Originally he was supposedly never there, then when the DNA evidence was overwhelming he said he was there and had sex with the victim and someone else broke in and killed her while he was in the bathroom, then it was he was there and had sex with the victim and Knox and Sollecito showed up to kill her and said “let’s blame it on the black guy who is innocently and conveniently here”, then it was none of the three of us who were convicted were involved, then it was I was there but they were not, then it was I left after having sex and was down the block when I saw Knox and/or Sollecito approaching the house, then it was I don’t know anymore but if those two are free now I should be too it isn’t fair wahhhhhh.
Saw this in the news today and thought I’d post a link so that some of the doubters (like Banquet Bear) could see for themselves just how ridiculous the Italian appeals court thought this whole thing was.
[
But…but…but…SHE DID A CARTWHEEL!!!
The appeals court covered that, too:
Because in Italian theatre, it ain’t over until the fat lady sings. Yep, prosecutors filed a 112 page appeal asking the country’s highest criminal court to reinstate the murder convictions of Knox and Sollecito.
[
I can’t really see Knox voluntarily returning to Italy if the conviction is reinstated; does the US have an extradition treaty with Italy that we would honor if that happened?
Of course, given the language of the appeals court ruling that tossed the conviction, I can’t see that happening, but as I think we all learned with this case, the Italian justice system is not the American justice system. Sometimes it produces results that to many of us are simply preposterous.