Amanda Knox Is Innocent

[dylans]

Well perhaps you might wanna argue that with Dylans. He is convinced it's a legit break in.

I'm convinced of only one thing. That Rudy Guede committed the crime and that he did it alone. Whether he broke in or faked the break in or flew down the fucking chimney is really irrelevent. All the evidence points to him and only him as the killer.

 

[Anudder Oik]

It is considered and I think this is the most likely scenario.Although, this does make me wonder why he used the toilet next to Meredith's room, rather than the one opposite the front door, which was the closest one.

So, who staged the break in? Guede doesn't seem to have done it as dylans posts above show, there is no evidence of Guede in the break-in room. How did he manage to clean himself out of it but not elsewhere?

In the break in room there was a drop of the victim's blood mixed with Knox's DNA. I don't believe this was challenged in the appeal as they focused on the double DNA knife and the bra strap clasp DNA. That's why the verdict last monday seems so off. 10,000 pages of evidence ignored.

It seems also that in the USA not everyone gets their information from the defence's PR campaign.

A well known TV presenter has come out firing both barrels. She's apparently a big influence in the legal world.
Nancy Grace: Amanda Knox verdict was 'miscarriage of justice'

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblo...anda-knox-acquittal-a-miscarriage-of-justice/

PS, is OU a kind of spambot software that randomly generates short irrelevant phrases all over the forum? I've checked his post history and it seems to me he isn't real.

 

[Ae589]

http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblo...anda-knox-acquittal-a-miscarriage-of-justice/

"I just happen to know the facts."

Has it come to Dancing with the stars, Oik? Really?

 

[dylans]

Who cares what a vicious poisonous bitch like Nancy Grace thinks. She has zero credibility and regularly pisses on the innocent and on the very concept of presumed innocence by acting as judge jury and executioner regardless of the facts. Her aggressive interview style and presumption of guilt has even been blamed for hounding people to suicide. The NY times wrote this about her

Well, there’s always Nancy Grace.
Every night on HLN, CNN’s supposedly softer side, Ms. Grace sprays lightning bolts in all directions — at her guests, the law, and most often, the accused. Since her show began in 2005, the presumption of innocence has found a willful enemy in the former prosecutor turned broadcast judge-and-jury.

Ms. Grace, a former prosecutor in Atlanta who was reprimanded for stepping over a line more than once, obliterates lines every night on “Nancy Grace.” Working with a contingent of experts who have all the independence of a crew of trained seals, Ms. Grace races toward judgment, heedlessly ignoring nuance and evidence on her way to finding guilt.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and a frequent television talking head on legal matters, says she practices a hybrid of journalism and law that manages to be neither.
Ms. Grace knows what she knows with a great deal of certainty, but she was wrong about the now debunked rape charges against the Duke lacrosse team, she was wrong about who kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. She taped a corrosive interview in 2006 with Melinda Duckett, whose 2-year-old son had gone missing, and Ms. Duckett killed herself the next day. Ms. Grace broadcast the interview anyway.

“I think she has managed to demean both professions with her hype, rabid persona, and sensational analysis,” Professor Turley said. “Some part of the public takes her seriously, and her show erodes the respect for basic rights.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/business/media/23carr.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2

 

[Anudder Oik]

So, she has enemies. But do you think she has read the reports? By which I mean "the real ones", not the Steve Moore paid for PR campaign ones full of misinformation.

Have you read the pathologist's report about the wounds on the victim who was not, like you stated, raped or stabbed 47 times? It clearly shows how the wounds are not consistent with the lone wolf theory. Guede couldn't gag her, strangle her, and cut her throat with 2 different knives (putting one down and picking the other up) without her getting her fore arms up to defend herself. The injuries show she was held.

You can find more information here;

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

 

[dylans]

So, she has enemies. But do you think she has read the reports?

No idea but I don't think she is concerned about silly things like evidence or truth. Guilt is always assumed with Nancy Grace. It increases the viewing figures for her vile sensationalist shows. She is like Jeremy Kyle on steroids.

 

[Anudder Oik]

Ok, you've made me laugh with that comparison. Most presenters are ambitious fucks who don't care about anything but themselves.

Back to the case. FACT; Broken glass from the break in, apart from being on top of the scattered clothes, led from that room straight out the front door and not to the victim's or any other room. The drawers were unopened and things on the table, like a box which could have contained money, were untouched.

 

[dylans]

By which I mean "the real ones", not the Steve Moore paid for PR campaign ones full of misinformation.

I find it interesting that you wish to claim the court reports have more value than the independent investigations by qualified former FBI investigators. Lets think about this a moment. First the obvious objection is that the appeals court has just demonstrated that the court reports are flawed in the most dramatic way possible, by releasing two of the people convicted for the crime. So why you wish to hold up that report as the shining example of truth on the matter when it so clearly is erroneous is beyond me.

But second, as I have pointed out earlier in almost every case of miscariage of justice that I can think of, the birmingham 6, the guildford 4, the Bridgewater 4, the Maguire family etc, have relied on campaigning groups and independent investigations often working in direct conflict with the findings of the courts. Are you going to dismiss those investigations as biased because they were part of campaigns that claimed the innocence of those convicted? Are you going to dismiss Chris Mullens findings that the Greiss tests for Nitroglycerin were fatally flawed? Are you going to dismiss Gareth Peirce's contention that the police perjured themselves in the Guildford 4 case? If not why not? When they made those claims they had to battle against exactly the argument you are putting forward, that the court records were superior...er, except we now know they werent

Your argument has value if you can demonstrate either incompetence on the part of Steve Moore and others or some kind of hidden motive on his part for lying in order to come to the findings he did. If not, it just sounds like a grubby smear to me.

And you keep going on about an error I made about 20 pages ago and to which i admitted I was wrong. I was wrong to assume that 46 wounds consistant with a struggle for life" implied stab wounds. That was sloppy of me and I admit i was wrong. The fact that you keep droning on about that error is pretty desperate stuff frankly. Not least because whether Kercher died from one stab wound or a thousand is really not the issue. The issue is it is simply inconceivable that several people took part in a bloody stabbing murder without leaving a single trace of their presence at the scene. It is impossible.

(incidentally, that true justice site you link to is no less biased than the site I have listed. It begins by applauding Nancy Grace and then approvingly quotes Bill O'Reilly. So the accusation of bias applies to you as much as me)

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

All the evidence points to him and only him as the killer.

What about the forensic evidence that shows she was held down?

 

[dylans]

What about the forensic evidence that shows she was held down?

What about the total lack of forensic evidence that anyone but Guede was present at the scene? Tell me how is it possible for numerous attackers to hold down and butcher a girl without leaving a single trace of their presence? Not a flake of skin, not a single hair, not a single fibre or fingerprint or handprint or footprint or piece of DNA while miraculously leaving buckets of evidence of the presence of Rudy Guede? Its impossible

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

What about the total lack of forensic evidence that anyone but Guede was present at the scene? Tell me how is it possible for numerous attackers to hold down and butcher a girl without leaving a single trace of their presence? Not a flake of skin, not a single hair, not a single fibre or fingerprint or handprint or footprint or piece of DNA while miraculously leaving buckets of evidence of the presence of Rudy Guede? Its impossible

You misunderstand me.
There are wounds and marks on the body that could not have possibly been inflicted by just one person. This is a fact that was proven in court and still stands.
You counter that with non existent evidence?

 

[dylans]

You misunderstand me.
There are wounds and marks on the body that could not have possibly been inflicted by just one person. This is a fact that was proven in court and still stands.
You counter that with non existent evidence?

No it is not a fact. You think it is but it's not. It has not been proven that the killing must have involved more than one person at all. It is an assumption and an erroneous one, not least because there isn't a scrap of evidence of more than one person at the scene

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

No it is not a fact. You think it is but it's not. It has not been proven that the killing must have involved more than one person at all. It is an assumption and an erroneous one, not least because there isn't a scrap of evidence of more than one person at the scene

I think you need to check your 'facts'.
There is no point making any argument with you if you are just getting your facts from that website where you got the footprint picture from, there are loads of errors on there.
I am reminded of your 'facts' about the 47 stab wounds to the body.
Just check the court reports and findings. You are just wasting my time with your idiocy.

 

[dylans]

I think you need to check your 'facts'.
There is no point making any argument with you if you are just getting your facts from that website where you got the footprint picture from, there are loads of errors on there.
I am reminded of your 'facts' about the 47 stab wounds to the body.
Just check the court reports and findings. You are just wasting my time with your idiocy.

Oh get fucked you patronising cunt. If you think I am wasting your time you are free to fuck off and take your ridiculous conspiracy theories and invisible killers bollocks with you. You present as "undeniable fact" the dubious claim that a lone killer could not have carried out the murder while totally ignoring the FACT that there is not a single scrap of evidence for anyone but the man convicted of the crime at the scene and you ask me to check facts. You present an impossible scenerio and wish to patronise me? fuck off

FBI profiler john Douglas
"Based on my experience, the crime scene does not indicate the presence of three individuals in the room where Meredith was murdered, only one. What was done to the victim, the way in which the crime occurred, was not the result of three people. This can be concluded without a DNA test.

http://www.groundreport.com/World/Unarresting-the-Arrested-FBI-Profiler-John-Douglas_1/2941619

 

[dessiato]

I've read the whole of this thread, but there is one question that seems not to have been asked, unless I've missed it.

Is Knox innocent, or is there, now, insufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

By this I mean is there evidence that suggests her involvement, but nothing that proves it. I am discounting any statements that she has made. I also mean actual evidence, not speculation based on theory.

 

[dylans]

I've read the whole of this thread, but there is one question that seems not to have been asked, unless I've missed it.

Is Knox innocent, or is there, now, insufficient evidence to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

By this I mean is there evidence that suggests her involvement, but nothing that proves it. I am discounting any statements that she has made. I also mean actual evidence, not speculation based on theory.

There is not a single scrap of evidence that puts her (or indeed anyone but Rudy Guede) at the crime scene. Nothing, zero, zilch, zip, nada. There is no item of either Knox or Sollecito's that indicate they were at the scene. Nothing. There is nothing in Sollecito's apartment to indicate he was at the scene. There is no motive. There was no escape attempt. There is no psychological indications from either of their pasts that they were predisposed to violence. On the other hand ALL the evidence points to the guilt of Rudy Guede. He was there. He left his presence at the scene. He ran. He disposed of his clothes. He has a past history of breaking into houses.

 

[dessiato]

There is not a single scrap of evidence that puts her (or indeed anyone but Rudy Guede) at the crime scene. Nothing, zero, zilch, zip, nada.

Thanks, I just wondered. You made it very clear in your reply!

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

There is not a single scrap of evidence that puts her (or indeed anyone but Rudy Guede) at the crime scene. Nothing, zero, zilch, zip, nada.

Apart from the forensic evidence on the body that puts at least two people there.

 

[dessiato]

Apart from the forensic evidence on the body that puts at least two people there.

Is that Knox's DNA though?

 

[dylans]

Apart from the forensic evidence on the body that puts at least two people there.

Oh yes the forensic evidence that showed DNA, fingerprints, handprints, and footprints of someone other than Rudy Guede? That forensic evidence. Oh wait, there wasn't any. You continually assert that forensic evidence on the body "proves" more than one killer but it simply doesn't. At best this is disputable. This was the prosecution claim but not one accepted by the defence experts who stated that the wounds on her body were

fully compatible with a violent action carried out by one person".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Guede could have done it to fit the story he later presented -- a stranger came in when he was in the toilet and killed her. He didn't have to go into the room, the rock was seemingly thrown from the outside.

The rock found on the windowsill of the externally shuttered window was "seemingly thrown from the outside"?

Wow, I didn't know that experiments in teleporting had come so far!

 

[ViolentPanda]

I'm convinced of only one thing. That Rudy Guede committed the crime and that he did it alone. Whether he broke in or faked the break in or flew down the fucking chimney is really irrelevent. All the evidence points to him and only him as the killer.

I disagree that the details are irrelevant. The details are what help us construct the narrative of events.

 

[Fuchs66]

I disagree that the details are irrelevant. The details are what help us construct the narrative of events.

of course if you've already made your mind up the details just get in the way.

 

[dylans]

I disagree that the details are irrelevant. The details are what help us construct the narrative of events.

What is overwhelmingly relevant is the fact that there is not a single scrap of evidence of anyone but Guede at the crime scene. I am not sure if people understand the significance of this. It is simply impossible for someone to take part in a bloody stabbing murder in which a victims throat is cut and blood is everywhere, without leaving some trace of themselves at the scene and there is not a single trace of anyone at the scene but Guede. Nothing changes this, whether the break in was real or staged, doesn't change this simple fact. If you murder someone in such a bloody manner you are going to leave traces of yourself at the scene and you are going to be covered in blood and you are going to transfer that blood to everything you touch, just as Rudy Guede did but there is not a single trace of anyone else there

Steve Moore
Blood initially erupts from a throat wound, The killer cannot escape it, and then you cannot clean it off you. When the killer changes his clothes, he gets blood over the room he changes in. There are blood trails. You cannot just scrub it off you, your clothes, or your shoes. Blood is God's way of identifying the man with the knife.”

 

[ViolentPanda]

There is not a single scrap of evidence that puts her (or indeed anyone but Rudy Guede) at the crime scene. Nothing, zero, zilch, zip, nada. There is no item of either Knox or Sollecito's that indicate they were at the scene. Nothing. There is nothing in Sollecito's apartment to indicate he was at the scene. There is no motive. There was no escape attempt. There is no psychological indications from either of their pasts that they were predisposed to violence. On the other hand ALL the evidence points to the guilt of Rudy Guede. He was there. He left his presence at the scene. He ran. He disposed of his clothes. He has a past history of breaking into houses.

So you don't find an absolute absence of trace evidence interesting? I do, even though I've no view on the guilt or innocence of those accused, because absence, complete absence, is unusual unless a place has been sanitised. Generally, you'll have some spurious trace - a fibre tracked in from a common hallway, for example - that shows up but can be explained in terms of natural contamination.

This is one of those times I wish I could read Italian.

 

[ViolentPanda]

of course if you've already made your mind up the details just get in the way.

Quite. Pesky things, details.

 

[Anudder Oik]

About the DNA. No fewer than 5 DNA experts confirmed the DNA on the knife. Later on 2 Independent experts overturn all of this. What is going on? Also, Stefanoni conducted her investigations in the presence of defence witnesses who saw the proof appear in front of them.

A number of independent experts have already confirmed the validity of the DNA evidence at various court hearings.
There was an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. He testified at Rudy Guede’s fast track trial in October 2008 and confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.
...
Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, testified for the prosecution at the trial last year. He maintained that the crime scene had not been contaminated. He pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it does not exist.
He also stated that the results of the tests showed that the investigation had been carried out correctly because there was not even one trace of any of the forensic technicians.

The Kercher family hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, and asked her to examine the DNA evidence.
Professor Torricelli is the Director of a genetic facility at Careggi University Hospital and has been working in genetics since 1976. She testified at Knox’s and Sollecito’s trial last year and she also confirmed Dr. Stefanoni’s findings.
She told the court that the significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp meant that it was unlikely that it was left by contamination. ...

Distinguished DNA expert and former Caribinieri General Luciano Garofano analysed the DNA and forensic evidence for the early 2010 book “Darkness Descending”.
He has more than 32 years of forensics experience and is a member of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He is considered by many as Italy’s top forensics expert. In his section of the book, he explains at length why he too thinks that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of Meredith’s murder.
Although General Garofano agrees with Dr. Renato Biondo and Alberto Intini that the scientific police did a good job, he thinks the police should have separated the plastic handle from the knife and checked for blood there because it often gathers in the grooves and recesses under the blade.
...

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C348/

There is a lot more to this case than meets the eye...

 

[ViolentPanda]

What is overwhelmingly relevant is the fact that there is not a single scrap of evidence of anyone but Guede at the crime scene. I am not sure if people understand the significance of this. It is simply impossible for someone to take part in a bloody stabbing murder in which a victims throat is cut and blood is everywhere, without leaving some trace of themselves at the scene and there is not a single trace of anyone at the scene but Guede.

Which is interesting in and of itself, given that Ms. Knox had apparently been in Ms. Kercher's room prior to the murder.

Nothing changes this, whether the break in was real or staged, doesn't change this simple fact. If you murder someone in such a bloody manner you are going to leave traces of yourself at the scene and you are going to be covered in blood...

Of course you'll leave trace evidence, but "covered in blood"? Too much John Woo, my friend! You generally need to sever an artery for that to be the case. Outwith that, blood will flow, but it won't spray. Take it from someone who lost a couple of pints from a severe injury, if an artery isn't ruptured, the only person who get's "covered in blood" is you, because it pools around you.

...and you are going to transfer that blood to everything you touch, just as Rudy Guede did but there is not a single trace of anyone else there

See my prior answers in this post.

 

[dylans]

So you don't find an absolute absence of trace evidence interesting? I do, even though I've no view on the guilt or innocence of those accused, because absence, complete absence, is unusual unless a place has been sanitised. Generally, you'll have some spurious trace - a fibre tracked in from a common hallway, for example - that shows up but can be explained in terms of natural contamination.

This is one of those times I wish I could read Italian.

Except there wasn't a complete absence of trace was there. There was plenty of evidence of Rudy Guedes presence. Now to hypothesise that there was a clean up we would have to believe that the mysterious others would be so skilled that they could clean every trace of their presence completely while leaving all trace left by Rudy Guede. This is impossible. You cannot selectively clean DNA and other trace presence, leaving what you want and erasing that which you wish to hide. You either clean it all or none. Again we are back to Occams razor, what is more likely, that the killers somehow managed to take part in a murder while hiding or erasing all trace of themselves, carefully ensuring to leave the trace of one man or there is no trace because they were simply not there

 

[Anudder Oik]

There is not a single scrap of evidence that puts her (or indeed anyone but Rudy Guede) at the crime scene. Nothing, zero, zilch, zip, nada. There is no item of either Knox or Sollecito's that indicate they were at the scene. Nothing. There is nothing in Sollecito's apartment to indicate he was at the scene. There is no motive. There was no escape attempt. There is no psychological indications from either of their pasts that they were predisposed to violence. On the other hand ALL the evidence points to the guilt of Rudy Guede. He was there. He left his presence at the scene. He ran. He disposed of his clothes. He has a past history of breaking into houses.

I think most us, myself included, are predisposed to assume that nice middle class kids don't do things like murder but to say "no indications" in this case is ignoring the following.

1. Knox wrote that story about a young girl being drugged and raped, signed it Foxy Knoxy and then uploaded it to her internet site. The name Foxy Knoxy, in this instance, bearing no relation to her basketball days. (Alarm bells ringing)

2. Sollectito had a knife fetish and hung a huge Rambo type knife over his bed in the place where other young people would place a poster of an idol. He always carried a knife on him "to nock trees and tables"

Pictures here; http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?style=6&f=15&t=240&start=0