Amanda Knox - the most sickening thing I've seen...

Started May 5, 2013 | Discussions thread
William Carson
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,008
Like?
Re: You can ask her yourself...
In reply to papillon_65, May 6, 2013

papillon_65 wrote:

William Carson wrote:

I'm sure she isn't, she's been rehearsing for years now but here's the thing. My theory is that she is a sociopath, that effectively means that you can tell she's lying because her lips are moving. Personally I would have my doubts if she told me that the sun would rise tomorrow. Her previous testimony and bizarre behaviour substantiates my theory.

This seems to be your whole claim: She is a sociopath. The other "evidence" falls apart. Inconsistent statements under a very stressful interrogation are not evidence unless backed up by clear forensics. The blood evidence was not in spite of your consistent claims, clear. The guy who is in prison is the only one who could really clear this up. I have seen up close real sociopaths. This girl is not a sociopath.I suggest you read this article:

Well here's a little taster of the truth for you. There was DNA evidence obtained from the knife found in Sollecito's apartment. This was a knife which was identified because it had clearly been cleaned with bleach and looked obviously cleaner than all the other knives in the drawer. it also happened to match exactly some of the wounds, so it was the right size and shape. Now on appeal the DNA evidence (which clearly matched Kerchers DNA to the knife) was wrongly discredited (hence a retrial). Interestingly, on questioning about the DNA Sollecito explained it by saying that Kercher had been to his apartment and he had accidentally nicked her with the knife. Now there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Kercher ever went to this apartment, she was not friendly with Sollecito. So here's the thing, why did Sollecito make that claim if he knew that knife hadn't been anywhere near Kercher? why didn't he just refute it? This is just one of the many nuggets I can bring to the table. trust me, there are loads more, so stop spouting and let stalk real hard testimony and evidence, because it's all there.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-neverending-nightmare-of-amanda-knox-20110627

This goes into real detail and does clear up the tabloid accusations that at first glance could lead people to conclude guilt. I at first thought so without having the facts. You are unwilling to go into it so you become a patsey for inept prosecutors.

Well no it doesn't, it doesn't even begin to touch on the wealth of evidence that puts Knox at the scene, where do you want to start, we have loads to go through....

You have already presented all the evidence in your source below where you lifted your entire opening series of 'questions.' All were just lifted quotes from the article you sited. And the entire article was just opinion and interpretation of opinion. The only real forensics were of a footprint that was shown not to be Rudy Guede's footprint. Well, again he was not the only one involved. It did not (except as a comparison to Sollecito's) implicate Sollecito. So the footprint was more similar to Sollecito's than to Guede's footprint.

" the evidence here (quite simply the most accurate and comprehensive commentary on the whole sorry saga) and then you'll understand why Knox and Sollecito are clearly guilty as hell "

I saw nothing accurate or comprehensive in that article. Really, I read it very carefully, the whole thing. Not a strong case or even a case. Just opinion and stuff thrown against the wall.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
???New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow