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
-
0
-
So, a "sex orgy" It even looks daft sitting there on its own. Who came up with this idea in the first place ? And who determines what is involved by the term "sexy orgy"? How is a break in related to a sex orgy ? The spread of A & R's DNA takes them away from the scene, except one dot on a bra clasp inside the scene. Re-read that, it wasn't a mistake. I have read tonnes of released evidences, and i would say it is the obvious. As much of the scene is to a simpleton like me, in csi field, i can see alot of the Guede chaps DNA everywhere in the room. We can only conclude that A & R were near the outside of the door, orchestrating this "sex orgy". We have now reached a state of ridiculous i think, especially as a blob of R's DNA appears in the middle philomenas room ! I do think the matter of forensic procedures with video evidence is uncontestable in the contrary now.
Good luck A & R
RIP Meredith. uk alex
For those of us who have not been following the story, would it be so hard to type their names, so we didnt need to figure out who A & R are?????0 -
General and circumstantial evidence:
- Alibis changed several times.
- Inconsistencies in alibis, which still remain.
- Alibis contradicted by 3 independent witnesses, and by analysis of computer hard drive.
- Witness saw them both outside cottage with knives that night.
- Cell phones switched off early in evening, contrary to normal habits.
- Break-in was faked, nobody but Knox and Sollecito had a motive.
- Washing machine was run on morning after murder, and cleanup attempted long after Guede had fled.
- Victim's injuries point to more than one attacker, as do footprints and witness hearing running feet.
- Highly improbable story of Knox showering in house on morning after murder, unworried by broken window, open door, blood stains, unflushed toilet.
- Lie by Sollecito about phone call from father that evening.
- Lie by Sollecito about Meredith being pricked with knife while cooking.
- Lie about what time they called the Carabanieri.
- Knox had knowledge about manner of victim's death even before the police knew.
- False accusation by Knox against Patrick. Knox told mother shortly afterwards that Patrick was innocent, but neither made any attempt to tell police or lawyers.
- Knox may have been on bad terms with victim.
Forensic evidence:
- Knife with victim's DNA in Sollecito's apartment.
- Sollectio's DNA on victims bra, possibly Knox's DNA on victim's bra.
- Knox's blood mixed with victim's blood: in bathroom (3 places), hallway, room with faked break-in.
- Footprints in blood compatible with Knox in hallway, cleaned after murder, revealed with luminol.
- Footprint in victim's blood compatible with Sollecito on bathmat.
- Print of woman's shoe compatible with Knox's shoe size (not victim's) under victim's body.
- A number of forensic experts called by the defence were unable to dent the prosecution case.0 -
-
u_c_thesecond wrote: »i have the book of this trial- i read it less than 4 months ago and it is in my bedroom atm. AMANDA KNOX is a sex addict and (according to the testominies in my book ) a slapper!!!!!! she tried to pin the murder on her boss who on cctv was in his bar at the time. :eek:
she killed Meriteth with her boyfriend- just because she is "pretty" doesnt make her innocent! :mad:
Thats quite an interesting assertion considering that there is f*ck all evidence to back it up.
Another thing. When does being a sex addict make someone a murderer?
I believe that the evidence on which she was convicted appears shoddy to say the least.0 -
Advertisement
-
enfant terrible wrote: »General and circumstantial evidence:
- Alibis changed several times.
- Inconsistencies in alibis, which still remain.
- Alibis contradicted by 3 independent witnesses, and by analysis of computer hard drive.
- Witness saw them both outside cottage with knives that night.
- Cell phones switched off early in evening, contrary to normal habits.
- Break-in was faked, nobody but Knox and Sollecito had a motive.
- Washing machine was run on morning after murder, and cleanup attempted long after Guede had fled.
- Victim's injuries point to more than one attacker, as do footprints and witness hearing running feet.
- Highly improbable story of Knox showering in house on morning after murder, unworried by broken window, open door, blood stains, unflushed toilet.
- Lie by Sollecito about phone call from father that evening.
- Lie by Sollecito about Meredith being pricked with knife while cooking.
- Lie about what time they called the Carabanieri.
- Knox had knowledge about manner of victim's death even before the police knew.
- False accusation by Knox against Patrick. Knox told mother shortly afterwards that Patrick was innocent, but neither made any attempt to tell police or lawyers.
- Knox may have been on bad terms with victim.
Forensic evidence:
- Knife with victim's DNA in Sollecito's apartment.
- Sollectio's DNA on victims bra, possibly Knox's DNA on victim's bra.
- Knox's blood mixed with victim's blood: in bathroom (3 places), hallway, room with faked break-in.
- Footprints in blood compatible with Knox in hallway, cleaned after murder, revealed with luminol.
- Footprint in victim's blood compatible with Sollecito on bathmat.
- Print of woman's shoe compatible with Knox's shoe size (not victim's) under victim's body.
- A number of forensic experts called by the defence were unable to dent the prosecution case.
A good defence lawyer should be able to punch plenty of holes in that evidence if they were worth their salt. None of this proves beyonds reasonable doubt who the killer is.0 -
If Knox was there and participated why did she finger Lumumba (who she worked for) and not Guede (who she barely knew)? Sounds a classic case of police suggestion, suspect confusion and disorientation during interrogation.
Both Knox and Sallicido told a consistent story for 3 days that they were together all night in his apartment.
Why did they turn their mobiles off at exactly the same time as Guede, "who they barely knew" and who wasn't with them according to their story.If in doubt, apply Occam's Razor0 -
Look, if she really didn't do it, why on earth would she change her story so many times?? It may not be enough to get a conviction, but it sure does set off alarm bells.0
-
A good defence lawyer should be able to punch plenty of holes in that evidence if they were worth their salt. None of this proves beyonds reasonable doubt who the killer is.
Had they done so already - the girl would have already be at home instead of been found guilty!
O' wait, maybe now its all the lawyers fault! She can try using that latest excuse.0 -
Had they done so already - the girl would have already be at home instead of been found guilty!
O' wait, maybe now its all the lawyers fault! She can try using that latest excuse.
As we all know murder has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Now I'm no legal expert and wouldn't pretend to be, but it seems reasonale to presume that a good defence lawyer should have been able to plant the seed of doubt in at least one jurors mind given that the evidence isn't totally convincing. I wouldn't for a second be in a position to judge the professional expertise of her legal team but to my mind the evidence seems a touch shabby.0 -
Advertisement
-
As we all know murder has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Now I'm no legal expert and wouldn't pretend to be, but it seems reasonale to presume that a good defence lawyer should have been able to plant the seed of doubt in at least one jurors mind given that the evidence isn't totally convincing. I wouldn't for a second be in a position to judge the professional expertise of her legal team but to my mind the evidence seems a touch shabby.
There is justification to show maybe one part is shabby, possibly more (but her lawyers have done nothing in any other areas) so, so far there has being enough to convince a court/judge/jury of her guilt.
They seemed to be convinced enough beyond all reasonable doubt to send her to prison for a serious crime - correction - two crimes, sexually assaulting and murdering Meredith Kercher.
As you say "a good defence lawyer should have been able to plant the seed of doubt" but she and any good lawyer has had their chance as any other person would have equally to do so, and they have already failed with same equal chance.
Her legal team are now hoping on a last gasp based on a DNA argument. Meanwhile all the other convincing matters that also helped convince a jury, goes uncontested. Her legal team can't even contest the additional parts that others now claim is supposedly shaky. Those same 'others' must amazingly know more about her case than her actual legal team who can't refute the rest!0 -
enfant terrible wrote: »General and circumstantial evidence:
- Alibis changed several times.
- Inconsistencies in alibis, which still remain.
- Alibis contradicted by 3 independent witnesses, and by analysis of computer hard drive.
- Witness saw them both outside cottage with knives that night.
- Cell phones switched off early in evening, contrary to normal habits.
- Break-in was faked, nobody but Knox and Sollecito had a motive.
- Washing machine was run on morning after murder, and cleanup attempted long after Guede had fled.
- Victim's injuries point to more than one attacker, as do footprints and witness hearing running feet.
- Highly improbable story of Knox showering in house on morning after murder, unworried by broken window, open door, blood stains, unflushed toilet.
- Lie by Sollecito about phone call from father that evening.
- Lie by Sollecito about Meredith being pricked with knife while cooking.
- Lie about what time they called the Carabanieri.
- Knox had knowledge about manner of victim's death even before the police knew.
- False accusation by Knox against Patrick. Knox told mother shortly afterwards that Patrick was innocent, but neither made any attempt to tell police or lawyers.
- Knox may have been on bad terms with victim.
Forensic evidence:
- Knife with victim's DNA in Sollecito's apartment.
- Sollectio's DNA on victims bra, possibly Knox's DNA on victim's bra.
- Knox's blood mixed with victim's blood: in bathroom (3 places), hallway, room with faked break-in.
- Footprints in blood compatible with Knox in hallway, cleaned after murder, revealed with luminol.
- Footprint in victim's blood compatible with Sollecito on bathmat.
- Print of woman's shoe compatible with Knox's shoe size (not victim's) under victim's body.
- A number of forensic experts called by the defence were unable to dent the prosecution case.
This is a rehash of all the "evidence" leaked to the media in the year after arrest and before trial. The jury would have read / heard all this before trial? Sound like a fair trial? Most of it was refuted in the first trial, all of it has been refuted in the appeal.
In my opinion this is a simple case of a police rush to judgement and a trial by media. I will try and explain why in subsequent posts.0 -
This is a rehash of all the "evidence" leaked to the media in the year after arrest and before trial. The jury would have read / heard all this before trial? Sound like a fair trial? Most of it was refuted in the first trial, all of it has been refuted in the appeal.
Well if its all been refuted and proven to be refuted - she should have no problem getting off.
So far, her legal team is only concentrating on one main aspect as far as I can tell and not now legally contesting the rest - but I'm open to be wrong and to be shown evidence that I'm wrong.
Can you please (I ask politely and with respect to yourself) show by any link available, where they are currently contesting the rest of the evidence now?0 -
1. Alibis / Confession. Knox and Sallicido were consistent for the first 4 days of questioning that they were together in his apartment all night as they had been for the prior 5 nights. These were two college kids who had just fallen in love, which do you think is more likely, (a) they were at home drinking/eating/smoking weed/shagging/sleeping, or (b) they decided to have a 4some with Amanda's flatmate and a virtual stranger and brought along a kitchen knife.
By the 4th day the police were under enormous to identify the killers. They were convinced from the beginning that Knox and Sallicide were involved, based on "police intuition". Hair from a man of African descent had been found at the scene and the police suspected Lumumba, whom Knox worked for at his bar. They based this on a text from hetr that said "see you later" which they wrongly assumed meant "see you tonight". Now they ahd their 3 suspects. After hours of questioning which was now an interrogation, with no attorney present, with no bathroom breaks or food/water, Knox "confessed" to having a vision where she was at the flat and she heard Lumumba kill Meredith. Sound just a little suspect? No hint at all of police suggestion, coercion?
Make your own minds up whether this was a valid confession or not. Read her statement of the next morning where she is obviously totally confused and disorientated.. but ask yourself one question: Assume she was there wuth Guede and Sallicido and participated in the crime, why would she finger the man she worked for and not Guede, who she barely knew if knew at all.
The police got the confession they wanted and arrested Lumumba. Unfortunately for them he was the wrong man.0 -
Well if its all been refuted and proven to be refuted - she should have no problem getting off.
So far, her legal team is only concentrating on one main aspect as far as I can tell and not now legally contesting the rest - but I'm open to be wrong and to be shown evidence that I'm wrong.
Can you please (I ask politely and with respect to yourself) show by any link available, where they are currently contesting the rest of the evidence now?
The witness who placed them at the scene or outside the scene on the night of the killing. A homeless heroin addict who has since been convicted of heroin dealing. Laughed off the stand during the appeal.
The "lie" that Sallicido said he called the police before the postal police arrived on the scene. Shown clearly that he called before they arrived and the police called him back looking for directions to the flat. This second call is the one when the postal police were there.
Does the fact that the prosecutor has been convicted for corruption in a prior case and sentenced not bother you?0 -
You can apply the 'what's more likely scenario?' to any given crime and yes, it is more likely that somone is not out murdering someone. Obviously it does happen. Crimes happen every day.
I don't think that argument has any weight at all.
I remember in the documentary I saw, Amanda's bf said he was on his laptop all night - it was proved he had not been on it all night at all.0 -
1. Alibis / Confession. Knox and Sallicido were consistent for the first 4 days of questioning that they were together in his apartment all night as they had been for the prior 5 nights. These were two college kids who had just fallen in love, which do you think is more likely, (a) they were at home drinking/eating/smoking weed/shagging/sleeping, or (b) they decided to have a 4some with Amanda's flatmate and a virtual stranger and brought along a kitchen knife.
By the 4th day the police were under enormous to identify the killers. They were convinced from the beginning that Knox and Sallicide were involved, based on "police intuition". Hair from a man of African descent had been found at the scene and the police suspected Lumumba, whom Knox worked for at his bar. They based this on a text from hetr that said "see you later" which they wrongly assumed meant "see you tonight". Now they ahd their 3 suspects. After hours of questioning which was now an interrogation, with no attorney present, with no bathroom breaks or food/water, Knox "confessed" to having a vision where she was at the flat and she heard Lumumba kill Meredith. Sound just a little suspect? No hint at all of police suggestion, coercion?
Make your own minds up whether this was a valid confession or not. Read her statement of the next morning where she is obviously totally confused and disorientated.. but ask yourself one question: Assume she was there wuth Guede and Sallicido and participated in the crime, why would she finger the man she worked for and not Guede, who she barely knew if knew at all.
The police got the confession they wanted and arrested Lumumba. Unfortunately for them he was the wrong man.
* Well the prosecution was able to show apparently enough that she had changed her alibi many times, to convince a jury!
* If they were at home drinking/eating/smoking weed/shagging/sleeping - how come the place was COMPLETELY wiped down in a very few hours? The prosecution was even able to say what was used to clean the place if memory serves me right! I think they also showed it would take more than one to do just that alone.
* How do you explain their false/faked break-in?
* How do you explain the lies about the laptop?
* Why would she not want to finger (Guede) a man that might by defending himself later might cross-accuser later for being involved? Maybe because she wanted to keep the police away from him for her own possible escape of prosecution and see that he does not give evidence against her?
All these matters were tackled in court by her legal team and they could NOT break the prosecution case, such was it strength.
Thus the guilty verdict.
Anyone that thinks all these matter weren't looked into by her legal team (and the prosecution), underestimates them.
Anyone that think they know better than her own legal team, should really be over there defending her.
They are wasted here just posting on a forum.0 -
Her parents have spent US$1m to get her freed. (I heard it on a news broadcast on one of the links on this thread).
I'd imagine Amanda had the best possible legal team available at that price.0 -
2. Inconsistencies with regard to timelines / phone calls / dinner times, etc.
Try remembering with precision what you did a day ago, then two days ago, then 3 days ago while being questioned by police. People are notoriously bad at rememebering short term events, and having smoked weed would not have helped with short term memory recall. Remember it is the task of the police / prosecutors to put together a timeline and to try and fit circumstantial evidence to that timeline. There is no evidence circumstantial nor physical (as I will show later) that Knox or Sallicido left his apartment or were at the crime scene.
3. Knox's behavior the next morning.
Knox and Sallicido were planning a day trip that day. She went back to her apartment to have a shower (women tend to like having a shower in their own bathroom with their own stuff, imagine that) and collect clothes. She noticed the door had been left open and found small traces of blood in the bathroom she shared with Meredith. She went back to Sollicido's apartment, told him what she had seen and they both went back to her apartment. They found that another flatmates window had been broken and called that flatmate (who had not been there the prior night). Sollicido tried to open Meredith's door but it was locked. Sollicido called his sister who was a policewoman and she advised him to call the police which he did. Meanwhile Meredith's two phones had been found nearly, turned in to the postal poice who then arrived. The other flatmate and her boyfriend arrived. After discussion with the postal police about Meredith's locked door the door was kicked open and the body found. The police arrived after teh body was found.
Everything else reported by the media before the first trial has been shown to be untrue.
There were no receipts of Knox buying bleach at a nearly store.
There were no bloody clothes in the washing machine, Meredith's bloodsoaked clothes were in her room.
There was no evidence of a clean up. How the hell could Knox clean her DNA from the crime scene (and Sallicido's DNA) but carefully leave Guede's DNA?
There was no staged break in. Guede threw a stone through the flatmates upstairs window, climbed up the security bars of the downstairs window (he was a semi pro basketball player), then opened and came through the window. He was after the rent money, the flatmate was the rent collector for the girls and it was rent night.0 -
I remember a quote I read from something Amanda Knox said
"If I wasn't beautiful I wouldn't have had these problems"
I thought it very ironic, because going by the pictures, Meredith Kercher was also a beautiful girl
So if Meredith Kercher was not so beautiful would she have been killed.0 -
Advertisement
-
* Well the prosecution was able to show apparently enough that she had changed her alibi many times, to convince a jury!
* If they were at home drinking/eating/smoking weed/shagging/sleeping - how come the place was COMPLETELY wiped down in a very few hours? The prosecution was even able to say what was used to clean the place if memory serves me right! I think they also showed it would take more than one to do just that alone.
* How do you explain their false/faked break-in?
* How do you explain the lies about the laptop?
* Why would she not want to finger (Guede) a man that might by defending himself later might cross-accuser later for being involved? Maybe because she wanted to keep the police away from him for her own possible escape of prosecution and see that he does not give evidence against her?
All these matters were tackled in court by her legal team and they could NOT break the prosecution case, such was it strength.
Thus the guilty verdict.
Anyone that thinks all these matter weren't looked into by her legal team (and the prosecution), underestimates them.
Anyone that think they know better than her own legal team, should really be over there defending her.
They are wasted here just posting on a forum.
I'll get to the physical evidence. There was no clean up. How the hell could you clean two people's DNA from a crime scene and leave the DNA of a third. There was no staged break in, Guede came through the flatmates window.
There was no credible forensic evidence linking Knox or Sallicido to the crime scene. If they had participated in a savage murder like this their DNA would be all over the room and physical evidence, not just DNA but blood would be on them, their clothes and Sallicido's flat. Poor Meredith fought back bravely, Guede had knife cuts on his hands. If Sallicido and Knox participated in a bloody murder, why was there no physical evidence on them? not a scratch, not bruise, nothing.
The whole theory of multiple killers is bogus. Guede was a semi pro athlete. You don't think he could rape and kill a girl on his own?
You are giving too much credit to the prosection. This was an easy case for them in that the jury had already made up their mind based on what they "knew" before the trial. At least one juror said after the trial that the key point for them was that she "confessed".0 -
2. Inconsistencies with regard to timelines / phone calls / dinner times, etc.
Try remembering with precision what you did a day ago, then two days ago, then 3 days ago while being questioned by police. People are notoriously bad at rememebering short term events, and having smoked weed would not have helped with short term memory recall. Remember it is the task of the police / prosecutors to put together a timeline and to try and fit circumstantial evidence to that timeline. There is no evidence circumstantial nor physical (as I will show later) that Knox or Sallicido left his apartment or were at the crime scene.
3. Knox's behavior the next morning.
Knox and Sallicido were planning a day trip that day. She went back to her apartment to have a shower (women tend to like having a shower in their own bathroom with their own stuff, imagine that) and collect clothes. She noticed the door had been left open and found small traces of blood in the bathroom she shared with Meredith. She went back to Sollicido's apartment, told him what she had seen and they both went back to her apartment. They found that another flatmates window had been broken and called that flatmate (who had not been there the prior night). Sollicido tried to open Meredith's door but it was locked. Sollicido called his sister who was a policewoman and she advised him to call the police which he did. Meanwhile Meredith's two phones had been found nearly, turned in to the postal poice who then arrived. The other flatmate and her boyfriend arrived. After discussion with the postal police about Meredith's locked door the door was kicked open and the body found. The police arrived after teh body was found.
Everything else reported by the media before the first trial has been shown to be untrue.
There were no receipts of Knox buying bleach at a nearly store.
There were no bloody clothes in the washing machine, Meredith's bloodsoaked clothes were in her room.
There was no evidence of a clean up. How the hell could Knox clean her DNA from the crime scene (and Sallicido's DNA) but carefully leave Guede's DNA?
There was no staged break in. Guede threw a stone through the flatmates upstairs window, climbed up the security bars of the downstairs window (he was a semi pro basketball player), then opened and came through the window. He was after the rent money, the flatmate was the rent collector for the girls and it was rent night.
You really should be over there working for the Knox, you seem to know the case and matters better than her own legal team, who we can assume with their many more years of training and own investigation experience, were not able to refute the prosecutions case - and I assume they have tried - and failed.
* The police were WELL able to built a timeline with others giving statements as to their whereabouts and times they were unaccountable for.
* Their memories were fine when it came to things like "O' I was on the internet all night"
(...Wait, that was a lie by them!)
* They were living in the home - I assume there was cleaning items there already. Do you have your current receipts for the cleaning stuff in your home? Also, you don't find it strange that a late night party girl who at first says she was at her boyfriend's all night - then changes her story when caught in the lie to say she was out the apt at the time of the murders - also happened to be at a store at 7:45am looking at cleaning supplies? I mean seriously, what college student in their right mind while out partying, would suddenly would give a hoot about cleaning their apartment at that hour in the morning, if as the prosecution stated she went out and bought some? And again if she didn't (but some say they saw her while others didn't) - we can assume like every other normal home, there was products there in the house - just not enough however that she had to go out that night/morning and get more!
* According to the guy she falsely accused, she was pretty pissed at him and Meredith (the roommate) because he had fired her for being too flirtatious with customers, then hired Meredith. So maybe she trying to frame one guy she hates and cover up for another that might implicate her? Huh?
How was Guede DNA still found? Clearly they didn't do a perfect 100% clean job?
* No stage break in? I believe they showed different to the jury - certainly enough to convince them there! What Guede stated later, throwing rocks (no bits was found!) was accepted as coming from a person trying to make excuses and slip prosecution.
* And you still haven't explained the lies about the laptop,
* Knox testified in her own defense and she conceded that there was no blood in the bathroom the day before the murder, effectively dating those blood stains to that night by the way.
ALL these matters and more have been tried to be addressed by her legal team, tried every method probably known to them to refute the case of the state - and they failed. If the states case was THAT BAD as they say now, it should have been a cakewalk for them to do so!
But they didn't!!!
It seems internet heads here think they know the case better than her own lawyers and can better fight the case!
If so, such heads are wasted here and are in the wrong jobs.
...And again, can you please show by any link available, where they are currently contesting the rest of the evidence now as well?0 -
sunflower27 wrote: »Her parents have spent US$1m to get her freed. (I heard it on a news broadcast on one of the links on this thread).
I'd imagine Amanda had the best possible legal team available at that price.
If she was my daughter I would spend every dime I could beg, borrow or steal.
She has a good legal team, as has Sallicido. They are up against public opinion which had tried and convicted them before they went to trial, and a prosecutor who has since been convicted and sentenced for corruption in a prior case. At the very least does the last part not bother people? Read up on the Monster of Florence case, the prosecutor Magnini is completely nuts. There are shocking parallels with the Knox/Sallicido case. Rush to judgement then find the evidence to convict.0 -
You really should be over there working for the Knox, you seem to know the case and matters better than her own legal team, who we can assume with their many more years of training and own investigation experience, were not refute the prosecutions case - and I assume they have tried - and failed.
* The police were WELL able to built a timeline with others giving statements as to their whereabouts and times they were unaccountable for.
* Their memories were fine when it came to things like "O' I was on the internet all night"
(...Wait, that was a lie by them!)
* They were living in the home - I assume there was cleaning items there already. Do you have your current receipts for the cleaning stuff in your home? Also, you don't find it strange that a late night party girl who at first says she was at her boyfriend's all night - then changes her story when caught in the lie to say she was out the apt at the time of the murders - also happened to be at a store at 7:45am looking at cleaning supplies? I mean seriously, what college student in their right mind while out partying, would suddenly would give a hoot about cleaning their apartment at that hour in the morning, if as the prosecution stated she went out and bought some? And again if she didn't (but some say they saw her while others didn't) - we can assume like every other normal home, there was products there in the house - just not enough however that she had to go out that night/morning and get more!
* According to the guy she falsely accused, she was pretty pissed at him and Meredith (the roommate) because he had fired her for being too flirtatious with customers, then hired Meredith. So maybe she trying to frame one guy she hates and cover up for another that might implicate her? Huh?
How was Guede DNA still found? Clearly they didn't do a perfect 100% clean job?
* No stage break in? I believe they showed different to the jury - certainly enough to convince them there! What Guede stated later, throwing rocks (no bits was found!) was accepted as coming from a person trying to make excuses and slip prosecution.
* And you still haven't explained the lies about the laptop,
* Knox testified in her own defense and she conceded that there was no blood in the bathroom the day before the murder, effectively dating those blood stains to that night by the way.
ALL these matters and more have been tried to be addressed by her legal team, tried every methods probably know to them to refute the case of the state - and they failed.
It seems internet heads here think they know the case better than her own lawyers and can better fight the case!
If so, such heads are wasted here and are in the wrong jobs.
You are confused between different testimonys and trials.
Knox never said she was out of the apartment. On the same night she confessed (Sallicido was also being interrogated separately), Sallicido at first said she could have left the apartment while he was sleeping and later said she did leave for 3 or 4 hours (9PM to 1AM) to go to the bar she worked at (where nobody saw her). I cannot speculate as to why he said this, maybe the police told him she had fingered him, turning suspects against each other is somewhat common.
It is understandable that Lumumba would have been furious with her, according to the police she fingered him for a murder. At the slander trial he claimed he had fired Amanda and was about to hire Meredith, this was later shown to be a lie. If he had fired her why did he text her the night of the murder saying business was slow and not to come to work?
The laptop issue is a red herring. The police accidently (?) destroyed the hard drives on the laptop so there is no evidence.
I will addres the forensic evidence in my next post after I get some caffeine.0 -
...I will address the forensic evidence in my next post after I get some caffeine.
I genuinely don't want to annoy you so I will just say I agree with the current verdict and if all the other material evidence/statements/investigation reports are refuted then fair enough - but so far her legal team besides worrying about DNA on one bra, are totally avoiding refuting such material now, while knowing this is their last ditch effort!0 -
What should bother people most about this case is the lack of forensic evidence, more so than the claimed forensic evidence. If Knox and Sallicido participated in a brutal bloody murder as has been charged forensic evidence pointing to them would be all over the crime scene, all over them and all over Sallicido's apartment. There is no evidence that anyone entered Meredith's room after the murder was committed and before the door was kicked in the next day. Try and imagine the scene as Magnini described it, all three accussed are trying to restrain Meredith, at least two knives are used (the bloodstain outline on the pillowcase is a smaller knife than the kitchen knife), she is stabbed multiple times, Guede is cut on the hands during the struggle.. but Knox and Sallicido bear no signs of struggle, and leave no forensic traces in the room. Meanwhile Guede's DNA is all over the crime scene, his DNA is inside her, his bloody footprints are all over the room.
DNA evidence is a very difficult topic. It has convicted many criminals where without it they would have gotten off but also convicted many poeple in the wrong. The biggest problem with DNA is how sensitive a technique it is and how people with no scientific background are easily confused. A simple example is the confusion between blood and DNA, yes blood contains DNA but so does hair, skin, crap, pretty much everything associated with the human body. Techniques for DNA analysis can detect to picogram levels, thats one millionth of one millionth of a gram. If Knox and Sallicido had participated or even been in Meredith's room, their DNA would be all over the room, and sorry you cannot clean picogram levels of DNA no matter how hard you try.
The DNA evidence has now been completely discredited and should have been thrown out at the first trial. The DNA lab that did the testing did not have the equipment to do low level DNA testing, but devised their own test procedure to conduct such testing, a procedure that no other lab in the world uses nor would support. Independent experts in DNA testing brought in by the judge in the appeal have dismissed both Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife from Sallicido's apartment and Sallicido's DNA on the bra strap as erroneous results. The prosection woudl not allow the defense request for independent testing in the first trial, agreed to by the judge, but now want another independent review of the independent review in the appeal.
All the bloody footprints belong to Guede. The footprint attributed to Knox on the pillowcase has been shown to be a partial footprint belonging to Guede and the barefooted bloody footprint near the bathroom is shown to belong to Guede. All other footprints in the flat detected by Luminol contained no traces of blood. Luminol tests positive for a wide variety of substances, it would be expected that Knox and Sallicido would have footprints in the flat, she lived there, he visited.
All my postings are based on research done by qualified experts in crimology and testimony of those in the courtroom, all easily available on line. I have also read the entire contects of the "truejustice.org" site which is compelling if you believe everything reported by the media and outlined by the prosecution in the first trial. Unfortunately almost all of of it has been shown to be false.
I understand why people are convinced from the initial reporting and evidence presented that Knox and Sallicido are guilty. I cannot understand why the same people would not now have reasonable doubt given what has transpired since.
Does none of the following bother people, to at least the level of reasonable doubt?:
1. An interrogation resulting in a confession with no attorney present.
2. The sole witness placing the defendents at the scene is a homeless heroin addict.
3. The lab doing DNA testing did not even have the equipment to do such testing and independent experts have now discredited the results.
4. No credible physical evidence in the blood spattered room, on the victim, or on the suspects linking the suspects to the crime.
5. The prosectutor has been convicted and sentenced for corruption in a prior case where he spun a wondrous story involving multiple people committing murders.
Whether Knox and Sallico are acquitted remains to be seen, up to the jury to decide. My reading of the case suggests there is a considerable amount of reasonable doubt.0 -
I am not trying to annoy anyone, just trying to strike a balance as the evidence against Knox and Sallecido has been widely reported, and rarely updated when shown to be incorrect. A good example of shoddy media reporting is a cut and paste article in the Irish Independent at the weekend where they "reported" on the appeal. The article was lifted from a credible English newpaper. For whatever reason the Independent chose to remove a few paragraphs, including the paragraph that describes Guede's separate conviction for the crime. No mention whatsoever of Guede in the article, a tad misleading.
My final posting on this is on the issue of DNA mixing. A lot was made about this in the media and at the first trial. No traces of Knox's (nor Sallicido's) DNA were found in the Meredith's room, where you would expect to find it if she was involved in the crime. Knox's DNA was found where you would expect to find it, in the bathroom which she shared with Meredith and elsewhere in the apartment. Guede likely left blood traces in the bathroom in his haste to clean himself up and get out of there. You would expect to find mixing of that blood and Knox's DNA in the sink, in fact it would be unusual not to find traces of Knox's blood in a bathroom surely.. and contrary to the prosecution claim, you cannot date DNA.
This was a shocking crime and I have extreme sympathy for Meredith's family. It is hardly bearable thinking what anguish she went through and what they have been going through. However that does not warrant keeping two very likely innocents in jail.
On a scale of 1-100, based on the evidence I have read, I would rate Guede as 99.9% guilty and the other two at 0.1%. Just my opinion, but based on balanced research not tabloid reporting.0 -
In the past few days the prosection are showing how desperate they are. The flimsy physical DNA evidence has been rubbished by independent experts i.e. not representing either side, representing the court. There is no other credible evidence, all of it has been shown to be incorrect, misleading or downright lies (for example the prosection has changed the time of death numerous times to try and fit their timeline). In closing arguments they have reverted to the "she devil" and "witch" strategy. Finally yesterday during closing arguments for the first time and to a packed courtroom graphic fully naked pictures of the victim were shown. Not as evidence during the trial or appeal but in closing arguments! The only strategy here is to shock the jury on the day before the defense gives closing arguments.
The most compelling question is why have the police and prosection gone to such lengths to secure and uphold a conviction based on such flimsy or actually nonexistant evidence, when they had the culprit with overwhelming evidence against him. Guede's DNA is all over the bedroom, he was apprehended with physical evidence on him after fleeing the country. He had his conviction reduced in half after fingering the other two defendants at his appeal.
A clue is where the lead prosector referred to Guede as the "poor black boy" during closing arguments. There has been a consistent effort to deflect away from Guede and onto the "she devil", while strangely ignoring the other defendant Sallicido, not such an obvious target.
Guede should not have been on the streets. He had previously been apprehended with stolen property from a law a firm where a rock was thrown through the window to gain access. He was also linked to at least two other cases of breaking and entering. The police and prosecution were wide open to a civil lawsuit for allowing him walk free, thus the need to convict others.
This case is a perversion of justice.0 -
* According to the guy she falsely accused, she was pretty pissed at him and Meredith (the roommate) because he had fired her for being too flirtatious with customers, then hired Meredith. So maybe she trying to frame one guy she hates and cover up for another that might implicate her? Huh?
I didn't want to bring this argument into it seeing as it was an interview with the mail on sunday and we all know they aren't the most reliable but you've brought it up and don't forget that that article also stated thatAt 6.30am on Tuesday, November 6, the bell to his fourth-floor flat in the town buzzed insistently and a woman's voice outside demanded he opened the door. He had barely had time to do so when the woman, assisted by, Patrick estimates, 15 to 20 others, barged their way in.
"They were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns," he says. "I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.
"They hit me over the head and yelled 'dirty black'. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra pulled Davide away, screaming."
He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia's police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.
"I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me," he claims. "They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, 'You did it, you did it.'
"I didn't know what I'd 'done'. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of 'the dead girl' to get me to confess.
"It might sound naive, but it was only then that I made the connection between Meredith's death and my arrest. Stunned, I said, 'You think I killed Meredith?'
"They said, 'Oh, so now you've remembered' and told me that if I confessed I'd only get half the 30-year sentence." It wasn't until 5.30pm that ? still handcuffed and unfed ? he was shown the evidence against him, a statement from Amanda saying that on the night of November 1 he had persuaded her to take him back to the house she shared with Meredith and two others.
If that story is to believed then is it still so unbelievable that the police treated her in a similar way.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-496218/I-fired-Foxy-Knoxy-hitting-customers-Patrick-Lumumba-reveals-framed-Merediths-murder.html#ixzz1ZCujsy3A
0 -
Advertisement
-
This is a bit off topic but did any of you ever see the press conference of Merediths family after Amanda Knox was prosecuted?
Meredith's brother was talking about the fact that 2 young people have been sent down for a long time and then he said there was of course the other gentleman who was sent to jail last year as well.
I couldn't believe he called him a gentleman
I know Meredith's family seem like a very nice family who have remained verry dignified throughout and i'm sure he actually doesn't think he's a gentleman but it still struck me as very very weird.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement