Do you think Amanda Knox is guilty?

[MoonRiver]

She's just been found guilty in Italy.

[DesertFlower]

1. absolutely not. nt

[goldcanyonaz]

2. Unlike in America the jury is allowed to research the case in their spare time.

They are not sequestered from reading media reports, newspaper articles, etc.

The jury there consists of 8; 6 layman and 2 judges.

[TorchTheWitch]

16. most juries aren't sequestered

They're admonished not to talk about the case to anyone or watch/read media reports but we know they do.

I do find it concerning though that the jury panel has two judges on it and none of the jury members are questioned for bias (whoever is picked at random to be on the jury is on the jury).

[MoonRiver]

3. Ok, you "others"

please explain. :shrug:

[edbermac]

6. I think others mean that she didn't actually kill her, but was there.

That's how I interpret 'other'

[MoonRiver]

9. I added a Don't Know category.

Maybe that will help.

[ecstatic]

4. I have no idea. The prosecution's theory sounds far fetched

But until today, I haven't heard much about the case.

[dbonds]

5. Other: no way to really know, and we are getting 3rd hand info at that.

[qanda]

7. None of her finger prints at the scene really make me wonder if she's guilty

I really don't know much about this case, but maybe somebody who thinks she's guilty can tell me why.

[npk]

12. Her finger prints were found on the murder weapon

Along with the victim blood. Also her DNA was found on the knife handle, according to police reports. Of course one could argue that her fingerprints could have easily gotten on the knife by using it to cut fish or blah blah blah. It was an ordinary kitchen knife so it would be reasonable to assume that she could have handled the knife for many other mundane reasons.

The part that is damning of course is that no other prints or DNA was found on the knife, except Knox's and the victim.

[quiller4]

13. But the forensic expert showed that particular knife could not have made the wounds

the victim suffered.

[G_j]

8. other: I DON"T KNOW

not fond of armchair juries

[Jamastiene]

10. Seconded. n/t

[Sebastian Doyle]

11. If what I've heard is true, there wasn't a single piece of forensic evidence tying her to the murder

Probably would not have been convicted in the US with the same case. Of course that's not to say whether or not she was at the scene, or has some knowledge of the murder. An acessory, quite possibly. The actual killer? I doubt it.

[Berry Cool]

14. It is possible even in the United States to convict with no forensic evidence.

If a tight enough case for circumstantial evidence can be made, no forensic evidence is needed. It depends on the individual situation and how well the prosecutor constructs the argument.

There are many murder cases in which there is no direct piece of physical evidence that connects the victim to the person on trial for the murder, yet the jury convicts--because the other evidence is so strong.

[H2O Man]

15. From what I've seen,

I think she likely is one of the people responsible for the murder.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. If you have the time, watch this 48 Hours report.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4937069n&tag=contentMain;contentBody


It's pretty clear that the known knife carrying thief who fled the country the day after the murder is the real killer. The same person who claims, only after his arrest and extradition, to have ONLY had sex with the victim. He's a known burglar who, by his own admission, puts himself at the scene.

The prosecutor is a corrupt conspiracy kook who tried to railroad an American journalist on one of the prosecutors OTHER kooky Satanic conspiracies.

The same prosecutor who is under indictment for abuse of office and obstruction of justice.

[H2O Man]

18. Thank you for this link.

I will watch it soon. I appreciate your posting this for me.