by acolytes 36 Replies latest jw friends
Amanda Knox did try to frame an innocent barman. Wasn't this after the police had her head in a vice grip? |
I guess Perugia won't be getting a fair trial then. I hope they can withstand the might of amercian public opinion and righteous newspaper rhetoric!
but on a more seriously not I was just reading that Amanda Knox signed her statement implicating her boss the barman in the murder some hours after she was questioned. Then 2 weeks later her mother and her defence attorney asked her to reconsider her statement as it was becoming implausible but she refused. She had an opportunity to say she was coerced and at this point she had her mother's support and the support of her defence attorney but she refused to reconsider her statement. It seems she wanted her accusation to stick. Her statement turned out to be a lie.
as for police brutality - her defence team dropped that charge in their closing statements.
acolytes
As other posters have said, I've heard only what the media has reported here in the UK. I heard Italian commentators and UK legal experts covering the trial discussing it on the radio. They were happy with the proceedings and felt 'justice was done', given the damning DNA evidence retrieved from the scene of the crime.
The trial was quite a thorough thing. The Italian justice system is well developed and takes pains to establish character patterns. This was not a Berlusconi media trial, but a nasty incident involving 4 adults - one is dead, 2 have also been sentenced. This could well have influenced the decision against the 3rd person involved - the young Seattle woman.
It'll be interesting to follow the appeal...
lifelong humanist
Amanda Knox did try to frame an innocent barman.
Wasn't this after the police had her head in a vice grip?
After I believe after 24 hours + of straight interrogation. That's why the Italian Supreme Court threw out the evidence. However, to convict them (she and her boyfriend) you must believe the timeline is feasible.
They had evidence via his computer that she and Rafaello (sp?) were at his apartment till at least 9:00 p.m. Maredith was killed at 9:15 p.m.
The prosecutions timeline?: Amanda and Rafaello smoked TONS of pot, and in a pot-driven rage (isn't that almost an oxymoron? Pot is a downer, not at upper), she and Rafaello headed to her apartment to sexually assault Maredith. On the way, they met the African guy, who they did not previously know, conspired with him to murder Maredith, and made it to the apartment where the African guy killed her. All of this was accomplished in 15 minutes.
The African guy...whose DNA was all over Maredith and the room, who had a history of breaking and entering, who fled the country a few days later, who, on wire-tapped telephone calls to a 3rd party, stated that Amanda wasn't home at the time, was, of course, convicted.
given the damning DNA evidence retrieved from the scene of the crime.
To what DNA evidence are you referring?
justitia - I understand that the african guy is appealing his sentence.
I'm not sure exactly what the timeline is. This article from the daily telegraph has a different timeline to the one you are suggesting. I also noted that Sollectico's testimony does not corroborate Knox's testimony about where she was that night. Also when she was initially questioned it was not as a suspect but as a witness.
But I have to admit that I haven't been following the trial closely and don't know all the arguments being put forward. Amanda Knox does seem awfully young to be put away for 26 years if there is some doubt about her part in the murder. However I can't help thinking about the young people who were imprisoned on Guantanamo bay who despite being tortured didn't implicate themselves as Amanda Knox has done.
10.3.11
Amanda was convicted of slander, but she was acquitted of murder.
