Amanda Knox Is Innocent

[Johnny Canuck3]

She's born in Derby. Maybe that's close to Wales.

 

[butchersapron]

It's straight up derby.

 

[Greebo]

What's she doing here?

How the Hel should I know? For the (I hope) last time: Don't expect me to watch clips, ever. My mobile broadband data allowance is extremely limited, and it's not going to be increased in the foreseeable future. Internet cafes are not an option either. Nor is getting a smartphone with a rolling contract of a large data allowance.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Don't expect me to watch clips, ever. .

Well la di dah...

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Btw: how did you figure out she was talking chav or yokel or something in the last video clip.... without watching the clip? Huh?

 

[Greebo]

Well la di dah...

Don't do this. It's nothing personal, I really can't afford to use more bandwidth than I already do.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Don't do this. It's nothing personal, I really can't afford to use more bandwidth than I already do.

Chill. It's late Saturday night for me. I'm happy. No angst given, none expected, none wanted.

 

[Greebo]

Btw: how did you figure out she was talking chav or yokel or something in the last video clip.... without watching the clip? Huh?

I've got a memory for accents, and assumed she was using that same accent as when playing her character, that's all.

How about you leave me alone because it's that or you're ending up on ignore for a few days? I haven't got the energy for this right now.

Chill. It's late Saturday night for me. I'm happy. No angst given, none expected, none wanted.

Lucky you. Another day in overprivileged paradise here.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

if you had just gone from a bookish college student with no criminal record to someone who committed a horrific murder overnight, do you really think you'd be faffing about with an mp3 that's not working correctly at 6:30 a.m.? do you really think that's where your priorities would be?
(an aside: oddly enough, not just Sollecito's but also Knox's and Kercher's hard drives were all apparently destroyed during the course of investigation )

Well obviously not and I'm not saying that it makes them guilty because that would be stupid. What I am saying is why, if you were up on a murder charge, would you get things like that wrong? Seriously how can you fuck something like that up? They done themselves no favours with things like that. The hard drive destruction is dodgy.

and furthermore, for those who aren't aware, Guede has made at least two different statements about what happened that night. In the first, Amanda wasn't there, and Meredith discovered money missing and blamed it on Amanda. Guede and Meredith kissed but nothing else, Guede felt sick from a kebab and went to the toilet, listened to his ipod, heard noises, came out, saw a man who "came up to his eyebrows" (Sollecito is actually taller than Guede) wielding a knife, Guede fought off an attack from the man, who ran off saying that Guede would be convicted because of the color of his skin. That was Guede's written statement to police.

In a different statement, the one I believe is what this most recent part of the trial was based on (despite not using this testimony in court) he claims that they were all there, and Meredith and Amanda argued about the money incident and he kissed Meredith and then went to the bathroom and this time the doorbell rang (ok, who rings the doorbell to their own house?) and it was Amanda coming back to kill Meredith, and the rest of the story is basically the same, with the two running off into the night

Now, in either case, does it not seem strange that Amanda and Rafaelle would have just gone back to his place, slept, played with the computer, etc? In any case, why would they have not thought about the crime scene being discovered, or about Guede or someone calling the police?
Keeping in mind that these are two young college kids that have no prior history of anything like this. Do you really think they would have just casually walked back over there in the morning, mop in hand, to clean up evidence from the murder, which they knew there had been a witness to? Not to mention coming back at some point to stage a break-in?

What we know actually did happen is that Guede ran away to Germany with his bloody clothes and shoes (the ones that turned out to have made all the footprints).

Yeah I don't Guede's involvment really but Sollecito's and Knox's statements are all over the fucking shop. If you accept Guede's wonky statements as proof he did it then you'd have to accept Sollecito's and Knox's too. Yeah his DNA is all over the room but why is Sollecito's on her bra? Too much to be as a result of contamination. Kercher died with her bra on, according to indents of it in her shoulders, so why was it off? Why was she moved? Why is Knox's blood mixed with Kercher's in the bathroom and in other parts of the house? Footprints that match Sollecito in the bathroom. I'm sure you know all this. I'm sure Dwyer will pop along and say 'it's all lies there's no evidence' well if there's no evidence wtf have they been doing in court for 3 different trials over the course of 6 years? Why is there thousands of pages of evidence? I mean I can go on and on but I won't. I could accept they didn't carry out the murder but I can't accept they knew nothing, they know more than they're letting on which is aiding and abetting at worst.

 

[ViolentPanda]

...says our resident expert on forensic science:

Not an expert, just (as I said earlier on) the result of reading way too many violent crime case studies .

 

[ViolentPanda]

Actually he didn't. He said he saw the back of someone, which could well have been Sollecito for all you or I know.

A little thing like ignorance has never stopped phil shooting his mouth off though.

 

[Anudder Oik]

Guede's DNA was all over the crime scene. Inside and outside the body. There was no DNA to link Knox to the crime scene - at all. The one DNA link to her co-accused was from the clasp on the bra - but only on the clasp. Whereas the strap was covered in Guede's DNA. It strongly implies Sollecitto's got there through contamination. Other than that the conclusion you seem to have drawn is that they managed to clean up the crime scene of their own involvement. And only their own involvement!


BTW (F) - has been pretty much dealt with in post 1552 if you'd care to look.

Knox's DNA was in the bathroom and the break in room, both times mixed with the victim's blood. 4 or 5 DNA experts verified this while 2, for the defence, questioned it. The Hellman Appeal illegally confined the crime scene to the victim's bedroom, when the whole flat was in fact the crime scene.

 

[Joe Reilly]

My honest and distinct impression has been that those who haven't been following it tend to assume she's guilty, while those who have tend to think she's innocent.

In the same way that the only people who think jail is easy are the ones who have never been in one, people who have never had the pleasure of being interrogated (for that read - coerced, manipulated, threatened, assaulted, lied to) by police for many hours, incommunicado, without access to a lawyer are then puzzled and suspicious when later reading police records of events (let's not forget) in the cold light of day that appear to show up certain inconsistencies. So they go HA! GUILTY! IT'S OBVIOUS SURELY?!.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Knox's DNA was in the bathroom and the break in room, both times mixed with the victim's blood. 4 or 5 DNA experts verified this while 2, for the defence, questioned it. The Hellman Appeal illegally confined the crime scene to the victim's bedroom, when the whole flat was in fact the crime scene.

But why then was Knox's DNA not in the bedroom? The scene of a violent struggle in which it is alleged she was a central party?

 

[Anudder Oik]

almost all of this is completely false. this is what's so irritating about these threads. I just wanted to pop in to say that. feel free to keep spouting fabricated nonsense though, if it makes you happy

Your sources? I don't believe any of it is false.

 

[Anudder Oik]

Soleccito admitted in an email to his father that the victim's DNA was on a knife taken by the police from a drawer in his kitchen. He tried to explain it's presence with a fabricated story about accidentally cutting the victim's hand while she was cooking with him in his home with Amanda.

All the witnesses accounts prove that it was impossible she was there on any of the 8 days that Soleccito was dating Knox. (and 3's a crowd).

Why the hell would he then confirm, in his own words and without coercion that the victim's blood was on a knife in his possession?

No more; "It's all lies" and the prosecutor is mad" bullshit.

Explain.

 

[phildwyer]

In the same way that the only people who think jail is easy are the ones who have never been in one, people who have never had the pleasure of being interrogated (for that read - coerced, manipulated, threatened, assaulted, lied to) by police for many hours, incommunicado, without access to a lawyer are then puzzled and suspicious when later reading police records of events (let's not forget) in the cold light of day that appear to show up certain inconsistencies. So they go HA! GUILTY! IT'S OBVIOUS SURELY?!.

Yes indeed.

Unfortunately for her, Knox was one of those people. She trusted the police to act in good faith. That's why she hung around in Italy for days after the murder--she was naive enough to think "helping the police with their inquiries" was a good idea. The possibility that she was being stitched up never even entered her head, it was inconceivable to her.

Parents, teach your children well.

 

[The Pale King]

Soleccito admitted in an email to his father that the victim's DNA was on a knife taken by the police from a drawer in his kitchen. He tried to explain it's presence with a fabricated story about accidentally cutting the victim's hand while she was cooking with him in his home with Amanda.

All the witnesses accounts prove that it was impossible she was there on any of the 8 days that Soleccito was dating Knox. (and 3's a crowd).

Why the hell would he then confirm, in his own words and without coercion that the victim's blood was on a knife in his possession?

No more; "It's all lies" and the prosecutor is mad" bullshit.

Explain.

Yes I thought that was very interesting myself. In desperation, he cooks up a ridiculous story about accidentally cutting Meredith with a knife to explain the DNA. Unless I am mistaken, Knox did the same thing to try and explain her DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher's in the bathroom, saying her ears were bleeding.

The problem for their supporters is that they lied at every opportunity. They tried to delay the discovery of the body, they knew what was behind the door before it was opened. They lied to the police and they lied to the other flatmates. They didn't even call the police until the postal police showed up unexpectedly with the tossed mobile phones.

They didn't act like innocent people act. They still don't.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Pretty damn crass for a judge to comment but this is interesting. He says a motive was established and that will become clear when the reasoning for the verdict is given.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Knox's DNA was in the bathroom and the break in room, both times mixed with the victim's blood. 4 or 5 DNA experts verified this while 2, for the defence, questioned it. The Hellman Appeal illegally confined the crime scene to the victim's bedroom, when the whole flat was in fact the crime scene.

She lived in the house, so her DNA would be all over the place.

 

[The Pale King]

In the same way that the only people who think jail is easy are the ones who have never been in one, people who have never had the pleasure of being interrogated (for that read - coerced, manipulated, threatened, assaulted, lied to) by police for many hours, incommunicado, without access to a lawyer are then puzzled and suspicious when later reading police records of events (let's not forget) in the cold light of day that appear to show up certain inconsistencies. So they go HA! GUILTY! IT'S OBVIOUS SURELY?!.

Assaulted? Even Knox herself admits she was bullshitting about being slapped. It didn't happen. And two hours is not 'many' hours. Out of interest, was Sollecito coerced into saying that Knox left the house for several hours the night before? We hear a great deal about Knox's interrogation, but very little about Sollecito's even though he changed his story first.

 

[Anudder Oik]

She lived in the house, so her DNA would be all over the place.

Read the court reports with details on the evidence. Knox supporters are all smoke and whistles.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Read the court reports with details on the evidence. Knox supporters are all smoke and whistles.

Why wouldn't Knox's DNA be in the bathroom of a house she lived in?

 

[Doctor Carrot]

She lived in the house, so her DNA would be all over the place.

It wasn't just her DNA, like a hair or whatever that was mixed with Kercher's blood, it was Knox's blood that was mixed with Kercher's blood and in several different locations.

 

[The Pale King]

if you had just gone from a bookish college student with no criminal record to someone who committed a horrific murder overnight, do you really think you'd be faffing about with an mp3 that's not working correctly at 6:30 a.m.? do you really think that's where your priorities would be?.

Bookish? College student? What does that have to do with it? Never heard of Leopold and Loeb I suppose.

What the mp3 faffing shows is that they lied about what they were doing that night. Like they lied about everything else.

 

[The Pale King]

Here is the rundown of DNA evidence recovered from the house:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Other_DNA_Evidence

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes I thought that was very interesting myself. In desperation, he cooks up a ridiculous story about accidentally cutting Meredith with a knife to explain the DNA. Unless I am mistaken, Knox did the same thing to try and explain her DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher's in the bathroom, saying her ears were bleeding.

The problem for their supporters is that they lied at every opportunity. They tried to delay the discovery of the body, they knew what was behind the door before it was opened. They lied to the police and they lied to the other flatmates. They didn't even call the police until the postal police showed up unexpectedly with the tossed mobile phones.

They didn't act like innocent people act. They still don't.

Frankly, people who see behaviours as "innocent" or "guilty" have watched way too many cheap melodramas. People tend to react uniquely to stressors, and while there are a few general reactions you can expect (babbling and silence being two of them), there are none that uniquely indicate a degree of innocence or guilt.
People need to look at the physical evidence, rather than relying on perceptions based on whether a particular reaction conforms to what you assume is an "innocent" or "guilty" action.

 

[Miss Caphat]

Bookish? College student? What does that have to do with it? Never heard of Leopold and Loeb I suppose.

What the mp3 faffing shows is that they lied about what they were doing that night. Like they lied about everything else.

maybe they just didn't think to say it. I have no idea. it seems like whatever happened during those interrogations produced a lot of very odd statements. if they had only thought to record them, these questions might be a lot easier to answer.

The thing is, if you have a murder victim covered with dna of one other person who also just had sex w/ the victim, with a very rocky history, who seemed to be spiralling out of control and who had just been cast out by his wealthy adoptive family, had nothing to lose, also went rifling through the victim's things leaving bloody handprints, stole money, left, ran off to Germany w/ his blood-stained clothes,

you better have some evidence way better than "these two other people played some mp3s in the night and didn't say they had omg!" for why anyone else would have been involved. especially if those two are naive college students with their lives ahead of them and no motive.

 

[The Pale King]

Frankly, people who see behaviours as "innocent" or "guilty" have watched way too many cheap melodramas. People tend to react uniquely to stressors, and while there are a few general reactions you can expect (babbling and silence being two of them), there are none that uniquely indicate a degree of innocence or guilt.
People need to look at the physical evidence, rather than relying on perceptions based on whether a particular reaction conforms to what you assume is an "innocent" or "guilty" action.

I do take your point, but I think the statement 'people tend to react uniquely to stressors' is too strong. And the behaviour I was focussing on was their repeated lying to the police. I don't think making up stories to the police can really be counted as a reaction to stress, can it? Particularly when some of these lies are maintained or revised after the immediate stressor has passed.

 

[ViolentPanda]

She lived in the house, so her DNA would be all over the place.

Not "all over the place" in the terms some cop shows imply though, and not all over all of the apartment either, lets be clear. they hadn't been there long enough to contaminate the apartment in the way a long residence would.
The excuses Ms. Knox gives for her DNA being found in the bathroom are plausible, just as the reason(s) the prosecution gave are plausible. In combination with other evidence, they just weren't found plausible enough.