Posted on 10/03/2011 7:58:01 PM PDT by Eagle911
PERUGIA, Italy — It was silent in the courtroom for a long time after Amanda Knox, the now-exonerated American woman, was led into an Italian courtroom for the last time. A presiding judge spoke. We heard not a word from the jury. And then she was declared “innocenta.”
And then anger erupted in the streets outside.
News crews — mostly Italians — alternated between filming and shouting “Vergogna! Vergogna!” (“Shame! Shame!”) for the first five minutes.
A mass of people took up the calls of “Shame!” outside the courthouse, and in a second gathering area nearby.
Italy's Corriere Della Sera newspaper reported that the angry mob on the streets of Perugia also shouted "Bastards!" and "Bought!"
(Excerpt) Read more at thedc.com ...
I haven’t followed this obsessively like some people have, but I do know that when someone is giving an account of events, and they give that account more than once, errors are to be expected. That old saw about telling lies is a lot harder than telling the truth because you have to keep the lies straight is true, but even an honest person relating an event may get some minor details wrong here and there. As I said, that is to be expected.
What usually sets my radar off, is when someone relates an account, and it changes dramatically in the telling. Even worse, when someone relates an account multiple times, and not only are some details different, but the entire story is different.
If someone tells me a story about going to a party at a restaurant, swimming at the beach, then going out on somebody’s boat, I probably wouldn’t be surprised if they told story more than once in the details differed. For example, the time they went to the restaurant or how long they were there, who was at the restaurant and when they arrived, what time they went to the beach, how many people were on the boat and so on.
But I would get quite suspicious if, in the second telling of their story they said “Yeah, we went to Joe’s restaurant, went down to the beach, then went over to John’s house…”
I might stop them at that point and ask them “Hey, did you guys go out on the boat or did you go to John’s house?” They might say something like “Oh, I got my nights mixed up. We actually went to John’s house after the beach…”
So the person begins telling the story again and they say “That night, we went to the movie theater, then got into our car and drove into the city to go to a nightclub. John wasn’t with us that night, it was Bill…”
And so on. When I hear stories like that, I know that it is complete and utter BS. No if’s, and or but’s about it, you just can’t trust anything that comes out of that person’s mouth.
In my opinion, reading her alibi’s sound just like that to me.
I can imagine if you were innocent and in a foreign country, you might be very concerned and scared that you might be railroaded. But you have to be a lot more concerned (and I mean A LOT MORE CONCERNED) that if you feed them a line of BS, not only are they likely to sniff it out, but when they do, they are immediately going to think that you are either guilty as sin, or hiding something.
In a foreign country, that is going to either get your goose cooked for stupidity, or get your goose cooked for being guilty. When I was in the Navy, they sternly informed us that if we got in trouble with the law (and admittedly, most of the time this was in Italy because that was where we spent most of our time) then we might as well kiss our ass goodbye, because they were going to be able to help us. To buttress that claim, they would bring up the story of a couple guys who got caught with drugs on a cruise several years before, were still there in a nasty Italian prison, and were likely to be there a lot longer.
Worked on me.
I always thought people were Conservative because they were perceptive. Posts on this thread and others show just how many so called Conservatives will grab the sh!t covered baton of media lies and disinformation and run with it.
You are absolutely spot on. Amanda Manson is a sociopath. It was obvious from the start of the trial with her Damien the Omen demonic smile and her whacked out antics-—soaking up the attention while she was on trial for her life.
How do you say Helter Skelter in Italian?
Bite me. According to Knox herself,, she was hung out with the “real killer”. Amanda was pressuring Meredith to have sex with him. They made a move, it went bad,, very differently than they expected, and meredith wound up dead. The fact that the guy from Ivory Coast, made a deal to avoid trial (while admitting nothing of what he did) does not in any way prove Amanda wasn’t involved up to her eyeballs.
Again,,bite me. And why are you so emotional about it? Are you drunk? Is it possible to disagree with you about the case without you needing to make it personal? You started this silly personal crap. Why don’t you let it drop and argue facts and opinions about the case?
Guilty or not, she had best beat feet out of Italy ASAP. They have no prohibition on double jeopardy and would more than likely try to nail her again.The prosecutor in her case is under investigation for misconduct and other shady practices in evidence handling.
I may biatch and moan about our legal system, but I will never trust my life to any other.
any body can put a my space /facebook page in somebody name it's been done before ,and say she did stupid but not a crime >Then you could review that SHE told the cops she screwd 7 guys since she got there. (in college girl math, that probably means double)
do you have a link to that statement and you know the Italian police have been accused of coarsening confessions do you ?
Then you could ask her SURVIVING roomates. They think she did it,, and were disgusted by her nonstop man parade to her bedroom and vibrator out, right by their toothbrushes.
again do you have a link to that statement ?one that would hold up in a real court of law ?
you and a lot of other so called conservatives posting here have made up your mind because she comes from a heavily liberal state she is guilty or the fact that the media said she was sleeping around automatically makes her a murderess
I have been following this trial in the Daily mail and began to feel this was a kangaroo court and the facts of case this prove it
as another freeper said no-one including liberals (be they sluts or not ) should be railroaded and put in prison for a crime the did not commit
its 12.30 way to late to waste on ignorant people who follow the baying mob
You want personal, bring it on. I won't call you a noob, but you act like one for sure.
Thats what surprises me too. She has a far weaker defense than OJ ever dreamed of. And theres a nutty stampede to free her. I cannot see for the life of me how someone could think she wasn’t involved.
The Italian PD probably doesn’t do DNA up to the standards of American women who watch CSI, but it seems like after a few weeks, they took notice of the fact that everything Amanda said was quickly shown to be a lie. Then they looked at her more carefully.
I think they got the right ones. Amanda, her BF, and the guy from Ivory Coast. Doped up, tried to force Meredith, and it went bad. Pretty simple if you think about it.
And i still think it’s telling that the other two surviving female apartment mates think she was involved. Neither has said a word to defend amanda’s character, or to doubt her involvement.
You have made the only reasoned statement in this thread! Even the Italians have an appeals process which worked according to all of the legal people on the tube today. You can wail all you want about whether she did it or not; at the end of the day the evidence did not support a conviction.
“I have been following this trial in the Daily mail”
Well GOSH, why didn’t you say so!
Thats funny considering that you demand my opinions be posted with court worthy documentation. But you can just quote the “Daily Mail”! LOL
Oh goodness! The perpetrator has responded with a scornful remark! Maybe you should repeat your remarks in an even firmer voice and this time add “or else”! LOL
Sticks and Stones dude.
Why not call me something else? You have no common sense and no ability to see a PR snowjob. You are a lousy example of a US citizen. You are also not too bright.
In every post you seem to think calling me a new name will somehow win your case.
And what on earth are you talking about ‘bring it on”? What are you going to do? Call me something new? Call me a noob,,ill laugh at you. That only bothers real noobs and shows that you can’t win on facts. What else? Type in all CAPS? Are you used to people obeying you and hanging on your every word? LOL
These are just a few things that I’ve seen mentioned… I’ve just paraphrased them to make them a bit more readable, and I’ve left out most of the DNA evidence except for one piece, and the reason I left that in (about the knife with the DNA on it) is because his excuse seemed to be extremely contrived…
These are the things that jumped right out at me, and they don’t seem to be the result of someone under bright light for 11 hours straight… these are dramatic changes in alibis over time.
This just stinks of 2 people trying to cobble together an excuse, and doing it poorly. Why? Why do this? Why not tell the truth?
Amanda accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith at the cottage. It’s true that two of Amanda’s such statements were thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court. However, Amanda repeated the accusation, in a note that she wrote to the police on 6 November. This note was not thrown out by the Italian Supreme Court, and it was admitted as evidence. In her 6 November note Amanda claimed to have seen Diya Lumumba at the basketball court at Piazza Grimana; and outside her front door. He was actually at his bar.
Amanda’s supporters claim that she confessed to a lesser role in Meredith’s murder, and blamed Diya Lumumba, because she had been “smacked around” or put under pressure by the police. But the real reason she had to say she was at the cottage was because she was informed that Raffaele Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi. Raffaele had been confronted with phone records, and was now claiming that she was not with him the whole evening, and that she had only returned at 1.00 am. Amanda did not attempt to refute Raffaele’s claim, but now admitted that she had been at the cottage.
(Incidentally, Raffaele was also claiming that he had lied, because he had believed Amanda’s version of what happened and not thought about the inconsistencies. He is acknowledging that Amanda’s version had inconsistencies.)
If it had been true that Amanda had been “smacked around” by the police during questioning, why haven’t her lawyers ever filed a complaint? It was very telling that Amanda dropped her allegation of being hit by the police at her recent court hearing, and instead just claimed she had been put under pressure.
Amanda claimed to have slept in at Raffaele’s until the next morning. However, her mobile records show that this was not so. Amanda turned on her mobile at approximately at 5.32 am. The same three witnesses who have repeatedly lied, Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede, have all been placed at the crime scene.
Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder. It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.
Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox. After that, he came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am. Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies.
Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.
Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis. Must have been really good stuff.
Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.
He also claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintains he was home that night, working on his computer, but computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder
He then claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day. However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. (The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.)
Lie ten. When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment. He said: “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand.’’ Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. It’s highly telling that Sollecito wasn’t surprised that the forensic police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He knew Meredith’s DNA was on the blade, which is why he made up the silly cock and bull story. He was attempting to explain the presence of Meredith’s DNA on the blade, but in doing so, he further incriminated himself and Amanda Knox.
Sollecito’s lawyers claim that he lied out of confusion and fear. However, Sollecito lied from the very first time he spoke to the police when he wasn’t a suspect. His lies cannot be attributed to confusion and fear.
Do you also think OJ is innocent.
Bad prosecutor, DNA tainted...blah blah . sounds like typical liberal claptrap excuses.
Amanda is a hometown girl and being so, we in the Seattle area have been hearing much more on this case than the average person from around the country, including this guy who's favorite word is “Bite Me”. Amanda in innocent, and Mr.Bite Me could never convince me otherwise.
Sorry guy. That ‘Bite Me’ was a direct result of your hero screaming at me to grow up, simply because i don’t see it his or your way. That and noob, bad American, etc ,,,
Look back on the thread. I was not slightly uncivil to anyone (except Amanda) until he called me that. Just laid out my opinion.
Again,,bite me. And why are you so emotional about it? Are you drunk? Is it possible to disagree with you about the case without you needing to make it personal? You started this silly personal crap.
Bring it on, loser.
I'm a far better citizen than you. I look at facts. If this case had been in Texas, you would have applauded an innocent woman going to her death.
And you will likewise never convince me of your correctness based upon what is out there in public now. But notice how i am not insulting you or being rude to you? We just don’t agree on this case and likely won’t.
Lol, you are aware that Meredith was part black, right ?
Are you from America? You kinda sound foreign.
Does OJ have a confessed killer doing 16 years for murder? The Knox case does.
You aren't too bright, are you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.