Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Amanda Knox
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Amanda said the door being locked was normal and that she locked it when she went to the bathroom.
The other 2 girls said this wasnt the case, that she never locked the door, and that the only time she did was when she went on holiday.
The other girls said they were astonished the door was locked.
According to page 24 of the report, Amanda's room was next to Meredith while the other girls stayed separatly closer together to each other. So its possible that Amanda might know more.
Page 58 of the report basically says that its unlikely Meredith would have allowed Rudy Guede to enter voluntarily and had she done so, for example if Guede had requested to use the toilet; she wouldn't have waited in her bedroom in case it left her vulnerable to Guede's advances.
This makes no sense - she had no reason to fear Guede at that point. As the report says, he was friends with her boyfriend and would have trusted him. Amanda said she arrived to find the door open - this is consistent with the report's suggestion that closing this particular door from outside was very difficult and would have required someone from inside to help close it.report wrote:Whoever permitted Rudy Guede to enter the house that night was not Meredith but
others who also had the house available and could freely gain access to it.
They have provided no evidence for this whatsoever, other than that for some reason the judge thinks Meredith wouldn't have trusted her boyfriend's friend.
The report that the break-in was staged is convincing but I still think its likely Guede would have done it on his own so people would think its a stranger rather than someone who Meredith had let into the house. There is nothing convincing to suggest Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the staged break-in (no fingerprints for example).
Pages 58-59 are strange - it can be summarised as saying that Meredith would have no reason to be friendly or trusting with Guede because she had a boyfriend and was not promiscuous. There is a big long paragraph explaining why Meredith wouldn't want to have sex with Guede. This is not related to the alleged sexual activity, but related to the fact that the judge thinks Meredith wouldn't have let Guede in as she didn't want to have sex with him - therefore Amanda must have let him in. So its impossible for a girl (Meredith) to be friendly with a guy she doesn't want to have sex with? Shocking stuff.0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
I wonder how many people who have commented in the thread and voted in the poll have read the full judges report from the first trial, and not just the information supplied to them by the media? ie short, easy to understand, concise paragraphs that don't take 10 pages or so to read through.
Thats not true. In the Italian appeals process, only the weakest evidence is treated, not the whole case.
The case in the first trial was based on the prosecutions theory that the break-in was staged. That theory was proven to be totally false.
The motive for the murder has changed four times since then, each one dismissed as there was not the slightest basis for them, except in the prosecutors own mind, until finally the prosecutor said that they just killed her.
The first trial was a complete farce and has been proven as such. The forensic work and analysis alone was utterly shocking. When the footage of the work carried out at the scene was shown at the second trial there was gasps of shock in the courtroom at how criminally bad it was. The footage is online if you can find it.
Police forensics expert Patrizia Stefanoni, who conducted the DNA testing only ever changed gloves when she thought that her gloves became too wet or bloodstained. Otherwise she would handle different bits of evidence with the same gloves.
Their forensic expert destroyed the hard disks while examining them.
When the court appointed forensic experts asked to examine the bra clasp they were told that it had been destroyed in a forensic lab in Rome. They were told it was stored wrong and it rotted away.
When the court appointed forensic experts examined the knife, which had been taken at random from a drawer, they found traces of starch on the blade but no DNA. The starch could have come from cutting bread.
The knife wounds on Kercher could not have been made by that knife as it was too large to have caused the wounds .
Although I haven't seen it, there is video footage of the knife being picked at random from a kitchen drawer which had other knives and cutlery as well.
The prosecution said they picked that knife because they had "an intuition" that it was the murder weapon.
Knox and Sollecito were arrested because of Knoxs behaviour, before fingerprints, blood, footprints, or DNA were even tested. According to Fabio Giobbi, a department head at the Via Tuscolana offices of the forensic police....The first "suspicious" Knox incident took place at the crime scene. Giobbi told Knox that he was going to the house next door to talk with people there and ask if anyone witnessed anything unusual the night of the murder. Immediately after hearing that, Amanda Knox broke down, sobbing uncontrollably. Giobbi thought Knox's reaction was troubling because there are no houses next door to the crime scene. So why was she so emotional? Giobbi believes it was because Knox had a guilty conscious.
The second incident happened when Giobbi asked Knox to follow him into the apartment below the crime scene. Both Giobbi and Knox had to put protective covers over their shoes before entering. Knox got hers on first, and then showed off that fact by performing a hula-hoop motion with her hands on her hips and bragging about how she quick she'd been. To Giobbi, Knox's inappropriate, girlish behavior wasn't a sign of immaturity, but rather a peek inside the craven heart of a killer.
The third incident, according to Giobbi, was the most disturbing. It occurred when the police picked up Rafaele Sollecito for questioning, three days after Kercher's body was discovered. Police located Sollecito at a cafe. It was three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. But Sollecito wasn't alone. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza. This so-called "meeting" helped convince Giobbi the couple had acted together in the murder.
"Knox and Sollecito never had a chance," says Paul Ciolino, a CBS News consultant and Chicago private investigator. Ciolino was at the 48 Hours meeting with Giobbi in 2008, and says, "If I had not been there, hearing this for myself, I would have never believed Giobbi would actually believe that eating a pizza was probable cause in a murder case."
With evidence like this, who needs forensic evidence.
I'm going to stop at this point because there really is no point arguing over all this anyway. Those who believe she is guilty are going to continue to do so, no matter what evidence proves otherwise.
The fact that she was called foxy knoxy when she was a child because she was good at football is proof enough for many that she is a sex mad, satanic "she-devil" witch.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
What he said pretty much confirms how I thought the trial went.
I wouldn't say he has no respect for his office, I'd say fair play for coming out and saying it.
The Italian court system does not come out of this looking well.
........ but they had 2 options when they acquit her.
They could have acquit her based on lack of evidence or their other option was to acquit and say she had nothing to do with it.
They acquit and say she had nothing to do with it, then Rudy said he wan't a retrial and then the judge (who would have had 2 votes in this complete acquittal don't forget) then turns around and said actually maybe she's guilty. Why didn't you acquit based on lack of evidence then 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement