Would you date a Murderer?

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?

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.

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? Sex game gone wrong, yet not one fingerprint of either of them on her whole body or anywhere in the scene.... but! Rafaele must have forgotten himself momentarily and took off his gloves to remove her bra! Yes! That's it!

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 game gone wrong- of which by the way there is no evidence to suggest took place, no ritualistic paraphernalia etc.. I wonder why?
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.

I'll also add that I too believed once that Amanda was involved. But I now realise that my theories were based on presumptuous speculation, media hog wash and baseless "facts". Pro- conviction theories demand a need to make a huge leap in absurd logic.
But sure, don't let the actual facts get in the way of your very skewed theories.

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.

I find it gas that your reasoning behind them not leaving an ounce of DNA or fingerprints at the scene or on the body of the woman they just brutally murdered is because they were shrewd and wore gloves. To me, and to anyone else with a brain, it's simple- they weren't there.

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...".

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.

BIB, no the final ruling of Italy's supreme court does not state that.

The Supreme Court did however not only acquit Knox of the charges but unequivocally ruled that she did not commit the murder.

It's interesting that you point fingers at US media but make no mention of the lurid tabloid coverage that helped foment opinion against Knox and shaped the case from the beginning (English included...see UK rags) The US media didn't cover the case much outside of Washington state until the later stages of the appeals. Your suggestion that Anna's opinion is guided by being beholden to US news sources is baseless. Other than to embrace that view simply because she does not agree with you. One can just as well offhandedly claim that your own views are clouded by UK tabloids and the Foxy Knoxy caricature.

But there's no need for any of that. The best refutation against those that continue to claim's Knox's guilt (people ignore Sollecitio...wonder why?) is the ruling by Italy's Court of Cassation.

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.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21647486-overdue-acquittal-amanda-knox-exposes-glaring-flaws-italys-criminal-justice-system-innocente

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.?

Is the Supreme Court ruling talking points from the Knox campaign as well?

Have you heard Guede's "interrogation" interview? He identified Amanda through her silhouette, her voice (even through he was wearing headphones?) and her footsteps on gravel outside.
Could this be a first time ever in history a silhouette identification?
It was very clear that the prosecutor wanted to inculpate Amanda as much as possible, I've never seen such a blatant example of that in a normal prosecutorial interview. The prosecutions case was a fantasy from start to finish.

So, you say burglars dont usually brutally and sadistically kill someone who disturbs them, but Amanda, who has a clean criminal record does?
Why make allowances for a convicted criminal and not for her? Most people look at the situation in its entirety and conclude that its highly, highly unlikely that she randomly butchered her housemate for no good reason.

So, what exactly are you basing your theory on? I've seen you around here before. You pop up every now and again when there's a mention of Knox and you word vomit your same spiel over and over, despite most of your facts already been refuted- you still think she's guilty. How? There is as much evidence to say you did it, as there is for her. What are you basing your conclusion on? I'd love to know. Because thus far all you've offered is "she cleaned up the scene bla bla"... really...?
You keep refusing to accept common sense and logic.
If you have to make massive leaps in logic and understanding to make the evidence fit your theory, and also leave out other important factors, then you are wrong. Simply wrong.

The entire case against Knox is conjecture, with entire invented sordid stories about sex games gone wrong strung together with bias, the self serving testimony of unreliable junkies and wilful ignorance. I think the case is a huge indictment of the Perugia police force, and the Italian justice system - they eventually reached the correct conclusion based on the lack of any evidence or motive, but Knox lost 8 years of her life to a hopelessly incompetent and vindictive prosecution.

Even now you have conspiracy theorists sifting through the case wilfully misreading the evidence, desperately trying to link Knox as an accessory to Guede's murder of Kercher despite absolutely no evidence that Knox even knew who Guede was.

Let me summarise the facts for you:
Geude's bloody handprint was found on the cushion underneath Ketcher's body. His DNA were found on her bra and inside her vagina. Hid bloody foot prints were found around the flat. His feces were found in the toilet.
Semen (untested) was found at the scene- most likely his.
Her phone and money were stolen.
His DNA was found in her bag.
He had a history of breaking and entering.
He fled Italy following the murder.
No physical evidence puts Knox and Solkecito at the murder scene.
Sorry if that's not scandalous or depraved enough for you.

The murder investigation by the Perugia police was utterly inept. The police had fabricated the story before the crime scene was even analysed, confident that they could bend the facts to make it stick.

The actual court decision that went into great detail was that they are entirely innocent. Court hierarchy is there for a reason and decision in the highest court was clear. I am going with court decision, you are going with internet speculation.
At this stage I'd say Meredith could come back from the dead and tell us Amanda wasn't involved and you'd still doubt her and spew your crap. You're that brainwashed. Facts be damned.

And your jury line is actually hilarious. If there's no evidence to suggest someone murdered somebody then you don't convict them of murder. It's that simple.
Im done with you now. Go back to your blogs where people will indulge your nonsense.

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.

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.

We keep to ourselves