Amanda Knox retrial begins

Cianmcliam

CdeC wrote: »

Reading about it, they found absolutely no DNA evidence that Knox was in the room when Kirchner was murdered.
Seems like she really got screwed over.

They have the guy that did it.
I don't understands under what circumstances they still believe that Knox had anything to do with it.

1. they were friends
2. No DNA evidence at all
3. She can explain all her actions
4. Bloody handprints, shoe prints and DNA swab evidence from Guerde.
5. She implicated someone else under duress.

Is there money to be had??

The break-in was staged, the police found the broken glass was actually lying on top of the stuff that had been thrown around to fake a burglary.

Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood in this room and in the hallway. Amanda's lamp, the only light in her room, was found in the locked room with Meredith's body, they had used it to clean up the scene and forgot it.
Amanda admitted to being there during the murder but blamed it on an innocent man.
They only rang the police about the 'break in' after the postal police arrived unexpectedly with Meredith's phone.
A shop owner tesitfied that he saw Knox and Sollecito buying cleaning products the following morning, they were even waiting for the store to open first thing in the morning when they claimed they were sleeping.
Sollecito made up a story about Meredith cooking in his apartment to explain Meredith's DNA on a knife in his kitchen drawer. Meredith had never been there.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Knox was not interrogated for four days without a lawyer and was most certainly not beaten.

She was only in the police station to accompany Sollecito but police got suspicious of their conflicting stories and decided to question Amanda.

Within a couple of hours she had broken down after it was suggested to her that Sollecito was not going to back up her alibi. She then told police she was there during the murder and had heard her boss killing Meredith while she cowered in the kitchen. They stopped the interview and let her rest. She then voluntarily wrote down the same story the next morning.

She let Patrick, an innocent man, sit in prison for weeks as an accused murderer unitil a man that had been with him at the time of the murder came forward.


Lovely girl.

Who was keeping Patrick Lumumba in prison? The prosecutors.

Had they anything against Lumumba except an innocuous text message and an admission squeezed out of an naive frightened young girl and boy?

Again there was zero forensic evidence in the hands of cops when they started badgering both Knox and Sollecito.

When all the evidence came in it pointed in only one direction - the overwhelming guilt of Geude whose DNA was all over the crime scene.

Knox and Sollecito were totally innocent. They would have convicted and destroyed Lumumba too if they could.

The cops and prosecutors in Perugia are total scumbags.

Cianmcliam

brickmauser wrote: »

Who was keeping Patrick Lumumba in prison? The prosecutors.

Had they anything against Lumumba except an innocuous text message and an admission squeezed out of an naive frightened young girl and boy?

Again there was zero forensic evidence in the hands of cops when they started badgering both Knox and Sollecito.

When all the evidence came in it pointed in only one direction - the overwhelming guilt of Geude whose DNA was all over the crime scene.

Knox and Sollecito were totally innocent. They would have convicted and destroyed Lumumba too if they could.

The cops and prosecutors in Perugia are total scumbags.

See how their defence starts to sound childish in the face of a few facts. Naive and frightened girl, the same one who walked into her murder trial like it was a fashion show, smiling and playing up for the cameras?

She still stands convicted of the malicious framing of Patrick for the murder. Kind of puts a ring of truth to what Guede said they shouted at him after the murder 'black man found, black man guilty'. Seems like a lot of people agree with this view of the world.

meeeeh

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Knox was not interrogated for four days without a lawyer and was most certainly not beaten.

She was only in the police station to accompany Sollecito but police got suspicious of their conflicting stories and decided to question Amanda.

Within a couple of hours she had broken down after it was suggested to her that Sollecito was not going to back up her alibi. She then told police she was there during the murder and had heard her boss killing Meredith while she cowered in the kitchen. They stopped the interview and let her rest. She then voluntarily wrote down the same story the next morning.

She let Patrick, an innocent man, sit in prison for weeks as an accused murderer unitil a man that had been with him at the time of the murder came forward.


Lovely girl.

They were nicely stoned. Presurize people enough into something when they are hazy on the detail and you will eventually get the answer you want.

Edit: actually forget about it. I am not going to argue with someone who claims overwhelming forensic evidence against someone is being racist. Besides she is smiling, she must ne guilty.

Cianmcliam

meeeeh wrote: »

They were nicely stoned. Presurize people enough into something when they are hazy on the detail and you will eventually get the answer you want.

Edit: actually forget about it. I am not going to argue with someone who claims overwhelming forensic evidence against someone is being racist. Besides she is smiling, she must ne guilty.

No-one claims Guede is innocent, we know for a fact he sexually assaulted her and almost certainly took part in her murder. For a lot of people, mainly in the US, that's all they need to know, some black guy did it and how could anyone think those lovely kids would be involved in something like this.

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The break-in was staged, the police found the broken glass was actually lying on top of the stuff that had been thrown around to fake a burglary.

That doesn't prove the burglary was staged. It proves nothing.

Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood in this room and in the hallway.

Amanda's DNA was mixed with Meredith's DNA because of the inept handling of evidence.

Observe

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/contamination2.html

Amanda's DNA was in the bathroom and in the hallway because she lived in the house.

Amanda's lamp, the only light in her room, was found in the locked room with Meredith's body, they had used it to clean up the scene and forgot it.

All the lamp in the room proves is the lamp was in the room. It proves nothing else.

Amanda admitted to being there during the murder but blamed it on an innocent man.

There is no evidence of Amanda's presence at the murder scene. She was forced to implicate Lumumba because the Italian cops mistook her text "See you later" as "evidence" that they arranged to meet later and murder Kercher.

They only rang the police about the 'break in' after the postal police arrived unexpectedly with Meredith's phone.

And?

A shop owner tesitfied that he saw Knox and Sollecito buying cleaning products the following morning, they were even waiting for the store to open first thing in the morning when they claimed they were sleeping.

There is no CCTV evidence, no evidence of a purchase and no other evidence whatsoever from any other source. The witness testimony is no credible.

Sollecito made up a story about Meredith cooking in his apartment to explain Meredith's DNA on a knife in his kitchen drawer. Meredith had never been there.
Etc. Etc. Etc.

During the 2013 appeal, Judge Alessandro Nencini ordered new testing on a sample previously taken from the knife by Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti. That test produced a negative result for Meredith, and a positive result from Amanda. Meaning that no new information was gained from the additional test. It was already known that Amanda's DNA was present due to the fact that she used the knife for cooking.

No blood was on the blade.

The knife doesn't match the wounds on Meredith.

The knife doesn't match the bloody imprint left on the bed.

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

No-one claims Guede is innocent, we know for a fact he sexually assaulted her and almost certainly took part in her murder. For a lot of people, mainly in the US, that's all they need to know, some black guy did it and how could anyone think those lovely kids would be involved in something like this.

Geude did it because his DNA was all over the crime scene.

Knox and Sollecito could not have done it because there DNA was not all over the crime scene.

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

That's not possible.

meeeeh

Cianmcliam wrote: »

No-one claims Guede is innocent, we know for a fact he sexually assaulted her and almost certainly took part in her murder. For a lot of people, mainly in the US, that's all they need to know, some black guy did it and how could anyone think those lovely kids would be involved in something like this.

Because there is no proof they were there. How did they clean? Are you seriously claiming they managed to clean their DNA out of the room and leave Guede's?

You are doing what you're accusing Americans of. Any hard evidence connecting Knox tp the scene was disputed and yet you still claim she must be guilty because she smiled. Well arrest me then because I do that all the time.

Uriel.

brickmauser wrote: »

Geude did it because his DNA was all over the crime scene.

Knox and Sollecito could not have done it because there DNA was not all over the crime scene.

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

That's not possible.

That is totally possible....

And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall
Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call
Call Alice
When she was just small

lalalalalalalala

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

See how their defence starts to sound childish in the face of a few facts. Naive and frightened girl, the same one who walked into her murder trial like it was a fashion show, smiling and playing up for the cameras?

The same girl who repeated broke down in floods of tears? Who looked frightened and terrified and completely over her head?

As I keep having to repeat. It doesn't seem to be registering with you. There was zero forensic evidence implicating Know and Sollecito in the murder.

That's why they were released if you remember?

She still stands convicted of the malicious framing of Patrick for the murder. Kind of puts a ring of truth to what Guede said they shouted at him after the murder 'black man found, black man guilty'. Seems like a lot of people agree with this view of the world.

The prosecution for the frame up of Lumumba was a parting shot by a criminally inept police and prosecutor who tried and failed to frame her for murder.

It was the cops who badgered Knox into implicating Lumumba - a convenient black man as you say.

They already had their murderer - incidentally another black man - who they tried and convicted and imprisoned.

Samaris

Uriel. wrote: »

That is totally possible....

It's -possible-, but it doesn't sound likely that they'd have succeeded so completely. It's not like they were hardened young criminals with a history of murder and cleaning up thereafter.

brickmauser

Uriel. wrote: »

That is totally possible....

And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall
Tell 'em a hookah-smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call
Call Alice
When she was just small

lalalalalalalala

???????

evolving_doors

Cianmcliam wrote: »

See how their defence starts to sound childish in the face of a few facts. Naive and frightened girl, the same one who walked into her murder trial like it was a fashion show, smiling and playing up for the cameras?

Some people actually laugh and smile when nervous. I've seen it a few times as a teacher.

Cianmcliam wrote: »

She still stands convicted of the malicious framing of Patrick for the murder.

Is there a video/audio recording of the inital interview they did with Amanda where she 'confessed'. It's common enough interrogation technique, the cops put certain scenarios and tell the accused that it's in their best interest to confess. This is why a lawyer should be present. (Same as the Avery case where the nephew confesses to whatever they told him to!).

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Kind of puts a ring of truth to what Guede said they shouted at him after the murder 'black man found, black man guilty'. Seems like a lot of people agree with this view of the world.

It 'kind of' does... but it actually doesn't, it's not as if you can 'kind of' be accused of murder, it's not a trivial matter. Guede was in the room with his DNA all over the place, he said Amanda wasn't there but then changed his story in court to say she was etc. He was a convicted burglar. He fled the country.

The guilty man was found and then found guilty. He just happened to be black.

Anyway what was her motive for supposedly 'killing' her flat-mate?

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

It's -possible-, but it doesn't sound likely that they'd have succeeded so completely. It's not like they were hardened young criminals with a history of murder and cleaning up thereafter.

It isn't possible. It is not possible to clean up a scene as blood drenched as the murder scene in Kercher's bedroom must have been and leave only the trace evidence of one person - Geude - and leave no evidence of two other participants? It does not happen in the real world. Simple as.

deco nate

brickmauser wrote: »

???????

Go ask Alice, it's a song

brickmauser

deco nate wrote: »

Go ask Alice, it's a song

I know the song.

What relevance does it have to the Knox case?

deco nate

brickmauser wrote: »

I know the song.

What relevance does it have to the Knox case?

Not a tube of glue

Cianmcliam

brickmauser wrote: »

It isn't possible. It is not possible to clean up a scene as blood drenched as the murder scene in Kercher's bedroom must have been and leave only the trace evidence of one person - Geude - and leave no evidence of two other participants? It does not happen in the real world. Simple as.

The fact is someone went back to the house to clean up the murder scene hours after the murder. The dried blood patterns showed Meredith died in one location and was later moved to another. Her clothes were then torn and cut off. The blood spotting on her top proves she was wearing it when she breathed her last breaths and someone later took it off. Sollecito's DNA was found on the bra clasp that had been cut off her and sealed in the locked room.

The floor of Meredith's room had been cleaned of footprints but Guede's runners left obvious tracks of blood in the hall. How could he have done this and for what reason? Why did he not flush the toilet to get rid of that evidence? Why would Guede take Amanda's lamp to clean the room then leave bloody footprints all through the house?

Guede had absolutely no reason to do any of this, or stage the break in. Only someone who wanted to clean away evidence of their involvement while leaving evidence of another person intact.

brickmauser

Cianmcliam wrote: »

The fact is someone went back to the house to clean up the murder scene hours after the murder.

Where is the evidence of that? There is none.

The dried blood patterns showed Meredith died in one location and was later moved to another. Her clothes were then torn and cut off. The blood spotting on her top proves she was wearing it when she breathed her last breaths and someone later took it off. Sollecito's DNA was found on the bra clasp that had been cut off her and sealed in the locked room.

The bra clasp was picked up with a glove contaminated by the forensic investigators who touched the bedroom door handle that had been touched by Sollecito thereby transferring his DNA to the clasp.
The forensic investigators were handling different swabs and sample with the same gloves thereby contaminating the crime scene.

The floor had been cleaned of footprints but Guede's runners left obvious tracks of blood in the hall. How could he have done this and for what reason?

He didn't clean the hall. Nobody cleaned the hall.

Why did he not flush the toilet to get rid of that evidence?

Why did he sexually assault and kill Kercher? Because he was an idiot?

Why would Guede take Amanda's lamp to clean the room then leave bloody footprints all through the house?

The room wasn't cleaned. It had a dead body inside it and blood all over the place. Who knows why the lamp was in Kercher's room? What does that lamp prove?

Guede had absolutely no reason to do any of this, or stage the break in.

Kercher's money and her phone were stolen. Her stolen phone was found which is why the Postal Police arrived at the house.

Only someone who wanted to clean away evidence of their involvement while leaving evidence of another person intact.

How would it be possible for two participants in a violent bloody murder to clean up any presence they were there and selectively leave the physical evidence of a third participant?

Ted111

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Only someone who wanted to clean away evidence of their involvement while leaving evidence of another person intact.

Only someone with the cunning of a fox could carry out such a scheme.

Uriel.

brickmauser wrote: »

I know the song.

What relevance does it have to the Knox case?

The lyrics are nutty. The writer was clearly high as fnuck when writing it.

There's a resemblance there to people who think it's possible to selectively clean all dna from two people at a murder scene while leaving the dna of another person perfectly intact....

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

It's -possible-, but it doesn't sound likely that they'd have succeeded so completely. It's not like they were hardened young criminals with a history of murder and cleaning up thereafter.

The whole premise of the prosecution case is so absurd. A girl who hooked up with a boy barely a week before conspired with a drifter to sexually assault and kill a girl she lived with because they had minor disagreements about boys and cleaning the toilet? Then the girl and her bf clean up the scene so only DNA from the driver is left behind?

Samaris

Uriel. wrote: »

There's a resemblance there to people who think it's possible to selectively clean all dna from two people at a murder scene while leaving the dna of another person perfectly intact....

It doesn't help that DNA is for all intents and purposes, invisible. Not to mention that they'd have to be very careful to leave -normal- DNA traces of Amanda Knox, given she lived in the apartment. It being too clean (which would be hard to compare to the DNA profile of Guede in the apartment) would also be suspicious. Hell, you'd expect to find some traces of her DNA on the body, given they lived together. That wouldn't mean a thing, it would just mean that they were in proximity and again, they lived together.

Having said that, I don't entirely know what DNA evidence was found on Guede in terms of his fingerprints on furniture or anywhere but on the body of Meredith Kercher.

It makes for an interesting thought experiment - if you live with someone, imagine for a moment that they were murdered. Where would your DNA be found? Could a case be made against you based on it?

brickmauser

Samaris wrote: »

It doesn't help that DNA is for all intents and purposes, invisible. Not to mention that they'd have to be very careful to leave -normal- DNA traces of Amanda Knox, given she lived in the apartment. It being too clean (which would be hard to compare to the DNA profile of Guede in the apartment) would also be suspicious. Hell, you'd expect to find some traces of her DNA on the body, given they lived together. That wouldn't mean a thing, it would just mean that they were in proximity and again, they lived together.

Having said that, I don't entirely know what DNA evidence was found on Guede in terms of his fingerprints on furniture or anywhere but on the body of Meredith Kercher.

It makes for an interesting thought experiment - if you live with someone, imagine for a moment that they were murdered. Where would your DNA be found? Could a case be made against you based on it?

This has all been answered already.
Geude's bloody handprint was found on the cushion underneath Ketcher's body. His DNA were found on her bra and inside her vagina. Hid bloody foot prints were found around the flat. His feces were found in the toilet.
Her phone and money were stolen.
His DNA was found in her bag.
He had a history of breaking and entering.
He fled Italy following the murder.

No physical evidence puts Knox and Solkecito at the murder scene.

The murder investigation by the Perugia police was utterly inept.

seamus

brickmauser wrote: »

The murder investigation by the Perugia police was utterly inept.

I think it seems likely there was pressure on the police to close the case quickly and make it look like, "foreign kids gone wild" in order to protect tourism interests.

Someone panicked that a break-in, rape and murder of a foreign student could be damaging to the region. But if the police could pin it on another foreign student, that would be ideal. The texts to Patrick Lumumba provided another great opportunity - blame the black immigrant.

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

When the DNA evidence came back implicating a fourth person they didn't even know was there - and most importantly had never been mentioned by any of the "suspects" - it completely screwed up their whole narrative and threatened to reveal the fact that they had made a balls of the investigation.

So they doubled-down and bulled on, using Italy's notoriously corrupt judiciary to stack the case against them, securing a conviction on pure speculation and hearsay.

Easy Rod

What was the story with the police literally kicking through a glass window of the House? The most bizarre scene in the entire documentary.

retro:electro

All I kept thinking was I feel so sorry for Meredith's family if they watched that documentary. It was so bad it was almost like a piss take. And that ruthless scumbag of a journalist who was nearly foaming at the mouth with excitement while recounting the story is just deplorable.

Cianmcliam

It's crazy to think there's actual court decisions that go into great detail about the evidence against Knox and Sollecito yet most people go by what they read on blogs and newspaper articles that were directly fed information through a large PR firm hired by the Knox family.

Reading this thread is like living in a parallel universe where everyone thinks OJ is innocent.

Then there's the mad conspiracy theory that the police and judiciary were all in on it.

Why everything you think you know about the case is wrong: http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/amanda_knox_verdict_the_real_evidence_and_why_almost_everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_case_is_wrong/

tigger123

Cianmcliam wrote: »

It's crazy to think there's actual court decisions that go into great detail about the evidence against Knox and Sollecito yet most people go by what they read on blogs and newspaper articles that were directly fed information through a large PR firm hired by the Knox family.

Reading this thread is like living in a parallel universe where everyone thinks OJ is innocent.

Then there's the mad conspiracy theory that the police and judiciary were all in on it.

Why everything you think you know about the case is wrong: http://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/amanda_knox_verdict_the_real_evidence_and_why_almost_everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_case_is_wrong/

The evidence isnt there to point to her. And there's a total lack of a motive on Amanda's part. The later starts you on a path of not believing it and former confirms it.

Cianmcliam

tigger123 wrote: »

The evidence isnt there to point to her. And there's a total lack of a motive on Amanda's part. The later starts you on a path of not believing it and former confirms it.

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.

meeeeh

Cianmcliam wrote: »

It's crazy to think there's actual court decisions that go into great detail about the evidence against Knox and Sollecito yet most people go by what they read on blogs and newspaper articles that were directly fed information through a large PR firm hired ...

Actual court decision that went into great detail was that they are innocent. Court hierarchy is there for a reason and decision in the highest court was clear. I am going with court decision, you are going with internet speculation.

tigger123

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.

Its a poor example. There was a history of violence with OJ. There's no such history of behaviour with Knox.

Cianmcliam

meeeeh wrote: »

Actual court decision that went into great detail was that they are innocent. Court hierarchy is there for a reason and decision in the highest court was clear. I am going with court decision, you are going with internet speculation.

I'm suggesting people forget the internet and the media completely. The Knox campaign had the huge advantage of presenting a misleading translation of events in Italy and a distortion of the case and legal system that bordered on xenophobia.

Just forget the internet and read the sentencing reports of Micheli and Massei and you will see there is a strong case against both. They were convicted in the first instance and that decision was later upheld, that doesn't happen when there is no evidence at all.

If you think there is simply no case at all you have been misled. I'll leave it at that.

tigger123

Cianmcliam wrote: »

I'm suggesting people forget the internet and the media completely. The Knox campaign had the huge advantage of presenting a misleading translation of events in Italy and a distortion of the case and legal system that bordered on xenophobia.

Just forget the internet and read the sentencing reports of Micheli and Massei and you will see there is a strong case against both. They were convicted in the first instance and that decision was later upheld, that doesn't happen when there is no evidence at all.

If you think there is simply no case at all you have been misled. I'll leave it at that.

So, how do you square that with the fact that were cleared of guilt in court?

Cianmcliam

tigger123 wrote: »

So, how do you square that with the fact that were cleared of guilt in court?

Guilty people are acquitted all the time, beyond reasonable doubt is an extremely high bar.

tigger123

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Guilty people are acquitted all the time, beyond reasonable doubt is an extremely high bar.

You're being selective in the decisions that were made then. They were ultimately acquitted.

You never answered the earlier point. Do you think it's reasonable for someone with no history of violence to commit a murder such as this one, with no discernible motive?

Ineedaname

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Guilty people are acquitted all the time, beyond reasonable doubt is an extremely high bar.

But they weren't found "not guilty". They were found innocent. The judge ruled that they didn't commit the crime. Reasonable doubt doesn't come into it.

Cianmcliam

Ineedaname wrote: »

But they weren't found "not guilty". They were found innocent. The judge ruled that they didn't commit the crime. Reasonable doubt doesn't come into it.

Bizarrely, they ruled that the presence of Knox in the house at the time of the murder was proven in chapter 9 of their report, they said however it was now impossible to reach a decision on reasonable doubt on her involvement in the actual killing. They also ruled that Guede could not have acted alone.

Sand

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Bizarrely, they ruled that the presence of Knox in the house at the time of the murder was proven in chapter 9 of their report, they said however it was now impossible to reach a decision on reasonable doubt on her involvement in the actual killing. They also ruled that Guede could not have acted alone.

I'm surprised that you're saying you have read the judgement when it says the exact opposite to what you claim. The judges ruling said there was absolutely no objective evidence or trace that they were involved in the murder. That, and the incompetence of the police investigation, is why the went far enough to declare them innocent of the crime rather than just not guilty.

Ironically the only place you can go where there is still a bitter belief that Knox is guilty and shes somehow a criminal mastermind is the blogs and internet forums you say to ignore. The real world has courts and they weighed the evidence and determined she was innocent. The end.

Cianmcliam

Sand wrote: »

I'm surprised that you're saying you have read the judgement when it says the exact opposite to what you claim. The judges ruling said there was absolutely no objective evidence or trace that they were involved in the murder. That, and the incompetence of the police investigation, is why the went far enough to declare them innocent of the crime rather than just not guilty.

Ironically the only place you can go where there is still a bitter belief that Knox is guilty and shes somehow a criminal mastermind is the blogs and internet forums you say to ignore. The real world has courts and they weighed the evidence and determined she was innocent. The end.

Section 9.4.1, read what it says.

["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"
The Supreme Court consider it proven that Amanda was in the house at the time of the murder and also that she washed Meredith's blood from her hands, yet the blood was confined to the locked room where the murder took place and the bloody footprints were the only other source.

"Another element against her is the mixed DNA traces, her and the victim’s one, in the “small bathroom”, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing)."

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/docupl/spublic/filelibrary2/updates/151114/2015-09-07-Motivations-Cassazione-Marasca-Bruno-Appeal-Knox-Sollecito-annulling-sentence-against-Knox-Sollecito-translation-TJMK-pre-final.pdf

They say the lack of DNA in the bedroom means they cannot convict. Gloves are obviously scarce in Italy.

Ineedaname

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Section 9.4.1, read what it says. The Supreme Court consider it proven that Amanda was in the house at the time of the murder and also that she washed Meredith's blood from her hands, yet the blood was confined to the locked room where the murder took place and the bloody footprints were the only other source.

"Another element against her is the mixed DNA traces, her and the victim’s one, in the “small bathroom”, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing)."

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/docupl/spublic/filelibrary2/updates/151114/2015-09-07-Motivations-Cassazione-Marasca-Bruno-Appeal-Knox-Sollecito-annulling-sentence-against-Knox-Sollecito-translation-TJMK-pre-final.pdf

They say the lack of DNA in the bedroom means they cannot convict. Gloves are obviously scarce in Italy.

And yet a few lines further down it says it's possible she came in contact with the blood after the crime in another room of the house.

Cianmcliam

Ineedaname wrote: »

And yet a few lines further down it says it's possible she came in contact with the blood after the crime in another room of the house.

Read the whole document, they entertain alternatives for every scenario no matter how remotely plausible (Knox carrying a knife from her house to Sollecitos, despite the fact that she never claimed to do so and Sollecito lied about how the DNA got on the knife). They determined she tried to wash the blood off herself, and her DNA proves she had to scrub it off.

Here's what they say 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.

They ruled that she was in the house at the time of the murder and may have other motives for being involved in the clean up (fear of Guede implicating her) apart from having actually been a part of the murder.

Anyone who says Knox was not involved and was proven completely innocent are misleading people. The Supreme Court say she was there and witnessed the murder.

Sand

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Section 9.4.1, read what it says.

["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"
The Supreme Court consider it proven that Amanda was in the house at the time of the murder and also that she washed Meredith's blood from her hands, yet the blood was confined to the locked room where the murder took place and the bloody footprints were the only other source.

"Another element against her is the mixed DNA traces, her and the victim’s one, in the “small bathroom”, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing)."

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/docupl/spublic/filelibrary2/updates/151114/2015-09-07-Motivations-Cassazione-Marasca-Bruno-Appeal-Knox-Sollecito-annulling-sentence-against-Knox-Sollecito-translation-TJMK-pre-final.pdf

They say the lack of DNA in the bedroom means they cannot convict. Gloves are obviously scarce in Italy.

That's some selective goggles you have on there.

One, most importantly you are misreading what they are saying. They are saying its certain she was present in the location of the murder. It does *not* say she was present in the location of the murder at the time of the murder.

Two, the judges have already spent page after page after page condemning the incompetent collection of evidence and therefore its complete unreliability, highlighting the complete lack of any evidence that Knox was involved in the muder, and highlighting the fanciful concept that Knox could have removed only her DNA whilst leaving Guedes.

Just before the section you quote they note its known and undeniable that Knox was present in the apartment (so her DNA being found there is not unusual in an of itself), and just after the section they specifically state that even if the evidence collected was reliable (which they have already decided it is not for very good reason) it still wouldn't be evidence of Knox murdering Kerchner. Several people, including Knox, were in the apartment and the bathroom before the door to Kerchners room was broken in and the body found.

The judges have considered all the evidence (or lackthereof), and they ruled she is innocent which is the only judgement that makes sense given the total lack of evidence. Its over. Its time to move on.

Cianmcliam

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.

martingriff

saw date

Sand

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.

I ask you read it because they do not say that.

Cianmcliam

We can argue over and back, it's there in black and white, let fair minded people make up their own mind. I'm out.

seamus

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.

Wow. You are the one who provided the supreme court ruling and you're blatantly ignoring the parts that don't suit your narrative and taking selective quotes to try and "prove" a different narrative.
It's right there, in the document.

You're either outright lying in an attempt to troll, or you're so far down the road and convinced that Knox is guilty that you're incapable of standing back and looking objectively at the court documents.

Section 9.4.1 is in fact saying the exact opposite of what you claim. It's saying that Knox's statements given to the police are the "proven facts" of the trial. And for some bizarre reason they attach weight to Knox's mention of a sexual element so early in the investigation.* But the fact that slander was proven against Knox on the basis of these very same statements, is also considered evidence that this "proven fact" about her being in the house at the time of the murder is unreliable.

The part about the blood is laying out plainly that Knox probably did wash blood off her hands, but considering she was in the house where a dead body lay and there was blood everywhere, it seems reasonable, nay certain that she would have gotten blood on her hands and washed it off.

*Which to me sounds ridiculous. When an attractive young woman has been murdered, 9 times out of ten there will be a sexual aspect to the death. It's hardly incriminating for an onlooker to suggest the same.

ohnonotgmail

I'm not sure how either of ye can draw anything from that document. the translation is appalling.

Cianmcliam

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not sure how either of ye can draw anything from that document. the translation is appalling.

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.