Amanda Knox again

[Jeneral2885]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11975764

[non sociopath skin]

1. So?

The Skin

[dipsydoodle]

2. If her appeal fails

the procecutors are going for life in prison.

[Nihil]

3. Good luck to them.

Bet it isn't going to stop her "doing a Hindley" every few years though.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

4. What's the general feeling here....

do you think she did it?

[mackerel]

5. I think she was involved.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

6. okay

I don't think she had anything to do with it.

[oldironside]

7. I have to agree with you.

Sollecito and Knox are innocent and it's a miscarriage of justice as bad as Stefan Kisco or any of the other low points reached by the British justice system. I can recommend that anyone interested in the case read the articles here.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry10.html

[Jeneral2885]

8. Then

Poor Meredith Kercher will never have peace

[oldironside]

9. I don't quite understand your point.

How does locking up two innocent people give the victim peace and the family closure? Surely it's in the best interests of all concerned to have justice.

[Jeneral2885]

10. how

do you know they are innocent?Most of their actions say otherwise.

[oldironside]

11. Now that's a very interesting comment.

Absolutely nothing about evidence, just their perceived behaviour the day after. This is, of course, because there is no credible physical evidence to link them with the crime, while the real murderer left his DNA all over the crime scene. Odd, really.

[mackerel]

12. Actually there is quite a bit of credible evidence as well as a

confession by one.

[oldironside]

13. That's a less than ringing endoresment of the prosecution case.

Firstly, the confession. Amanda Knox was interrogated over a period of five days without a lawyer present. At the time her command of Italian was weak and there was no interpreter present. The police repeatedly told her to imagine she had been there and told her that the other suspects had given evidence against her. The interrogation was not recorded (as it should have been under Italian law) and immediately after signing the confession she withdrew it.

Stefan Kisco confessed after aggressive questioning to a crime he could not have committed, as did Patrick Molloy of the Bridgewater Four and others too numerous to mention here. Having lived in Italy and met the Italian police, I can't honestly say that I wouldn't have confessed to anything after five days of the third degree.

As for the evidence...

The prosecution's case rested on three pieces of evidence, none of which is reliable.

The knife they produced which they claimed had Knox's DNA on the handle and the victim's on the blade is a red flag as to how inept the investigation was. It could not have been the murder weapon because it did not fit any of the victim's wounds. Subsequent DNA tests showed no blood on the blade. The knife was picked at random from Sollecito's kitchen. No other knives were tested. This is not professional behaviour by the investigators.

The bra clasp used against Sollecito is totally unreliable as evidence. It wasn't discovered until 47 days after the murder and had been moved around the room by the investigating officers as they searched the room. It ended up in a pile of rubbish. It also had at least four other people's DNA on it.

The supposedly bloody footprints used against Knox had none of the victim's DNA in them, so how could they have stemmed from the scene of the crime?

Given all that, let me put what I like to call the Pierrepoint Question to you. Would you hang two people on this none-evidence? It is quite clear from even a perfunctory reading of the evidence that Rudy Guede acted alone.

[LeftishBrit]

14. 'How do you know they are innocent?'

Well, but the whole point of a modern criminal justice system, is that you don't have to prove that someone is innocent; you have to prove that they are guilty - and if you cannot prove that beyond reasonable doubt, you have to acquit.

There have been enough people put away on insufficient evidence, and because *someone* needed to take the blame for a horrible crime, to show the need for caution: Colin Stagg (fortunately released on appeal), Barry George, the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four, etc.

I don't in fact have very strong views as to whether Knox is guilty or innocent of anything more than getting into dodgy company; but I do think that justice would be best served by a fuller investigation. That is the fairest both for Knox and the other defendants, and for Meredith's family: after all, justice there means convicting the killer(s), not convicting someone who MIGHT be the killer. Also, going after the wrong person can sometimes mean not finding the real killer before they murder someone else - as happened in the Rachel Nickell murder case.

[mackerel]

15. I was talking about the confession of Rudy Guede.