Amanda Knox Is Innocent

[dylans]

Have you?

It's in front of me now. It's a terrible translation and almost unreadable.

 

[Treacle Toes]

A transcript of a hand written statement from Knox before she was arrested:

Transcript of Amanda Knox's handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6, the day she was arrested:



This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else. I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.


I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:


On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.


Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember. I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.



However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time. In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.

One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock. After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).

The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion. Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

But the truth is, I am unsure about the truth and here's why:

1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.
2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true. I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.

Honestly, I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:

1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom. The truth is, I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered. I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.
2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

3. I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.
[illegible section]

I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:
1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.

I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.
If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

 

[ymu]

It's in front of me now. It's a terrible translation and almost unreadable.

It's not easy to read, no, but it's not unintelligible. The pathology section is reasonably clear on the number and nature of the wounds, and I did specifically ask you to check that to back up your claim of "stabbed 47 times" and use of the term "brutally raped".

Why did you say earlier that you'd read it when you haven't?

 

[Fedayn]

It's in front of me now. It's a terrible translation and almost unreadable.

I asked if you'd read all 427 pages not where it was in geographical relation to yourself. A simple yes or no will suffice. So, have you read all 427 pages?

 

[dylans]

it'snot easy to read, no, but it's not unintelligible. The pathology section is reasonably clear on the number and nature of the wounds, and I did specifically ask you to check that to back up your claim of 47 stab wounds and use of the term "brutally raped".

Why did you say earlier that you'd read it when you haven't?

Ive struggled through it as much as you have. Its in front of me right now. There is no real dispute that there was a bloody struggle for life or that she fought for her life. There is also no real dispute that she was repeatedly stabbed to death as part of a brutal sexual assault. These things are not in question. You are merely being pedantic as a way of avoiding the thrust of my very simple question . How is it possible for anyone to take part in such an assault without leaving a single trace of their presence at the scene or contaminating themselves with the crime. It isn't its impossible.

 

[dylans]

I asked if you'd read all 427 pages not where it was in geographical relation to yourself. A simple yes or no will suffice. So, have you read all 427 pages?

No, of course I haven't, but then neither have you. Now do you wish to continue this pathetic cross examination or would you like to answer my very simple question

 

[Fedayn]

No, of course I haven't, but then neither have you.

I never claimed to, that's the important differnce. You, however, made assertions which you claimed could be confirmed in the transcript you linked to. As yet you haven't been able to confirm any such thing.. That might lead one to suspect that you can't substantiate those claims and they're not in the transcript in the way you claimed. And it'd only take five minutes as you claimed previously......

 

[ymu]

FWIW Rutita, I don't think that proves anything either way. It's perfectly consistent with the kind of interrogation procedure she was under, and perfectly consistent with her panicking on hearing that there was hard evidence placing her at the scene.

 

[dylans]

I never claimed to, that's the important differnce. You, however, made assertions which you claimed could be confirmed in the transcript you linked to. As yet you haven't been able to confirm any such thing.. That might lead one to suspect that you can't substantiate those claims and they're not in the transcript in the way you claimed. And it'd only take five minutes as you claimed previously......

so I will take that as a no you are not going to attempt to answer my very simple question. Fair enough

What claims? You are not disputing that she was stabbed to death or that her murder involved sexual assault or that it was very bloody or that she fought for her life. You are not disputing that Guede presence was all over the crime scene or that no other presence was. You don't dispute any of these claims so there is no reason why you should avoid the very simple question I have asked again and again and which you have avoided again and again. How can a gang of killers take part in such a bloody murder and avoid leaving a single trace of their presence at the crime scene? Its not a trick question. Its a very simple one and one that you should seriously consider if you are really interested in the truth

 

[Treacle Toes]

FWIW Rutita, I don't think that proves anything either way. It's perfectly consistent with the kind of interrogation procedure she was under, and perfectly consistent with her panicking on hearing that there was hard evidence placing her at the scene.

FWIW...I have not suggested it proves anything either way . That wasn't my reason for posting it.

Welcome back btw.

It is an interesting statement , and given it's contents, I would not have believed/been convinced of her innocence at the time .

For example: I find myself wondering exactly how high Knox was on that night and whether or not she had only smoked ganja, as she has suggested she had.

 

[dylans]

FWIW...I have not suggested it proves anything either way . That wasn't my reason for posting it.

Welcome back btw.

It is an interesting statement , and given it's contents, I would not have believed/been convinced of her innocence at the time .

For example: I find myself wondering exactly how high Knox was on that night and whether or not she had only smoked ganja, as she has suggested she had.

It's an example of the effects of tag team interrogation techniques on a suspect when a suspect has been under non stop interrogation for 40 straight hours by a team of over a dozen officers.

ENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY

WASHINGTON 25, D. C.

OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 25 APR 1956

____________________________________________________________________



MEMORANDUM FOR: The Honorable J. Edgar Hoover


Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation

SUBJECT : Brainwashing





TECHNIQUES AND THEIR EFFECTS:



5. Induction of Fatigue. This is a well-known device for breaking will power and critical powers of judgment. Deprivation of sleep results in more intense psychological debilitation than does any other method of engendering fatigue. The communists vary their methods. "Conveyor belt" interrogation that last 50-60 hours will make almost any individual compromise, but there is danger that this will kill the victim. It is safer to conduct interrogations of 8-10 hours at night while forcing the prisoner to remain awake during the day. Additional interruptions in the remaining 2-3 hours of allotted sleep quickly reduce the most resilient individual .



Fatigue, in addition to reducing the will to resist, also produces irritation……forgetfulness, and decreased ability to maintain orderly thought processes.

 

[ymu]

Ive struggled through it as much as you have. Its in front of me right now. There is no real dispute that there was a bloody struggle for life or that she fought for her life. There is also no real dispute that she was repeatedly stabbed to death as part of a brutal sexual assault. These things are not in question. You are merely being pedantic as a way of avoiding the thrust of my very simple question . How is it possible for anyone to take part in such an assault without leaving a single trace of their presence at the scene or contaminating themselves with the crime. It isn't its impossible.

Actually, the report states that there were minimal defensive wounds and that the two major knife wounds to the neck were not consistent with a normal stabbing action. There's very little evidence that she fought back, which is one of the reasons they concluded that the killer did not act alone, although it is possible.

She was not repeatedly stabbed. There were two major knife wounds, several superficial knife wounds and a lot of bruising, with very few wounds below the neck and no clear evidence of any sexual assault.

This is why I think you're being very hypocritical, criticising the undoubtedly overactive imagination of the prosecutor whilst making exactly the same type of unevidenced claims yourself. You have the report in front of you and no excuse not to read it before you repeat your exaggerated claims. It was a horrific crime, but you're making up details that don't exist and most certainly not applying the same fair-mindedness to Guede as you have to Knox. Which annoys the fuck out of me, tbh.

 

[Treacle Toes]

She didn't write this in those circumstances dylans:

In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly. I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers.

To me this reads as if it was written the day after.

 

[ymu]

She didn't write this in those circumstances dylans:

To me this reads as if it was written the day after.

He means the 'confession' she made whilst being interrogated (as a witness, not a suspect, at that point). That letter is her retraction of what she said, and explanation of why she said it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

They are irrelevent. You want us to believe that Meredith Kercher was held down, raped and stabbed 47 times with the loss of 2 litres of blood and the perps managed to do all that without leaving a single scrap of evidence of their presence? Bollocks

She wasn't stabbed 47 times, there were 47 injuries to her itemised at the post mortem, which included everything from slight contusions and abrasions to gaping knife wounds.

If you're going to present yourself as being the holder of the true story, at least get your facts right, bubeleh!

 

[Treacle Toes]

He means the 'confession' she made whilst being interrogated (as a witness, not a suspect, at that point). That letter is her retraction of what she said, and explanation of why she said it.

Yes, I know. I suppose I am saying that even in that retraction there are things that me me think

The retraction doesn't convince me of her innocence/or that she was telling the whole truth. Which was my point.

 

[dylans]

Actually, the report states that there were minimal defensive wounds and that the two major knife wounds to the neck were not consistent with a normal stabbing action. There's very little evidence that she fought back, which is one of the reasons they concluded that the killer did not act alone, although it is possible.

She was not repeatedly stabbed. There were two major knife wounds, several superficial knife wounds and a lot of bruising, with very few wounds below the neck and no clear evidence of any sexual assault.

This is why I think you're being very hypocritical, criticising the undoubtedly overactive imagination of the prosecutor whilst making exactly the same type of unevidenced claims yourself. You have the report in front of you and no excuse not to read it before you repeat your exaggerated claims. It was a horrific crime, but you're making up details that don't exist and most certainly not applying the same fair-mindedness to Guede as you have to Knox. Which annoys the fuck out of me, tbh.

There is a very detailed and very clear description of the struggle led led to Kerchers death in the following reports by Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry and former FBI forensic investigator Steve Moore in which they very much do detail a struggle and sexual assault and a fight for life.

The volume of blood in a woman the size of Meredith is between 4 and 5 liters. Approximately 2 liters of blood loss results in death. That would indicate that at least two liters (a little over half a gallon) of blood was spilled on the hard-surfaced floor.

Nobody disputes that Meredith was fighting bravely for her life to her last breath. There were 46 wounds on her body consistent with such a struggle. With three persons wrestling and stabbing, it is impossible that contact blood transfer did not occur; on the feet, on the clothing and on the hands of any alleged perpetrator. Especially when fighting in the small confines of Meredith’s bedroom. And the footprints would occasionally overlap.

Guede stepped in the blood, Guede put his hand in the blood, Guede touched surfaces all around the room. Yet neither Amanda Knox, nor Raffaele Sollecito came in contact with any blood? This is difficult to conceive, as even if they avoided the large blood pools and spatters, it would be impossible to avoid stepping on the bloody (but sometimes latent) footprints left by Guede.

Either way this does nothing to alter my point. You are not denying that the crime scene was very bloody and chaotic. Given that it is your claim that more than one person was involved, how is it possible that only one of the perpetrators left his presence at the scene?
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

 

[Fedayn]

so I will take that as a no you are not going to attempt to answer my very simple question. Fair enough

How are there not items of evidence pointing to others being there? No forensics? Well see Anudder Oiks point.

What claims? You are not disputing that she was stabbed to death or that her murder involved sexual assault or that it was very bloody or that she fought for her life. You are not disputing that Guede presence was all over the crime scene or that no other presence was. You don't dispute any of these claims so there is no reason why you should avoid the very simple question I have asked again and again and which you have avoided again and again. How can a gang of killers take part in such a bloody murder and avoid leaving a single trace of their presence at the crime scene? Its not a trick question. Its a very simple one and one that you should seriously consider if you are really interested in the truth

You are moving yet more goalposts. You haven't proved those claims you spluttered onto the page here. This is getting even funnier. Violent Panda has already shown your rather arrogant claims up for what they are....

The only pathetic thing here is you dylans. You have made 2 very specific claims, that she was 'brutally raped' and there were '47 stab wounds'. You linked to the transcript and as yet have failed miserably to back them up from the transcript, despite offering it as proof of your claims. So a little less of your fucking arrogance about others when you can't even back up your own assertions....

As for Guede, I think he is guilty. Were there others? Well that's the big question other witnesses reported more than one. Do you dismiss them? The issue of the break on and the other footprints as mentioned by Anudder Oik are also a pointer to others being there. That you so simply dismiss the possibility is interesting.

So, again, this 'brutally raped' and '47 stab wounds' got a link for that yet?

 

[Stanley Edwards]

Very simply...

Would you remember being involved in a murder?

If police questioned you. Pretty sure no matter how stoned and drunk I was I would be very clear about which house I was in and if anyone had been killed.

To be perfectly honest, I want to spit at my screen everytime I see pictures of Knox and her 'boyfriend'. Pretty sure I'm not alone. No doubt in my mind.

She may be out of prison, but she will never be free.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

She was not repeatedly stabbed. There were two major knife wounds, several superficial knife wounds and a lot of bruising, with very few wounds below the neck and no clear evidence of any sexual assault.

That will be lots of stabbing then, but not repeatedly?

 

[ymu]

There is a very detailed and very clear description of the struggle led led to Kerchers death in the following reports by Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry and former FBI forensic investigator Steve Moore in which they very much do detail a struggle and sexual assault and a fight for life.

Either way this does nothing to alter my point. You are not denying that the crime scene was very bloody and chaotic. Given that it is your claim that more than one person was involved, how is it possible that only one of the perpetrators left his presence at the scene?
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

Why are you referring to material from 'experts' who didn't examine the body instead of reading the evidence presented in court?

You really need to go to the source before you start placing any weight on derivative materials. You have the source in front of you, but you're refusing to read it. The various pro- and anti-Knox sites have acres of these sorts of analyses on them - you can't begin to judge their value without looking at the witness testimony.

And of course she was fighting for her life. But there were very few defensive wounds, indicating that she was physically very limited in her action. If you'd just read the bloody report you'd know this.

If you'd bothered to read Guede's account, you'd know what the alternative scenario is. I'm not convinced he isn't lying, but his account is consistent with the physical evidence, as far as I can tell.

 

[dylans]

How are there not items of evidence pointing to others being there? No forensics? Well see Anudder Oiks point.

You are moving yet more goalposts. You haven't proved those claims you spluttered onto the page here. This is getting even funnier. Violent Panda has already shown your rather arrogant claims up for what they are....

The only pathetic thing here is you dylans. You have made 2 very specific claims, that she was 'brutally raped' and there were '47 stab wounds'. You linked to the transcript and as yet have failed miserably to back them up from the transcript, despite offering it as proof of your claims. So a little less of your fucking arrogance about others when you can't even back up your own assertions....

As for Guede, I think he is guilty. Were there others? Well that's the big question other witnesses reported more than one. Do you dismiss them? The issue of the break on and the other footprints as mentioned by Anudder Oik are also a pointer to others being there. That you so simply dismiss the possibility is interesting.

So, again, this 'brutally raped' and '47 stab wounds' got a link for that yet?

OK. I admit I was wrong to state that 46 wounds consistant with a struggle for life were stab wounds. OK. I was also wrong to assume that a sexual assault which led to murder necessarily involved rape. There. I am happy to admit that, not least because you are using it to hide, quite pathetically from the essence of my point and it is a very important one that you really should consider.

i wonder why it is so important to you to not answer it. How is it possible for a struggle and bloody murder involving a stabbing death which you claim involved more than one person to only leave the presence of one person at the scene? How is it possible for anyone to commit such a bloody murder and not leave a single trace of their presence. Not a single hair. Not a single fibre, not so much as a flake of skin, or a piece of dna? How is that remotely possible that only one of multiple perpetrators left his presence at the scene. and given that only the presence of one person was left at the scene how on earth can you continue to claim that more than one person was involved? The answer is bloody obvious. Only one person was involved and he has been convicted

 

[Miss Caphat]

You're right - there are infinite hypotheses about to what might have happened, and many perfectly feasible too. But we'll never know.

I really feel for the Kercher family, this must be a truly horrific experience for them. I don't think the frenzy of speculation will provide any answers

I hope it all dies down and the Kerchers get time to grieve and come to terms with it all without media intrusion...

I feel sorry for them too.
It doesn't keep me from hoping that steps are taken to keep these sort of botched investigations and corrupt, possibly delusional prosecutors from being allowed to continue, however. Because imo that's a tragedy too, a very preventable one.

 

[dylans]

why are you referring to material from 'experts' who didn't examine the body instead of reading the evidence presented in court

Given that the evidence presented in court is tainted and led to the false imprisonment of two people for 4 years the answer should be obvious.The experts in question include a former FBI forensic investigator with 25 years experience who has stated

The police and prosecutor in Perugia decided on an outcome in this case very early on. They were undaunted by evidence that repeatedly contradicted and disproved their chosen outcome. These conclusions go beyond simply stretching credibility. They lead a rational person to question one of two things: Either the competence or the motivation of the prosecutor. But you decide. Here’s a clue as to which scenario might be true: At the time of these investigations, prosecutor Mignini was fighting charges of gross misconduct which occurred during his conduct in a previous investigation, which involved illegal activities such as wiretapping innocent persons and journalists critical of them. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced to over a year in prison. He is appealing this ruling. While Mignini will most likely never spend time in jail, if his conviction is upheld, he will be removed from public office and never be allowed to serve as a prosecutor or judge again.

 

[Fedayn]

OK. I admit I was wrong to state that 46 wounds consistant with death were stab wounds. OK. I was also wrong to assume that a sexual assault which led to murder necessarily involved raped. There. I am happy to admit that, not least because you are using it to hide, quite pathetically from the essence of my point and it is a very important one that you really should consider.

in. i wonder why it is so important to you to not answer it. How is it possible for a struggle and bloody murder involving a stabbing death which you claim involved more than one person to only leave the presence of one person at the scene? How is it possible for anyone to commit such a bloody murder and not leave a single trace of their presence. Not a single hair. Not a single fibre, not so much as a flake of skin, or a piece of dna? How is that remotely possible and given that it is impossible, how on earth can you continue to claim that more than one person was involved?

No, it's simply pointing out your own 'evidence', as regards those two claims, is not actually correct. You are making claims that within minutes are completely de-bunked. Now perhaps you don't think that important but in cases like this it's fairly notable. I would be far more inclined to agree with you if there were 47 stab wounds both offensive and defensive wounds.

Why am I not convinced Guede acted alone? Simply because of the inconsistencies. Both Knox and Sollecito's lies and contradictions. Including a lie as to the whereabouts of Kercher in a statement by Sollecito. There's the cleaning up of the flat. Why would Guede clean up yet leave the room where his dna is all over the shop? This leads to the rather obvious conclusion that if Guede didn't then someone else did, but who and why?
The fact-as Anudder Oik pointed out-and you consistently ignore that there was another footprint which again doesn't fit with it being a lone killer. That a witness said they heard more than one person leaving. That the break in is not supported by physical evidence outside the flat, ie the place the murderer would have entered the flat? Notably, I would also mention, as ymu said, the lack of defensive wounds on Kerchers body, espeically hands, wrist and forearms, that one might reasonably make you think she was unable to put her hands up to defend herself as they were being held down, by someone else? As I remember there are certain 'classic' defensive injuries invariably suffered by those raising their arms to fend off/defend themselves against a kife attack. http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/defensive-wounds.html
Now where are those wounds? Do they exist? If so why have they not been mentioned. It would be a very big step imho towards lessening the likelihood of anyone else given what it would mean, but nowhere has there been the clear explanation and mention of defensive knife wounds.
No-one disputes she was fighting for her life, it's a murder trial, those details are accepted by us all. It is the inconsistencies that lead me to think Guede was not the only person invovled in this.

 

[Stanley Edwards]

As a convicted murderer can Guede not give evidence?

 

[Miss Caphat]

No, it's simply pointing out your own 'evidence', as regards those two claims, is not actually correct. You are making claims that within minutes are completely de-bunked. Now perhaps you don't think that important but in cases like this it's fairly notable. I would be far more inclined to agree with you if there were 47 stab wounds both offensive and defensive wounds.

Why am I not convinced Guede acted alone? Simply because of the inconsistencies. Both Knox and Sollecito's lies and contradictions. Including a lie as to the whereabouts of Kercher in a statement by Sollecito. There's the cleaning up of the flat. Why would Guede clean up yet leave the room where his dna is all over the shop? This leads to the rather obvious conclusion that if Guede didn't then someone else did, but who and why?
The fact-as Anudder Oik pointed out-and you consistently ignore that there was another footprint which again doesn't fit with it being a lone killer. That a witness said they heard more than one person leaving. That the break in is not supported by physical evidence outside the flat, ie the place the murderer would have entered the flat? Notably, I would also mention, as ymu said, the lack of defensive wounds on Kerchers body, espeically hands, wrist and forearms, that one might reasonably make you think she was unable to put her hands up to defend herself as they were being held down, by someone else? As I remember there are certain 'classic' defensive injuries invariably suffered by those raising their arms to fend off/defend themselves against a kife attack. http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/defensive-wounds.html
Now where are those wounds? Do they exist? If so why have they not been mentioned. It would be a very big step imho towards lessening the likelihood of anyone else given what it would mean, but nowhere has there been the clear explanation and mention of defensive knife wounds.
No-one disputes she was fighting for her life, it's a murder trial, those details are accepted by us all. It is the inconsistencies that lead me to think Guede was not the only person invovled in this.

The problem is you're using evidence and witness statements that have been thrown out for being unreliable or inconclusive, same as ymu. The clean-up, the other footprints, all of it Therefore, most of the stuff in that report pertaining to the evidence can't be referred to anymore.

 

[ymu]

Given that the evidence presented in court is tainted and led to the false imprisonment of two people for 4 years the answer should be obvious.The experts in question include a former FBI forensic investigator with 25 years experience who has stated

Where on earth do you think your experts got their evidence from if not from the court proceedings?

The fact that the court proceedings were flawed does not mean the pathology evidence was flawed and, if it was flawed, your experts' account is of no value either. Come on, this is desperate stuff.

 

[phildwyer]

For example: I find myself wondering exactly how high Knox was on that night

Why? Do you think that if she'd been "high" enough, she might have killed someone? You believe that marijuana has the potential to cause murder?

What nonsense you spout.

 

[ymu]

The problem is you're using evidence and witness statements that have been thrown out for being unreliable or inconclusive, same as ymu. The clean-up, the other footprints, all of it Therefore, most of the stuff in that report pertaining to the evidence can't be referred to anymore.

The judge's report hasn't been published yet, and won't be for some weeks. Until it has, you cannot say what evidence has been discredited or why. They have only commented specifically on the DNA evidence so far. They may explain why they disagree with the Court of Cassation (the Italian Supreme Court, which turned down Guede's final appeal) about the 'lone wolf' theory, or they might state that there were other attackers but that those attackers have not been identified. You don't know and neither does anyone else, apart from the judges and the jury and their administrative assistants.