anna080 wrote: » Yes I have. I actually know this case inside out, to be honest. And I'm inclined to go with the evidence and facts, rather than headline grabbing nonsence. Let's not forget that Knox was acquitted by the Supreme Court due to monumental flaws in the investigation. Let's hope you never end up on a jury.
Cianmcliam wrote: » I actually don't believe you have read the court documents, if you did you would know the Supreme Court reasoning states it is proven the Knox was there at the time of murder, lied in her various claims and testimonies, was accompanied by Sollecito on the night etc. I do believe you are very familiar with the US based disinformation campaign that took huge advantage of the language barrier and has dominated English language reporting and comment. Can you summarise the various judgements in a paragraph?
anna080 wrote: » And I cannot believe you are so willing to reject the actual findings of the investigation, none of which place A&R there, all of which places Guede there. Have you read the autopsy report? It states she fought back- yet how would she have done this if there were two people holding her down while another stabbed her? Two people whose DNA or fingerprints are nowhere on her body. Yet they apparently managed to hold her down as he slashed her throat. Imagine that.
There is not a single piece of evidence of multiple offenders.
Why would I summarise the judgements in one paragraph? I'm not in school or in an exam hall. But I will state this, the most important quote: The Supreme Court judgement cited there was "an absolute lack of evidence related to their biological traces in the room or on the body of the murder victim". To me this is the most important line. Yet, to you, this means she is still guilty. Unbelievable. Jesus wept indeed.
Maybe YOU should be the one to enlighten yourself to the actual facts, and stay off sources like Buzzfeed and the like. Also, Santa Claus isn't real.
Cianmcliam wrote: » This is what happens when people get info from blogs and Netflix. She had almost non-existent defensive wounds, two or three tiny nicks on her hands. Here's an actual quote from an actual source, the Massei sentencing report: "Compared with these almost nonexistent defensive wounds (cf. report of Dr Lalli, pp. 33, 34, 35 with the relevant photos), there is an injured area which is impressive by the number, distribution and diversity, specifically of the injuries (bruises and wounds) on the face and neck of Meredith. This disproportion is all the more serious and inexplicable if one considers Meredith's physical and personality characteristics recalled above. It seems inevitable that it must be considered that the criminal action was carried out by several people acting together against Meredith, who, strongly limited in her movements, could not defend herself in any way nor shield herself with her hands in order to avoid a vital part of her body (the neck) being repeatedly struck." Multiple foot prints in blood, only one set of which is consistent with Guede's and two which are consistent with Knox and Sollecito. The clean-up. The lack of defensive wounds. The witness testimonies that heard multiple people running away after the loud scream etc. This is the single most important quote, because it shows exactly why the acquittal should not stand. It's this kind of low-battery thinking that dogs this case. There are devices available now which allow people to leave no DNA traces during a murder/burglary/mugging etc. They are very widely available. A simple pair of gloves. DNA does not fall off your body, dead skin cells and hair that falls from the head do not contain DNA. If you wear gloves and they are not torn open then you will almost certainly leave no DNA trace. What you and the Supreme Court demonstrate is the well known 'CSI effect' phenomenon, the belief that people leave DNA and other biological traces everywhere they go. This is completely untrue, it actually takes a lot of luck and abrasive action on bare skin to leave DNA. Wearing gloves virtually eliminates any possibility of leaving any DNA trace unless you go around head butting walls. DNA traces are nice to have but are not necessary to secure a conviction when all other evidence points to guilt, as in this case. You are pulling my leg aren't you? Take a look at what you have been reading and watching. Read the court documents.
Trump_Wall wrote: » What if, at the end of the date, the once-contrite murderer turns to you and snarls, "I could kill for a curry right now...".
Bambi985 wrote: » Murderers would be a big no-no to be honest. After vegans.
Cianmcliam wrote: » I actually don't believe you have read the court documents, if you did you would know the Supreme Court reasoning states it is proven the Knox was there at the time of murder, lied in her various claims and testimonies, was accompanied by Sollecito on the night etc. I do believe you are very familiar with the US based disinformation campaign that took huge advantage of the language barrier and has dominated English language reporting and comment.
The Court of Cassation in Rome found Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito not guilty on the grounds that they had “not committed the act”. Italian law recognises different levels of acquittal; this is the most categorical.
Lirange wrote: » BIB, no the final ruling of Italy's supreme court does not state that.
anna080 wrote: » So what are you saying? That Knox and Raffale wore gloves during the murder and Guede didn't? They've an awful lot of foresight for people who are just taking part in a game, don't you think?
You know the simplest explanation is most likely true, right? Guede was a known burglar. Has previous burglary convictions. There is evidence that he burgled there that night. There is also cctv of him in the area. On this night, Meredith interrupted him and sadly lost her life as a result. This makes more sense than a convoluted cock and bull story about a sex
So couple all of this with the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence to support the fact that Amanda and Raffael were in the room that night- the highest court in Italy also confirm that.
And Guede's DNA, sperm, fingerprints are all over the room. I've already clarified the footprint points: they were neither Amanda's nor Rafaele's, but Guede's partial footprint. It was ruled out in court that the footprint near the toilet was Rafaele's as the big toe did not match. The bare footprints were deemed indistinguishable.
Rude first said Amanda wasn't at the crime scene, he never even mentioned Raffale, before he then repeatedly modified his story for his own defence. If you believe Guede's various versions of events, then that's quite worrying. If you don't believe him, but you still believe she was involved somehow, well, just because- then that's bizarre and says a lot about you.
And please. I've read the court documents. Especially the Supreme Court one which acquitted them because they state there is no biological evidence to prove they were in the room. Not a shred.
anna080 wrote: » "In accordance with her own admissions", they are using her statement against her. The same statement she retracted as it was performed under duress and without a lawyer.
Mixed DNA traces in a bathroom she shared with Meredith, imagine that. I assume they are referring to the spit down the sink?
Cianmcliam wrote: » I think their part was premeditated, Guede was probably not aware they would kill her. This is supported by the fact that someone took a towel from the bathroom and tried to staunch the blood flow, as Guede said in his statements. He then turned and ran straight out the front door, recorded by his shoe prints. Knox and Sollecito however walked barefoot around the apartment cleaning the hallway and bathroom but leaving Guede's prints. I think they meant to implicate him from the start. Burgulars don't tend to violently and sadistically kill someone that disturbs them, even the Supreme Court state that the 'burglary gone wrong' motive is rubbish. Whoever did this toyed with the victim, drawing the knife across her neck several times before making a violent plunge. Others held her down. The Supreme Court ruled that it could not have been a single attacker. I hope you are never on a jury, it is extremely easy not to leave biological traces. To consider this is proof they were not in the room is absurd. Wrong, Guede's sperm was not found at the scene. The footprint in the bathroom was ruled consistent with Sollecito and not with Guede. Several judgements have ruled that they were guilty of the crime, for you to say there is nothing to suggest they were involved is just plain silly. You haven't read the court documents, your own claims are almost verbatim talking points from the Knox campaign. How could you have read the court documents and still be unaware that the Supreme Court ruled it proven she was there at the time of the murder, that it could not have been a single attacker, that Knox washed the victim's blood off herself, that the burglary was staged etc.?
Cianmcliam wrote: » I think you should consider dialling back on the personal attack a few notches. The fact that you think so poorly of someone who doesn't agree with you on this only demonstrates you can no longer think rationally about it. I've refuted several of your claims and given original sources, you just attack and repeat claims from blogs and TV documentaries.
anna080 wrote: » Yes. And I'm sure the Supreme Court ruling was based on blogs and documentary information as well- not on actual, ya know, facts, and the fact that they weren't in the room at the time of the murder. Jesus wept.
anna080 wrote: » And you're basing all your info on Guede's multiple, varying and contradictory statements. Hilarious. Yes. And I'm sure the Supreme Court ruling was based on blogs and documentary information as well- not on actual, ya know, facts, and the fact that they weren't in the room at the time of the murder. Jesus wept.
Cianmcliam wrote: » They said they acquitted because there was no DNA attributable to them found in the room. They don't swab every square inch of the room, they sample likely places. Although, Sollectito's DNA was found in there, on the bra clasp, and no possible source for this DNA 'contamination' was ever identified. This is plainly stupid reasoning. And I don't use the word lightly. Many murderers are behind bars with no DNA evidence at all. It is ridiculously easy to avoid leaving DNA. DNA is found at crime scenes years after a crime and if a person is identified then it usually sticks. Contamination is very unlikely. The Supreme Court decision demonstrates poor reasoning with the scientific evidence in general. One easy example is when they discuss Meredith's DNA on the knife found in Sollecito's apartment. According to the Supreme Court judge who wrote the report, the scientific police should have identified that it was blood rather than DNA, despite knowing and stating that only one test or the other would be possible. They seem completely unaware that testing to see if it was blood could not possibly identify it as Meredith's. So all that test would show was that a drop of blood was found on a knife. The test that was actually carried out proved that it was Meredith's DNA. But the Supreme Court disregard that because they can't tell if it is blood or tissue. Nuts.
