Amanda Knox retrial begins

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

As spoken by the OJ jurors.

No one that has read the Micheli and Massei reports could make that statement. It is simply untrue.

There may be room for reasonable doubt, but the evidence is considerable and some of it came from their own statements, actions and contradictions.

In the OJ trial the evidence of OJ's guilt was overwhelming.

The gloves at the scene, the footprints that matched his blood, his blood at the scene, the victims blood at the scene, in his car and at his house, the cut on his hand, the testimony if his limo driver who saw him returning to his house and then claim he had been inside all.slong even though he clealry hadn't because he had been at the murder scene.

In the Perugia case there is no physical evidence whatsoever that places Knox and Sollecito at the murder scene. Nothing. Zilch.

The only physical evidence at the scene is Geude's.

Therefore they could not have committed the murder with Geude.

There is no other logical explanation.

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

All the previous sentencing reports are written in a similar style, they are hard going but if you read it carefully you will see who is misrepresenting what is in it regarding their presence in the house on the night of the murder. Either you think then that what they mean is Amanda arrived home and found her housemate murdered and decided not to contact the police but instead wash blood off her hands and simulate a burgulary (they state the staging is pretty much proven and Guede had no conceivable reason to do it) or they mean what they suggest, she was in the house at the time of the murder.

Meredith's body was not found until her bedroom was opened.

Geude's motive was robbery and sexual attraction to Kercher who had met before when he visited Giscoma, her Italian boyfriend and his mates when he attended a party in the ground floor flat.

You keep refusing to accept common sense and logic.

How could Amanda and Sollecito have cleaned up all evidence of their supposed presence at the murder scene without destroying all evidence of Geude's presence?

That is impossible. Once you accept that then Knox and Sollecito could not possibly have taken part in the murder.

There is no evidence Knox had a sexual interest in Meredith. Knox had sex with four American bfs before she went to Italy. She had a sexual encounter with a guy called Cristiano who gave her oral herpes, she slept with a guy called Mirko, another guy called Bobby and finally Sollecito. Why would she want to help a loser like Geude sexually assault and murder Meredith?

The only disagreement they ever had was over cleaning the toilet which left skid marks when she took a sh*t.

Cianmcliam

brickmauser wrote: »

In the OJ trial the evidence of OJ's guilt was overwhelming.

The gloves at the scene, the footprints that matched his blood, his blood at the scene, the victims blood at the scene, in his car and at his house, the cut on his hand, the testimony if his limo driver who saw him returning to his house and then claim he had been inside all.slong even though he clealry hadn't because he had been at the murder scene.

In the Perugia case there is no physical evidence whatsoever that places Knox and Sollecito at the murder scene. Nothing. Zilch.

The only physical evidence at the scene is Geude's.

Therefore they could not have committed the murder with Geude.

There is no other logical explanation.

I agree with you, there is no smoking gun that they were directly involved with the murder, if there was they would still be in prison. But I disagree with you on the 'no other logical explanation' when the Supreme Court says several times there is a strong suspicion they were involved, if not the cast iron proof they demand. Previous rulings have said similar but that the totality of the evidence all points at the same conclusion, even if some or all of the pieces have some flaws.

They say they are unable to make any ruling on the lesser crime of accessory to murder, they have never been charged with this and with all the limitations in the original investigation it would be difficult to start over. They do point out that Guede had no motive to fake the burglary and in any case only a person living there could know they would not be interrupted by other housemates arriving in during the staging of the burgulary and rearrangement of the body & cleanup.

Seriously though, I'm leaving it there. Few people are interested in discussing anything but the 'totally uninvolved' and police/judiciary conspiracy position so argument is completely pointless.

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I agree with you, there is no smoking gun that they were directly involved with the murder, if there was they would still be in prison. But I disagree with you on the 'no other logical explanation' when the Supreme Court says several times there is a strong suspicion they were involved, if not the cast iron proof they demand. Previous rulings have said similar but that the totality of the evidence all points at the same conclusion, even if some or all of the pieces have some flaws.

They say they are unable to make any ruling on the lesser crime of accessory to murder, they have never been charged with this and with all the limitations in the original investigation it would be difficult to start over. They do point out that Guede had no motive to fake the burglary and in any case only a person living there could know they would not be interrupted by other housemates arriving in during the staging of the burgulary and rearrangement of the body & cleanup.

Seriously though, I'm leaving it there. Few people are interested in discussing anything but the 'totally uninvolved' and police/judiciary conspiracy position so argument is completely pointless.

If there is no evidence of any involvement then that is by definition evidence of lack of involvement.

The supposed murder weapon - the kitchen knife from Scollecito's flat - does not match Kercher's wounds, Kercher's DNA was not on the knife, blood was not found on the knife - therefore it could not have been the murder weapon. Knox's DNA was found on the knife supporting her account that she used it for cooking.

At the time of the murder Knox and Scollecito were watching a movie in his lap top. Their mobile phone's were switched off and not switched on again until 6 in the morning which suggests they were in bed together and supports their story that they remained in bed until around 10 am. We know they spent a romantic evening together because they were visited twice by Sollecito's Serbian friend and he took a call from his father when they were washing up after eating together.
Knox was told by Lumumba that he wouldn't need her at his club that night all the more reason why Knox would stay all night at her boyfriend's place.
There is no credible evidence whatsoever that they were at the cottage at the time of the murder.
None.

You have to conclude that when there is no physical evidence of their participation in the murder and only physical evidence of Rudy Geude at the scene and only physical evidence of his involvement you must conclude - the inescapable conclusion - that Knox and Sollecito could not and did not kill Kercher.

We know Geude hung out with the Italian boys in the lower flat and he had met both Knox and Kercher and had remarked he wanted to f*ck them. He would known the Italian girls and boys would have left on to be with their families on a public holiday so the two English speaking girls would presumably be alone.

What saved Knox's life was her relationship with Sollecito. Otherwise both Knox and Kercher would have been killed by Geude.

In an alternate universe Knox would not have decided to walk from the train station at Perugia to the college on the first day she arrived in the town and would not have accepted a ride in the car of a sleazy local who propositioned her before dropping her off at her campus where by chance she met one of her future Italian flatmates who befriended her and told her about the spare rooms in the cottage.
By chance Know and Sollecito met at the classical.music concert.
By chance Kercher chose Perugia as her choice to study.
It is only chance that both girls were not killed by Geude.
If Knox and Sollecito had not kissed in full view of the police and media at the murder scene it is likely they never would have been fingered as suspects and framed for murder.

If both Kercher and Knox were killed this would have been a long forgotten double murder with Geude serving time for double murder.

TheNap

How was the door locked ?

His footprints were pointing away from the door. There are other reasons to suggest he didnt act alone.

However nothing suggests who his accomplices were

seamus

TheNap wrote: »

How was the door locked ?

His footprints were pointing away from the door. There are other reasons to suggest he didnt act alone.

There really isn't; I don't believe any significant unidentified DNA was found in the scene.

Geude left through the broken bedroom window. He broke in, raped and murdered Kercher, went into the flat to look for items to steal, took a ****, went back into the bedroom, locked the door and then left through the window, dropping Kercher's phones in the garden.

Why did he lock the door? To give himself more time in case someone came home, to make it less obvious that a break-in had occurred.

As always, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The explanation above fits all of the facts.

TheNap

seamus wrote: »

There really isn't; I don't believe any significant unidentified DNA was found in the scene.

Geude left through the broken bedroom window. He broke in, raped and murdered Kercher, went into the flat to look for items to steal, took a ****, went back into the bedroom, locked the door and then left through the window, dropping Kercher's phones in the garden.

Why did he lock the door? To give himself more time in case someone came home, to make it less obvious that a break-in had occurred.

As always, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. The explanation above fits all of the facts.

He would of had to face the door to lock it. His footprints were pointing the other way .

Didnt a witness testify that she heard numerous footsteps coming from the cottage ?

Didn't some specialist also confirm that the injuries would suggest there would have to be more than one person involved ?

You suggest he locked her door to make it look like no break in occurred yet leaved the front door open ?

There is more fishy things that don't add up . Wasnt there also footprints that didnt match his ?

awec

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I'd just ask people to read it in its entirety and make up their own minds.

The explanation they give is that Knox was in the house at the time of the murder, her story about Patrick matches many known facts about the murder that could not have been known to anyone who hadn't seen the evidence and the witness statements. They reason she substituted Patrick for Guede when she cracked under questioning and that her story, apart from the culprit, could well be true. She let Guede in, Guede murdered Meredith and Amanda helped to clean it up and stage the break-in. They don't consider that gloves would have made DNA traces in the room unlikely. So they acquit her of murder while taking it as proven she, and probably Sollecito, were there at the time.

Gloves can stop you leaving fingerprints (if they are thick enough), not DNA.

To avoid leaving any DNA at all she would have had to go in there with gloves, overalls, face mask, hair covered. You would have to stop yourself sweating and avoid brushing against anything.

It would require a huge amount of planning and preparation and a level of calmness that is probably unlikely for someone who apparently just witnessed a murder.

Cianmcliam

awec wrote: »

Gloves can stop you leaving fingerprints (if they are thick enough), not DNA.

To avoid leaving any DNA at all she would have had to go in there with gloves, overalls, face mask, hair covered. You would have to stop yourself sweating and avoid brushing against anything.

It would require a huge amount of planning and preparation and a level of calmness that is probably unlikely for someone who apparently just witnessed a murder.

OK, this is unrelated to the case but this is completely untrue. You cannot obtain DNA profiles from dead skin cells or sweat, DNA comes from the lower layers of skin cells, blood, saliva or hair and usable skin cells require a bit of force or penetration to leave behind.

Many cases are solved with no DNA evidence at all because the perpetrator has left none behind, most criminals do not go around wearing HAZMAT suits.

It's a common fallacy that we leave DNA everywhere behind us and that the absence of DNA means we were not there.

Ted111

Also you could reasonably expect knox to have been in that room at one time or another since it was in her house. If you found knox clothing fibres, hair or even saliva in there then it wouldn't prove she was in the room during the incident itself.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

OK, this is unrelated to the case but this is completely untrue. You cannot obtain DNA profiles from dead skin cells or sweat, DNA comes from the lower layers of skin cells, blood, saliva or hair and usable skin cells require a bit of force or penetration to leave behind.

That's not correct. You're correct about the dead skin cells from the top layer, but the DNA containing cells from the bottom layer can be obtained from clothing or anything that rubs against the skin. Weapons for example can provide DNA from skin cells.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That's not correct. You're correct about the dead skin cells from the top layer, but the DNA containing cells from the bottom layer can be obtained from clothing or anything that rubs against the skin. Weapons for example can provide DNA from skin cells.

They don't ask for a cheek swab from a suspect because of an oral fetish, it's because it is more difficult than people expect to obtain DNA from shed or top layer skin cells. To get a reliable result from skin requires a fair amount of abrasion, If it were not a hard rub of the arm would negate the need for cheek swabs or blood samples. The same goes for hair, you really need the follicle rather than a segment from the head.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

They don't ask for a cheek swab from a suspect because of an oral fetish, it's because it is more difficult than people expect to obtain DNA from shed or top layer skin cells. To get a reliable result from skin requires a fair amount of abrasion, If it were not a hard rub of the arm would negate the need for cheek swabs or blood samples. The same goes for hair, you really need the follicle rather than a segment from the head.

I've already stated that the top layer is unreliable and doesn't provide DNA. Those cells are shed from the skin and are dead. They take cheek swabs because they are the most reliable, but 'touch DNA' just needs 5-20 cells from the bottom layer to make a DNA fingerprint. Touch DNA can be taken after an object has been touched or casually handled.

awec

Either way, I think we can all agree that to avoid leaving any DNA requires more planning than just a pair of gloves and a calm head.

Sounds a bit unlikely to me in this situation.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I've already stated that the top layer is unreliable and doesn't provide DNA. Those cells are shed from the skin and are dead. They take cheek swabs because they are the most reliable, but 'touch DNA' just needs 5-20 cells from the bottom layer to make a DNA fingerprint. Touch DNA can be taken after an object has been touched or casually handled.

You need to be very, very lucky to obtain reliable touch DNA from an object that has just been handled, you say youself it's bottom layer skin so you need the skin to be already broken or the object to be roughly handled with bare skin.

Wearing gloves and fully dressed leaves very little opportunity to leave any DNA.

Satriale

brickmauser wrote: »

The prosecution claimed Knox and Sollecito cleaned up the crime scene in such a way that only Geude's DNA was left behind.

Maybe Steven Avery helped them, didnt he manage to clean up the glut of DNA from the gory murder in his bedroom and manage to leave all his own?

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

You need to be very, very lucky to obtain reliable touch DNA from an object that has just been handled, you say youself it's bottom layer skin so you need the skin to be already broken or the object to be roughly handled with bare skin.

Wearing gloves and fully dressed leaves very little opportunity to leave any DNA.

To save us all the trouble of continuing this discussion ad nauseum, look up 'Touch DNA'.

You'll find that it's a lot easier than needing skin to be broken.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

To save us all the trouble of continuing this discussion ad nauseum, look up 'Touch DNA'.

You'll find that it's a lot easier than needing skin to be broken.

It's also unreliable and is not normally collected during an initial investigation, certainly not at the time of this murder. You really want about 100 cells for a cast iron attribution. Just look at the level of magnification they did to the 'Double DNA' knife and now apply that level of scrutiny to the entire room of a house. The defendants would have died of natural causes before you could say for certain there were absolutely no DNA traces of them in the room.

They swab likely places where DNA would have been left behind due to abrasion or bodily fluid, they do not have a DNA radar to exclude touch DNA. It is up to the investigators and lab to selectively sample suspect areas wisely, an absence of DNA does not mean the person was not there, only that no matching samples were collected.

EDIT: All of this is totally beside the point I was making in the first place, if they were wearing gloves they would not leave touch DNA.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

It's also unreliable and is not normally collected during an initial investigation, certainly not at the time of this murder. You really want about 100 cells for a cast iron attribution. Just look at the level of magnification they did to the 'Double DNA' knife and now apply that level of scrutiny to the entire room of a house. The defendants would have died of natural causes before you could say for certain there were absolutely no DNA traces of them in the room.

They swab likely places where DNA would have been left behind due to abrasion or bodily fluid, they do not have a DNA radar to exclude touch DNA. It is up to the investigators and lab to selectively sample suspect areas wisely, an absence of DNA does not mean the person was not there, only that no matching samples were collected.

EDIT: All of this is totally beside the point I was making in the first place, if they were wearing gloves they would not leave touch DNA.

They examined something like 500 different items and locations for DNA, including the body.

If the contention is that all three were involved in the murder, how is it that two of them wore gloves and one (Guede) didn't?

irishash

Cianmcliam wrote: »

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

To save us all the trouble of continuing this discussion ad nauseum, look up 'Touch DNA'.

You'll find that it's a lot easier than needing skin to be broken.

It's also unreliable and is not normally collected during an initial investigation, certainly not at the time of this murder. You really want about 100 cells for a cast iron attribution. Just look at the level of magnification they did to the 'Double DNA' knife and now apply that level of scrutiny to the entire room of a house. The defendants would have died of natural causes before you could say for certain there were absolutely no DNA traces of them in the room.

They swab likely places where DNA would have been left behind due to abrasion or bodily fluid, they do not have a DNA radar to exclude touch DNA. It is up to the investigators and lab to selectively sample suspect areas wisely, an absence of DNA does not mean the person was not there, only that no matching samples were collected.

EDIT: All of this is totally beside the point I was making in the first place, if they were wearing gloves they would not leave touch DNA.

I have been reading this thread for a while as this is a case that has always interested me. I have read books pro-knox and pro-conviction and one thing has always stood out to me, which you are re-enforcing.

Pro-conviction demands a need to make huge leaps in absurd logic. For example your whole discussion about DNA. Your point is that there was no DNA in the room because she (probably) had gloves and was lucky enough not to leave any trace DNA anywhere in the room. But all people like you ignore the more logical answer to the lack of DNA - she was not in the room.

The whole case against Knox was predicated by the fact that the lead prosecutor was an idiot (quote - "No man would cover the dead woman's body like that. Only a woman would do that") and that same prosecutor read too many trashy British tabloids. He likened himself to Sherlock Holmes for god sake. There never would have been any discussion over the murder by Guede if Sollecito had called the military police instead of the local plod.

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.

Also as so many have said before, this line from the judgement - "Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial" - does not state she was in the house at the time of the murder, it is a legalistic way of saying that they shared the house. NOWHERE does it say she was in the house at the time of the murder. If they had wanted to convey this, they would have said this. Stop making stuff up to make your theories stick.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They examined something like 500 different items and locations for DNA, including the body.

If the contention is that all three were involved in the murder, how is it that two of them wore gloves and one (Guede) didn't?

Guede may not have known that she would be murdered or that it would escalate to that conclusion, certainly leaving DNA inside her body, bloody footprints, faeces in the toilet and a bloody handprint on the pillow suggest he did not plan to murder her. The supreme court and I am pretty sure every other court ruling since Micheli has considered it proven that Guede could not have acted alone given the wounds coming from two directions while she was simultaneously held down and her mouth covered with a hand.

So, we are left with the fact that one of the killers left DNA that was located and those who were accomplices did not, but only if we accept the unlikely scenario that Sollecito's DNA was on the bra clasp due to contamination.

Ted111

If a twenty year old student was that forensically aware would they partake in a messy rape murder in their own house. Before being very mixed up and unprepared with her stories and alibi?

Cianmcliam

irishash wrote: »

Also as so many have said before, this line from the judgement - "Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial" - does not state she was in the house at the time of the murder, it is a legalistic way of saying that they shared the house. NOWHERE does it say she was in the house at the time of the murder. If they had wanted to convey this, they would have said this. Stop making stuff up to make your theories stick.

You have got to be kidding me. You should read the whole document. They are talking about the night of the murder. You actually think they include the fact that she lived there in their reasoning on their guilt?

Here's the bit about Sollecito:

"It remains anyway strong the suspicion that he was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine.
On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her." (section 9.4.2)

So by your logic they mean Knox and Sollecito were always in the house together at all times before and during the murder.

Means Of Escape

she will never see the inside of a jail
The whole investigation to the trial was a total cock up
The patsy Guede took it in the neck for the two
I believe that both were in the house when Kercher was murdered and know exactly who did what
They stuck to their bs story and closed their eyes
Bad eggs

Cianmcliam

Means Of Escape wrote: »

she will never see the inside of a jail
The whole investigation to the trial was a total cock up
The patsy Guede took it in the neck for the two
I believe that both were in the house when Kercher was murdered and know exactly who did what
They stuck to their bs story and closed their eyes
Bad eggs

In fairness I think it's in the Supreme Court judgement, though I could be wrong as the language is obtuse, that if, as they suspect, she was there and did nothing or was an actual accessory, she would have served a similar amount of time as she had already served in Italy.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Guede may not have known that she would be murdered or that it would escalate to that conclusion, certainly leaving DNA inside her body, bloody footprints, faeces in the toilet and a bloody handprint on the pillow suggest he did not plan to murder her. The supreme court and I am pretty sure every other court ruling since Micheli has considered it proven that Guede could not have acted alone given the wounds coming from two directions while she was simultaneously held down and her mouth covered with a hand.

This is another leap of logic. How do you know that her mouth was covered and she was held down simultaneous to two knife blows being struck and whether they themselves were simultaneous?

Cianmcliam wrote: »

So, we are left with the fact that one of the killers left DNA that was located and those who were accomplices did not, but only if we accept the unlikely scenario that Sollecito's DNA was on the bra clasp due to contamination.

That DNA was collected 47 days after the murder. From something that was moved several times since then and ended up in a pile of clothes and other items. It could be evidence, but that time delay makes it very unlikely.

Means Of Escape

she will never see the inside of a jail
The whole investigation to the trial was a total cock up
The patsy Guede took it in the neck for the two
I believe that both were in the house when Kercher was murdered and know exactly who did what
They stuck to their bs story and closed their eyes
Bad eggs

Ted111

You reckon they're bad eggs do you?

ohnonotgmail

Cianmcliam wrote: »

You have got to be kidding me. You should read the whole document. They are talking about the night of the murder. You actually think they include the fact that she lived there in their reasoning on their guilt?

Here's the bit about Sollecito:

"It remains anyway strong the suspicion that he was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine.
On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her." (section 9.4.2)

So by your logic they mean Knox and Sollecito were always in the house together at all times before and during the murder.

so they suspect that he was there that night but they dont know when. jeez, might as well lock him up now.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

This is another leap of logic. How do you know that her mouth was covered and she was held down simultaneous to two knife blows being struck and whether they themselves were simultaneous?

From the Supreme Court judgement:
" We refer to the multiple elements, linked to the overall reconstruction of events, which rule out that Guede could have acted alone. Firstly, testifying in this direction are the two main wounds (actually three) observed on the victim’s neck, on each side, with a diversified path and features, attributable most likely (even if the data is contested by the defense) to two different cutting weapons. And also, the lack of signs of resistance by the young woman, since no traces of the assailant were found under her nails, and there is no evidence elsewhere [aliunde] of any desperate attempt to oppose the aggressor; the bruises on her upper limbs and those on mandibular area and lips (likely the result of forcible hand action of constraint meant to keep the victim’s mouth shut) found during the cadaver examination, and above all, the appalling modalities of the murder, which were not adequately pointed out in the appealed ruling"

That DNA was collected 47 days after the murder. From something that was moved several times since then and ended up in a pile of clothes and other items. It could be evidence, but that time delay makes it very unlikely.

The DNA on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear that led to a public exoneration of the parents was found over a decade after the murder on a piece of evidence that had been handled multiple times by multiple parties.

ohnonotgmail

Cianmcliam wrote: »

From the Supreme Court judgement:
" We refer to the multiple elements, linked to the overall reconstruction of events, which rule out that Guede could have acted alone. Firstly, testifying in this direction are the two main wounds (actually three) observed on the victim’s neck, on each side, with a diversified path and features, attributable most likely (even if the data is contested by the defense) to two different cutting weapons. And also, the lack of signs of resistance by the young woman, since no traces of the assailant were found under her nails, and there is no evidence elsewhere [aliunde] of any desperate attempt to oppose the aggressor; the bruises on her upper limbs and those on mandibular area and lips (likely the result of forcible hand action of constraint meant to keep the victim’s mouth shut) found during the cadaver examination, and above all, the appalling modalities of the murder, which were not adequately pointed out in the appealed ruling"

the part in bold is not supported by what follows. It does not rule it out. they consider it "most likely" which is pretty weak sauce from a legal viewpoint.

Cianmcliam

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the part in bold is not supported by what follows. It does not rule it out. they consider it "most likely" which is pretty weak sauce from a legal viewpoint.

They are briefly summarising what was laid out in detail in the Micheli and Massei sentencing reports. You could look those up to see why they say above this quote that it is indisputable that Guede had accomplices.

Ted111

Cianmcliam wrote: »

They are briefly summarising what was laid out in detail in the Micheli and Massei sentencing reports.

Their summary doesn't support the interpretation of the evidence they are making at the outset there. You say something is lost in the summation. Maybe their interpretation is flawed.

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

OK, this is unrelated to the case but this is completely untrue. You cannot obtain DNA profiles from dead skin cells or sweat, DNA comes from the lower layers of skin cells, blood, saliva or hair and usable skin cells require a bit of force or penetration to leave behind.

Many cases are solved with no DNA evidence at all because the perpetrator has left none behind, most criminals do not go around wearing HAZMAT suits.

It's a common fallacy that we leave DNA everywhere behind us and that the absence of DNA means we were not there.

By that logic since there is an absence of proof that Knox killed JFK the absence of proof does not mean she was not there.

How many times does this have to be repeated?

No physical evidence means she and her bf could not have killed Kercher.

It is not possible.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

From the Supreme Court judgement:
" We refer to the multiple elements, linked to the overall reconstruction of events, which rule out that Guede could have acted alone. Firstly, testifying in this direction are the two main wounds (actually three) observed on the victim’s neck, on each side, with a diversified path and features, attributable most likely (even if the data is contested by the defense) to two different cutting weapons. And also, the lack of signs of resistance by the young woman, since no traces of the assailant were found under her nails, and there is no evidence elsewhere [aliunde] of any desperate attempt to oppose the aggressor; the bruises on her upper limbs and those on mandibular area and lips (likely the result of forcible hand action of constraint meant to keep the victim’s mouth shut) found during the cadaver examination, and above all, the appalling modalities of the murder, which were not adequately pointed out in the appealed ruling"

Still not evidence of all those elements being simultaneous which is what you said.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The DNA on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear that led to a public exoneration of the parents was found over a decade after the murder on a piece of evidence that had been handled multiple times by multiple parties.

Completely different circumstances. The clothing was in evidence the entire time, not kicked around a floor, possibly getting contaminated by other items or indeed by investigators themselves; who didn't exactly cover themselves in glory with their methods.

brickmauser

Means Of Escape wrote: »

she will never see the inside of a jail
The whole investigation to the trial was a total cock up
The patsy Guede took it in the neck for the two
I believe that both were in the house when Kercher was murdered and know exactly who did what
They stuck to their bs story and closed their eyes
Bad eggs

Based on what evidence?

CMOTDibbler

There's a lot of conjecture in that judgment, some of it a tad strange:

Such finding is even less compatible with the theory of the intrusion of an unknown thief inside the house, if we consider that, within the course of ordinary events, while it is possible that athief is taken by an uncontrollable sexual urge leading him to assail a young woman when he sees her, it’s rather unlikely that after a physical and sexual aggression he would also commit a gratuitous murder, especially not with the fierce brutality of this case, rather than running away quickly instead.

Many sexual assaults are followed by murder, to prevent identification of the culprit. It's certainly not unlikely as stated above.

Means Of Escape

Ted111 wrote: »

You reckon they're bad eggs do you?

I do

Means Of Escape

brickmauser wrote: »

Based on what evidence?

He was in possession of the knife that murdered Kercher for a start

Ted111

Means Of Escape wrote: »

He was in possession of the knife that murdered Kercher for a start

The blade on the knife you're referring to did not match the dimensions of kercher's wounds.

Means Of Escape

Ted111 wrote: »

The blade on the knife you're referring to did not match the dimensions of kercher's wounds.

And Kbox was not captured on camera entering the building shortly before the murder
And they never clapped eyes or met Guede before the event .....
And there wasn't any blood on the bathroom mat at the point she took her shower that evening ...........

Ted111

Means Of Escape wrote: »

And Kbox was not captured on camera entering the building shortly before the murder
And they never clapped eyes or met Guede before the event .....
And there wasn't any blood on the bathroom mat at the point she took her shower that evening ...........

Well in light of being not quite up to date with the facts of the case you can by all means resort to sarcasm.

I don't know why more court cases aren't conducted through a sarcasm off between the attorneys.

Means Of Escape

Ted111 wrote: »

Well in light of being not quite up to date with the facts of the case you can by all means resort to sarcasm.

I don't know why more court cases aren't conducted through a sarcasm off between the attorneys.

These are facts relating to the case
The Supreme Court are obviously trying to have justice served rather than attempting to gloss over whatever mistakes were made gathering the evidence or determining the facts at the time
A retrial ordered by the Supreme Court cannot go ahead based on hearsay and pseudo evidence nor can it proceed to simply abate the publics outrage .
Both their demeanour was bizarre during the investigation and as I said they forged a story , stuck with it and closed their eyes .

Ted111

Means Of Escape wrote: »

These are facts relating to the case

Ok we're going back to the facts then.

What makes you think the knife from Sollecito's kitchen is the murder weapon?

Means Of Escape

Ted111 wrote: »

Ok we're going back to the facts then.

What makes you think the knife from Sollecito's kitchen is the murder weapon?

Ok I'll go back to sarcasm so
The weapon was a plastic straw found in his drawer covered in vegetable matter with Knoxs red nail varnish on it .

Ted111

Ha ha but knox only ever wore pink nail varnish. :pac:

lillycakes2

I cant make up my mind whether i think she did it or not !!!

Means Of Escape

Ted111 wrote: »

Ha ha but knox only ever wore pink nail varnish. :pac:

Fan letters and photos ?

Sand

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There's a lot of conjecture in that judgment, some of it a tad strange.

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.

Means Of Escape

Sand wrote: »

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.

Yet she did know innocent barman Diya Patrick Lumumba as a the possible culprit .