Amanda Knox retrial begins

Amazingfun

mitosis wrote: »

Ah no. You can't seriously be using amandaknox.com as a source of reliable information to refute a court decision. Nor should injusticeinperugia be considered a reliable source. Both only provide snippets of evidence - the bits it suits them to report.

I get that you really really want her to be innocent (though I don't know why) but unless you have expertise in the area and access to the court during the trial all you have is an opinion. Just like me. And the opinion is formed by the media fuelled by the convicted - not exactly unbiased.

The media campaign reminds me so much of the Madeline McCann campaign and the Diana of Wales murder theory.

What did any of that blather have to do with the video? It showed how easy it was for Guede to get in the window, he was the perfect size and in good health, no problem for him at all.

And what's with the lecture re: opinion?
When did I or anyone else here claim they had anything but?

And she is innocent, Guede is the rapist and murderer, that much is clear.
He had the history of break-ins and turd-leaving, Amanda and Raffaele had no such backstory at all. It is still the most ludicrous scenario imaginable to try and pin this on those two.
Hopefully we'll see justice done soon, and watch them both walk free. It's just a pity Guede will be getting out waaaay before he ought to.

mitosis

Amazingfun wrote: »

What did any of that blather have to do with the video? It showed how easy it was for Guede to get in the window, he was the perfect size and in good health, no problem for him at all.

And what's with the lecture re: opinion?
When did I or anyone else here claim they had anything but?

And she is innocent, Guede is the rapist and murderer, that much is clear.
He had the history of break-ins and turd-leaving, Amanda and Raffaele had no such backstory at all. It is still the most ludicrous scenario imaginable to try and pin this on those two.
Hopefully we'll see justice done soon, and watch them both walk free. It's just a pity Guede will be getting out waaaay before he ought to.

But she is not, according to a court and jury.

Can you demonstrate Guede's history of break-ins etc? Because I failed to find anything outside of blogs and Knox sites. Elsewhere at the time of Meredith's murder, Rudy Guede had no known arrest record, no criminal history,

I agree he should not be out soon, but wonder how the DNA evidence is OK to convict him but for Knox it must have been contamination.

Amazingfun

mitosis wrote: »

But she is not, according to a court and jury.
.

This amuses me to no end, you are out of touch with what happens more often than you imagine, and with what has certainly happened in this case: they got it wrong.

Take this guy for example (but there are plenty more, as I believe I've told you before):

TACOMA — A federal court jury in Tacoma has awarded $9 million to a former Vancouver police officer who was wrongfully convicted of sexually abusing his children in the 1980s and spent nearly 20 years in prison.

Clyde Ray Spencer had alleged false imprisonment and malicious prosecution in the lawsuit he filed against Clark County. The Columbian reports that jurors returned their verdict Monday.

http://www.oregonlive.com/clark-county/index.ssf/2014/02/wrongly_convicted_vancouver_co.html

Amazingfun

mitosis wrote: »

Can you demonstrate Guede's history of break-ins etc? Because I failed to find anything outside of blogs and Knox sites. Elsewhere at the time of Meredith's murder, Rudy Guede had no known arrest record, no criminal history,

I agree he should not be out soon, but wonder how the DNA evidence is OK to convict him but for Knox it must have been contamination.

Will CNN do for you? Now I am sure Nina Burleigh, given that she too thinks Amanda is innocent, will be dismissed for whatever reason :rolleyes:

I spent two years researching and writing a book about the Knox case, living in Perugia, attending the trial, interviewing every lawyer involved in the case, reviewing thousands of pages of police documents and court transcripts, interviewing forensic police, coroners, the principles of the case, their family members and associates.

The latest Italian proceeding did not involve any new evidence and, sadly, didn't shed any new light on the crime. There is still no proof that Amanda Knox was in the bedroom where someone stabbed Meredith Kercher. The DNA and fingerprint evidence is still entirely linked to a man named Rudy Guede, who is serving a 16-year jail sentence for the murder -- shortened thanks to testimony that put Amanda Knox on the crime scene.

Prosecutors' reluctance to deeply investigate Guede is understandable; they don't want to know. But Guede may be the most interesting character in the story. Born in Ivory Coast, brought to Italy at age 5, he is more Italian than most immigrants, but, like other immigrants, he is legally just a guest in the homogeneous country, not a citizen, required to report to the authorities annually (which was why his fingerprints were on file in Perugia).

In the months before the Kercher murder, Guede was broke and showing signs of mental illness, and was involved in three and possibly more home invasions, according to police reports, trial testimony and interviews with victims.

His apparent modus operandi was to break into what he thought were empty houses and make himself at home. A few weeks before the Kercher murder, someone broke into a Perugia law office through a second floor window, according to trial testimony from the lawyer who practiced there, turned up the heat, rearranged small trinkets, drank an orange soda from the refrigerator and appeared to have slept on the couch before making off with a laptop.

You can read it all here, I just selected a few pertinent paragraphs.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/31/opinion/burleigh-amanda-knox-verdict/

mitosis

Amazingfun wrote: »

Will CNN do for you? Now I am sure Nina Burleigh, given that she too thinks Amanda is innocent, will be dismissed for whatever reason :rolleyes:



You can read it all here, I just selected a few pertinent paragraphs.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/31/opinion/burleigh-amanda-knox-verdict/

In fairness that's also an opinion piece. It also fails to support its assertions. But whatever, that Rudy is guilty doesn't mean he is alone in being so.

I fail to see what a trial in Oregon has to do with anything. I could cite OJ Simpson as a case for the opposite.

Amazingfun

mitosis wrote: »

I fail to see what a trial in Oregon has to do with anything. I could cite OJ Simpson as a case for the opposite.[/B]

Pick a country and find wrongfully convicted persons. This case was in my newsfeed at that moment so I linked it.
And there was no need to cite OJ (lol), as I never based my opinion on the (current) verdict

****This just in:

Raffaele Sollecito has told Sky News it is "absurd" the only man currently behind bars for killing Meredith Kercher will be allowed to leave jail temporarily this year.

Under Italian law, Rudy Guede, the drug dealer sentenced to 16 years in prison after his DNA was found on the British student's semi-naked body, already qualifies for day release from prison.

His lawyer, Walter Biscotti, confirmed he will soon be able to work outside jail.

Rudy Guede, coming soon to murder another innocent, I'm sure. :mad:

DexyDrain

Amazingfun wrote: »

What did any of that blather have to do with the video? It showed how easy it was for Guede to get in the window, he was the perfect size and in good health, no problem for him at all.

And what's with the lecture re: opinion?
When did I or anyone else here claim they had anything but?

And she is innocent, Guede is the rapist and murderer, that much is clear.
He had the history of break-ins and turd-leaving, Amanda and Raffaele had no such backstory at all. It is still the most ludicrous scenario imaginable to try and pin this on those two.
Hopefully we'll see justice done soon, and watch them both walk free. It's just a pity Guede will be getting out waaaay before he ought to.

Who was the female that took part in the murder then? A woman's shoe print, of a size compatible with Knox, was found in blood on the pillow case in the room that had been locked after the murder. Who do you think this woman was, who just happened to have the same size shoe as Knox and was in the room during the killing?


MC = Comodi, Prosecutor
PB = Pietro Boemia Dactyloscopist with 30 years' experience. Has identified between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals using footprints.



PB:
Is this the shoe?



MC:


Yes.



PB:


It was on the pillow slip.





MC:
And so what type of investigation did you then carry out on this print?


PB:
Investigations at shoe shops and cobblers.


MC:
Very good, and what did you find?


PB:
I found, let’s say, a sort of compatibility as regards the width of the heel, also examining these soles, I was able to… it’s in any case a print from a woman’s shoe.


MC:
Woman’s?


PB:
Woman’s, yes, and then let’s say that the size could be between 36 and 38.


MC:
Can you show us the shoe that you took as a comparison? Which though does not mean that in your opinion…; I’ll do it after the question.


PB:
This is an “ASICS” size 6.5, which would be equivalent to a 37.5.



MC:
Why did you choose this specific shoe?


PB:
Because of the shape of the heel, I went looking for typologies of shoes that would have had more or less the same shape of sole and the elements that make it up.

................

MC:
What in substance had you wanted to say with this comparison? What you have said before and that therefore it is a man’s shoe?


PB:
Absolutely not.


MC:
And why absolutely not?


PB:
Because the heel is not wide enough in short, let’s say that male footwear is at least, let’s say, 6 centimetres wide in short.


http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Pietro_Boemia%27s_Testimony_%28English%29

Amazingfun

who knows? It could be a mistake, it could be someone else's, it could be that psycho/weirdo Guede stuck a shoe on his hand played "let's make prints". It certainly doesn't mean she killed her, not by a long shot.

DexyDrain

Amazingfun wrote: »

who knows? It could be a mistake, it could be someone else's, it could be that psycho/weirdo Guede stuck a shoe on his hand played "let's make prints". It certainly doesn't mean she killed her, not by a long shot.

It proves it was not a lone wolf killing.

Each piece of evidence does not on its own prove guilt, when they all add together however they leave very little scope for doubt.

Amazingfun

JUDGE WHO SENTENCED KNOX, SOLLECITO UNDER FIRE FOR REMARKS

One thing the trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have always lacked is a verifiable motive for the murder of Knox's British roommate. So police and prosecutors have thrown handfuls of motives against various courtroom walls in the hopes that one sticks. It has become a prosecutor's user manual for creative but baseless arguments. So the past motives for the crime are: it was a sex-game gone bad; it was a ritual killing; it was a robbery; it was mean girls; it was because Amanda Knox is a "she-devil."

Quite unexpectedly, Judge Nencini has added yet another motive: a boys night out. Over the course of 30 meetings, Judge Nencini said that he and the jury had developed "a line of reasoning." Their "reasoning" is that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito "had nothing to do" the night of November 1, 2007 in Perugia. And the idea to kill Meredith Kercher, who was stabbed multiple times, "was born in an evening with the guys" according to Nencini. The Judge did tell the reporters that he was "aware" that this was "most controversial." Nencini also conceded he has no idea what actually happened the night Meredith Kercher was killed.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/italian-judge-who-sentenced-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito-under-fire-for-remarks/


Funny thing is, I've spent more time reading through that site linked by Dexy and others, and I am beginning to see how the American based media has indeed left out a lot of details, especially the blood evidence, etc, implicating both Knox and Sollecito.
I am not as sure as I was at all now about their innocence, but that doesn't take away from the ongoing clown show this (these) trial(s) have been.

Emilyjane14

How can two innocent people be convicted of murder twice on the same crime by different judges?

If Knox is not extradited, would Sollecito avoid jail too?

Is it very likely that the Supreme Court will clear them?

It has to be one of the most confusing, complicated cases ever. It is so hard to see what are the actual facts and what is completely untrue.


It is extremely difficult to know whether they are innocent or guilty


It must be so awful for people who are innocent and end up serving life sentences. Things could not be worse.

Amazingfun

Knifeman: Rudy Hermann Guede


He is the only one currently behind bars for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher – but jail is turning into an education for knifeman Rudy Guede.

The 27-year-old has secretly been given permission to leave his cell on the sex offenders’ wing of a top security Italian jail – so he can pursue his studies for a history degree.

But the fact that he is now able to enjoy day release to visit his tutor in a nearby town has provoked outrage.

One friend of Meredith’s family said: “Rudy Guede being allowed out of prison to study like this is a sick joke.

"Poor Meredith was in Perugia to study at university and this man was convicted of killing her.

“She is dead and here he is now studying history and could even go to the same university.”

Last month American Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were re-convicted of the murder of 21-year-old Meredith who was knifed to death in October 2007.

Guede was tried separately in 2008 and received a 30-year sentence, later reduced to 16 years on appeal.

His DNA was found on Meredith’s body.

Guede’s lawyer Walter Biscotti confirmed that the killer was entitled to partial freedom.

Asked whether he was aware of the furious reaction to the news, he shrugged: “If the English and Meredith’s family are upset about this I don’t know what to say… it’s the law.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/rudy-guede-meredith-kercher-killer-3132708#ixzz2t4Ijr8b7
Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook

Holsten

So what? The man shouldn't able to get an education?

sawdoubters

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page

Amazingfun

Holsten wrote: »

So what? The man shouldn't able to get an education?

No actually, I'd rather he be executed.

Oh well, we can all dream.

Paully D

Any catch the BBC Three documentary just now on this subject?

Also, if anyone is looking for an impartial view I couldn't recommend the book 'Death in Perugia' by John Follain highly enough. A very enlightening read.

Merkin

Paully D wrote: »

Any catch the BBC Three documentary just now on this subject?

Also, if anyone is looking for an impartial view I couldn't recommend the book 'Death in Perugia' by John Follain highly enough. A very enlightening read.

Have recorded it and have the book upstairs on my to read pile. The subject fascinates me.

bogwalrus

Yeah just watched BBC doc. I think the blood footprints are pretty strong evidence Amanda and sollecito did the murder or took part in some way. The other DNA evidence like bra clasp and the knife just add up to them being some way involved that night. I think any judge that looks at the whole evidence would have to link them in some way to the night.

omega666

Hmm, I guess nobody except the three in question knows what really happened. I think knox and the ex boyfriend Def are hiding something. Whether they actually killed her or not they seem to know more than they are letting on.

.jacksparrow.

Creeps me out tbh.

Paully D

My own opinion based on the evidence presented is that everything points to Amanda, Raffaelle and Rudy being in the house on the night of the murder, likely also in Meredith's room.

Rudy would have been offered a plea-deal to confess everything when he was arrested, but all he has said is that he believes Amanda and Raffaelle did it and never really anything more concrete or anything (as far as I know) that can be used in court. That indicates to me that he had a quite significant role to play, more than he would be willing to let on.

The poorly staged "break in", Amanda and Raffaelle's subsequent behaviour, the changing statements, and Amanda's attempts to get Patrick Lumumba convicted show to me that they at the very least know what happened and are covering it up.

We'll probably never know what really happened, hopefully for Meredith's family's sake they someday get the truth, but based on the evidence if I had to make a call I would personally find all three guilty. Some sort of sexual attack gone wrong seems likely given the evidence of bruising on Meredith's body.

Merkin wrote: »

Have recorded it and have the book upstairs on my to read pile. The subject fascinates me.

It's an extremely interesting read. I flew through it over a couple of days. It's widely recognised as being the best, most impartial read on the subject.

Amazingfun

Rudy would have been offered a plea-deal to confess everything when he was arrested, but all he has said is that he believes Amanda and Raffaelle did it and never really anything more concrete or anything (as far as I know) that can be used in court. That indicates to me that he had a quite significant role to play, more than he would be willing to let on.

Oh give me a break. He did it, and why you extend such generosity to him in believing his BS story is a mystery!

bogwalrus

Amazingfun wrote: »

Oh give me a break. He did it, and why you extend such generosity to him in believing his BS story is a mystery!

I think you mis read that posters point. He/she is saying he did kill her but also that the other two were involved as the evidence seems to suggest.

suicide_circus

deffo guilty

Amazingfun

bogwalrus wrote: »

I think you mis read that posters point. He/she is saying he did kill her but also that the other two were involved as the evidence seems to suggest.

Yes I did, I thought he said Guede had an INsignificant role to play, but read it back now and he said significant, *sorry*

Femme_Fatale

I don't know how anyone could decide any of them are "definitely" guilty. It could be your opinion fair enough, but opinion is not fact. No outsiders have the full facts as it's not possible.

Amazingfun

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I don't know how anyone could decide any of them are "definitely" guilty. It could be your opinion fair enough, but opinion is not fact. No outsiders have the full facts as it's not possible.

Yeah well, I am sure Rudy Guede will be happy to have your support when he gets out and about soon :rolleyes:

Femme_Fatale

Amazingfun wrote: »

Yeah well, I am sure Rudy Guede will be happy to have your support when he gets out and about soon :rolleyes:

Nnnnnnnot seeing any "support" from me for him; just benefit of the doubt as I don't have the full facts (neither do you). Same for the other two.
I just said opinion/guessing from outsiders isn't fact, which it isn't. Don't get upset and rolleyed.

Femme_Fatale

suicide_circus wrote: »

deffo guilty

Who?

Amazingfun

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Nnnnnnnot seeing any "support" from me for him; just benefit of the doubt as I don't have the full facts (neither do you). Same for the other two.
I just said opinion/guessing from outsiders isn't fact, which it isn't. Don't get upset and rolleyed.

There is no doubt about Guede's guilt.

And I shall eyeroll to my heart's content where "benefit of the doubt" and "Rudy Guede" appear together in a sentence, no "upset" required, lol.

Femme_Fatale

Why/how is there no doubt as to his guilt? How can you possibly know this? You may firmly believe it, as is your right, but it still doesn't mean there is no doubt as to his guilt.

It's strange that you'd get so angry over someone simply questioning you. What's wrong with someone giving him and Knox and her ex the benefit of the doubt, while at the same time considering they could also be guilty?

Amazingfun

Your *anger/upset-meter* appears to be in overdrive since (again) I am neither.
I suspect this happens when people don't agree with you

Femme_Fatale

No, you're the one getting angry/upset over someone merely questioning your assertion that Guede is definitely guilty (it's called discussion - this is a discussion board. Don't want people to debate with you? Don't post).

But anyway, quit talking shyte and tell us how there's "no doubt" as to Guede's guilt. Wait... I got it... you were there?

Amazingfun

No, I am not "angry and upset" and your repeating it endlessly doesn't make it any truer, lol. Knock yerself out though!

Femme_Fatale

You don't react well to people simply questioning your unsupported assertion though - on a discussion/debating board. That's... weird.

Amazingfun wrote: »

No, I am not "angry and upset" and your repeating it endlessly doesn't make it any truer, lol. Knock yerself out though!

Aw... no explanation as to why he alone is definitely guilty and Knox/Sollecito aren't. Was dying to know.

Amazingfun

Have a read through the thread, I've commented plenty (if you can find the time away from your projecting "anger/upset" issues and the like, that is)

Femme_Fatale

Amazingfun wrote: »

if you can find the time away from your projecting "anger/upset" issues and the like, that is)

You must try not to make stuff up simply because you don't like being questioned on a discussion forum. You (not I) are the one who cannot handle being questioned, and if you were to get hostile and inflammatory and spiteful, 'tis not very christian at all at all.
You don't know that he's definitely guilty, end of. You can believe it all you like, but it doesn't mean it's a fact.
It's pretty simple really. I know you don't like it being pointed out, but there's nothing wrong with it being pointed out at all no matter how much you goad. "lol ".

jane82

Just watched that thing. I think they are all involved some way.
Whats all the slut talk about knox? Was she not in a relationship with yer man?

Amazingfun

Last edited by Femme_Fatale; Today at 01:08

:pac:

Banned for baiting

Amazingfun

jane82 wrote: »

Just watched that thing. I think they are all involved some way.
Whats all the slut talk about knox? Was she not in a relationship with yer man?

It's the same old double standard, if a man had the same sexual escapades as Knox had he'd be said to be "one of the boys/ boys being boys", but she is deemed a "slut".

Merkin

Just watched it now. It's such a compelling case, the Italian prosecution really screwed up on so many levels when collating evidence.

There were definitely a few people involved it would seem. I never knew Kutcher was trained in karate and yet she had few defence wounds which would suggest that she was overpowered by a number of people.

It seems we'll probably never know but I'd be amazed if Knox and yer man weren't involved in it all. I'm going to start on the book immediately!

suicide_circus

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Who?

Amanda Knox and the bf

Muise...

Merkin wrote: »

Just watched it now. It's such a compelling case, the Italian prosecution really screwed up on so many levels when collating evidence.

There were definitely a few people involved it would seem. I never knew Kutcher was trained in karate and yet she had few defence wounds which would suggest that she was overpowered by a number of people.

It seems we'll probably never know but I'd be amazed if Knox and yer man weren't involved in it all. I'm going to start on the book immediately!

It's a compelling case alright, but more in terms of how easily manipulated mass media can be. Most of the comment I've read in newspapers is ideologically driven - i.e. a feminist attack on the media portrayal of Knox which presumes she's innocent and ignores the female victim, or a dismissal of the Italian justice system as corrupt and primitive because you know, damned Catholic wops. There's been very little broadcast about either the evidence or of Italy's 3-step system.

Paddy Cow

Merkin wrote: »

Just watched it now. It's such a compelling case, the Italian prosecution really screwed up on so many levels when collating evidence.

There were definitely a few people involved it would seem. I never knew Kutcher was trained in karate and yet she had few defence wounds which would suggest that she was overpowered by a number of people.

It seems we'll probably never know but I'd be amazed if Knox and yer man weren't involved in it all. I'm going to start on the book immediately!

I wouldn't read too much into that. Learning karate doesn't make you Jackie Chan. You don't learn to beat the crap out of assailants. I do karate but it doesn't mean I would be able to defend myself against a bigger, athletic man. One of the things we do in practice is kicks and punches in pairs. One person holds the the pad and the other person hits it. When a lad is holding the pad, I can kick or punch it as hard as possible and they can take it. When I'm holding the pad, the lad has to hold back or they can hurt me. One time one of the lads got a bit carried away and really gave it a whack, sent me flying and knocked the wind out of me. He wasn't even hitting it full force!

When Katie Taylor won her medal, a popular debate was whether she would be able to take on a man in an alley fight. The general consensus was that while she could hold her own in a ring, a fight is a different matter and all the training in the world wouldn't guarantee that she could protect herself against a bigger, stronger man when there are no rules or referee.

I can accept that inspite of her karate training, it would be relatively easy for a bigger, stronger man to overpower her, especially if she was caught unawares. In a situation like that she could have gone into shock and forgot all her training. It's easy to say she knows karate so can defend herself but even in a practice environment, where there is no danger, I can't always remember the right holds and grabs I'm supposed to use to disarm someone. In a life and death situation, it would be very hard to keep a level head against someone stronger.

Femme_Fatale

I think there's grounds to believe Knox isn't guilty, but also grounds to believe she is. Ditto the two men.
Quite a mess of an investigation it seems.

In my opinion (and it's only an opinion, an outsider cannot just state as fact that someone whom they're suspicious of "is" guilty - I'm surprised that's tolerated here; particularly when a blatant agenda is being pushed and aggressive goading is resorted to), Sollecito seems the most suspect.

What does seem certain though is that they were all involved to some extent.

Merkin

How come Femme F?

Femme_Fatale

Merkin wrote: »

How come Femme F?

The bra clasp that was studied by that independent forensics expert.

The way Sollecito appears not to give a sh1t.

Merkin

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The bra clasp that was studied by that independent forensics expert.

The way Sollecito appears not to give a sh1t.

It's a tall order to explain away the bra clasp although it was reiterated that because it had lain undiscovered for 47 days it was contaminated which I don't really get, there's no reasonable explanation as to why his DNA would be on the victims bra clasp, if it was there it was there.

His unashamed smirking during some of the legal proceedings was pretty bloody disconserting as well

Aidric

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Quite a mess of an investigation it seems.

It all boils down to this essentially. A botched investigation by the Italian police left it open to appeal after appeal.

I have no idea whether she is guilty or not. The amount of conjecture around this case is staggering.

Femme_Fatale

Merkin wrote: »

It's a tall order to explain away the bra clasp although it was reiterated that because it had lain undiscovered for 47 days it was contaminated which I don't really get, there's no reasonable explanation as to why his DNA would be on the victims bra clasp, if it was there it was there.

That's the thing. I'm no forensics expert (There! Bet that shocked ya :pac:) but if something is contaminated after 47 days, wouldn't it be contaminated with other stuff besides the DNA of a person who hasn't been next or near it for most of that 47 days?