Amanda Knox retrial begins

Cianmcliam

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Time served to date by Knox would have satisfied any manslaughter conviction anyway with good behaviour if she was complicit
It is agreed that Guede was the main perpetrator of the crime but I do not believe that both were oblivious to what transpired in that room and knew nothing about it .

The courts dispute this, Guede's DNA was found on the sleeves of her top from restraining her, he was able to sexually assault her with a free hand as well, so it seems unlikely that he could have also caused all of the stab wounds.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Without a contamperaneous transcript, a recording or the presence of a lawyer, anything relating to this interrogation is unsafe and unsound.

You clearly have to see that. It is completely unreliable and was thrown out at a very early stage because of this.

The only reason for these omissions is to 'work over' the suspect without the possibility of any evidence of such.

Whether Mignini was present or not, the fact is that he used very similar techniques on Doug Preston and was subsequently convicted of exceeding the powers of his office and sentenced to 16 months. He appealed it and it was overturned on a technicality (lack of jurisdiction) and he remains in office.

Are you suggesting he interrogated her telepathically? The interpreter was an independent witness and treated as such at trial. The later courts could take the fact that she was convicted of implicating an innocent person of a crime into account. The contents of that claim are then evidence after she was convicted of, and admitted, making the statements.

Means Of Escape

Knox lied to the police for two possible reasons as posted here
1 to stop the pressure exerted on her by the police
2 to divert suspicion from her to another that may possibly stick and get her off

Give the fact that she was in the flat after the murder and witnessed the fallout of the act coupled with the fact that she knew the murderer previously is it not plausible she was diverting the blame rather than protecting herself from a barrage of questions in a short period of time

Means Of Escape

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Who, the police?

Joking obviously. I'd have to agree that their incompetence destroyed the case. I think I quoted what the judges said about that above.

List is endless
OJ
Richard Ramirez
Gary Ridgeway
Denis Nielsen .............


Oh and John Wayne Gacy

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The courts dispute this, Guede's DNA was found on the sleeves of her top from restraining her, he was able to sexually assault her with a free hand as well, so it seems unlikely that he could have also caused all of the stab wounds.

Rudy Guede was a big guy. Certainly bigger and heavier than Kercher. How is it necessary for him to have assistance in holding her down when he could do that quite simply himself by sitting on her and holding her arms with his knees to free up his own arms? In fact generally, how come there are so many rapists who actually carry out crimes without assistance?

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Are you suggesting he interrogated her telepathically? The interpreter was an independent witness and treated as such at trial. The later courts could take the fact that she was convicted of implicating an innocent person of a crime into account. The contents of that claim are then evidence after she was convicted of, and admitted, making the statements.

No I'm not. What I'm saying is that a police interrogation that commenced without a means of taking a trannscript or a recording device (that were in common use at the time) speaks to a feeling of invulnerability to any repercussions that may arise from those omissions. That can be only viewed as a tacit acceptance from the top down that this was the desired method of obtaining confessions and solving crimes.

And the assertion that she cracked soon after being presented with the texts from and to Lumumba. Seriously? The text from Lumumba was so crucial to her that it caused her to 'suddenly' crack and reveal all. I suppose we're forgetting that Lumumba figured prominently in the early police investigation, so he had to come in somewhere. That he became of much less significance with the arrest of Guede seems to have been forgotten. Of course there has to be some moment when it all becomes too much, so I suppose it sounds better than "After we belted her around the head a few times and shouted at her continuously for hours, she confessed your honour".

You quoted this earlier:

"At this point, the police stopped the interview and informed the investigating magistrate’s office of what had happened. The Assistant State Prosecutor of Perugia, in the person of Dr. Giuliano Mignini, then went to the police station, where at 5.45 am on the same day, 6 November 2007, Amanda Marie Knox made statements on record, in his presence. "

This is Mignini in her presence whilst she 'voluntarily' gave a confession. Without her lawyer present (unless you count Mignini ).

This is total disregard to her rights. Rights that Mignini and the police should have known. The confession was thrown out of court but snuck back in again through the back door of Lumumba's slander case.

Does this not stink to high heaven?

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

No I'm not. What I'm saying is that a police interrogation that commenced without a means of taking a trannscript or a recording device (that were in common use at the time) speaks to a feeling of invulnerability to any repercussions that may arise from those omissions. That can be only viewed as a tacit acceptance from the top down that this was the desired method of obtaining confessions and solving crimes.

And the assertion that she cracked soon after being presented with the texts from and to Lumumba. Seriously? The text from Lumumba was so crucial to her that it caused her to 'suddenly' crack and reveal all. I suppose we're forgetting that Lumumba figured prominently in the early police investigation, so he had to come in somewhere. That he became of much less significance with the arrest of Guede seems to have been forgotten. Of course there has to be some moment when it all becomes too much, so I suppose it sounds better than "After we belted her around the head a few times and shouted at her continuously for hours, she confessed your honour".

You quoted this earlier:


This is Mignini in her presence whilst she 'voluntarily' gave a confession. Without her lawyer present (unless you count Mignini ).

This is total disregard to her rights. Rights that Mignini and the police should have known. The confession was thrown out of court but snuck back in again through the back door of Lumumba's slander case.

Does this not stink to high heaven?

No, it doesn't. She was being questioned as a witness, not as a suspect. Even after she confessed to being there that does not make her a suspect and they had no reason to caution and arrest her until they heard her fully as a witness. Once they are satisfied they are likely to have taken part in a crime then they will tell someone their rights and formally arrest them. She was offered a lawyer but she declined, according to the testimony of the translator.

She may have had text messages prior to the night of the murder that were incriminating which she thought she had deleted. If she thought she had deleted all her replies but they were able to show her this message then this might have caused her an emotional shock.

You do realise that she was never hit by anyone?

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

No, it doesn't. She was being questioned as a witness, not as a suspect. Even after she confessed to being there that does not make her a suspect and they had no reason to caution and arrest her until they heard her fully as a witness. Once they are satisfied they are likely to have taken part in a crime then they will tell someone their rights and formally arrest them. She was offered a lawyer but she declined, according to the testimony of the translator.

She may have had text messages prior to the night of the murder that were incriminating which she thought she had deleted. If she thought she had deleted all her replies but they were able to show her this message then this might have caused her an emotional shock.

You do realise that she was never hit by anyone?

Honestly you are talking complete garbage. The confession was thrown out because it was obtained illegally.

None of the above nonsense changes that fact.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Honestly you are talking complete garbage. The confession was thrown out because it was obtained illegally.

None of the above nonsense changes that fact.

If the confession was obtained illegally it could not have been used in the case for incriminating Patrick.

The Supreme Court ruled on this before her trial, her first confession was made while she was a witness and witness statements that are self-incriminating could not be admitted. Her second confession at 5:45 was made after she had become a suspect but as she didn't have representation it was inadmissible in either case. Her handwritten note (where she sows suspicion on Sollecito saying he had blood on his hands at his apartment) was admissable for all cases.

Means Of Escape

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Honestly you are talking complete garbage. The confession was thrown out because it was obtained illegally.

None of the above nonsense changes that fact.

No it's not
She was not formally charged until she was deemed a suspect
The police garnered enough information from their initial interview to move her from a witness to a suspect
In her naievity she refused a lawyer
The core of the content of what she said despite no lawyer present affirms that she was integral to the case and knew a lot more than she ever admitted following that first conversation.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

If the confession was obtained illegally it could not have been used in the case for incriminating Patrick.

A wonderful piece of sleight of hand that wouldn't have happened in any other jurisdiction.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The Supreme Court ruled on this before her trial, her first confession was made while she was a witness and witness statements that are self-incriminating could not be admitted. Her second confession at 5:45 was made after she had become a suspect but as she didn't have representation it was inadmissible in either case. Her handwritten note (where she sows suspicion on Sollecito saying he had blood on his hands at his apartment) was admissable for all cases.

All of them contradictory and all without the benefit of a lawyer's advice.

Whatever about a nineteen year old foreigner not knowing the languiage properly and not understanding the gravity of her situation, the police had to have known all of this. Yet they proceeded to unlawfully obtain self-incriminating statements up to and beyond the point when a prosecutor was present and a confession was being typed up. A prosecutor who is known for questioning and threatening people without due process and placing false charges against them.

Without transcripts or recording devices. All of which are normal procedures and have been for decades. This was 2007. Not the 1960s.

CMOTDibbler

Means Of Escape wrote: »

No it's not
She was not formally charged until she was deemed a suspect
The police garnered enough information from their initial interview to move her from a witness to a suspect
In her naievity she refused a lawyer
The core of the content of what she said despite no lawyer present affirms that she was integral to the case and knew a lot more than she ever admitted following that first conversation.

And they deemed all this without telling her and without giving her the benefit of a lawyer.

"Refusing a lawyer" is not an acceptable excuse for depriving somebody of their rights. It's so easy to make that statement with nothing to gainsay it.

Means Of Escape

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

And they deemed all this without telling her and without giving her the benefit of a lawyer.

"Refusing a lawyer" is not an acceptable excuse for depriving somebody of their rights. It's so easy to make that statement with nothing to gainsay it.

And a suspect refusing a lawyer is a definitive showing of innocence ?

As an intelligent person she would have realised that anything she said would be used against her .
Would she not have contacted her father to alert him to the situation and been told to seek legal representation ?
You are stating that the police shoehorned her statements into a case where she classed as a prime suspect ?
What got her into the jam she found herself in were the inconsistencies in her statements , the lies she told and their belief that she was being very frugal with the truth tegardjng her whereabouts at the time of the murder
Had she a lawyer present they would still have moved her from a witness to a suspect regardless of whether he/she instructed Knox not to answer any questions put to her during that interview.

Lingua Franca

Hi there Means Of Escape, would you mind answering these please?

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Ok, I was just wondering why you said the motive was the same as the reason that Homolka 'murdered' her sister. Since that death was actually accidental and incidental to the crime they were committing (they'd drugged and raped her before and presumably hoped to do so again) it makes no sense as an analogy. Had you compared it to the later, deliberate murders they committed I'd have got it.

...it's back in court? Do you have a link for that?

and

Lingua Franca wrote: »

He pled guilty upfront and has served his sentence. Why on earth would he go seeking a retrial?

Where are you getting your news on all these new court cases from?

Can you tell us what you know about these new court cases?

Harvey Normal

Means Of Escape wrote: »

And a suspect refusing a lawyer is a definitive showing of innocence ?

As an intelligent person she would have realised that anything she said would be used against her .
Would she not have contacted her father to alert him to the situation and been told to seek legal representation ?
You are stating that the police shoehorned her statements into a case where she classed as a prime suspect ?
What got her into the jam she found herself in were the inconsistencies in her statements , the lies she told and their belief that she was being very frugal with the truth tegardjng her whereabouts at the time of the murder
Had she a lawyer present they would still have moved her from a witness to a suspect regardless of whether he/she instructed Knox not to answer any questions put to her during that interview.

They got the confession they wanted. If a lawyer has been present they wouldn't have badgered her to that extent.

Means Of Escape

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Hi there Means Of Escape, would you mind answering these please?



and




Can you tell us what you know about these new court cases?

This is a thread resurrected from 3 years ago
Everything posted here is pure conjecture
The case is closed

LuckyLloyd

I've read lengthy back and forth discussions on other forums about this case that have raged on for years through the various checkpoints.

Neither side is listening to the other. I have always felt the 'Knox is guilty' side are intoxicated by the tabloid elements of the case, and bolstered to the point of certainty from the first guilty verdict. A lengthy and thorough legal opinion of guilt remains a strong crutch from which to argue for the rest of time. The development of evidence and final conclusion has never mattered to that side. They had their guilty verdict and they've stuck rigidly to that since then.

- an attractive young woman
- of above average means
- liberal sexually
- with Internet blogs that were indicative of that liberal attitude to sex and drugs
- and striking features

committing a brutal murder of another attractive young woman is dream land for scumbag tabloid journalists. Indeed the aforementioned Netflix documentary lays that bare.

Then you add in a conspiracy angle - i.e. the notion that the final judgement was politically motivated to avoid an awkward extradition question - and those on the guilty side are simply never going to let this go.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. A man broke into a house and committed sexual assault and murder. A stupid young girl aroused suspicion in the Italian police who convicted her in their minds and then engaged in a massive exercise of confirmation bias. Amanda Knox was guilty of being a dislikeable and feckless young person, no more. She paid way way over the odds for that.

Means Of Escape

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I've read lengthy back and forth discussions on other forums about this case that have raged on for years through the various checkpoints of this case.

Neither side is listening to the other. I have always felt the 'Knox is guilty' side are intoxicated by the tabloid elements of the case, and bolstered to the point of certainty from the first guilty verdict. A lengthy and thorough legal opinion of guilt remains a strong crutch from which to argue for the rest of time. The rest has never mattered to that side. They had their guilty verdict and they've stuck rigidly to that since then.

- an attractive young woman
- of above average means
- liberal sexually
- with Internet blogs that were indicative of that liberal attitude to sex and drugs
- and striking features

committing a brutal murder of another attractive young woman is dream land for scumbag tabloid journalists. Indeed the aforementioned Netflix documentary lays that bare.

Then you add in a conspiracy angle - i.e. the notion that the final judgement was politically motivated to avoid an awkward extradition question - and those on the guilty side are simply never going to let this go.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. A man broke into a house and committed sexual assault and murder and a stupid young girl aroused suspicion in the Italian police who then engaged in a massive exercise of confirmation bias. Amanda Knox was guilty of being a dislikeable and feckless young person. She paid way way over the odds for that.

Very valid points and can't be denied
Most do not believe that she was the individual who murdeeed Kercher and would not have deserved a 20 odd stretch
The tabloids were in a feeding frenzy to sell papers and this most certainly condemned her and her boyfriend
She did pay a very high price for her naievity and most of the blame for this was a result of ineptitude on the part of the police force as seen in the Mc Cann case
What does not sit well with people and the Kercher family is that through obfuscation and deceit on her part the true events were not forthcoming

If they had Guede would still be be behind bars .
That would have been justice for Meredith who has been forgotten in this whole sordid affair .

captbarnacles

A rapist and killer served less than 10 years in jail for his crimes. Not only did the Italian legal system punish Knox but they also punished the Kercher family.

Also, it is likely Guede will reoffend given the nature of his crimes and the escalation from petty thief to murderer and that will be on them too.

Cianmcliam

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I've read lengthy back and forth discussions on other forums about this case that have raged on for years through the various checkpoints of this case.

Neither side is listening to the other. I have always felt the 'Knox is guilty' side are intoxicated by the tabloid elements of the case, and bolstered to the point of certainty from the first guilty verdict. A lengthy and thorough legal opinion of guilt remains a strong crutch from which to argue for the rest of time. The rest has never mattered to that side. They had their guilty verdict and they've stuck rigidly to that since then.

- an attractive young woman
- of above average means
- liberal sexually
- with Internet blogs that were indicative of that liberal attitude to sex and drugs
- and striking features

committing a brutal murder of another attractive young woman is dream land for scumbag tabloid journalists. Indeed the aforementioned Netflix documentary lays that bare.

Then you add in a conspiracy angle - i.e. the notion that the final judgement was politically motivated to avoid an awkward extradition question - and those on the guilty side are simply never going to let this go.

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. A man broke into a house and committed sexual assault and murder and a stupid young girl aroused suspicion in the Italian police who then engaged in a massive exercise of confirmation bias. Amanda Knox was guilty of being a dislikeable and feckless young person. She paid way way over the odds for that.

Yes the press were all over it like a rash, that does not indicate anything about whether a person is guilty or not. Nor does the 'simplest explanation'.

The fact is there have been about 14 separate judgements on this case from the initial hearings to the appeals lodged by Guede, Sollecito and Knox. Only one has said Guede acted alone, the Hellman verdict which the Supreme Court totally savaged in response. All of the other judgements maintained all three acted together, apart from the fifth chambers of the Supreme Court that does not usually rule on murder cases. Even that judgement considers it proven that Knox was in the house on the night of the murder and Guede did not stage the burglary.

On the other hand, you have US based blogs, the largest PR firm in Seattle, Knox's parents and biased journalists who could all take advantage of the fact that the proceedings were in another language.

So yes, your point is totally proven.

Harvey Normal

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Yes the press were all over it like a rash, that does not indicate anything about whether a person is guilty or not. Nor does the 'simplest explanation'.

The fact is there have been about 14 separate judgements on this case from the initial hearings to the appeals lodged by Guede, Sollecito and Knox. Only one has said Guede acted alone, the Hellman verdict which the Supreme Court totally savaged in response. All of the other judgements maintained all three acted together, apart from the fifth chambers of the Supreme Court that does not usually rule on murder cases. Even that judgement considers it proven that Knox was in the house on the night of the murder and Guede did not stage the burglary.

On the other hand, you have US based blogs, the largest PR firm in Seattle, Knox's parents and biased journalists who could all take advantage of the fact that the proceedings were in another language.

So yes, your point is totally proven.

I don't think even the most ardent fantasist would argue that the Italian justice system covered itself in glory in any of the trials.

Nothing to do with pro or anti Americanism - I'm anti American (in terms of its foreign policy) but believe Knox to be innocent. As for biased newspapers, because the murder involved a British citizen it was the British press who led the monstering of Knox and its from them that most people who think her guilty get their information.

Means Of Escape

Sadly Guede was probably introduced to Kercher by the two as its not beyond the bounds of possibility that he provided them with the hash
I doubt that it was the first time the miscreant was in the residence

brickmauser

Means Of Escape wrote: »

No it's not
She was not formally charged until she was deemed a suspect
The police garnered enough information from their initial interview to move her from a witness to a suspect
In her naievity she refused a lawyer
The core of the content of what she said despite no lawyer present affirms that she was integral to the case and knew a lot more than she ever admitted following that first conversation.

The girl had little or no sleep was under incredible stress traumatized exhausted frightened and a naïve 20 year old with poor Italian. She had been intoxicated with dope on the night of the murder so she had a poor memory of events. Sollecito was also intoxicated on dope that night so it was easy to sow doubt in his head that she had been there all night. Once Sollecito was badgered into admitting he couldn't know for sure Knox did not leave during the night this suddenly became a "fact."
A child who is blamed in the wrong by a teacher or parent will start to believe they actually did it.
Knox was a very childish young woman so when confronted by cops screaming in her face is there any surprise she caved in and signed a confession?
The same happened with the Guilford 4 and Birmingham 6 and Maguire 7
They were badgered into admitting guilt and signed false confessions.

Lavinia

just watching this documentary, one thing is this british "journalist" who is getting an oraga*m from having "a story for front pages" (even in his own words), geez it is disgusting.

the other thing is that - not sure why - but i cannot believe a word from this A.K. person. just whatever she say sounds like a lie...

brickmauser

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Time served to date by Knox would have satisfied any manslaughter conviction anyway with good behaviour if she was complicit
It is agreed that Guede was the main perpetrator of the crime but I do not believe that both were oblivious to what transpired in that room and knew nothing about it .

On what evidence?
No evidence whatsoever puts them at the house.
None.
They weren't there.

retro:electro

brickmauser wrote: »

On what evidence?
No evidence whatsoever puts them at the house.
None.
They weren't there.

Is there evidence to prove they were at Sollectio's house on the night?

CMOTDibbler

anna080 wrote: »

Is there evidence to prove they were at Sollectio's house on the night?

There was some circumstantial evidence such as a movie downloaded, but their phones were off or out of coverage (not that that would be concrete evidence either way anyway).

The only question worth asking though, is why would they need to go back to her house? They were in the early stages of a relationship and by all accounts were besotted with each other, so it's a question that was never really addressed (apart from the obvious need to prove that they wanted to something, something, murder Kercher).

retro:electro

So really there's as little evidence to prove that they were at Sollectio's house as there is to prove they were in Amanda's house on the night, but people are adamant that they were not at Amanda's because there is no proof and they were at Sollectio's watching a movie. Hmmm.

ohnonotgmail

anna080 wrote: »

So really there's as little evidence to prove that they were at Sollectio's house as there is to prove they were in Amanda's house on the night, but people are adamant that they were not at Amanda's because there is no proof and they were at Sollectio's watching a movie. Hmmm.

If there is no proof that they were at Amandas house then there is no proof they were involved in the murder. I would have thought that is the salient point.

CMOTDibbler

anna080 wrote: »

So really there's as little evidence to prove that they were at Sollectio's house as there is to prove they were in Amanda's house on the night, but people are adamant that they were not at Amanda's because there is no proof and they were at Sollectio's watching a movie. Hmmm.

No. People are not adament about either. There's nothing to prove it either way. The test for a succesful prosecution is to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. That's been the cornerstone of criminal law for a very long time.

retro:electro

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

No. People are not adament about either. There's nothing to prove it either way. The test for a succesful prosecution is to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. That's been the cornerstone of criminal law for a very long time.

I'm not disputing what you're saying. But the same people who are disputing Amanda's presence in her home that night are placing her in the house of Sollectio when there is as little evidence to argue that she was there as there is to prove she was with Meredith.

CMOTDibbler

anna080 wrote: »

I'm not disputing what you're saying. But the same people who are disputing Amanda's presence in her home that night are placing her in the house of Sollectio when there is as little evidence to argue that she was there as there is to prove she was with Meredith.

I've just gone back a few pages and there's nobody making that suggestion definitively or otherwise.

You asked was there any evidence that she was at Sollecito's house and nobody so far has said that there was.

Not sure where you've got that from. Perhaps you could quote the post(s)?

Lingua Franca

Means Of Escape wrote: »

This is a thread resurrected from 3 years ago
Everything posted here is pure conjecture
The case is closed

Indeed, but I wasn't quoting three year old posts. You posted on the 6th of this month

Means Of Escape wrote: »

The reason why it's back in court is because there are unresolved issues in the case and that the Keecher family and many others believe that justice has not been served

It's not back in court. The case is closed. And you said on the same day

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Possible that Guede made a plea bargain for information he had and this will be used in retrial as new evidence that allows said retrial

He pled guilty and he has completed most of his sentence. He won't be seeking a retrial. The case is closed.

In a thread where people are examining evidence to try to establish facts these are odd and easily disprovable statements.

brickmauser

anna080 wrote: »

Is there evidence to prove they were at Sollectio's house on the night?

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove they were at the cottage and they killed Kercher.

They had NO evidence.

Sollecito's computer log shows the couple downloaded and watched a movie at the time of the murder.

brickmauser

anna080 wrote: »

I'm not disputing what you're saying. But the same people who are disputing Amanda's presence in her home that night are placing her in the house of Sollectio when there is as little evidence to argue that she was there as there is to prove she was with Meredith.

Once you accept that there is no evidence of Knox and Sollecito killing Kercher then what reason is there to doubt they were telling the truth. A film was downloaded and watched on their laptop that night which supports their story. The last time their phones were on was about 8 when they switched them off and the phones were not switched on til 6 the following morning. Nobody saw them outside the house where Sollecito lived.
So you must assume their story that they had dinner watched a movie smoked dope had sex took a shower together and went to bed together is true.
The presence of Geude in Kercher's bedroom is supported by a mountain of evidence.
He clearly broke in was surprised by Kercher and he sexually assaulted her and then cut her throat.
If Knox was there he presumably would have killed her too.

The prosecution would have us believe a girl whose only run in with the law previously was for hosting a loud party in Seattle was a violent psychopathic murderer? A girl with no history of violence of any kind who worked three jobs to save up to go to Italy and whose only vice was her casual attitude to sex and smoking dope?
Her only disagreement with Kercher was over house cleaning chores and leaving a skid mark after she used the toilet.
We are supposed to believe she convinced a guy she only knew 6 days to join forces with another man involved in petty crime who they had never met before to take part in the rape and murder of her room mate?
There is absolutely zero evidence that Rudy Geude knew Knox and Sollecito. She only met him twice when he briefly visited the guys who lived downstairs and a second time when he bought a drink in Le Chic where she worked as a waitress.

The entire case against Knox and Sollecito was thrown out because it is utter BS

Means Of Escape

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If there is no proof that they were at Amandas house then there is no proof they were involved in the murder. I would have thought that is the salient point.

Surely Knox must have been in Kerchers room many times prior to the murder to converse with Kercher and left hair/skin samples etc so how was there no DNA found at all after the murder ?

Means Of Escape

brickmauser wrote: »

The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove they were at the cottage and they killed Kercher.

They had NO evidence.

Sollecito's computer log shows the couple downloaded and watched a movie at the time of the murder.

He may be exceptionally clever !!
I can download a movie and head off into town .
I may never have watched it .

Sonics2k

Means Of Escape wrote: »

He may be exceptionally clever !!
I can download a movie and head off into town .
I may never have watched it .

It doesn't matter. There was no evidence there were with Meredith when she died.

The burden of proof is on the prosecutor and they had no proof. That's how the legal system works in most countries.

Cianmcliam

Means Of Escape wrote: »

Surely Knox must have been in Kerchers room many times prior to the murder to converse with Kercher and left hair/skin samples etc so how was there no DNA found at all after the murder ?

Even stranger, the room that Filomena was living in, with the fake burglary, had no DNA traces of Filomena herself even though she used it constantly. The only places they found Amanda's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood in footsteps or where she scrubbed blood off and on a cigarette butt.

This makes the Supreme Court decision to find Amanda not guilty of the murder despite being present in the house even more bizarre. It sets a very dangerous and illogical precedent that unless your DNA is found in the exact location of a crime, you didn't commit it, even if the sum of the other evidence points to that exact conclusion. If someone can live in a small room for months and yet not be detected through DNA sampling then this decision cannot stand.

CMOTDibbler

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Even stranger, the room that Filomena was living in, with the fake burglary, had no DNA traces of Filomena herself even though she used it constantly. The only places they found Amanda's DNA was mixed with Meredith's blood in footsteps or where she scrubbed blood off and on a cigarette butt.

This makes the Supreme Court decision to find Amanda not guilty of the murder despite being present in the house even more bizarre. It sets a very dangerous and illogical precedent that unless your DNA is found in the exact location of a crime, you didn't commit it, even if the sum of the other evidence points to that exact conclusion. If someone can live in a small room for months and yet not be detected through DNA sampling then this decision cannot stand.

That is an unbelievable stretch. In effect you're saying that not finding any evidence is evidence of a crime?

You find DNA by looking for it. They looked at exactly three items in Filomena's room: The window, the rock and a bloodstain. They weren't likely to find Filomena's DNA on those.

Cianmcliam

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

That is an unbelievable stretch. In effect you're saying that not finding any evidence is evidence of a crime?

You find DNA by looking for it. They looked at exactly three items in Filomena's room: The window, the rock and a bloodstain. They weren't likely to find Filomena's DNA on those.

Not at all, I'm saying if all other evidence points conclusively to guilt then having no DNA does not prove or disprove innocence. That is the basic illogical argument the court gave to exclude Amanda. It would be like you and your neighbour seeing someone throwing a rock through your window and the Police saying 'sorry, we found no DNA so nothing we can do'. If Guede left DNA and Amanda didn't then the Supreme Court said she must be found innocent of the murder. That is a crazy decision.

They also tested samples from the floor in Filomenas room and other areas of the house for DNA.

8-10

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Not at all, I'm saying if all other evidence points conclusively to guilt then having no DNA does not prove or disprove innocence. That is the basic illogical argument the court gave to exclude Amanda. It would be like you seeing someone throwing a rock through your window and the Police saying 'sorry, we found no DNA so nothing we can do'. If Guede left DNA and Amanda didn't then the Supreme Court said she must be found innocent of the murder. That is a crazy decision.

They also tested samples from the floor in Filomenas room and other areas of the house for DNA.

All other evidence does not point conclusively to guilt though.

Cianmcliam

8-10 wrote: »

All other evidence does not point conclusively to guilt though.

The court says it is proven she was there on the night of the murder, she scrubbed the victims blood off her body, her alibi was false/failed, Guede had no reason to fake the burglary, Guede could not have carried out the attack alone, Amanda walked around with Meredith's blood on her feet, she lied to the police, she knew details only a person involved with the murder or cleanup would know, she confessed to being present at the murder scene and implicated an innocent man.

They basically concluded that she was there, she took part in a cleanup and coverup but since her DNA was not found in Meredith's room they can't say for certain that she took an active part in the murder. In the US and most other countries faking a burglary to divert suspicion from yourself is pretty damning evidence.

Anything in the Nencini judgment that is not addressed at the appeal is taken as undisputed.

8-10

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The court says it is proven she was there on the night of the murder, she scrubbed the victims blood off her body, her alibi was false/failed, Guede had no reason to fake the burglary, Guede could not have carried out the attack alone, Amanda walked around with Meredith's blood on her feet, she lied to the police, she knew details only a person involved with the murder or cleanup would know, she confessed to being present at the murder scene and implicated an innocent man.

They basically concluded that she was there, she took part in a cleanup and coverup but since her DNA was not found in Meredith's room they can't say for certain that she took an active part in the murder. In the US and most other countries faking a burglary to divert suspicion from yourself is pretty damning evidence.

Anything in the Nencini judgment that is not addressed at the appeal is taken as undisputed.

What do you contend she's guilty of precisely?

Ozymandius2011

There are parallels with the Jonbenet Ramsey case in the US. Not in terms of the victims age, but in terms of the breakin theory. But especially there is a parallel with police jumping to conclusions, and being intransigently unwilling to admit they might have been wrong.

Fairly clear to me she and Solicito were innocent. Guede admitted the killing. It seems to me he implicated the others as a plea bargain.

Means Of Escape

8-10 wrote: »

What do you contend she's guilty of precisely?

Makes it more difficult to do that if the person deflects ,lies and obfuscates during the investigation something clearly a person would do to avert suspicion of them .

Sand

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The court says it is proven she was there on the night of the murder...They basically concluded that she was there, she took part in a cleanup and coverup.

Are you *still* saying this when the court judgement does *not* say that? The first time I pointed out your error I presumed an innocent if embarrassing mistake made in the reading of an admittedly horribly written document.

But here you are still lying about the judgement. I don't think its a mistake on your part anymore.

Cianmcliam

Sand wrote: »

Are you *still* saying this when the court judgement does *not* say that? The first time I pointed out your error I presumed an innocent if embarrassing mistake made in the reading of an admittedly horribly written document.

But here you are still lying about the judgement. I don't think its a mistake on your part anymore.

If you've been following the thread you would have seen this point has already been conceded, that is exactly what it says. I think you may have ben reading the first 19 pages which are all the defense arguments for the application repeated verbatim it seems. The actual judgement follows after and it says exactly that. That Amanda's presence in the house on the night of the murder is certain. If you can contradict that with quotes from the judgement section, be my guest.

Sand

Cianmcliam wrote: »

If you've been following the thread you would have seen this point has already been conceded, that is exactly what it says. I think you may have ben reading the first 19 pages which are all the defense arguments for the application repeated verbatim it seems. The actual judgement follows after and it says exactly that. That Amanda's presence in the house on the night of the murder is certain. If you can contradict that with quotes from the judgement section, be my guest.

I contradicted it by pointing out what *you* quoted from the judgement earlier was misread wilfully or otherwise by yourself. The best *you* could find to support *your* claims were entirely wrong.

Cianmcliam

Sand wrote: »

I contradicted it by pointing out what *you* quoted from the judgement earlier was misread wilfully or otherwise by yourself. The best *you* could find to support *your* claims were entirely wrong.

So, I give quotes and a link to where people can read it themselves but because you don't like what it says you are therefore right?

Here it is again, completely unaltered. I think anyone who has passed Junior Cert English understands exactly what they are saying:

"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."

The next quote is long and a little convoluted but I'm quoting it in full just to demonstrate that nothing is being taken out of context, they do consider it a fact that she was there the night of the murder:

9.4.1 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, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it. About this, the judgment of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini, ed.] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detectives still did not have the results from the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy report, nor the witnesses’ information, which was collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to. We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] produced on 11. 6. 2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declarations against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as final judgement [giudicato], [they] had themselves exactly that premise in the narrative, that is: the presence of the young American woman inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time – except obviously the other people present inside the house – could have known (quote p. 96)

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/docupl/spublic/filelibrary3/docs/motivations/2015-03-27-Motivations-Cassazione-Marasca-Bruno-annulling-murder-conviction-Knox-Sollecito-translation-TJMK-pre-final.pdf