Entertainment For Lively Minds
Foxy Knoxy
Posted by Albert Edward on 10 December 2009 - 9:26pm.
The cartwheeling killer or the diplomatic patsy? Innocent or guilty? What does everyone think?
link here to get the idle speculation juices flowing...
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article6947979.ece
- More from Albert Edward.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Er
I don't know.
Nope
Me neither.
No, neither do I...
And I'll shut up if as you imply the the topic has no traction, but personally I'm fascinated by the case. The trial by sexual background, the aforementioned cartwheeling, the psychotic-looking parents...
I wondered if others might have an opinion. I'd especially like to hear what anybody in America thinks.
Too many newspaper columnists...
... and phone in nutters have commented on this for me to even contemplate that my opinion will be either informed or sensible. Sorry for being a coward.
Guardian
There was a piece in today's Guardian (which I can't seem to find online) written by a journalist who had a previous run in with the chief prosecutor in this case. After reading it I concluded there was nothing fair about the investigation or the trial.
That doesn't mean she didn't do it of course, but I doubt if she would even have been charged if it had all happened in the UK.
I tried to find that piece
online, but it doesn't appear. Somebody said it was pulled for legal reasons.
I haven't followed this case
but I have a feeling that it wasn't presented in the way that a case of this importance should have been. It just feels wrong that a matter this serious should be a media circus. I'm not even sure I should have commented at all.
Yes
but don't you think the way it's presented forms an essential part of its fascination? I mean, why is it presented this way? Because it has such compelling elements. Are we supposed to simply not notice the defendant's looks? Pretend that everybody cartwheel around police stations when their flatmate has been killed?
No doubt
at all that the way the defendant looked and the cartwheel incident do add to make this case different from other murder cases I agree. I have heard these few bit's of information which have been unavoidable even for someone like me who rarely reads a newspaper -I tend to pick up my news mainly from TV and the internet. I even thought about buying a decent paper last weekend to read about the case after the trial ended but I was niggled about the reasons I was interested in the case. At the end of the day a young woman lost her life and why was I interested ? I decided not to buy the paper.
Yesterday's Grauniad article
suggested she was doing yoga to de-stress whilst waiting in the police station.
The suggestion was that the police/prosecutor reported it as "doing cartwheels" for their own purposes.
I just think it's the same old,
same old suspicion about 'foreign' policing and legal systems that gets on my proverbial mammaries. Those bloody Eyeties, same as those bloody Portuguese, they're all corrupt/incompetent/lazy, never do the job right, how can one of OUR Anglo-Saxon kind be under suspicion/found guilty, it's a travesty etc etc. see p.94
Political Correctness
shouldnt prevent anyone from critiqing the flaws in another countries justice systems.
The portugese authorities attempts to frame the McCann's was utterly repellant and was based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. They decided on a theory of what happened and then attempted to tailor evidence which fitted their thesis.
The Italian authorities have done exactly the same here. Theres no evidence which ties either Knox or Socelito to the crime. However, a thesis was created by the police and evidence was then tailored to fit it.
Thats not how a robust justice system works. Italy's justice system, which does not include trial by jury, is not above criticism.
Well said
.
And of course
that would never happen here or in the US, would it?
It's the sense of superiority about our system(s) which rankle. It's not political correctness to acknowledge that many aspects of our legislature are deeply flawed too, and to respect the cultural and political differences which shape each country's system.
And how do you know there's no evidence against them?
Of course it happens here!
That sort of whataboutery is of no use whatsoever in pointing out injusice.
I know there was no evidence against the McCanns because the Portugese authorities never produced any beyond leaks to the press and smears which were quickly shown to be unevidenced and entirely unable to be substantiated.
I know there was no evidence against Knox and Socelito because the Italian authorities have never produced any. They haven't even pretended to. Their entire case was based on her being a whore who didn't weep enough. I've looked for other evidence. I can't find it anywhere. This is, after all, a case which is now closed. What is the evidence which makes her convictable.
Honestly. Tell me. I can't find it.
Personally
I found the willingness of the McCanns and their acolytes to try and foster suspicion about Robert Murat (allegedly) pretty despicable too.
Think you'll find
that was the Daily Express which nearly bankrupted itself paying damages to Murat. I'm not sure what you mean by "the McCann's and their acolytes". Werent they an entirely innocent couple guilty of little more than a naieve belief that a paedophile murderer wouldnt abduct their daughter if they went to the other side of the road?
Victims as perpetrators is quite a theme these days. I remember Catherine Bennet in the Grauniad pretty much blaming Jamie Bulgers mother for his death.
We seem to be in a bit of a moral hole at the moment.
It must be a great view
from that moral high ground.
And if you have the evidence you're so keen about to prove that it was a paedophile abduction, why don't you let the authorities know?
Regarding the Kircher murder (remember that? A girl was murdered), Danny has offered known evidence which even some American commentators have admitted would deliver a similar verdict in the US; but obviously they're not privy to the same indubitable facts as you appear to be.
Calm down, why are you so angry?
Are you a Carabinieri or something? From where I'm reading, it looks like you that's trying to pontificate from higher ground.
Im perplexed
Are you saying Madelaine McCann wasnt abducted by a paedophile murderer? Maybe she wasn't. I don't know for sure.
What I do know for sure is that Kate and Gerry McCann didnt kill her. There is not a shred of evidence of that whatsoever and the attempts to imply that they did remain the most foul recent incident in the history of european justice.
I'm not sure why that observation involves me taking the moral high ground, Surely its simple decency to imagine that accusing innocent people of killing their chld is distasteful.
Sorry. No idea what your getting at here.
Well, to be fair
you broached the idea of "a paedophile murderer" and abduction.
We (still) don't know anything definite about Madeleine's disappearance. There has been no evidence connected with an abduction, if we're assuming that's what happened, just as there's no evidence of any involvement by the McCanns. No evidence of paedophiles, let alone "paedophile murderers" (the two aren't necessarily connected), no evidence that she's dead or alive. Her parents were investigated as part of the normal investigation processes in such cases (parents and people known to the family are routinely questioned). Their eventual 'arguido' status was imposed and maintained in the context of Portuguese law, whether we agree with it or not. It was rightly removed after the investigation was concluded.
My 'moral ground' reference was perhaps a little heavy-handed, but was made in response to the implied questioning of the 'low morals' in the content of my post. Maybe I interpreted that bit wrong.
Vulpes, I wouldn't say I was angry, but just replying in the spirit of goatboy's tone of dismissive incredulity regarding the possibility of valid evidence in the Kercher case, and his absolute certainty of a misacarriage of justice. I question that level of certainty and his assumption of expert knowledge.
You asked
I think she's guilty,as are the other two.How many times has Knox changed her story ? remember how she said her boss was the killer ? It's Knox's family who have got up my nose. Have they considered for a micro second that she might be guilty ?. Would love to hear from a UK detective about what they think .
From what I have read
There was some pretty strong evidence against her. All the talk about being tried on her character might be seen to be media hype in itself once the judges have published their report.
The missing Guardian article
mentioned above implies that there was actually virtually no evidence against her whatsoever. The DNA "evidence" was a joke.
DNA evidence isn't the only evidence
There was quite a lot of DNA evidence but also loads of other evidence, circumstances and lies that point to their guilt from what I have read. Everything they told the police turned out to be fake. Sounds like they were totally incompetent liars and tied themselves up in knots trying to get themselves out of the situation. They also tried to fake a break in and clean up the mess but fortunately were interrupted by the police in a lucky accident.
I really don't think
that this blog is the best forum to discuss the guilt or otherwise of a convicted murderer. But for what it's worth, I've read a lot of accounts of the trial in the last week, and I've come to the conclusion that there's absolutely no evidence for the involvement of either Knox or her boyfriend.
Now let's get back to squirrels. The bastards.
Keeeeell them.
Keeeeell them.
Ridiculous
to speculate given that we were not present at the trial - but I tend to agree with Kit's comment above.
My sense is that she has a gauche, self-dramatizing personality and this has counted - disastrously - against her.
What the Americans think:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6947549.ece
And someone's rather pithy response..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6950560.ece
Me? I think she's probably innocent.
What Evidence?
From what I can gather she appears to have been convicted on the basis of doing cartwheels (she says she was doing yoga - culture clash?) during the time she was at the police station.
Rudy Hermann Guédé's DNA was found all over the apartment, mostly in the form of bloody footprints and handprints. He had raped Meredith Kercher. That is unchallenged. He then ran away from Pergia and was later picked up by the Italian police. There is no forensic evidence, at all, linking Knox with the murder. There is no motive. There are no witnesses. She appears to have been convicted based on her past sexual history and an apparent failure to act like an acquaintance of a tragically murdered person should act.
This woman would never have been convicted under British law. Its unlikely she'd have been charged. It's fairly unlikely she'd even have been a suspect.
There is, I repeat, no evidence at all that she did it apart from contradictory witness statements which, according to the article in todays Guardian, are all written in perfect idiomatic Italian. At the time of her arrest Amanda Knox had been in Italy for two months.
I think there has been a serious miscarriage of justice in this case and I don't think knee jerk anti-Americanism should blind us to that.
There is no evidence that Amanda Knox murdered Meredith Kercher. Maybe she did. I don't know. There is, however, no evidence.
Guardian Piece
The thrust of the G2 cover story was that she allegedly had to be found guilty in order to save the face of certain people in the Italian legal system, especially the Chief Prosecutor, and that she will be acquitted on appeal in two years time, thus keeping America happy. Sounds about right to me, especially as the article suggested there is no evidence to place her at the scene.
I have no great interest in this case but
it's not the article that suggests there was no evidence to put either of them at the scene. Its the evidence of the Italian prosecutors.
This isn't a debatable point. The prosecution could not tie Knox or Socelito to the crime scene in any way. They couldn't provide a motive either. Or a witness.
Is no-one else getting a bit angry about this?
Then
She will right a book about it,be interviewed on TV ,make millions. And what has she done apart from hinder the investigation and lie at every turn.Even if she told the truth now, who would believe her ?.I'm starting to agree with Sheev about her personality working against her but shouldn't she then be tried for wasting police time and,possibly,perjury. And of course the bigger picture is That there are obviously no "innocent" foreigners in US Jails.how must Meredith Kercher's family feel ?
Thank goodness for newspapers!
Saves all that tedious business of having to sit on a jury, hear weeks of evidence and then make your mind up.
But there wasnt any evidence!
See above.
Yes there was
Read a few more articles. Not just the ones promoted by her family.
Come on then Danny
What was the evidence? A police statement in suspiciously good Italian after two days in custody without a lawyer? You call that evidence?
Off the top of my head
Several incidences of mixed DNA of both Amanda and Meredith were found in the flat. The bathroom was covered in blood but Amanda claims she never noticed until she got out of the shower.
Bloody footprints matching Amanda found in the flat, one under the body.
Knife found at boyfriends flat with Meredith DNA on it. He says it got there because he'd accidentally cut Meredith while she was at his flat. Turns out to be a lie because Meredith's other flatmate states they never visited the boyfriends flat.
No alibi, only faked ones, and then claims that they were so stoned they don't remember where they were on the night in question. Neigbour saw Amanda going into the flat around the time of the murder.
Meredith's room was locked and Amanda claimed she didn't see her then later revealed she knew exactly how she was laid out under interrogation.
Staged break-in turned out to be done from inside the locked bedroom.
Amanda and boyfriend buy bleach at 6.30 that morning and are later found by the police cleaning up the flat. They say they have called the police which was later found to be a lie.
And that's without the deliberate attempt to try and frame another man.
Nice post
But isnt this all circumstantial except the claims about the DNA?
Which were all demolished in court.
Odd maybe. Suspicious? Definately. Proof? Absolutely not.
A man, a small time criminal with multiple convictions with a history of harassing women, raped Meredith Kercher. He then fled the area.
There is vast DNA evidence tieing him to the crime scene.
Do you not think maybe he did it?
DNA evidence was not demolished
The defence experts disagreed with the prosecution experts. That's usually how it goes.
And of course some of the evidence is circumstantial. It's still evidence though. That's how they build up a case, with all the little facts building a larger picture.
And it wasn't someone doing it alone. The way the body was moved after the crime meant there had to be at least two people there. They'd already convicted the first guy, why would they go after the others if the evidence didn't point to there being more than one person involved? It would be more in their interest to have an open and shut case with the one guy surely? That's usually how miscarriages of justice go.
You seem better informed than me
but, the DNA evidence seems to have been incredibly weak. There were no fingerprints anywhere, no fluid samples. Nothing.
The body may well have been moved but there is nothing to suggest that Knox was involved in doing it. Literally nothing but the circumstantial stuff you posted earlier.
Given that I'm posting from Scotland I'm more than ever grateful for our Not Proven verdict.
Good DNA evidence is quite rare
It's not often a smoking gun in a case.
I think in a couple of months when the report is published there will be a clearer picture of what evidence there actually was. I think it's quite likely that the evidence presented to the court was probably different to the "evidence" the media were interested in reporting on.
I doubt very much that they will talk about Amanda doing cartwheels and buying lingerie as being a determining factor in their judgement even though the media might be fascinated by that.
OK
and i'm impressed by your measured tone, but the lack of a smoking gun isnt just a hiccup in the process. Its the point of it.
There is absolutely nothing to tie either Knox or Socelito to the crime scene. Nothing. In scientific terms, they just weren't there. In the words of one of the defence lawyers " If a dragonfly had been in the room there would be evidence of it"
Gaude was in the room. He raped Meredith Kercher. Applying Occams Razor gives us only one result. Gaude and possibly an associate raped and murdered Meredith Kercher. There is nothing to attach Knox or Socelito to the crime.
Didn't Knox
rather tie herself to the crime scene when in one of her (admittedly many) versions of the truth she claimed to have been there blocking her ears against Meredith's scream?
Then again,another time she said she was at her boyfriends flat exept he isn't sure she was, and anyway he was on his computer, except he wasn't.
I'm sorry but if she is innocent she must have had just about every bit of bad luck in the universe converge on her all at once. Trying to fit someone else up doesn't help either when one is trying to look innocent.
We may not all like or agree with the Italian legal system but lets not be fooled by cries of anti-americanism (what about the German guy,are the Italians anti-german too?) she had a long trial with the evidence given under a jury system and she and her boyfriend were found guilty after serious consideration.
If only people gave as much of a damn about the victim as they do the photogenic killer it would be nice.
I've read a lot about the case recently
and beyond the sensationalism and the fact its a gripping story which would make a brilliant film the following facts stand out:
1-There is no DNA evidence against Knox or Socelito
2- There is no motive
3- There are no witnesses
Regardless of the journalism you or I may have read the above facts appear to be incontrovertible.
Show me your evidence which contradicts this. This is an unsafe conviction and a miscarriage of justice.
You seem to have read a lot more about the case than I,
and I'm not trying to pick a fight, but just to play devil's advocate:
1. DNA evidence is not the only type of evidence that counts - shows like CSI have greatly over emphasised its importance. As it happens, I'm sure I read that there was DNA evidence (blood on the knife) albeit countered by the (usual) defence claims that there may have been cross-contamination in the lab.
2. Motive is completely irrelevant in law.
3. There are rarely any witnesses to murders that happen behind closed doors.
As mentioned above, circumstantial evidence is still evidence. You may not think that it's enough to convict, but you haven't sat through all of the evidence, testimonies and other procedural hearings of an 11-month trial.
Did i miss something?
Wasn't it made plain that 'the knife' was actually 'a knife', belonging to the boyfriend, but not the murder weapon?
I'm totally in agreement with you, goatboy
The case against them was a joke.
I'm biting my tongue.
No. I'm gonna say it:
My heart sank when I saw Amanda Knox's inappropriately innocuous nickname listed on the threads.
I come here to avoid tabloid bullshit like this.
No further comment your honour.
Careful
you don't fall off that high horse.
I must admit
I've never seen this site as a tabloid free zone. Most high profile stories turn up here in one form or another.
If you think
that the thoughtful discussion thats gone on in this thread is tabloid bullshit then I would suggest that its you thats on the wrong site. If you feel that discussions about justice, cultural relativism and the complexity of legal systems in the EU are beneath you then I despair for you, I hope you find an appropriate website comesurate with your IQ. www.supercilliouscunts.org.uk for instance.
If your here for the Dylan boxset discussions then you'll find plenty to stimulate you elsewhere.
I have no idea why you bothered posting that.
There's a box at the bottom of the screen.
It says 'comment on the original post'.
My comment was on the headline, tone and tenor of the original post.
I posted in because, like a number of other people, I don't think this is the right forum to speculate on such matters. In cases like this, I don't think it is right to speculate at all.
If I had wished to comment on any of the thoughtful discussion which ensued I would have replied directly to a comment. Like I have done here.
If you think that calling me, however obliquely, a supercilious c*nt is in keeping with the rules of this site, and furthers your argument in any way, then perhaps it is I who should be despairing for you.
Sorry you feel that way about the thread Adman
I posted the thread because I was genuinely interested in what bright people would have to say on the subject. I've posted threads about The Beatles, too, for the same reason.
Personally I've found the thread so far fascinating and the level of debate high, just as I would have expected from this site's users.
Albert Edward.
That's fair enough. It really is. You have a right to do that, of course.
I have no personal beef with you & I have contributed to other - fine & interesting - threads you have begun. I just find this particular subject distasteful - my opinion, my comment.
I appreciate you responding directly to me as you have done. No hard feelings, I hope.
None at all.
.
Jolly good.
*inserts friendly thumbs up*
"Comment on the ORIGINAL post"
Y'know, I'd never noticed that before (the form of words, not the existence of the box)
Apologies for singling you out, goatboyuk69
But this does, of course, apply to everyone. Please read the posting guidelines, particularly the section at the top that deals with the way we talk to each other. Anyone who feels unable to follow these simple rules would probably be better off contributing elsewhere.
Thank you.
Apologies Frazer and Adman
Sorry about that.
I may have been watching rather too much of The Thick of It recently.
I hadnt noticed that Adman replied to the original post and was, I think justifiably, a little annoyed by what appeared to be a rather snobbish dismissal of a very interesting thread.
I am irredeemably Scottish and I'm afraid my Malcolm Tuckerish tendencies occasionally arise in debate. Is it any consolation to know that c**t is a vaguely affectionate term in the west of Scotland? Seriously.
Supercilious is by far the stronger insult.
Apology accepted.
When I posted my comment I was in a snippy mood & could have expressed myself better - I have explained myself to Albert Edward.
Thanks for this Goatboy. Any fan of The Thick Of It is on a similar page to me. And as an Englishman whose best mate is Scottish, I do understand what you mean.
Peace, man.
And peace to you my friend
Sorry I insulted you, even in a vaguely oblique way. I was wrong to do that.
There is a debate to be had on message boards about allowing pub type conversations - invariably filled with obscenity and viscious insults- to go ahead versus an absolute ban on all truly free expression. I'd hate it if this board became a prudish place where men are unable to be men. Or women.
Having been banned from boards in the past for considerably less fruity language, I'm grateful for Frazer's skillful handling of the board. I'm currently on a 50% ban rating on one message board for calling someone, really,really justifiably, a twat.
Cheers mate. And thank you Frazer.
Is anyone else
faintly disappointed that Goatboy's link doesn't work?
I'm off to buy the domain name.
(Only one 'l' in supercilious, of course...)
;-)
Way out of order.
Its a fair cop
Sorry
Hey Adman
The remaster of Rubber Soul is so good you can actually hear the drum skins vibrate (especially when you listen on headphones). Oh, and well said.
You know what?
I'm off to buy it today.
Thanks, man.
err... surely any record that features drums
allows you to hear the drum skins vibrate?
How else would you get to hear the drums? :-)
Ok Ok, ( harrumph )
You can hear delayed resonation after the precedding beat. You can also hear the odd bass pedal squeak and plectrums being placed on and removed from the guitar strings etc. I'm a sucker for off mic stuff.
;-)
A fine example of that sort of thing
is John Bonham's squeaky kick pedal on 'Since I've Been Loving You'
Innocent. Politically its
Innocent.
Politically its better in Italy for a case to be overturned on appeal rather than have the prosecutions case chucked out for being tosh.
She'll be out next year
That Brit babysitter in the US from years ago
What happened to her? This case prompted me to recall that case after having forgotten it totally.
I have no clue whether Knox did it but her cockiness did her every harm. And her Dad looked a reet hard man.
Louise Woodward
(as Google and Wikipedia inform me)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case
Guilty or not
Knox did herself no favours with her behaviour immediately after the incident- staged break-ins, false accusations et al. What's more, she's not the victim in this case, Meredith Kircher and her family are.
That's rather black and white
If someone has been jailed for 26 years for a crime they didn't commit, then of course they are a victim. Not of anything as irreversable and horrific as murder, perhaps, but certainly of a gross miscarriage of justice.
Whether or not that applies to Knox I have no idea, but if it does then yes, she is a victim of a different kind. Acknowledging the horror of the original crime and the devastating effect on Kircher's family would not alter that.
This is why I shouldn't dabble in politics.
You are right, and I see no reason to argue with your comment. Unfortunately for her, even if she's innocent, and subsequently acquitted, she's going to continue to be a victim of the media, and a target for a minority of people who fail to take sides with the justice system.
Of course, my flawed arguments suggest I have no idea at all about whether she is guilty or not. My gut instinct thinks she is- and that thought is arguably influenced by the media, but you can't convict anyone based on your gut instinct can you?
guilty or not guilty
she's certainly a fox!
i cant comment on the evidence or the trial
but whoever did that to meredith kircher deserves a lot more than 26 years in an italian prison. so if Amanda Knox did kill her then she should be hanged!
if an ugly, fat 47-year-old bloke had allegedly 'done it' and ..
... been convicted, would this thread even exist? i write from a biased point of view (as an ugly, fat 47-year-old bloke)
If something occurs in your neighbourhood
the cops are going to use this post as evidence.
this would only be a danger if...
... simon cowell walked down my road
Excellent book The Monster
Excellent book The Monster of Florence gives a pretty alarming view of Italian attitudes and their justice system. Having read it, I'm far from convinced that the verdict in this case is correct.
I live in Italy
(have done for 25 years) and followed the case with great interest. I have no idea if they're guilty or not. My gut feeling is that they are, just cos of the number of lies. I did, however, see an Italian journalist on telly the other day saying that, as someone who had reported the case from day one, she was convinced the jury had reached the only plausible verdict.
Plausible?
Christ Allmighty.
"Well, your honour, although we couldn't agree that any of the evidence was conclusive, we find the defendant guilty because the scenario suggested by the prosecution is plausible."
(Scratches Italy from list of potential holiday destinations).
It was a journalist talking
not a member of the jury. She meant that a verdict of innocent would have been difficult to believe (implausable), knowing the case as well as she did. Does that make Italy not worth visiting? Isn't your reaction a teeny weeny bit racist? As so much of what I've read in the Uk and USA press is.
The r word
I have no idea whether she's guilty or not, but what I have found interesting is the way the verdict has exposed prejudices on both sides of the argument.
There is undeniably a tendency for us to think the Anglo-Saxon justice system is superior, and to assume European police and lawyers are corrupt, incompetent or both. However, there's also a tendency for those on the other side to react defensively and think that any criticism of a particular case is an attack on the whole justice system. That's just human nature.
What I'm afraid is unjustified is calling someone racist just for expressing an opinion. Racism is prejudice on the grounds of race, and I don't see any sign of that here. If you think the Italian legal system is flawed, it's not racist to say you don't want to go there.
Maybe 'racist'
is too strong a word, but I'd certainly suggest xenophobic. Basing one's choice of holiday destination on the supposed integrity of the country's legal system seems a bit odd, and extremely limiting.
My dear Lestrade, as I have pointed out on numerous occasions,
whenever all other possibilities have been ruled out, the improbable, however unlikely, must be the truth.
Plausibility or the lack of it is neither here nor there. Evidence is what leads us to the truth, dear fellow, evidence.
As for holiday destinations, it was my peculiar belief that the use of brackets in a written comment would impart a degree of levity to the enclosed phrase, and would not lead the intelligent reader to necessarily believe the remarks had been seriously made. I shall henceforth adopt a less subtle strategy when making light of serious matters.
The Front Page
This case reminds me of the great Lou Grant and his famouse quote "that nothing sells papers like a nice juicy sex murder".The case did have every thing and nobody could ignore it and not take sides. This post certainly proves that. I generally hold the view that was has been reported is the most lurid evidence not the whole. When the final report is issued then a more balanced view can be taken of the proceedings.
The Kirchir family have behaved with great dignity and restraint. This is particularly so with the outlandish statemnts from the defendents relatives.