Punished Slutfu General

>this doesn't exist
King Nigger has even claimed the "discretionary ability" to use them against US citizens as he sees fit

post foxy knoxy

Well, the Obama administration has only admitted to droning two Americans already. So it's no big deal.

I'm not amerifag so i don't know about this. Is she free now or still in jail?

t. Alex Jones. I'm glad we have people like you to keep us entertained. We would be so bored without you and we wouldn't know who to make fun of.

>I'm not an American but I came to this thread anyway

I don't know I'm not a psycho, she was probably nagging her

why take a shower with blood in the sink
why call the cops after they've arrived
why go buy bleach in the morning and have your apartement stink of it
why do cartwheels and splits and make out in public
why get upset and say "OF COURSE SHE SUFFERED "THEY" SLIT HER FUCKING THROAT"

everything she's said and done after that night makes her look guilty = she is guilty

and she will kill again, and all the idiots defending her on reddit will realize how fucking stupid they are for defending this psycho bitch online

>If this doco was about a dude murderer non of you would give this much attention.

I guess you weren't around for the Making a Murderer threads.

>Murder was in Europe
>I'm not Amerifag

KYS

What the fuck. Are you saying drone bombings don't exist?

The thing I got from the doc was that it's extremely obvious that she has some sort of mental disorder. Probably not anything THAT serious, but definitely some form of social anxiety. Maybe she's on the spectrum? That would certainly explain her not "grieving" and doing weird shit like the slit throat comment.

lmao you're killing me dude. This is some good shit.

If you really think he's the one pulling the strings, you're as dumb as you sound.

Can't wait for the Karla Homolka sexy trial episode.

Is this a response to my thread last night where I said the film should have been called Guilty Slut?

And you're an idiot if you think she's definitely innocent.

...

If you ever want to commit the perfect crime, make sure to have a Netflix "documentary" convincing the public of your innocence in your gameplan.

>If this doco was about a dude murderer non of you would give this much attention.
we STILL have making a murderer threads some days

>you will never befriend Amanda Knox as she lives alone in her little trailer
>she will never make you huevos ranchos as you watch netflix, avoiding the documentary listings
>she'll never confide in you that she never did it, but thought Meredith was a terrible roommate
>you'll never let her rock on top of you as you climax to the thought that she's looking at you like she might cut your throat while you sleep later that night

Never stick your dick in crazy.

Yeah, it's neat how good Netflix is at convincing its viewers that people who are obviously guilty are innocent dindus.

I'm going to marry Amanda Knox!

What's the Foxy Knoxy documentary called? I didn't even know one had come out.

>t. legal expert

She's not even hot now.

>makes her look guilty = she is guilty
uhh, I don't think you understand how the criminal justice system works.

DNA is a pretty solid foundation for factual evidence and guess what: absolutely none of hers was at the crime scene.

ANSWER ME GODDAMMIT

You got a problem with Taliban getting BTFO, Ahmed?

She was before

Go to netflix, nigger.

the doc showed how stupidly dumb and corrupt the Italian police are.

also showed how slimey people in papparazzo world are

>uhh, I don't think you understand how the criminal justice system works.
Uhh, I don't think you know how personal opinions work. They aren't subject to the same standards as a court of law.

It also showed how bad Amanda Knox is at lying.
>also showed how slimey people in papparazzo world are
Wow, what an eye opener.

>the doc showed how stupidly dumb and corrupt the Italian police are.

you mean the country responsible for numerous mob related activities across the planet that also managed to turn a non muslim religious group into a sect of kiddie fiddlers is corrupt?

wow. just wow! what a revelation!

They are in italy

I don't see anything they did as corrupt. The case was just sloppy. Some American policework is sloppy too. Take a look at Making a Murderer.

While it's a shame in these instances, I'm not sure it's something to be up in arms about.

>Some American policework is sloppy too

Italian Police ''work'' is a fucking mockery but Americans are in no place to judge

So?

Yeah, I don't know enough about it to have an opinion, and the Amanda Knox case isn't going to get me to care because she's pretty clearly guilty to me.

>ywn a foxxy knoxy

jlmdimsaf(just let me die in my sleep already, senpai)

clearly guilty... with no evidence.

you'd make a great Italian prosecutor.

Oh man, that fuckin guy.

>no evidence
You believe there is no evidence at all that points to Knox's involvement?

maybe i should stop cleaning with bleach in case a murder ever takes place in my house.

>defending a murderer just because you think she's cute
truly the scum of the Earth

if you think you know better than the Italian Supreme Court, by all means present your """"""evidence""""""

I'm waiting

She was so hot, what happened?

As I stated upthread, a personal opinion isn't subject to the same standards as a court of law. You intimated that there was no evidence at all that points to Knox's involvement. Do you really believe this?

Yes. Because there is none, as disproved by the Italian Court. Did you even watch the doc?

Opinions like that of the main detective aren't evidence. You can't convict someone on opinion, and in fact they can obscure the facts of the case because of personal bias and character profiling.

>"I can see it in her eyes!" is valid evidence
Italian detected

>no evidence
>person walks away free

Some people just don't understand how this shit works. It doesn't matter if you feel they did or not, if the final court judgement is "not guilty" then they are not guilty, doesn't matter at that point if they did it or not. It is up to the police and prosecutors to do their goddamn jobs right.

>Yes. Because there is none, as disproved by the Italian Court.
Just because a case is thrown out or a verdict is overturned, doesn't mean that there is no evidence against the defendant or that the defendant is innocent.
>Opinions like that of the main detective aren't evidence.
That's not the basis of my opinion of Knox, or even a part of it.
>You can't convict someone on opinion, and in fact they can obscure the facts of the case because of personal bias and character profiling.
You can, but it's not right. But again, I'm not talking about the prosecution's case against her. I'm speaking of my own opinion based on the evidence, and my opinion is that she was involved.

So you're of the opinion there is no evidence at all that would indicate Knox's involvement in the murder?

It wasn't just "thrown out." They were *literally* declared innocent:

>On 27 March 2015, Italy's highest court, the Court of Cassation, ruled that Knox and Sollecito were innocent of murder, thereby definitively ending the case.[107][108][109][110] Rather than merely declaring that there were errors in the earlier court cases or that there was not enough evidence to convict, the court ruled that Knox and Sollecito had not committed the murder and were innocent of those charges, but upheld the conviction for the slander of Patrick Lumumba.

>In September 2015, the delegate Supreme Judge, Court adviser Mr. Gennaro Marasca, made public the reasons of absolution. First, none of the evidence demonstrated that either Knox or Sollecito were present at the crime scene. Second, they cannot have "materially participated in the homicide", since there were absolutely no "biological traces that could be attributed to them in the room of the murder or on the body of the victim, where in contrast numerous traces were found attributable to Guede".

Again, did you even watch the doc or are you just talking out of your ass?

>Some people just don't understand how this shit works.
Some people don't understand that we can still think Knox is guilty even though the prosecution did a lousy job.

>They were *literally* declared innocent:
Someone can be declared innocent by a court of law and still be guilty. Courts are not infallible.

What exactly does she do now?
I don't expect she makes much money, being a college dropout

trial started in like 2007 or some shit

oh so you're being wilfully ignorant.

still not hearing any of your so called "evidence"...

The thing is, it doesn't matter if you think she is guilty or not, because legally she isn't. I might think 10-year-old girls are fit to have sex 24/7 in huge bukkake parties but that doesn't make it legally right, nor actually true.

She's hot and a murderer, you can't be more attractive than that.

Because you haven't been straightfoward in answering my own question. Do you think that there is no evidence in the case which would suggest that Knox was involved with the murder? As in, none at all?

>Second, they cannot have "materially participated in the homicide", since there were absolutely no "biological traces that could be attributed to them in the room of the murder or on the body of the victim, where in contrast numerous traces were found attributable to Guede".
I can accept that there was so strong biological evidence linking Knox to the scene of the crime but still think she was involved with the murder. It isn't willful ignorance. I just don't come to the same conclusion as the court.

only low test ''males'' would disagree

btw is the movie good?

>The thing is, it doesn't matter if you think she is guilty or not, because legally she isn't.
Understand that whether she is guilty or not legally doesn't matter in regard to my personal opinion, which is all I've stated in this thread: I think Knox was probably involved with the murder.
>I might think 10-year-old girls are fit to have sex 24/7 in huge bukkake parties but that doesn't make it legally right, nor actually true.
But you can form and express your own opinion on the matter based on the evidence available to you. Which is all I've done. Personal opinions are not beholden to courts of law.

Holy shit, just tell us what makes you think she was involved you stupid fucking nigger. Stop this Internet pissing contest. The dude is right about one thing, you haven't pointed any evidence at all yet.

>The dude is right about one thing, you haven't pointed any evidence at all yet.
Because he never answered my simple question. Why should I answer his?

t. momma's boy

You don't think she gives all these interviews, and now a netflix documentary for free right?

She's most likely a multi millionaire by now.

This momma's boy whipped your ass in a pissing contest.

You're a retard

4 years in jail. Didn't know until recently if she was going to have to go back or not. Plenty of stress.

Hitting close to 30yo as well.

IIRC, she finished college and wrote a book about the trial and her experience. I think she works for an advocacy group or something like that.

Except its the media and public opinion that certainly played a huge role in her initial verdict.

Turns out her DNA was nowhere present on the crime scene while they found plenty from the dindu and the victim.

The knife was most likely due to cross contamination because Italian "scientific" police is so inept they mix up all the evidence during examination.

Dunno if she's guilty or not, but that's fucking scary that they locked her up that way with so little evidence.

How does it feel to have a two digit IQ? I wonder...

Sounds like a good plan if I want to be framed by the police, vilified by the media, and still get called a murderer after being cleared twice. No consequences at all.

You realize she got 4 million dollars just from writing her memoire right? That netflix documentary probably got her a fine amount of money as well, she did plenty of interviews on national TV which do pay very well.

She's also suing the Italian justice for wrongful imprisonment and could very well win.

>Except its the media and public opinion that certainly played a huge role in her initial verdict.
And its the media and public opinion that just as certainly played a role in overturning that verdict.
>Turns out her DNA was nowhere present on the crime scene while they found plenty from the dindu and the victim.
There's more than just DNA evidence at the scene of the crime.
>The knife was most likely due to cross contamination because Italian "scientific" police is so inept they mix up all the evidence during examination.
It's inconclusive, sure. But it's not exactly evidence that Knox was innocent.
>Dunno if she's guilty or not, but that's fucking scary that they locked her up that way with so little evidence.
It doesn't bother me as much because there is so much that points to her guilt. There just wasn't enough evidence in the case to make a sound conviction.

But you will have enjoyed the pleasure of murdering someone, international celebrity, and proceeds from a best selling book.

Wow, you are a complete retard.

Sigh... tumblr is leaking again.

An opinion with no foundation other than your cornhole is called a 'prejudice', not an opinion.

Italy wasn't a country when the Catholic Church began - Rome was one of a number of city-states.

>Understand that

Oh, you're one of *those* hysterical faggots. Your opinion isn't an opinion, stop posting.

>An opinion with no foundation other than your cornhole is called a 'prejudice', not an opinion.
No, that's still an opinion. Why do assume my opinion is unfounded? Is your own personal opinion of Knox's guilt or innocence based solely on the court's ruling?

Two posts, both saying that opinions aren't opinions. Amanda Knox defenders, everyone.

No, it's a prejudice. I cannot imagine why anyone would, based on the peanut gallery highlights packages and Wikipedia pages, consider themselves equipped to contradict the verdict of a jury who sat through the whole trial.

>literally 0 concrete evidence
>prosecutor uses religion based argument
>public eats it up
Holy shit. Is Italy the middle east of europe? Italians that were studying abroad in other first world countries when this shit came to light, did people make fun of you?

They were both by me, and I was repeating the fact that your opinion is based on nothing substantial. Unless you're a family values Catholic trying to defend the inane original prosecution, you have nothing.

And the fact they lied to her about being HIV positive, portrayed her as a sexual deviant and used her diary wrote in captivity as "evidence" to support the sex game theory...

That's just evil.

dude its fucking hilarious. I wish i knew about this shit back when i was in college, I had this really uppity italian friend. I would have held this shit over his head for eternity. The fact that the ENTIRE country went along with it is hilarious.

your a 100% super retard

Personally I looked at many of the actual transcripts, but would you agree that in some cases a defendant is likely guilty but there isn't enough evidence to convict him/her? Do you withhold having an opinion completely outside of what a court rules?

>They were both by me, and I was repeating the fact that your opinion is based on nothing substantial.
Even if true, it's still an opinion. An opinion is never not an opinion.
>Unless you're a family values Catholic trying to defend the inane original prosecution, you have nothing.
So you believe there is no evidence in this case that might suggest Knox was involved? None at all?

There is a ton of circumstantial evidence that simply doesn't make sense if rudy was the only one involved.

In France we had Outreau which was in many ways way worst... Multiple innocent men sent to prison for allegedly molesting children. Police and psychologist coercing children into making false statements. Juge saying in court its just typical for Notherners to share their underage daughters for apéritif...

The stuff of nightmares...

One of the convicted couldn't take the shame after his wife left him and his family turned against him. Hanged himself in his cell before he could be acquitted.

You should cry about it on reddit.

>why take a shower with blood in the sink
there was a tiny amount of blood, normal for someone who cut themselves shaving or in some other part of their beauty routine or in the kitchen.
>why go buy bleach in the morning and have your apartement stink of it
it's called cleaning. functional adults do it all the time.
>why do cartwheels and splits and make out in public
if you spent more time interacting with real humans than watching movies, you'd know that people, especially young adults, often react "oddly" to things, especially when there are multiple conflicting emotional stimuli in the picture at the same time. moreover, how heartbroken was she really supposed to be? she'd known this other girl for two months and not well at all. it's not like it was her sister or something.
>why get upset and say "OF COURSE SHE SUFFERED "THEY" SLIT HER FUCKING THROAT"
"they" is a normal way in english to refer to an unknown single person. some grammar snobs are against using it in formal writing, but nothing they have to say alters the fact that it is a normal way to talk.

overall, i get the impression that you're not basing your expectations on how people, especially women, act in real life. and this was a sheltered suburban teenage girl who was in miles over her head. of course she was nervous and did irrational things. doesn't mean shit.

Dude we don't want you here anymore than your parents want you in their lives you shitty mistake.

Fuck off.

One the problems is that there's a lot in this case that individually can be explained innocently, but taken as a whole, there are too many coincidences to explain away. It becomes easier to say that she was likely involved.

Reddit's back
Back again
Reddit's back
Tell a friend

Dunno about the bleach but there was no evidence of cleaning up as far as the room of the murder itself is concerned. Actually they found plenty DNA material. Just not Amanda's.

The rest really doesn't prove shit at all.

t. Giuseppe Bertoli

The Black guy did it.

Her not notifying about the break in could have been her just not giving a shit, she left dildos out and generally seemed like the type to just leave it to someone else to report.

She's innocent of the murder.

Yeah, and she says she was always awkward and didn't fit in when she was a teenager. That's why she got with the first guy that showed her any attention in Italy.

>tfw you never met cute teenage quirky Amanda and easily made her your qt gf.

Not the poster you're responding to, but you don't have to prove she did it to think that she was likely involved. I think it's very plausible she participated in some manner and the evidence seems more consistent with that than her being innocent

i remember reading about the case. The thing is, a shitton of false evidence was presented at the trial, whereas in this case its literally nothing but bullshit that gets amanda convicted. Both cases suck, but only amanda is a victim of a semi-retarded jury.

>I think it's very plausible she participated in some manner and the evidence seems more consistent with that

What suggests that in the evidence?

dude like she left dildos out everywhere, and she was caught kissing her boyfriend like three days later on a security cam. What more proof do you want that she is a degenerate slut. That clearly makes her guilty.

At no point have I defended the prosecution's version of events.
>The Black guy did it.
I agree, but his and Knox's guilt aren't mutually exclusive.
>Her not notifying about the break in could have been her just not giving a shit, she left dildos out and generally seemed like the type to just leave it to someone else to report.
Why did she call her mother?
>She's innocent of the murder.
Do believe that with certainty?

You think she convinced the african to murder her roommate? why? she has no motive

This is just like reality!
There are a lot of things. To begin, the staged robbery.

Those are just unrelated behaviours, not signs of guilt.

>Why did she call her mother?
How the fuck would I know? I call my mother all the time for all sorts of reasons :/

>Do believe that with certainty?
No, perhaps I should have said there is not enough evidence to say she was in any way involved in the murder.

>the staged robbery
How do you know there was a staged robbery?

How do you know she did it if it was indeed staged?

Who said she intended Meredith to be murdered? I don't know what her motive might have been, but there are a number of plausible scenerios you could come up with. My argument of her likely guilt isn't based on motive.

You aren't good with sarcasm, are you?

they found one fingerprint of rudy's, his cum on a pillow, and some of his skin cells inside her vagina

plenty of evidence to condemn him but not really a ton of dna material.

rafael's dna on the bra clasp is pretty damning as well because there is no way in hell it came from cross-contamination. but no one seems to want to talk about that.

>the bleach, cleaning lady originally says there was no bleach at the house and she wasn't allowed to use it, until she talks to rafael's lawyer and changes her story

>a mop needing to be borrowed from amanda to be used that night because brand new pipes randomly burst
>the staged burglary
>a footprint the size of amanda's on a pillow in meredith's room
>the knife dna which again everyone just says "lol cross contamination lmao"
>all of amanda's lies including basic answers that contradict her roomates and pointing the finger at her boss after a grueling one hour interrogation
>the way she approached an open door and took a shower with no care in the world, while not noticing the ransacked room or a huge pool of blood on the carpet until after she finished her shower (lol no biggie, just menstrual problems) or a huge nigger shit in the toilet until after she had finished her hair
>the conveniently closed and locked door to kercher's bedroom

yeah your right, it's not proof. but come on. how much shit do you need to start wondering.

>How the fuck would I know? I call my mother all the time for all sorts of reasons
In the middle of the night?
>No, perhaps I should have said there is not enough evidence to say she was in any way involved in the murder.
So you think there is a chance she was?>How do you know there was a staged robbery?
It seems most likely given the evidence.
>How do you know she did it if it was indeed staged?
She would be the most likely culprit. I don't know that she did it. Again, I'm not trying to prove she's guilty. All I'm saying is that it is likely she was involved.

I guarantee you that if someone you lived with died while you were out getting some ass, there would be a thousand things you randomly did or said beforehand or during the investigation that could be twisted as evidence of your guilt if someone wanted to. People's lives are complex and they do some things that are dumb and irrational. If investigators can't rise above that and see the big picture, you could end up in deep shit.

At the end of the day, there's no real forensic evidence (when there should be tons), no real holes in her alibi (besides idiot kids cracking in the interrogation box and telling the police obvious falsities that they think they want to hear), and there's no real motive. And there's another suspect who's freely admitted to being at the time and place of the crime, committing a very dangerous felony that gave him excellent motive to murder the victim. And he initially stated that Knox was nowhere around, only to later make up a fairy tale at trial about recognizing her silhouette in an alleyway.

What makes sense is that Rudy Guede decided to rob the place, got into an altercation, and committed the murder alone. Everything else is the product of watching too many detective shows.

but rafael was her seventh guy

>I'm allowed to be retarded

Do they still think it was consensual sex or was it rape?

clothes strewn about, nothing taken despite valuables in plain sight, window broken with the glass on top of all the clothes strewn about showing that it was broken from inside, the fact that it was LITERALLY the worst possible way to break in to the house being that it was like 13 feet off the ground and in full view of surrounding houses and the fucking highway, no crushed glass or mud / grass stains or anything to suggest that anyone actually entered the window

once you know it was broken from inside, you know that it was done to make it look like a burglary took place. it was probably rudy trying to throw everyone off the trail of the body in the other room, right?

>rafael's dna on the bra clasp is pretty damning as well because there is no way in hell it came from cross-contamination. but no one seems to want to talk about that.

That was refuted by defence who said such small amounts often appear in places for other reasons. It would have to be a larger amount to show he actually touched it.

I'm also capable of believing someone is likely guilty even though there is not enough evidence for a conviction.
>(when there should be tons)
According to whom?
>no real holes in her alibi
Where was she at 930am?
> And he initially stated that Knox was nowhere around
Guede is not very reliable.
>What makes sense is that Rudy Guede decided to rob the place, got into an altercation, and committed the murder alone. Everything else is the product of watching too many detective shows.
What about the staged robbery?

How on earth does that mean she did it?

That's like explaining what the carpet looks like and saying she must have been the person who put the carpet there.

>no real holes in her alibi (besides idiot kids cracking in the interrogation box and telling the police obvious falsities that they think they want to hear)

>hey rafael, we'll throw you in jail for the rest of your life without a trial unless you give us something
>UHHHH AMANDA LIED SHE WASNT THERE BETWEEN THESE HOURS WHERE THE MURDER TOOK PLACE AND SHE TOLD ME TO LIE ABOUT HER HAVING BEEN WITH ME

that is one STUPID fucking kid

>What makes sense is that Rudy Guede decided to rob the place, got into an altercation

It doesn't make sense if you actually investigate the supposed burglary attempt

Or The Jinx threads

Why did she change her story every time the police caught her out in a lie? Five times I think she changed her story.

>Five times I think she changed her story.

Why does anyone lie? Could be anxiously trying to make sure they don't convict her of something she didn't do.

Who do you think is most likely to stage a robbery after a violent crime?

Stop sperging on semantics, you know what the difference between a valid opinion and a voiced prejudice is, and you are clearly communicating the latter.

has to do with hierarchy m8, most of us can't comprehend or relate to someone dying thousands of miles away, in a different country and of a different cultural/racial/ethnic origin.

europeans reacted to paris so strongly because it's so synonymous and well known to us, meanwhile a city in libya has no context so we "don't care". absolutely natural and logical imo.

I don't know.

How do you know the person who staged it is her?

The person who staged it could have been the Black guy who we already know did the crime.

No, I wouldn't agree that guilt or lack of it exists, for our purposes, outside of the court and the narrative constructed for its purposes of what occurred. Actual guilt and actual repetence is between us as individuals and God, and is nothing to do with the legal system. I withhold having an opinion completely outside of what the court rules, yes.

So she lied to the police? Really gets the old synaptic pathways firing.

>you know what the difference between a valid opinion and a voiced prejudice is
Yes, and they're both opinions.
>and you are clearly communicating the latter.
Based on what?

Evidently not if they found her not guilty.

That's a lie. It was quite a large amount. Also, there would have had to be a source for the DNA and his dna was found nowhere else in the cottage except a cigarette butt in the kitchen.

His DNA would have had to be transferred from himself to another surface, and from that surface to the forensic analyst, and from that analyst to the bra clasp. But not only does that not happen, but the amount transferred would not have been large enough to match the amount on the clasp.

>So she lied to the police?

Still doesn't prove guilt.

You can't say she did "bad thing 1" and then say she must therefore be guilty of "bad thing 2".

Why would he stage a robbery?That's weird. So when OJ was found not guilty, that was your opinion too?

>Still doesn't prove guilt.
That's 100% correct. She has been found guilty, however and based on the story changes alone she's guilty in my mind. Case closed.

What? You don't lie about shit to prove that you didn't do something. That doesn't make any sense.

That's war Mannix, people die.

No the defence were able to make it unreliable by showing how little it was.

Hows this for cross contamination possibility:
>Knoxx is always touching her bf and having sex with him, she's covered in his dna
>she apparently is quite dirty, might not was that much, probably has dried semen on her hands
>picks up Merediths bra one time to move it some time before the crime and even before Meredith puts it on
>she transfers her bf dna to one very small part of Merediths bra

Based on the fact that even at the level of detail presented in this thread, none of it sounds convincing, which is why she was found not guilty.

Evidently not? You can't look at it and form your own opinion? And how exactly does there not being conclusive proof mean there is nothing suspicious whatsoever? Do you think no one ever gets away with murder?

>Why would he stage a robbery?
His alibi was that someone broke in through the window and did it and he merely disturbed him.

He actually has much more reason to do it than Knoxx.

A prejudice isn't a valid opinion. You can express it all you like, of course, but nobody will respect it.

And my opinion all along has been that she was likely involved but there was not enough evidence for a conviction. How is that based on prejudice?

Because she realised what a bunch of wacko retards she was dealing with when they started asking her about being a devil worshiper and how she could talk about sex in public.

She probably felt she was stuck in the middle ages in a witch trial.

Yes, it was and is my opinion. Why would I have any other opinion? How could I possibly gain from randomly deciding I knew better than the jury? What will happen to jury trial if everyone, for years, pours scorn on every verdict a jury delivers? Whose interests do you think that will ultimately serve?

the vitcim?

I'm only here to banepost. leave me alone

So the italian courts are only incompetent when trying to convict, but not when trying to defend?

It was a large enough amount that it could only have come from direct transfer. And even if that weren't true, it would be awfully suspicious that the only place she managed to transfer his DNA was the bra clasp on the bra meredith was wearing when she was murdered in her room.

Why would I? Why would I feel suspicion? Cases are appealed when the verdicts are wrong, as happened in this case. No, I don't think anyone does providing there's a court case. Plenty evade identifcation.

Because, by definition, if there was not enough evidence for a conviction there's no valid basis for you to state that other than your gut feelings.

You're pretty dumb.
And the cut off bra?

>It was a large enough amount that it could only have come from direct transfer.

>COULD HAVE
>COULD HAVE
>COULD HAVE

Wow you are a dangerous fool. I hope someone convicts you of a crime because something COULD HAVE happened.

By your low standards of evidence we could have created a never ending list of COULD HAVE possibilities.

But there a valid basis - much of the evidence points to her likely involvement. It is not gut feelings. There just wasn't enough evidence to convict her. Or for that matter, exonerate her.

I don't know. But once again, saying he never cut the bra does not mean that Knoxx did. Could have been anyone.

It was obviously the dindu. Amanda would not have to break in, obviously. And the cut marks on the victim's chin are an obvious sign. He was probably raping her and holding the knife to her chin, saying "If you move or scream I will cut your throat." or some shit like that. Plus Amanda had zero motive.

People always wanna believe the side that has no physical evidence to support it.

>There just wasn't enough evidence to convict her. Or for that matter, exonerate her.

It bugs me that she needs to be exonerated. If there is no evidence to say she absolutely did do it, then she's innocent.

A woman could accuse an innocent man of rape, prove that he was with her by maybe going out for a drink with him etc, and then he never gets cleared because of the "possibility of guilt".

She's innocent unless found guilty.

I'm asking who is most likely to stage a robbery. If you don't know, a staged robbery or break in is almost always done by a person who has lawful entry to the residence and someone who knows the victim well. Given Filomena has an alibi, that leaves Knox. She had both the motive to stage a robbery and the opportunity.

>much of the evidence points to her likely involvement.
Actually, there is zero evidence. You are confusing conjecture with evidence.

>DNA was there
>therefore DNA transfer happened
>transfer could only have happened from direct contact
>therefore a direct transfer happened

holy shit you are a complete and utter fucking retard

i never say this, but please. PLEASE go kill yourself right fucking now.

If there wasn't enough evidence to convict her, she didn't do it. This is called jury trial. When we lose it, chaos will ensue.

cool theory, bruh

>could only have
>could ONLY have
>COULD ONLY HAVE

You're a fucking retard.

No, I'm not, I'm interested in enjoying the benefits of the rule of law and trial by jury, should I ever be accused of anything. At this point, any white man who helps devalue jury trial is naive indeed.

>If there is no evidence to say she absolutely did do it, then she's innocent.
She's not guilty according to a court of law. That doesn't mean she's innocent. Do you believe that nobody ever gets away with murder?
>A woman could accuse an innocent man of rape, prove that he was with her by maybe going out for a drink with him etc, and then he never gets cleared because of the "possibility of guilt"
That's altogether different.

>If you don't know, a staged robbery or break in is almost always done by a person who has lawful entry to the residence and someone who knows the victim well.

>almost always

Not proof of guilt. You can't prove that this case of a fake break in was done this way.

>She's not guilty according to a court of law. That doesn't mean she's innocent.

Yes, BY DEFINITION, it does, you fucking spastic.

>That's altogether different.

No, it's exactly the same thing.

Thaks for clearing up what you actually said. Except you didn't.

You are the retard who also lacks communication skills.

You believe that none of the evidence points to Knox's involvement? None at all?
>If there wasn't enough evidence to convict her, she didn't do it.
Or she got away with it.
Where is the theorizing? I'm speaking in likelihoods.
Nothing I've said is advocating to dismantle rule of law or trial by jury. I don't think Knox should be in prison based on the casework, but I do think she is likely guilty. Why is this so hard to grasp?

No, you can't prove that it "could only" have come from direct transfer. It is still a "could have" argument.

Also, even if you can't see that, then even if you consider he did touch it, then you can't prove when or why or how. Saying it happened at some point is not good enough to say it happened at the specific time of the crime or for the reasons of committing a crime.

Are you saying everyone ever accused of a crime is there fore to be considered guilty just because they can't prove innocence?

Prove to me that you didn't commit one of the unsolved murders in your town? There is no evidence to say you weren't there so you must be guilty.

>guy doesn't understand english
>posts on english imageboard anyways

absolute madman

>Not proof of guilt.
As I've said a billion times now, I'm not trying to prove she's guilty.
>You can't prove that this case of a fake break in was done this way.
But it seems likely based on what we know. Occam's razor.
>Yes, BY DEFINITION, it does, you fucking spastic
So no one ever gets away with murder?

Yes, everything you've said advocates the dismantling of the rule of law and trial by jury, because you're saying the format of jury trial itself is invalid. I haven't failed to grasp what you're saying, you've failed to grasp its implications. There's no such category as 'likely guilty'. You get found either guilty or not guilty.

Yes, no-one ever gets away with murder. Because murder is a criminal offence, and criminal offences under law are judged in courts, which deliver verdicts. Do you understand this yet?

>Are you saying everyone ever accused of a crime is there fore to be considered guilty just because they can't prove innocence?
Nope. You Amanda Knox supporters sure are dense.

>But it seems likely based on what we know

If there was an unsolved murder in the town and the only person who knew them in the town was you, does that mean you are guilty just because people are more like to be killed by someone they know?

>murder someone
>go to court, declared innocent
>didn't get away with murder

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

But you said it doesn't mean she's innocent, which means you think she should be considered equally guilty as innocent. That's not fair.

You must presume innocence.

>Yes, everything you've said advocates the dismantling of the rule of law and trial by jury, because you're saying the format of jury trial itself is invalid
No, I'm not. You just have really poor comprehension skills.
>There's no such category as 'likely guilty'.
There is outside a court of law.

Yawn.
>Yes, no-one ever gets away with murder.
Amanda Knox supporters, everyone.

>You must presume innocence
In a court of law, you fuck.

Finally you get it. Except that for our purposes, as observers only at a distance of the already distanced account given in court of the already distanced account given in statements and evidence, distanced by time from the original events which may or may not be represented accurately - there is no 'murder'. The original events are entirely unknowable.

But I committed murder. I know I did it. And I got away with it.

Friends of Amanda shills, please leave.

> dat psychopath gaze

> dat forced acting and fake emotions

how obvious can you get?

No, you have no comprehension at all if you don't see that you're repeatedly stating that jury trial has no value. If you can do better than them from your armchair, why don't they just let mobs decide who to hang?

>outside a court of law

Outside the law there's no crime. If a golfer could just pick up the ball, and walk over and place it into the hole, he could get every hole in one. But the rules are what makes the action meaningful, and ignoring the rules invalidates the action.

Amanda Knox doesn't need supporters, she was found not guilty. I'm a rule of law, jury trial and human rights supporter, not an Amanda Knox supporter.

She was found innocent by a court of law and our opinions must abide by their ruling lest we undermine rule of law and trial by jury. So say we all.

There's no point in being facetious because your gossiping and tongue-clucking was disrupted, but say you're telling the truth, which you're not, but saying you were, you still wouldn't have committed murder, because you were never charged. You would simply have murdered someone.

>In a court of law, you fuck.

You may be being sarcastic, but you've stated the truth. The only people who'll suffer from this 'we all know she did it' shit are those of us most likely to be unjustly accused of shit - white men.

>f
>senpai

lol yo how com you put so many quataters around evidence yo lmao you only need 1 sets of them but fer sum reesom i dunt think you need any quats arou8nd evidnce lmao???

She was found guilty, but then SJW said "she a good girl and dindu nuffin!"

>She's not guilty according to a court of law. That doesn't mean she's innocent.

IN MY MIND SHE'S GUILTY

>No, you have no comprehension at all
I have no comprehension at all?!
>if you don't see that you're repeatedly stating that jury trial has no value.
When did I say that?
>If you can do better than them from your armchair, why don't they just let mobs decide who to hang?
Because having my own opinion doesn't automatically mean I seek to enforce it by law. I agree with the jury, as far as there is not enough evidence to convict Knox and that the prosecution's case was poorly constructed.
>If a golfer could just pick up the ball, and walk over and place it into the hole, he could get every hole in one. But the rules are what makes the action meaningful, and ignoring the rules invalidates the action.
Okay, but just because we dont have enough evidence to convict someone doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.
>Amanda Knox doesn't need supporters, she was found not guilty. I'm a rule of law, jury trial and human rights supporter, not an Amanda Knox supporter.
You sound like a faggot redditor.

Right. I murdered someone and got away with it.

>tfw born 7 months after her
>tfw people used to call me harry potter
>tfw went to college to learn foreign languages
>tfw you'll never fuck foxy knoxy at her prime, get high, murder some random paki coal burner and still get to frame a nigger for it
>tfw you'll never spend four years in solitary browsing Cred Forums all day just so you can become a millionaire once you're out selling rights to your story

I failed at life. :'(

your mind is not based on any evidence at all and is completely biased. This is why you would never last a day on a jury. You don't understand logic.

>You may be being sarcastic, but you've stated the truth.
No I haven't. That was a parody to try to show you how absurd your position is.

After this thread and other online discussion, it really wouldn't surprise me if Friends of Amands had some kind of shill operation going on. None the Knox supporters here strike me as the sort of people who would frequent Cred Forums.

this documentary sure took a huge crap on the victim of the murder

what the fuck were they thinking?

Only immature faggots care about the "news"

>Only immature faggots care about the "news"

I think you're way past your bed time child.

Guys, no evidence - whasoever- exists against them.

This was the final ruling and supported by serious investigative journalism.

The fact that the whole thing lasted so long- when no evidence AT all, I repeat no evidence AT all exists- was farcical and should make Italy really ashamed, the prosecutor is a basket case.

Case closed.

a nigger did it and then SJW screamed for (innocent) white blood

>Okay, but just because we dont have enough evidence to convict someone doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed.

Yes, by definition it does. Why do you find this so hard to understand? The crime only exists in the legal system. If the legal system finds that no crime was committed, no crime was committed.

cool story bro

You don't seem to grasp the nuance of holding an opinion that exists outside a court of law, that someone can be found not guilty but still have likely committed a crime, and that holding this opinion is not advocating for any change in the actual outcome in court.
>not based on any evidence
There was a staged robbery and numerous inconsistencies in Knox's statements. This is evidence which leads me to believe she is likely guilty, not in a legal sense, but that she was likely involved with the murder.

Yes, you did. It doesn't matter what your intentions were, you stated the literal truth.

>After this thread and other online discussion, it really wouldn't surprise me if Friends of Amands had some kind of shill operation going on.

You're so lacking in self-awareness, you dipshit. Nobody agrees with you because nobody thinks there's any evidence to support a guilty verdict, so you assume everyone's a shill. You're a moron.

So in an unsolved murder case, no crime was committed? Good to know.

There. Are. No. Crimes. Outside. The. Law.

Why do you find Pragmatism 101 impossible to grasp?

In an unsolved murder case, the crime is unattributed. That there was a murder has already been stated by the legal system.

It's very obvious she's not guilty. The nigger is the most likely suspect(he's a nigger, they're known for their violent and criminal behavior, he fled the country afterwards, had a history with previous records of committing crimes, he's a nigger, etc.). All of the issues with the case comes with the involvement of non-whites. It happened in a non-white country(italians aren't whites btw, they're mongrelized, they speak a weirdo mumbo jumbo language, they couldn't even pronounce Knox correctly, they said "Canucks", wtf?). The italian cop(non-whites are notoriously incompetent at their jobs, whatever it is) was prone to vague platitudes that made no sense, like saying only a woman would cover up the body(what even is the basis of this?), the fact that she kissed her boyfriend somehow made her a sex weirdo(?), and non-whites are known to have a problem with rational thinking, which is why all of the great inventors and scientists are white. The media, which is run by jews(non-whites), and are known to have an anti-white bias, were eager to have a sensationalist story that would slander whites, they love reporting stories of violence and sex to corrupt the goys' minds. If this happened in a white country, Amanda wouldn't even have been a suspect in the first place. Donald Trump was right, as always, we should boycott Italy, what a shithole country. Vote Trump.

There's a Guardian interview from a couple of years back where she offers the journalist tea, but all she has are those weird fruity teas. He says "Ugh I just want some good English black tea" or something to that effect and she genuinely looks like she could kill him.

>Nobody agrees with you because nobody thinks there's any evidence to support a guilty verdict, so you assume everyone's a shill.
"Everyone" is like three or four posters that have been arguing with me all throughout the thread. I don't assume you're shills, but I have to wonder. You don't sound like regular posters on Cred Forums.

I love that people think they can accurately read a crime from evidence collected by a police force who equate sex before marriage with Satanism.

>There was a staged robbery
No, there was what LOOKED LIKE a staged robbery. There was no evidence that it was in fact staged.

>numerous inconsistencies in Knox's statements
because both witness statements were taken under duress/coercion, which leads to false information:

lawqa.com/qa/if-statement-given-under-stress-or-because-of-police-threat-can-it-be-removed

>This is evidence
Nope. Not evidence, which is why the court reppealed the prosecution's case and determined they were definitively innocent,

>guilty, not in a legal sense
lmao you are not a court of law. Court of public opinion does not get to decide guilt.

You have still not provided ANY evidence whatsoever.

You mentioned 'other online discussion', and I have posted regularly on Cred Forums for a couple of years. Clearly your problem is with the majority and with the law itself, which found her not guilty. Why do you think that someone who was exonerated needs shills? You're a paranoid waste of space.

Murder is a crime whether you are convicted of it or not. You still broke the law.

>guilty, not in a legal sense but in my fantasies

Right you are, psycho.

But the notion of law extends beyond the steps of a courthouse. This is a really silly thing to be arguing about.
Yes, and you or the other person argued that a crime hadn't been committed at all.

The law established that she did not break the law, and fully exonerated her.

>No, there was what LOOKED LIKE a staged robbery. There was no evidence that it was in fact staged.

What would be evidence that it was staged then? Not a confession, because apparently those don't count. The window was broken after the place was ransacked, nothing was taken. What evidence do you need to conclude that it was staged?

>because both witness statements were taken under duress/coercion, which leads to false information:

Where is your evidence for this? By all accounts but Knox's (but hey, she is a paragon of truth, right?) it was a pretty short, normal interrogation.

The notion of law includes the police force too, yes, and the government. Neither of those found her guilty.

No crime has been committed by Amanda Knox, the person we're discussing.

Unless of course, she DID actually do it. In which case she did break the law despite being exonerated.

>everybody fighting like autists
>nobody posting pics of Foxy Knoxy

>my roommate just died, better make out with my boyfriend in front of all the cops

No, the law, which you're appealing to, definitively exonerated her. She didn't do it. There is no law beyond the law, or actual event to appeal to beyond the version created by the evidence presented. That evidence does not indicate her guilt. She was found not guilty.

Yeah, the logic here is the nonsense whereby not behaving like a detective show stereotype makes you a suspicious character.

>Clearly your problem is with the majority and with the law itself, which found her not guilty.
But I agree that she should have been found not guilty. But I still think she did it.
>No, there was what LOOKED LIKE a staged robbery. There was no evidence that it was in fact staged.
Occam's razor.
>because both witness statements were taken under duress/coercion, which leads to false information
No, outside of that too. Her story was fucked before she even entered an interrogation room.
>Nope. Not evidence, which is why the court reppealed the prosecution's case and determined they were definitively innocent
It's still evidence.
>Court of public opinion does not get to decide guilt.
Yeah, not in a legal sense, you retard.

will america ever recover?

The court can say she didn't do it, but that doesn't necessarily mean that she didn't.

If she didn't do it, then the court originally convicted her and said she did, despite the fact that she didn't. So as you can see, courts are not actually god and don't literally determine whether someone did something or not with their own two hands.

>It's the "witch hunt" autist again

I'd tell you to kill yourself but I'm sure you consider it every day.

Good luck arguing with Friends of Amanda, user.

Im at the part where they skype the rudy guy

Is it worth it to keep watching because this guy is obviously guilty

Rudy Guede followed the girls he met at the club back home, then broke into their apartment by breaking a window then raped and murdered the one he found.

There's just no reasonable way for Knox to be involved.

Fine, but admit that your thinking that is gut instinct, and nothing to do with the evidence.

LOL I know right? Americans could NEVER be this stupid lmao!

This.

Also, how fucking clueless is the british journalist

>There's just no reasonable way for Knox to be involved.
Her being involved is more reasonable than explaining away the evidence of a staged break in.
It's based on evidence. The staged robbery is evidence.

>appeal to age fallacy
It's older so it must be better!

Yes it does. Appeals are possible. The verdicts must be respected. 'What really happened' is unknowable, and not what I've been talking about at all. You might as well speculate on the thought processes of William the Conqueror. The police collect statements and evidence, which are respectively constructions and selections, from which the court then reconstructs a version of events, from which the jury draws its conclusions. What actually happened is between whoever did it and God.

>what do you want us to do? check facts?

yeah, he climbed up a 13 foot wall, unshuttered the window, climbed back down, threw a 10 pound rock through the window, climbed up, somehow went in without clearing glass away from the window sill or crushing it or anything, without tracking grass and mud from the rain inside, where he pondered at the room that had already been ransacked, and then walked over into meredith's open door where she was waiting to get raped despite having ample time to run out the front door

sure got me convinced

Dayumn.

Well at least we aren't cucked Papists.

No, it isn't. She was exonerated.

america can't into banter

How so?

>What actually happened is between whoever did it and God.

So you finally admit that it's possible that the verdict can be different from what actually happened. Jesus christ that took a long time.

>>It's the "witch hunt" autist again

There's probably a much more reasonable account of the timeline of the guy's actions, but he fucking did it, case closed.

>but he fucking did it, case closed.
He did it. But that doesn't mean Knox wasn't involved.

No, I never said anything different. I said the same thing here and here . Your comprehension problems prevented you from getting the point.

She was exonerated. None of the evidence was convincing against her, she was exonerated.

Yes. Italians are scummy people

You kept saying repeatedly that it's impossible to get away with murder.

No, the actual verdict means she wasn't involved.

apart from 0 DNA from her or her boyfriend. right.

Yeah? How so? Based on what?

OH FUCK YOU AMERIFAT
ITALY HAS A RICH HISTORY AND CULTURE
WE INVENTED ART
WE INVENTED LAW
WE ARE ROME

IN 1300S WE HAD A COURT SYSTEM WHILE AMERICANS ALL DREW WATER BUFFALO
EAT SHIT AND SHART YOURSELFS AT WALMART YOU AMERICAN PIG

That's right, it is impossible to get away with murder. If you weren't found guilty, you didn't do it. What do you not understand here?

And yet you just admitted that it's possible for someone to have done something despite what the actual verdict was. I simply can't fathom how your mind is working right now.

SHE. WAS. EXONERATED.

Is that right? Doesn't mean she wasn't involved.

Yeah? How so? Based on what?
Yes. By a court of law. Based on lacked of evidence to the contrary.

You keep projecting your succubus, femme fatale and evil sex orgies fantasies and fear unto reality; that's what ultimately make them appears real to you.

And I'm asking how and based on what. If you don't actually have an answer then please spare repeating yourself.

Seriously are you 12? Even remote African tribes have heard of her.

Not 'despite', this is where you fall down. Let me spell it out: the story told in court is a construct based on evidence and statements gathered. A construct. It is already not what really occurred. The jury then must reach a verdict based on the construct. We have only heard the construct. What really happened is unknowable now. To think you are talking about what 'actually' happened is nonsense. None of us can. Not even those present can, really. All we have is the construct. It is categorically impossible for you to know the construct better than the jurors, the audience for whom it was created. On the basis of the construct, Amanda Knox was exonerated.

The inadequacy of the evidence and the trial.

Because only the State has the authority to use violence to enforce it's agenda. Do not question why this is. Ever.

>Based on lacked of evidence to the contrary.
There was a lack of evidence altogether. What in particular led to Knox's exoneration?
>You keep projecting your succubus, femme fatale and evil sex orgies fantasies and fear unto reality; that's what ultimately make them appears real to you.
I wouldn't know.

Friendly reminder that Italian police will put you 4 years in prison if a nig nog kills your room mate during a botched burglary, simply because they don't like you.

Why would a buck nigger need help to rape and kill?

It doesn't matter whether we can know what happened or not.

The fact is, either she was involved or she was not involved. If she was involved, if she somehow even did the murder herself, she was exonerated of it. Which means, if she DID do it, she got away with murder.

If she was involved then why didn't he told the cops about it ? Ok it probably wouldn't have reduced his sentence but why would he keep it to himself, he's going to jail and the others can keep on with their lives ? I don't see a reason why he wouldn't give them up if she was involved.

No, that's all that matters. Don't you understand anything about life? There's no 'if'. Nobody will ever know. She didn't do it, she was exonerated.

>LOL ITALY JUSTICE SYSTEM IS A JOKE AND CAN'T BE TRUSTED
>WHY DON'T YOU TRUST THE VERDICT OF ITALY'S JUSTICE SYSTEM!!!

I know you americans can't help being retarded but at least stick with one version.

There are many plausible scenerios. The better question is why he would stage a robbery and assault.

I can't stress this enough - whether we can know or not is ALL that everything you're saying is based on, and the fact is that we CANNOT know. All we have is the construct, and the construct says she didn't.

Thinking a botched robbery followed by murder-rape would look better than a calculated premedicated murder-rape?

If falls down in a forest and no one is around to hear it, the tree still fucking fell. Jesus christ I'm done with you fucking idiots.

Calm down, Samuel Beckett.

I never said anything against the Italian justice system. There were flaws in the original trial that were identified by the subsequent proceedings, resulting in the exoneration. The system can correct its own mistakes if given the opportunity.

That makes little sense.

But why did he steal from Meredith's bedroom but not Filomena's?

Yeah, but there's evidence of that tree. You literally can't find it. Yet you keep claiming that this tree fell and made a sound, but you can't even show us the tree.

If rudy didnt do it, why did he flee the country?

Why did his story make no sense? He claimed they had no condom so decided not to have sex, but since when has that ever stopped a black guy? He claimed it was too dark ro see the figure, but that's just retarded. Why would the room be dark if he and the girl are there? Are they just sitting in the dark?

He said amanda had nithing to do with it, but changed the story once arrested

He was guilty. Italian police already had so much invested on amanda being guilty, they would be the incompetents of the world if amanda was innocent, so they made a deal with rudy to involve amanda into his story

Yes, something happened, but we don't know what. The construct ends with her exoneration. To say it should be otherwise misses the point of the construct. Good, goodbye.

I think you'll find the person I was arguing against was the one indulging in existential abstractions.

Its clear she didn't do it but its also clear that this wasnt anywhere near as interesting as making a murderer

>no twists
>straight forward case
>boring suspect
>no meme character like the prize

Diassapointed tbqhwyf

Thanks for another great thread, Friends of Amanda.

So, in conclusion, Amanda Knox is guilty and at the very least was an accomplice to murder.

It does make little sense, but he wasn't especially bright. Meredith being the victim it makes more sense that he was interrupted stealing from her.

Look at the apparent intelligence or the lack of it by all the Pro-Amanda-Guilt.
These are the same kinds of dumb shits who thought she was guilty and get jobs in criminology.
Just look at the story of the main prosecutor, he had an obsession with crime drama fantasy books.

Just remember an innocent dumb girl spent 4 years in a foreign prison because of the same dumb shits in this thread, just because they didn't like her personality.

>If rudy didnt do it, why did he flee the country?
Nobody is arguing he didn't do it. We're arguing whether Knox was involved.

No, the conclusion is that she's at liberty having been exonerated and now an advocate for the unjustly accused. Your paranoia is pathetic, she isn't Hillary Clinton, there's no shilling needed, she cleared her name.

Go back to reading your crime fantasy novels.

I thought you'd given up? Go back to giving up.

>It does make little sense, but he wasn't especially bright.
Stupid is one thing, but this explanation has no logic to it. Especially when put together with the cut off bra and Knox's inconsistent statements, it seems much less a stretch to say Knox was involved.

Why would amanda be involved with some thug murdering her roomate?

No, Knox was exonerated.

You've been arguing with different people. I'm not the only one who thinks you're an idiot.

>blacks can't use scissors

This is probably not the case.

Which doesn't mean she wasn't involved. I personally know a guy that was exonerated despite being the only and obvious culprit of a murder, he was only released after months for lack of evidence

I don't give a fuck. Amanda Knox was exonerated and her exoneration is the subject of the show we're ostensibly discussing, pretending the case is still open is an exercise in futility.

All the actual evidence point to the nigger.

He killed her during a chimp out and when he realized how bad he fucked up he thought of ways to get away with it. Like staging a fake break-in, thinking of a story where he was taking a shit in the toilet when he heard a scream and saw some third man. Which at first wasn't Knox but a black man, but then was Knox when he heard she was suspected, and then was also her boyfriend when he heard about him but then wasn't boyfriend, just because...

Of course SJW assume the white middle class american girl set it all up because jumping to the conclusion that the black male did it would be racist.

Anyway don't they ever use lie detectors in Italy? If only to confirm the dindu's story wasn't bullshit.

Because it might not have been done with the intention to murder on Rudy and Amanda's part.
It just doesn't make sense for him to do it.

No, she was exonerated, I'm not interested in your bullshit. If you think that guy was guilty, take your story to the police.

This.

It doesn't make sense how?

>SJWs
>In 2007 Italy

Then why would it be done? To rob her?

Where would rudy and amanda even meet to bring up and conspire such an act? Was there any communication between the two's phones?

>It doesn't make sense how?
Well, why would he do it?
Why did he steal from Meredith but not Filomena?

Was there a mystery foot print in the room? Something to suggest another person was there?

Why would Knox do it? What exactly makes the oddity of his actions suggest her presense to you?

Because as I've already said, Meredith being his victim suggested that he make it look like she was the target of the burglary.

It's all speculation but I would imagine it to be something similar to Janet Chandler's murder in the 70's. Rudy had an interest in deviant pornography and Amanda seemed to harbor hostility against Meredith.

Right, so it's just the prudish devil woman shit that the prosecution tried and that fell down so completely.

It's so odd to see someone on Cred Forums refer to an 'interest in deviant pornography' as though deviants were unreachably strange to him and therefore apt to be murderers.

>Why would Knox do it?
To cover up her involvement and lead police astray.
>What exactly makes the oddity of his actions suggest her presense to you?
Who said it was the oddity of her actions?
>Because as I've already said, Meredith being his victim suggested that he make it look like she was the target of the burglary.
For what purpose? Why cut off the bra?

No, I said his actions, he was the killer. What about his actions suggests the neccesity of an accomplise?

How would the absense of the bra cover up her involvement?

>Nig with burglary record commits a burglary and freaks out because someone is inside.
>kills and rapes her
>people still want to blame the white american girl for her personality flaws

>Right, so it's just the prudish devil woman shit that the prosecution tried and that fell down so completely.
No. For one I'm not making a positive claim. We don't know what happened. Secondly, I'm not saying Meredith was a prude, but she was open in her criticism of Knox for bringing over men.
>It's so odd to see someone on Cred Forums refer to an 'interest in deviant pornography' as though deviants were unreachably strange to him and therefore apt to be murderers.
Someone who owns copious amounts of bestiality porn is more likely to have deviant sexual encounters than someone who doesn't. The kid had a history of mental problems.

No, the prudes I'm talking about are the people following the insane idea that Knox was somehow involved because she was a sexually active woman who lived in the same house. There is simply nothing there to go on.

Kink isn't being a murdering rapist. You're on Cred Forums.

Ah. Never said that either though. The staged break in is a good indication someone else was involved.
To make it look like a break in assault.

None of this makes the slightest sense as connecting to Knox in any way, shape or form.