Yeah, because assessing the worth of each of her complaints is how it should be done, Mr Junior Mod.
I dont have to get to grips with anything, she’s in jail, not me. If you claim you have been “tortured” (though I didnt get the feeling that she claimed it, that’s more her fully-rational defenders’ line), least you could do is to prove it.
Don’t get snarky with me. I was clearly responding to your assertion that Knox was going to do anything she could to make the police look bad and how that smelt of shit to you if there was nothing to back it up. There was a significant enough body of evidence backing up the majority of Knox’s claims that the Italian Supreme Court ruled in her favor. The fact that this eliminated certain material from the prosecutor’s saddle bag is not as relevant in Italy, where jurors are not only allowed to do independent research on a case, but encouraged to do so.
I won’t quibble with you over the definition of torture since there really can be no objective conclusion to that argument.
What was the evidence gathered during the faulty police interrogation exactly? (Just to see if jurors can actually use it)
There are reports of all sorts of nonsense. Most of what the tabloid papers printed, especially in Italy and England, was just made up largely out of thin air. Hell, a lot of papers are still running weekly updates where they say Knox has said something or another about the case in an interview to the journalist when she hasn’t even done any interviews and can’t. But they still get printed.
OK, see, phrased like that, yes, that sounds bad. But everyone who lived at the house was locked out with only what they were wearing at the time because it was now a crime scene. Knox was already on at least day two of the clothes she was wearing because she had been at her boyfriend’s house. So at some point she did what anyone would do in her situation: she bought new, clean underwear. That’s an entirely innocent, practical thing to do, and suddenly tabloids and conspiracy theorists get hold of it and they’re painted as sadistic, murdering perverts.
Again, that’s way exaggerated. They kissed outside while police were in the house. People do this. It can be comforting when things are stressful. It wasn’t some crazy, passionate, going to have sex on the ground thing.
Again, no. That version is entirely slanted by bad news reports and the prosecution. The sad truth is this: Police were suspicious of her, and they checked her phone. The night of the murder she left work and texted her boss with “See you later.” Yet another perfectly innocent thing to do. The police, however, had a rush to judgment of epic proportions, and assumed this meant that Amanda Knox was planning on meeting her boss somewhere later that night. And because the two were together (but not really) the night her roommate was killed, they must have done it together. During the long interview process at the station they kept saying they knew the man was at the house and what was she doing there with him. They asked (in what is unfortunately common police techniques even in America) her that if she was not involved to imagine what the scene was like at the murder with the facts she knew (largely taken from the B.S. they told her) and to describe it. This bit of fantasy is then submitted into evidence as if it were a confession. Then the police turned around later on and said she must be guilty because she pointed the finger at this innocent man. If that guy hadn’t had iron-clad alibis, based upon what we know of how the police conducted the investigation, he would likely be in prison now too. They made up their minds, and anything they found, not matter how silly, was proof to themselves that they were correct.
You’d like to think so, but once an opinion is formed it’s very difficult to change it. They have hated Knox for so long know for bad reasons they aren’t just going to turn that off. And the real murderer already was caught and is in prison.
Moving along to Captaine Zombie…
She was a foreign exchange student only over there for a few weeks. Nobody expects students to be fully fluent before they get there.
Actually, from previous threads on this topic it’s very clear you have a strong opinion on this case, and you become quite rude to anyone who disagrees with you. You have repeatedly asked for people to provide evidence to back up their arguments while ignoring evidence that was already presented and preventing none of your own. You’re already nearly attacking anyone who disagrees with you on this thread as well.
I think you’re confusing me with someone else.
I posted in total 4 or 5 times in the Amanda Knox threads we’ve had on the Dope (excluding this thread from the count). None of my posts were focused on the case actually, so I dont know how you could have formed the thought that I had a strong opinion on this case. If it amuses you I can post the list. (I’m wondering if you’re not confusing me with Captain Ridley).
I’ve asked for evidence that she was tortured. So far, the only thing that was put on the table was that she was under duress during her interrogation. Nothing about physical brutality. Your above post isnt evidence, I hope you realize that. It’s your opinion. Constructed and all, but it’s still opinion.
I’m baffled that questioning how Knox’s early prison conditions qualify as torture is now “already nearly attacking anyone who disagrees with you on this thread as well” (mind you that was the limit of what I have posted in this very thread as well. There’s nothing about her innocence or guilt in any of my posts).
I have no dog in this fight - I don’t know whether her version of events is true or not. What I, and I think, other people were discussing with you was whether what she claims happened would constitute torture - not whether or not she actually was tortured.
Maybe I missed a post or something, but I don’t think anyone was hardline saying that her version of events definitely happened.
This part confuses me, because during the original trial I thought it was reported that she spoke Italian well. On the other hand, it’s possible that anyone’s knowledge of a second language might be compromised under duress.
If you travel to a foreign country and can speak that language, it’s been my experience that the locals are usually willing to help you in that area, perhaps speaking a little more slowly, or speaking the standard of the language rather than their regional or national dialect. Knowing German, I found this to be the case in Switzerland. As for my German ability, I can usually read articles and novels (although getting through one can be a real slog sometimes). I can understand spoken German fairly well, more easily in contexts like news broadcasts, and less so in fictional, dramatic presentations.
But it would be a different situation if I went over there and somehow got arrested for a horrific crime I didn’t commit, and had the police screaming at me for a day and a half or whatever it was. I’m not sure I’d understand German too well after an hour or two of such interrogation. If they gave me a document to sign and didn’t give me a little extra time to read it–because I can’t read German as quickly or easily as I can English–under duress I might not know what I was signing either.
It seems that a debate has broken out, so I’ve moved this from IMHO to Great Debates.
I just want to add this for perspective:
It also involves a prosecution where a prosecutor was going after a group of up to 7 men with very sketchy connections to the case largely derived from confessions derived under intense (but legal) interrogations, but then a known criminal (a known murderer, in fact) was tied to a crime scene by DNA evidence, confessed to the crime (not under duress), explained that he was acting alone, yet the prosecutor continued to push for the conviction of the men initially fingered by explaining that the clearly guilty individual in this case came upon an unknown group of men outside a random apartment, solicited them to come help rape, rob, and murder a women, and then all of them spontaneously agreed, "why not?"but also happened to have and decided to wear condoms when the single inciting character did not.
My apologies for that atrocity of a run on sentence, but I want to make the point that equally as crazy convictions have occurred in the United States in the past decade.
[Now Amanda Knox is just like a Nazi!
I hope this young woman finally gets to go free. And I hope the family of the deceased can finally join the human race.
STFU. It’s not enough justice to have locked up the guy who admitted he did it? What if we locked up all of Perugia? Would that be enough fucking “justice” for y’all?
The whole neighborhood did it! The Pope too! And Mrs. O’Leary’s cow! OHH! 
I think you summed it up quite well there. She’s innocent, and maybe the boytfriend too??
IIRC, the only evidence was circumstantial with the same fingerprints on kitchen knives *and they were roommates for crap’s sake! *
Does anyone know anything on Italian Law on how four people can be accused and convicted for murder but not entirely know each other? I mean, this almost sounds like a General Hospital episode more than reality.
Maybe it’ll just turn out to be a phony reality show they tricked us with!
Right, because having one small thing done to you that might not be so bad on its own is exactly comparable to having several things done to you at the same time. Does that make sense to you?
Go on digging, your comments are getting sillier all the time.
Except the knife wasn’t found in the Kercher/Knox apartment; it wasn’t their knife. It was found in Sollecito’s apartment; it belonged to him. And the prosecution claimed it had “trace” DNA of Kercher’s on it. And they also claimed it could have made one of three cuts on Kercher’s neck, but they never tried to claim it had made all three cuts, so presumably one or two cuts were made and deemed “not good enough” so the killer/killers went and got another knife (I mean, that’s how Satanic rituals happen, isn’t it?).
[
Now I see why he painted himself into the corner with reasons why these two had to use three knives-- the satanic ritual! Only plausible explanation! Oh, and the marijuana. That makes everyone stabby.
Damn, this is getting dumber and dumber. I’m Italian, so maybe it’s our love of opera that leans some towards liking the show of the trial. Nah, I hate opera.
But we’ve seen some cases here like this recently (Anthony, Davis) and look how different these dumb things turn out.
So true… my sister and I laughed and cried throughout my cousin’s funeral - he and I were both 24 and I loved him with all my heart. It was all so surreal and horrifying that any little thing would set us off. Crazy giggles and snorts. If you didn’t know us or understand our pain, you would have thought we were both insane or frighteningly insensitive. People deal with tragedy in odd ways sometimes.
This case somewhat reminds me of Meursault in his mother’s funeral in Camus’ The Stranger:
“At the trial, Meursault’s quietness and passivity is seen as demonstrative of his seeming lack of remorse or guilt by the prosecuting attorney, and so the attorney concentrates more upon Meursault’s inability or unwillingness to cry at his mother’s funeral than on the actual murder” ( Stranger (disambiguation) - Wikipedia )
I could be wrong on this, but I think in jail, while she was awaiting trial, she put much of her time and focus into learning Italian. (I would too, if I needed to speak Italian to understand what was going on while my whole future was being decided.) So, while her Italian was fairly weak at the time of the crime and the initial interrogation, it was pretty fluent by the time of the trial.
Which Italian tabloids? Press coverage here seems to be mostly subdued AFAICT.
Classy. :rolleyes:
Whole lot of ignorance in this thread and not much fightin’…