Stardock will be closed for the week starting on Monday, June 29th and we will be returning on Monday, July 6th. We will be monitoring support tickets and forums during this time but expect delays in responses during this time.
Innocent of all charges except Libel of Lumumba
WinCustomize Forums
Good news for the Knox family of Seattle. She's free. First plane home, anyone?
Slander sentence declared "time served". So... welcome home Amanda!
I often wondered what really happened in that murder. Personally I do not think she or her boyfriend were involved in it, so I am glad justice is finally done. Welcome home for sure! 
Two are freed. Third person's sentence was reduced from 30 to 16 years. So, who is really guilty of this horror crime? Now, only the guilty party will ever know.
No idea....;)
After 4 years in prison for a horrific crime she didn't do? I hope she gets plenty.
No one will ever know if she had something to do with it.
I'm not calling her guilty, If i were her, I'm going straight for the payday too.
She won't get a thing from the Italian system, she was convicted of slander which gave her a 3 year sentence, but time served took care of the sentence. I doubt if anyone in Italy will award her anything monetarily for damages.
Book deals...movie of the week...plenty of ways for her to make money from this, although it would never be worth the time she spent in prison.
Not in Italy no. But here in the US.....Talk show circuit, interviews one right after another. Maybe a book deal. Big bucks for that young lady guilty or no.
Her shabby 'conviction' was overturned. She is therefore innocent.
That's a bit presumptuous!
There are no other clear suspects... and obviously somebody did it.
A supposedly botched investigation does not make her innocent... nor do the questions over the DNA samples.
According to what I read, some of the DNA samples were 'contaminated', supposedly.... and that is what the defense based its appeal on.
The defense had no grounds for an appeal until it was claimed/discovered that the DNA samples were corrupted by 'other material' and there was a small chance for error. However, a less than 1% chance does not prove innocence, just that a 99% probability was not enough to uphold the conviction, from a 'legal' point of view. Thing is, that's how other killers have walked free.... legal eagles arguing on a 1% chance and a small speck of doubt.
I don't know if Knox is guilty of this horrendous crime or not, but I sure wouldn't be crowing that she's innocent when there is still far too much doubt surrounding the case.
At the end of the day, only the killer(s) know the truth... and whether Knox dodged a bullet or not. Hopefully the truth will eventually be revealed and the perpetrator(s) are brought to justice, including Knox if that turns out to be the case.
And you said it all.
yeah... one of those one's we'll never really know the whole truth of.... like Lindy Chamberlain.... 
I never thought it was Lindy.... but Amanda?... I reckon she knows... even if she wasn't the one with the knife... still... you don't wish 26 years on anybody without being 100% sure.... the victim & her family certainly has got lost in this whole circus...
hope she is sensitive enough not to make it into a money making concern and do the talk shows out of respect to the murdered girl's family, but I guess that's a pipedream...
And the circus is about to get a whole lot worse, what with talk shows, guest appearances here and there, endless magazine articles and the papers always managing to find another angle to put into print.
Damned paparazzi/gutter press/TV media... they'll drag this one out until it has been stretched so far it snaps... and Knox will make a fortune. For mine, if I were a media baron, and didn't want egg on my face I'd want to wait a while before I started giving her money hand over fist... like what if it turned out the Italian cops were right and she was/is guilty after all.
She is free only by virtue of some clever legal wrangling and disagreement between so-called experts over the DNA evidence. For mine, that does not prove innocence, just that she's been freed on a technicality.
Not really. The Appeals Court overturned the conviction. The DNA technology was applied incorrectly, using a level of sensitivity that would cause DNA fagments to be misidentified as being hers....
Proving a person 'innocent' is impossible. She is certainly 'not guilty' because a court found her to be so. Neither of us are legal experts, and certainly not with respect to Italian Law.
Suffice it to say there was enough reasonable doubt to exculpate her, and reunite her with her family.
In all this, we should not feel less sorrow for the victim nor her family. I understand another is in prison who is a far more likely suspect in the deed.
Well said, syd.
Neither of us IS ....[it's singular].... JAFOCHECK
Being found 'not guilty' is not the same as being found 'innocent'....and I vaguely recall references to Italian law having an actual 'innocent' verdict.
That might be archaic since tho.....;p
You shouldn't take the possibility of contaminated DNA lightly. Scientists, when mapping the human genome, were startled when close to half of "Human" DNA matched the banana plant.
They were even more surprised when they learned they were mapping there own lunches instead of the human genome.
You is right.
Depends where one is... like most things, I suppose. It might be a moot point since there might well be systems around where the two are equivalent. I simply don't know.
I know nothing of the Italian legalities, as I said/meant. When serious reasonable doubt exists, a person should not be brought to trial. Not finding a culprit doesn't mean there isn't one... a possibility haunting the Italian Police and public now.
Exactly... and what the Italian lab did was contaminate the sample and then do the equivalent of turning the volume up so high that Verdi sounded the same as The Rolling Stones.
Saying one can't hear the difference isn't the same as saying the two are the same. Individual rights shouldn't be trampled in a rush to judgement, even though the crime was horrific.
Her innocence or guilt cannot be known. However, based on what was presented as evidence, she is certainly not guilty. Her case was reviewed by impartial legal experts here in the States (hired by media - CNN), and nothing was found to warrant arrest, never mind trial. I can't say if they were correct as I'm not a legal expert...
Effectively meaningless if the alleged crime was not committed in the US.
:') 
Hence my comment guilty or no as in not guilty. Reasonable doubt doesn't prove or disprove guilt. It simply means the is reason to doubt both. Like JC Rabbit said, 26 years is a lot to wish on someone especially if that someone really is innocent. Sadly it does happen even with reasonable doubt. How many were wrongly convicted due to 'circumstantial' evidence only to be proven innocent when the DNA investigation is done correctly.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
