Amanda Knox Is Innocent

[dylans]

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.

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

Oh please, the knife is the single most incompetent part of this entire case. So the cops turn up and find a murder by stabbing. So what do they do. Do they carefully collect every single knife or stabbing instrument, scissors, letter openers, etc in the house, carefully bag them and then run a dna test on all of them to find the weapon.
NO
They leave all the knives in the house, cross the road, go to Sollecito's apartment, take one random kitchen knife because their "Intuition tells them its the right one. The only knife they take. and test that one, only that one and then find Amanda's DNA on the handle and claim Meredith's dna is on the blade. Wow, what incredible luck. Just think, of all the knives they don't bother to even take they miraculously find that the one random knife they do take is the murder weapon. Incredible. Except of course it was bollocks. The knife had no blood on it. The positive for dna was so infinitismally small as to be conveniently too small for retesting and then we find the knife didn't even match the wounds.

Which of course is why the forensic evidence around the knife is one of the key reasons the case was thrown out by the appeal court.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Is that Knox's DNA though?

No.
If there was there might have been a conviction. Anyway whos to say that knox couldn't have touched her flatmate?

It's simply the fact that the forensic evidence shows that she was held down as she was raped and cut. It could not have been a one man job and the marks show it wasn't.

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

go to Sollecito's apartment, take one random kitchen knife because their "Intuition tells them its the right one. The only knife they take. .

Yes the only knife that could have inflicted such wounds.
Don't forget that Sollecito also said he had cut Meredith with that knife by mistake at a dinner party and that's why traces of DNA were found on it.

 

[ViolentPanda]

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.

Who says the trace evidence of Guede's presence was "all" left untouched? You're reaching.

This is impossible. You cannot selectively clean DNA and other trace presence, leaving what you want and erasing that which you wish to hide.

Well, while what you say is true of DNA, it's not true of all trace evidence, is it?

You either clean it all or none.

See above.

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

The scenario you present is obviously more likely.

That doesn't, however, mean it's an accurate representation, unless you're a bonehead, though, it merely makes it a strong possibility with a strong probability.

I'm playing devils' advocate here. We seem to have two sets of views that are almost polar opposites, two sides where people appear to have preconceived positions from which they're unwilling to budge, some informed, others less so (yes, I'm talking about the couple of posters who appear to have bought their "arguments" wholesale from US media coverage).

 

[phildwyer]

Right, they were keen on witchcraft. They didn't burn witches, did they?

No, more's the pity.

 

[HumanFrailty]

Yes the only knife that could have inflicted such wounds.
Don't forget that Sollecito also said he had cut Meredith with that knife by mistake at a dinner party and that's why traces of DNA were found on it.

It's irrelevant what Sollecito said. The police bullied him until he made some sort of admission.

No.
If there was there might have been a conviction. Anyway whos to say that knox couldn't have touched her flatmate?

It's simply the fact that the forensic evidence shows that she was held down as she was raped and cut. It could not have been a one man job and the marks show it wasn't.

What forensic evidence? Please lay out how the forensic evidence suggests that she was held down..

 

[Miss Caphat]

Yes the only knife that could have inflicted such wounds.
Don't forget that Sollecito also said he had cut Meredith with that knife by mistake at a dinner party and that's why traces of DNA were found on it.

The knife has been found to be too large to have inflicted the wounds.

 

[Fedayn]

What forensic evidence? Please lay out how the forensic evidence suggests that she was held down..

It's not what there is but what there isn't. There seems to be an absence of any mention of defensive wiounds that are the result of the victim defending/tryinjg to defend themselves from knife attack. Most notably well established forensic evidence of wounds on hands, forearms and wrists inflicted as a result of the victim putting their hands up to defend themselves from the knife.

 

[HumanFrailty]

It's not what there is but what there isn't. There seems to be an absence of any mention of defensive wiounds that are the result of the victim defending/tryinjg to defend themselves from knife attack. Most notably well established forensic evidence of wounds on hands, forearms and wrists inflicted as a result of the victim putting their hands up to defend themselves from the knife.

That would only mean she was subdued prior to being stabbed.

 

[Fedayn]

That would only mean she was subdued prior to being stabbed.

How? Where is your evidence?

 

[HumanFrailty]

How? Where is your evidence?

Well, I looked it up and she did have defensive wounds.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15125680

So there goes the two people theory.

 

[HumanFrailty]

Prosecutor Mignini also again stressed that he believed Knox to be the prime suspect because ''the body of Meredith Kercher was covered by a duvet and only a woman would want to cover another naked woman's body.''

LOL, Mignini.. What a..

 

[Fedayn]

Well, I looked it up and she did have defensive wounds.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15125680

So there goes the two people theory.

Never said that in the path report but seems fair enough to me.

 

[Fedayn]

Prosecutor Mignini also again stressed that he believed Knox to be the prime suspect because ''the body of Meredith Kercher was covered by a duvet and only a woman would want to cover another naked woman's body.''

LOL, Mignini.. What a..

He more than anyone-if they are guilty-bears a lot of responsibility for their acquittal his appalling behaviour over the piece.

 

[Miss Caphat]

I'm playing devils' advocate here. We seem to have two sets of views that are almost polar opposites, two sides where people appear to have preconceived positions from which they're unwilling to budge, some informed, others less so (yes, I'm talking about the couple of posters who appear to have bought their "arguments" wholesale from US media coverage).

that's totally unfair and probably does not even justify a response.
but I'll say on my part that
a) I don't have t.v. so, was not influenced by that whatsoever
b) when the case first came out, I remember my interest went as far as thinking "hmm, that sounds like an odd situation." and not much else.
c) I have only recently begun looking into this, which is probably the reason why I ended up believing the not guilty verdict more than the guilty one, because the "newer" news showed up first in my searches and it wasn't clouded with an earlier preconceived notion of K&S's guilt.
d) the sites I have read have been pretty equally US and UK based.
e) I have no stake in assuming someone is innocent just because they are American, that is completely stupid.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I'm playing devils' advocate here. We seem to have two sets of views that are almost polar opposites, two sides where people appear to have preconceived positions from which they're unwilling to budge, some informed, others less so (yes, I'm talking about the couple of posters who appear to have bought their "arguments" wholesale from US media coverage).

You know I really have no opinion of her guilt or innocence, but I can't let the idea that US media coverage is biased in her favor go without comment. In fact, I couldn't give a crap if she is or isn't guilty. It's already old news.

Most of my news of this has come from British media and I recognize a hack job when I see it. Seriously, have you seen the photographs of Knox that appeared in your media? They're always taken a bit sideways, showing some kind of sly expression. That is in itself is inflamatory. If the US media is biased in this case, so is the British media.

 

[dylans]

He more than anyone-if they are guilty-bears a lot of responsibility for their acquittal his appalling behaviour over the piece.

Sorry but your reasoning is totally twisted. He's not responsible for the acquittal of two guilty people, he is responsible for the four year false imprisonment of two innocent people in furtherance of his absurd conspiracy theories. There is not a shred of evidence linking the couple to the murders. Not a shred. Blaming Mignini for the collapse of the prosecution case is like blaming the police who perjured themselves in the Guildford bombing case for the release of the Guildford 4. It is not the collapse of the case or the release of those convicted that is appalling, it is the fact that the false conviction occurred at all that is the tragedy

 

[ViolentPanda]

that's totally unfair and probably does not even justify a response.

Why do you think I'm talking about you?
You're hardly the only person who posted on this thread, and given that you can access the US media from anywhere in the world, why would you assume I was talking about an American?

 

[Fedayn]

Sorry but your reasoning is totally twisted. He's not responsible for the acquittal of two guilty people, he is responsible for the four year false imprisonment of two innocent people in furtherance of his absurd conspiracy theories.

You having an even more stupid day that usual? Work it out. His behaviour has been appalling, what he's allowed has been appalling... As such i'm not surprised both were acquitted....

 

[ViolentPanda]

You know I really have no opinion of her guilt or innocence, but I can't let the idea that US media coverage is biased in her favor go without comment. In fact, I couldn't give a crap if she is or isn't guilty. It's already old news.

Most of my news of this has come from British media and I recognize a hack job when I see it. Seriously, have you seen the photographs of Knox that appeared in your media? They're always taken a bit sideways, showing some kind of sly expression. That is in itself is inflamatory. If the US media is biased in this case, so is the British media.

I haven't said they aren't. I think the whole "Foxy Knoxy" schtick by the British press was disgusting, just as the reductive "American bad, black man bad, Italian man bad, British girl good" rubbish that was printed was, and the"won't someone think of the victims' parents" piousness currently being spouted by the UK media is.

 

[dylans]

You having an even more stupid day that usual? Work it out. His behaviour has been appalling, what he's allowed has been appalling... As such i'm not surprised both were acquitted....

but you can't quite bring yourself to admit what is increasingly obvious can you. That they are innocent and that you bought half of his bullshit. Mug

 

[ViolentPanda]

Well, I looked it up and she did have defensive wounds.

http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15125680

So there goes the two people theory.

The prosecutor claims so, anyway.

Then again, the man believes in witches and devil worship, so...

 

[ViolentPanda]

Never said that in the path report but seems fair enough to me.

Personally I'd trust the path report over the prosecutor. A pathologist is going to be far more used to quantifying what is or isn't a defence wound than a prosecutor.

 

[Fedayn]

but you can't quite bring yourself to admit what is increasingly obvious can you. That they are innocent and that you bought half of his bullshit. Mug

No, i'm not l like you who claims to know 100% she is innocent... No doubt you'll tell us a story about one of your travels somewhere that proves it. There are inconsistencies, you just ignore them and go on a hissy fit scweaming like Vioplet Elizabeth Bott beacuse not everyone agwees with you....

 

[dylans]

No, i'm not l like you who claims to know 100% she is innocent... No doubt you'll tell us a story about one of your travels somewhere that proves it. There are inconsistencies, you just ignore them and go on a hissy fit scweaming like Vioplet Elizabeth Bott beacuse not everyone agwees with you....

good post. Your best yet. I was in Iran once and .......

 

[ViolentPanda]

Prosecutor Mignini also again stressed that he believed Knox to be the prime suspect because ''the body of Meredith Kercher was covered by a duvet and only a woman would want to cover another naked woman's body.''

LOL, Mignini.. What a..

From a psychological perspective, it is more likely to have been a woman covering her than a man, but likelihood isn't quite the same as fact.

 

[Fedayn]

good post. Your best yet. I was in Iran once and .......

A genuine lol amidst the arguments

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry but your reasoning is totally twisted. He's not responsible for the acquittal of two guilty people, he is responsible for the four year false imprisonment of two innocent people in furtherance of his absurd conspiracy theories. There is not a shred of evidence linking the couple to the murders. Not a shred. Blaming Mignini for the collapse of the prosecution case is like blaming the police who perjured themselves in the Guildford bombing case for the release of the Guildford 4. It is not the collapse of the case or the release of those convicted that is appalling, it is the fact that the false conviction occurred at all that is the tragedy

You're so very certain on the matter of guilt or innocence, and yet you have access to no more data than anyone else. Perhaps it's not just the prosecutor operating on the basis of an odd belief system?

You don't know whether the convictions were false. You can't, you're simply weighing the evidence and then forming an opinion. To claim that you're right is an act of belief, not one born of rational appraisal, which would force you to admit that you don't know what happened and that there is a possibility that things aren't as you state.

Really, shouldn't you know better at your age?

 

[Treacle Toes]

that's totally unfair and probably does not even justify a response.
<SNIP>....
e) I have no stake in assuming someone is innocent just because they are American, that is completely stupid.

You are right it is totally unfair to assume...Which is why when you posted this earlier in the thread:

This whole thing really has been a farce, and you will all slowly begin to realize this. (just kidding, I know most won't)
I do see how our reporting here was skewed, but yours was skewed in the other extreme, simply because the victim happened to be British.

I thought you were implying exactly the same thing you are now taking offence to. It annoyed me , so I understand why you don't like others implying the same thing about you.

 

[ViolentPanda]

No, i'm not l like you who claims to know 100% she is innocent...

It's the power of belief, I tells ya!
For the righteous shall know the truth, and the non-righteous will see the innocent as guilty, and the guilty as innocent, and yea and verily will snakes devour our innards from the inside out for our crimes against St. Knox of Seattle!