The Instigator
mandmandmbaby
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Thaddeus
Con (against)
Winning
32 Points

Amanda Knox - Guilty Or Innocent? She is innocent!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 15,345 times Debate No: 14999
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (7)

 

mandmandmbaby

Pro

Amandna Knox - Guilty Or Innocent? Amanda Knox has been falsly accused of the murder of Meredith Kercher. There is no forensic evidence that points to Amanda what but a bloody footprint, which could of been anybodys. There was 4 or 5 cells found on the knife used to slit Meredith's throat which could of been because she stayed at her boyfriends house and may of touched the knife or might have cooked with it. She shouldnt of had 26 years in jail when Raffaele, her boyfriend, and Rudy Guede had all the same charges but she got the most? She is innocent, she was under the influence of drugs, and could also been attacked or threatened. Raffaele Sollecito, a former user of narcotics, still uses some drugs, meanwhile his father is a doctor - shouldnt he know the risks of taking drugs? Amanda, an honor student, played many sports, accused of such? An american exchange student that flew to Italy to go to college, wanted to go to a new place. She only knew Meredith for what but about 2 months, while she was only supposed to stay there for 10 months and then come back to Seattle. She was very friendly with Meredith, and she gets accused of killing her? Amanda now rots in a jail cell for 26 years, in Perugia, Italy, accused of the murder of Meredith Kurcher, staging a crime scene, sexual assault, and falsy accusing somebody. This is outrageous of how they could think Amanda, a 20 year old girl, never been away from home could do this. She has never commited any crime or broke any law, murder would never be anyones first. Italian doctor gave Amanda a false positive to HIV and told her to make a list of all the people she has slept with, then leaked it to the media? How could they do this to this poor girl? Many storys also making Amanda look like a very bad person? When she is not? Amanda is an innocent young girl who should be let go and relieved of her charges. In addition her mother, put on trial for libel? How could this be? They need to check their evidence one more time and let Amanda go. This is unbelieveable and uncalled for, Amanda is innocent.
Thaddeus

Con

Intro

Pro has allowed me to restate the resolution in a clearer way as;
"On balance it is more likely that Amanda Knox is innocent of the murder of meredith Kercher than guilty".
(Which is probably beneficial for him, as the previous resolution was worded such that it was open to semantic arguments)

Rebuttals

1. Bloody footprint
Con argues that it is impossible to identify someone from a footprint. This is i fact incorrect. Footprints are not as reliable as fingerprints, but are still strong peices of evidence. [1]

2. DNA on the knife
I concede that this peice of evidence alone would not be cause to suggest that Knox is guilty. However, it must be taken into account as certainly suspicious. When it is taken into account with other peices of evidence, it is quite incriminating.

3. Time imprisoned for.
This argument is irrelevent. We are not arguing whether how much time in jail she deserved, but whether she was innocent or not.

4. Under influence
While this may mitigate her sentence, as some would argue she is less responsible for her actions (a standpoint I disagree given that she took the drugs willingly), being under influence does not absolve her of the crime.

5. Character
Pro argues that it is very unlikely an honour student who plays many sports and has never been away from home would murder anyone. Pro has failed to show how someone with these traits is incapable of murder.

6. Close relationship with Kercher
Pro argues that because of Knox's friendship with Kercher murder is unlikely. However, statistically murders are very likely to be done by someone known to the victim. [2]

Arguments

1. Staging of a break-in
The prosecution showed that Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in in an attempt to make the murder look like a third party. Hardly the actions of an innocent woman.

2. Perjury

Knox had two seperate accounts of the events. First she claimed that she had gone to Kercher's apartment with a colleague, without Sollecito and Guede. She then claimed that this colleague, Lamumba, killed Kercher whilst she was in the kitchen. Lamumba has since been exonerated completely of the crime as it was shown he had not ever been in the flat and had a strong alibi. This false accusation heavily implies guilt. Later she claimed that she had spent the night with her boyfriend. Two witnesses showed this to be false.

3. Guede
The third person convicted of the murder, who was trialled seperately, attests to Knox's assistence in the murder. However he refused to be a witness at the Knox and Sollecito trial.

4. Forensic evidence
The footprint made with Kercher's blood was shown to belong to a woman. No other woman has been implicated forensically or through witness testimony. [3] Also the footprint could not have belonged to Kercher
A sufficient amount of Knox's DNA was found on the knife as was Kercher's demonstrating it was the murder weapon. As stated before, this alone is not enough to suggest guilt.

To conclude the evidence is very incriminating. The footprint shows she was there at the scene of the crime. Her attempt to cover it up by staging a break-in strongly suggests guilt, and the fact that she lied twice about the course of the events, even attempting to incriminate an innocent party, is the nail in the coffin. It has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that she is guilty.

Sources
[1] http://www.legalmatch.com...
[2] http://top5ofanything.com...
[3] http://news.bbc.co.uk...
[General for those interested] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 1
mandmandmbaby

Pro

Former FBI agent, Steve Moore, retired after 25 years of reviewing murders, steps forward and says that Amanda is not guilty. Moore's wife convinced him that she was innocent and that he should look in on the case. Moore got all the information he needed to do that and still insists that Amanda is innocent. Luciano Aviello, brother or Antonio Aviello confirms that his brother came to his house the night that Meredith was murdered and he had a bloody jacket, a knife with blood, and keys to the apartment that Meredith, Amanda, and her roommates were staying and later asked him to hide it. "I hid everything under a little wall behind my house and covered it with soil and stones. I am happy to stand up in court and confirm all this and wrote to the court several times to tell them, but was never questioned," Luciano Aviello said. It was never questioned! Not once did they consider that Amanda didn't do it, they just made her guilty the first time they saw her and started making accusations. There are many people no working on the case, and it was brought back to court, maybe this time they will put there evidence together right and come to realize that she is not guilty for anything they put her down as, Amanda was never violent, she was very loving, and was never away from home, she just wanted to go to a new place to learn different things. Italy, yes one of the most beautiful countries in the world, she did choose a good place to go, but now they do this to her? I don't think a lot of American's will want to go to Italy now. I had tryed to update my first arguement but that was what i tried to add to it, okay well first of off, do not use wikipedia, it is not a reliable source, anybody can change it. Second off, Meredith was connected to the mafia, and hung out with drug dealers, any girl, could of been there and killed Meredith, as far as im concerned, nobody knows the real truth, but Sollecito, and Guede, could of not been involved, but, there was alot of forensic evidence that pointed to them, they had nothing on Amanda though. Here are two other things to prove her innocent, and thay blood footprint was, and could of been anybodys, it was a shoe print, and Amanda didnt have the kind of shoes that the footprint was of. Now back to Con.
Thaddeus

Con

Please attempt to use less appeals to emotion. It makes it harder to see where your actual arguments are.

Rebuttals
1. Steve Moore
Pro uses an appeal to authority stating that if a FBI agent believes Knox to be innocent it must be so. Pro has failed to back this up with any source or even detailing what information made Moore so sure that Knox was innocent.

2. Antonio Aviello
This claim is incompatible with the known facts.
This was debunked after it was shown that the break-in had been done from the inside. Considering that Kercher was not known to Aviello, this would be impossible. In addition the murder weapon, the knife, has already been found (with both Kercher's and Knox's DNA on it). This knife matches the wounds. To assume that this is not actually the knife is unreasonable and goes in the face of the evidence. Furthermore, there is incredibly strong DNA evidence showing that Guede raped Kercher. Guede did not know Aviello. I, and the court too it appears, deem it very unlikely that after Kercher was raped by Guede, he left Kercher alive (raising another question as to why Guede confessed if he was innocent of the murder) to then be murdered by a third party who then staged a break-in.

3. Court Bias
Pro states that they never considered she wasn't guilty. This is untrue. She was initially only questioned because she accompanied Sollecito to the police station. However, during this course of the investigation her odd behaviour and inconsistent story increased the amount of suspicion on her leading her to be investigated. Under the course of investigation evidence was found against her.
It would seem to me that you are more biased in her favour, disregarding evidence which suggest her innocence. This seems evident based on your willingness to accept Guede and Sollecito's guilt, whereas infact the only consistent explanation in which Knox could be innocent is one in which Guede and Sollecito must be innocent as well.

4. Character
Pro makes more comments about Knox's nature. You have not rebutted my counter-arguments from the last round. I extend them.

5. Claims about Meredith's character
Even if she did have links to the mafia, it would not be relevent until you can show stronger evidence linking them to her murder than that of Knox, Guede and Sollecito.
In addition I do believe it is shameful to attempt to make Kercher seem like the villainous party when there are many negative aspects about Knox which appear far worse, but I have not included because I feel their characters and personal lives are irrelevent.

Arguments

You have not attempted to address any of my arguments aside from the footprint. I extend them.
To address the footprint issue; obviously she would have got rid of a bloody shoe. Seeing as you have not been able to suggest any other women it could belong to, it is reasonable to assume that it does Knox, the only woman who is strongly linked to the scene of the crime other then the victim .

4. Forensic evidence
As an additional piece of forensic evidence which I failed to include last round; mixed blood samples were found around the apartment.While chance would have it that perhaps both women had somehow left blood at one location, the statistical probability that this mixed blood or DNA could be found in multiple locations seems to be a stretch, even for the defense. While it is difficult, if not impossible to accurately date blood evidence, Knox testified that there was no blood in the bathroom the day before Kercher's murder, therefore apparently dating the damning blood evidence to the night of the crime, and by her own statement seeming to place her at the crime scene at or near the time of the victim's death. The same mixture of DNA was found in a bloody footprint in the hallway and in a roommate's bedroom, more evidence that is hard to refute.


------------------------------

Just as note; you make several remarks which are very condescending to the country of Italy. It is worth bearing in mind that they have a fair and reliable legal system. Furthermore, I don't believe many Italians would be particularly upset with less Americans visiting their country as it would not significantly damage their tourist industry (mainly East Asian and European tourists).

Also Pro remarks that Wikipedia is unreliable. I contend this, but do not wish to make it into a larger argument. I shall let our voters decide.

Sources
http://news.sky.com...
http://www.livesecure.org...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://news.bbc.co.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
mandmandmbaby

Pro

Considering the fact that i am Italian, i mean no disrespect for Italy, but i do not like their legal system, its not a good one. You stated halfway through your arguements that Meredith was not connected to Aviello, but if she wasnt connected to him then why would he have keys to her apartment, i believe that Sollecito, Guede, and Aviello, were the only people involved in the crime. They had found 4 or 5 cells on the knife and that is not a sufficent amount so it had to of been a set-up. Somebody could have killed Meredith by using the knife that Aviello later came come with, but they all just took one of Sollecitos knife's to make it look like Knox was involved, then smeared Meredith's blood on it and maybe rubbed something that had belonged to Amanda because the amount of cells found on the knife that was the "murder weapon" was not enough to prove that Knox had used it. The court had never questioned the knife Aviello came home with nor did they question the bloody jacket, or the keys to Meredith's apartment, Aviello was deffinitely involved.
http://www.nowpublic.com...
That is the article that had to do with Luciano Aviello and his brother Antonio.
Thaddeus

Con

Italy's legal system is very similar to that of the French [1] which is widely considered to be a just and fair system. Infact the only issue with it is that sometimes cases take a long time to get to court. [2] However, this criticism is not relevent to Knox's innocence as their judiciary matters are exemplary, if a little complex.

Rebuttals
1. Aviello
It has not been shown that he has the key. This is an unproven assertion. Furthermore, if he had the key why would he break into the apartment. Or if you believe the forensics team (as I am inclined to do) and believe that the break in was staged, what possible motive could Aviello for staging such a break-in. In addition Guede and Sollecito has no connection to Aviello, so why would they assist him in murdering Kercher? Finally we have the issue of the woman's footprint and mixed blood. In any account including Aviello, you fail to account for the woman who must have been present and complicit in the murder. The mixed blood samples show that it is very likely this woman was Knox.
Additionally there is no evidence placing Aviello at the scene of the crime or anywhere near it. Whereas there is very strong evidence linking Guede, Sollecito and Knox at the crime. Aviello doesn't seem like a nice chap, but it is frankly ridiculous to assert his guilt.

2. Smearing the knife with blood
This bordering on conspiracy theory. Pro claims that Sollecito was there and complicit but decided to frame his girlfriend for no apparent reason (especially seeing as she was going to be his alibi, massive logic fail there). Then after smearing blood on his knife he bleached it to remove most of the evidence (the bleaching was apparent to the forensic team due to the little amount of anyones DNA on it. This is why so little cells were found).

Pro seems to fail to realise that a few cells is compelling forensic evidence.

Arguments
None have been addressed so all are extended.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.justlanded.com...
Debate Round No. 3
mandmandmbaby

Pro

mandmandmbaby forfeited this round.
Thaddeus

Con

Sadly, my opponent has forfeited this round. I extend all arguments. I will use the next round to summarize the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
mandmandmbaby

Pro

Sorry I had forfeited the round, I was very busy.
First to start off, Aviello, it has been proven that he had the keys and that he did have a knife. Also, he did some home with a bloody jacket.
Source: http://www.nowpublic.com...

Second, the amount of cells was not a sufficient amount, it was not Amanda Knox who killed Meredith Kercher, it was Raffaele Sollecito, Rudy Guede, and Antonio Aviello. Raffaele was involved without a question; there was a lot of evidence that pointed directly to him, and Rudy Guede, he was there and even messed up his story many times. Amanda only went there to learn! She wanted to go to college, and she ends up going to prison. Look, I don't know if my arguments are very good, but I am too young to comprehend some words and don't know some words. I am only 12, so please, no mean remarks. I do not know what else to say besides all that I already have, but, I want to conclude my last argument with this statement: Amanda Knox has not committed the crime of murdering Meredith Kurcher, she wasn't even involved, the way I see it, she is just an innocent person that came from Seattle and was an exchange student only trying to get the education that she was going for, they ended up convicting her of murder, of which she didn't do. I have provided very good evidence that nobody else has provided. So please voters, vote for pro. This was my first debate, and I believe that this will be only one of my few; I only start debates on things that really concern me. Vote for pro please! I will really appreciate it! Thank you :3
Thaddeus

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for an interesting debate. I shall rebut his arguments and then summarize the debate.
1. Proven that Aviello had the keys and knife
Aside from it not making sense at all, no such proof has been given. The link provided merely states that the brother of Aviello claimed he had these things. They have not been produced or found in anyway connecting Aviello. (Well; the keys have been found in Kercher's apartment, and the knife in Sollecito's apartment).
There is therefore no proven evidence connecting Aviello to the crime.
2.Insufficient number of cells
Incorrect. The amount found was easily enough. This link; http://bioforensics.com...;
shows how that the quantity of DNA evidence is very rarely an issue, but the quality is major barrier in most cases. The quality of the DNA evidence was above average in this case.
3. Your age
Not really relevent to the debate. I would have hoped I have debated in a civil enough manner, though I suppose I shall let the voters decide.

You remain convinced of Guede and Sollecito's guilt yet you fail to understand that their guilt implicates Knox heavily. It would be nearly impossble for Sollecito and Guede to guilty but not Knox.
Pro has failed to provide any compelling evidence as to why Knox is innocent.
Pro has failed to address any of the arguments that I have made.
As such the resolution has been shown that it is more likely that Knox is guilty of the murder of Kercher than she is innocent.
Vote con.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Arlene 3 years ago
Arlene
Amanda glorifies in the media,she is a good actress and her life is a fantasy.There are a lot of women who can commit a crime and look like its no big deal,as they are hard wired that way. I believe Ms. Knox is guilty,no doubts in my mind.
Posted by Socratos 5 years ago
Socratos
This does not prove she is not guilty.
I think this only means that the these judges retained the proofs not sufficient to incriminate her (them).
Posted by mandmandmbaby 5 years ago
mandmandmbaby
She just got out of prison, which proves to a point, that she is not guilty.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
I would recommend addressing my arguments. The voters tend to like that.
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
Wow. This is going to be painful to do 5 rounds of stating the same thing.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
changed your mind yet?
I told u shes guilty as hell.
Posted by mandmandmbaby 6 years ago
mandmandmbaby
Um, no she is not guilty by the way dinokiller.
Posted by mandmandmbaby 6 years ago
mandmandmbaby
Understood, take this debate as con please.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Shes guilty as hell :P
But i dont feel like debating
Posted by Thaddeus 6 years ago
Thaddeus
I will take this if the resolution can be clarified to; "On balance it is more likely that Amanda Knox is innocent of the murder of meredith Kercher than guilty".
I, of course, will be con.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
mandmandmbabyThaddeusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: countering the idiot
Vote Placed by qopel 4 years ago
qopel
mandmandmbabyThaddeusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: CVB
Vote Placed by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
mandmandmbabyThaddeusTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had one source. It's hard to do anything but appeal to emotion if your position isn't researched. Pro forfeited a round. Ultimately Con was more convincing.
Vote Placed by CapsLock 6 years ago
CapsLock
mandmandmbabyThaddeusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: It seemed like Pro copied pasted, but he only provided one source. Con provided multiple sources that were helpful to the debate
Vote Placed by Kegan 6 years ago
Kegan
mandmandmbabyThaddeusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is the best at this argument. Therefore they win it.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
mandmandmbabyThaddeusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Based on the arguments presented, I have to give the nod to Con. While more probable, it doesn't seem "beyond a reasonable doubt." The debate shows why such cases need to be tried in courts rather than in the media.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
mandmandmbabyThaddeusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro relies on emotion and little else in this debate; Con makes a good case for Knox's probable guilt, and clearly wins this. Pro, you lost the grammar point because of horrible formatting and syntax. Punctuation and spelling are part of our language for a reason; use them. Con used both more and more reliable sources than Pro.