# Meredith Kercher murder trial



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

It makes me weep. Really. I feel so desperately sorry for the Kercher family, for two reasons - first and most importantly for the tragic loss of their daughter, and second that they appear to believe Italian prosecutors whose case borders on insanity.

It's rather hard to believe this is 2014 and a case can go on somewhere in the first world with no evidence whatsoever. The bra clasp - moved around the crime scene during the initial sweep, collected with garbage and discovered 46 days later. The knife - demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that it could not have been the murder weapon as it was too large for the wounds. The entire case seemingly built on the notion that Amanda Knox in particular looked and behaved a bit funny afterwards by not crying hysterically like a good Italian girl would. And then trying to bolster this by giving Knox no legal representation, not recording the 5 day interview and making her confess in a language foreign to her (evidence later ruled inadmissible, for what should be obvious reasons). 

Meanwhile the prosecution's ever-changing supposed motives for the murder skirted round satanic rituals (a personal favourite of the chief prosecuter Giuliano Mignini, himself given a 16 month suspended sentence for abuse of office - http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europ ... ox.author/ ), a sex game gone wrong and - apparently at the 11th hour in the recent trials - changed yet again to an argument between Knox and Kercher over the cleanliness of their shared flat. Odd on its own, and rather inexplicable when you realise that Rudy Guede's DNA was absolutely everywhere in the room (conspicuously unlike Knox or Sollecito) and who was sentenced to 16 years for raping the British student. Try as I might, I can't find a connection between an argument about tidiness and the confirmed rape by someone else - I'm sure I must be missing something.

Right now I most feel for Raffaele Sollecito, who I've just read has been held on the Austrian border. He's worried me all year, still appearing far too trusting that truth and justice will prevail, despite all the evidence to the contrary. It sounds to me like yesterday at the 11th hour he suddenly saw it all coming - ahead of the verdict, I was willing him to get out of Italy as fast as possible.

What a miserable state of affairs all round. It would have been quicker, cheaper and probably more reliable to have thrown all the suspects into the water and see who sunk.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

The Italian judiciary have made a complete and total fuck up of the first order of this case from day one.

Regardless of what anyone thinks about what actually happened, there is no way on earth the USA government should send Amanda Knox back to Italy through extradition.
Is she guilty? No idea and the trouble is now, neither does anyone else.
It's history and if you can't, as a judiciary service get it right in the first place, after all the amount of time and money that was spent, you should just fuck off.


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

I'm sorry but I just can't get my head 'round the latest statement from Amanda Knox which reads

"The evidence and accusatory theory do not justify a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Rather, nothing has changed. There has always been a marked lack of evidence. My family and I have suffered greatly from this wrongful persecution."


It's puzzling for me because if it were me I'd be saying
"I wasn't there, I didn't do it, I'm innocent."

I'm certainly not judging the case on this puzzle but I'd be happy if someone explained her statement to me.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



adriancook @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Is she guilty? No idea and the trouble is now, neither does anyone else.


And to me that's the only important thing in all of this. It really has to be beyond reasonable doubt, and I don't thinkl that the prosecution are even close to this. Having said that, I only know what I've read, so there may be things that haven't come out yet, although I doubt it.

I also think that the US government would be mad to extradite her, particularly as the US legal system doesn't allow double jeopardy.

D


----------



## AC986 (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



rayinstirling @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> It's puzzling for me because if it were me I'd be saying
> "I wasn't there, I didn't do it, I'm innocent."



She said that over and over again on Newsnight last night.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



rayinstirling @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> I'm sorry but I just can't get my head 'round the latest statement from Amanda Knox which reads
> 
> "The evidence and accusatory theory do not justify a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
> 
> ...



And there we go again - here she is, saying "the wrong thing" again. Wow, she must be guilty, cos we perceive her words and actions to be slightly different to what we'd do in that situation.

FFS. It's positively medieval. Like any case, this should be about evidence, and there is none. 

For what its worth (not much) I don't find anything remotely strange about her comments. The poor bloody woman has said endlessly and unequivocally she didn't do it, she's been emotional, she's been unemotional, she's repeatedly expressed her distress for the Kerchers and Meredith, she's used painstaking logic at great length, she's done everything I can think of. Yet somehow people seem incapable of treating her like anyone else because of her looks or manner, starting with the prosecution from day one. It's utterly bizarre to me.

There's no motive that makes any coherent sense (and as I said in the OP, the stated motive has changed endlessly as the previous one collapses) and there is not one shred of evidence that even passes a basic test of plausibility. Compare and contrast with Rudy Guede. There is some speculation that a third unidentified party was involved - that seems a little tenuous to me, but if it was it seems phenomenally unlikely to have been either Knox or Sollecito, who have 28 and 26 year sentences each, while the convicted rapist - whose DNA alone was all over the scene - receives 16.

I think and hope Amanda Knox (clearly terrified again and who can blame her) will be able to remain in the USA. For Raffaele Sollecito, where does he go now? His future really is bleak. An ordinary Italian student, has a one-week relationship with an ordinary American student and as a result of hopeless Italian justice will possibly spend almost his entire adult life in jail for it. It's pretty sick-making.


----------



## Phil Garbutt (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

"I wasn't there, I didn't do it, I'm innocent."


very strange indeed. 
Her first recital of events that day were 
"It was a barman from the local bar who killed him while I was in the next room, I put my hands over my ears to not hear the screaming".

a very strange girl indeed & certainly not averse to lying


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Phil Garbutt @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> "I wasn't there, I didn't do it, I'm innocent."
> 
> 
> very strangeindeed.
> ...



F

F

S

Never has my signature seemed more appropriate.

By "first recital of events" I presume you mean her police statement, obtained after 5 days 14 hour interrogations with no lawyer present and unrecorded, and declared inasmissble by the Italian Supreme Court. Here's an interesting statistic quoted by Knox herself this week - of those found guilty for murder and subsequently acquitted, 62% gave false confessions.

I suggest you start doing some reading.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

What she said at the trials or what she says now afaic is totally irrelevant.

The trial must and should make a decision that is based on fact and eveidence.

They had fucking months to do that and made a dogs dinner out of it. 

Who cares now whether anyone is allegedly this or that. It's nada. It's history. It's double jeopardy.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

DJ is not allowed in the USA; I am sure it is allowed elsewhere. Seemingly Italy.

What I don't get - is the highest court in Italy (or so it seems to me) overturned the conviction, but a lower court gets to try her again? WTH is that?

I wish someone would give her a lie detector test. Not just someone, but a well respected expert. Understandably, polygraphs are not admissible in court; this isn't about the trial(s), tho. The polygraph, I think, would tell us a hell of a lot.

Cheers.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



RiffWraith @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> DJ is not allowed in the USA; I am sure it is allowed elsewhere. Seemingly Italy.


If there is sufficient new evidence, a second trial is allowed. If there is no new evidence, a second trial is not allowed. This is the situation in all EU countries.

D


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Guy Rowland @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> rayinstirling @ Fri Jan 31 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sorry but I just can't get my head 'round the latest statement from Amanda Knox which reads
> ...



Guy,
Her statement is STRANGE but if you think that's irrelevant because you were there and know the real truth, far be it for me to argue. She should not be talking about reasonable doubt.

'nuf said by me.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



RiffWraith @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> DJ is not allowed in the USA; I am sure it is allowed elsewhere. Seemingly Italy.
> 
> What I don't get - is the highest court in Italy (or so it seems to me) overturned the conviction, but a lower court gets to try her again? WTH is that?
> 
> ...



I've little doubt she would pass, but I wonder why it is would be necessary. I suppose the obvious answer is "cos few seem to believe her", but based on evidence, not wild speculation or hunches, she shouldn't need to take one. I'm also of the view that few would change their minds about her given a pass anyway - they'd just slightly adjust their prejudice to say she's SO convincing and SO evil that she could outsmart the polygraph. There is no reasoning with this madness.

As for double jeopardy - yes, its kinda crazy that its allowed. In theory this case could literally go on forever it seems to me, and a good advertisement for why double jeopardy isn't allowed in most countries. The problem the US government will have is that it acknowledges the Italian judicial system as fair and decent (which patently it is not), and thus refusing extradition would be very difficult.

I'm sort of hoping against hope that, especially when the full report on this latest shambles is released, there might be some decent level of public awareness as to the actual facts of the case. It the absence of any physical evidence (and gaping holes in the circumstantial stuff) were more widely acknowledged, it becomes very hard to justify anything a hundred miles from "beyond reasonable doubt". As previously mentioned, if Rudy Guede's DNA was everywhere and has been convicted of Kercher's actual rape, a sentence almost twice as long for someone who can only - at most - be suspected of peripheral involvement (again, given the absence of any physical evidence) becomes hugely problematic. Given the absurdity of the case, peripheral involvement has to rank as highly unlikely - a far more plausible interpretation is - guess what - that Konx and Sollecito actually spent that night saying what they say they did - smoking pot, having sex and talking, like probably several hundred thousands other student couples around the world that day. A widespread public outcry - not just in America - over such a blatant miscarriage of justice could become very tricky for the Italians. Their shambolic investigation has very serious questions to answer - along with the chief prosecutor.

Sadly though, all the while people dismiss her as "obviously" lying or "behaving very strangely" every time she opens her mouth, that scenario is less likely.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Daryl @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> RiffWraith @ Fri Jan 31 said:
> 
> 
> > DJ is not allowed in the USA; I am sure it is allowed elsewhere. Seemingly Italy.
> ...



http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=579

_n. placing someone on trial a second time for an offense for which he/she has been previously acquitted, even when new incriminating evidence has been unearthed._

Furthermore, the U.S. Constitution says, "Nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." It does not (to the best of my knowledge) make mention of new evidence.

Then we have the case of Amanda Knox. Where there is clearly no new evidence - or is there?


----------



## Daryl (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



RiffWraith @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Daryl @ Fri Jan 31 said:
> 
> 
> > RiffWraith @ Fri Jan 31 said:
> ...


EU law is different in this respect. New evidence can trigger a re-trial. However, technically this is not a new trial, but a continuance of the original one, so they don't have to find new evidence.

D


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

Ray, you are reading god knows what into her words, and taking them completely out of context. She's talking about how others view the case, not her, saying "can you really say this is beyond reasonable doubt"? The point being, that looked at objectively, the answer is a resounding no.

She expanded on this in her Guardian interview actually - she argued that an objective view of the actual evidence would reveal that there wasn't any. I agree with her, as I support her apparently suspicious right to discuss how she perceives others see her own case, rather than just weeping "I didn't do it" 24 hours a day - for which, no doubt, she would be widely criticised. I remain perplexed as to why people like yourself. Ray, seem to actively want to selectively quote her words and take them out of context, to reveal a supposedly sinister picture and conclude "well, no smoke without fire / no-one can know unless there were there". That is such a weak argument - if you look at the available evidence you might get a pretty good idea.

It's just like the famous footage of her and Sollecito kissing the day after the murder, endlessly replayed on the news again in the past 24 hours. Supposedly this is what made the police suspicious in the first place, but no matter how many times I see it, I see two distressed lovers consoling each other - there's not a shred of happiness there, only shock and sadness. 

But hey. It's the same old story again and again with Knox in particular - suspicion, supposed intuition, something not quite right - and not a drop of any evidence, or anything in her character before or since that might even lead to a genuine suspicion. People even tried to make a connection that because she'd slept with a few men (GASP! ALERT THE VILLAGE ELDERS!) that indicated she might enjoy murderous sex games. There's more than a touch of misogyny about that.

RIFF / DARYL - yes, I hear they're arguing that this is continuation of the same trial. Perhaps their acquittal was just a kind of Acquital For Now But, You Know, We Might Just Have A Few More Lunches And Carry On When We Feel Like It. Strange system... sorta psychological torture, when you think about it.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Guy Rowland @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> It's just like the famous footage of her and Sollecito kissing the day after the murder, endlessly replayed on the news again in the past 24 hours.



Just like the papers did to that landlord in Bristol a while back in the Clifton murder trial.


----------



## Luca Capozzi (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



RiffWraith @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> DJ is not allowed in the USA; I am sure it is allowed elsewhere. Seemingly Italy.
> 
> What I don't get - is the highest court in Italy (or so it seems to me) overturned the conviction, but a lower court gets to try her again? WTH is that?



In Italy there are three courts (or degrees). Right now they has been convicted by the second one. Now it's the turn of the last and higher court.

ps: in my opinion, in Italy you are guilty until proven innocent even if the law states the contrary. It happens every time, on lawcourts, taxation and all.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Luca Capozzi @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> ps: in my opinion, in Italy you are guilty until proven innocent even if the law states the contrary. It happens every time, on lawcourts, taxation and all.



Interesting - my brother in law is Italian American, and he says much the same thing...


----------



## Diffusor (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Guy Rowland @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Phil Garbutt @ Fri Jan 31 said:
> 
> 
> > "I wasn't there, I didn't do it, I'm innocent."
> ...



You seem to be the only one to be living up to your signature with being so sure of her innocence. I am ambivalent; not sure if she is innocent or guilty. I think there is sufficient cause for suspicion. I don't think she actually murdered anyone but there is a possibility she was there, even not considering her "confession". You should do some reading yourself. http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Problems_With_The_Alibi (http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/P ... _The_Alibi) Does a pretty good job listing the "lies" and inconsistencies of their story. Oh, and the witness who said Amanda came in his store the morning after the murder and went to the cleaning supply section, when she claimed she was sleeping. There's also two witnesses that place them near the apartment during the timeframe of the murder when they claim they weren't. etc. Plenty of stuff that raise questions.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Myths_debunked


----------



## ed buller (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

blame napoleon ......

as to that website ; http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/

rather dubious parentage. 

read: http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Forgotten-Killer-Meredith-Kercher-ebook/dp/B00I3QZ7G0/ref=sr_1_33?ie=UTF8&qid=1391193269&sr=8-33&keywords=amanda+knox (http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Forgotten-K ... manda+knox)

it really is very sad. The italian
judiciary are now falling over themselves trying to stick to their idiotic story. first it was death by sex games...now it's death because she argued over the flat's tidiness. and the poor kercher family caught in the middle .Thinking that because the police and a discredited ( out on appeal )fool of a prosecutor kept to erroneous conclusions they made before they had any evidence and are now sticking to the story like glue...there must be some truth in it. Totally shameful .

Knox's fate will come down to weather the italians will save face by NOT asking for extradition and being turned down or asking and the americans refusing. Double jeapody probably doesn't apply as she was never acquitted , just out on appeal so technically they could argue the case is still ongoing. It's a grey area to be sure but still somewhat tricky. 

as for poor Sollecito caught after a night across the border.....well......poor bugger !!

very very sad....


e


----------



## Daryl (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Diffusor @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> I am ambivalent; not sure if she is innocent or guilty. I think there is sufficient cause for suspicion. I don't think she actually murdered anyone but there is a possibility she was there, even not considering her "confession". You should do some reading yourself. http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Problems_With_The_Alibi (http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/P ... _The_Alibi) Does a pretty good job listing the "lies" and inconsistencies of their story. Oh, and the witness who said Amanda came in his store the morning after the murder and went to the cleaning supply section, when she claimed she was sleeping. There's also two witnesses that place them near the apartment during the timeframe of the murder when they claim they weren't. etc. Plenty of stuff that raise questions.


None of that matters. It's only what they can prove, and everything that I've read suggests that they are far short of being able to prove any of their theories.

D


----------



## Diffusor (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Daryl @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Diffusor @ Fri Jan 31 said:
> 
> 
> > I am ambivalent; not sure if she is innocent or guilty. I think there is sufficient cause for suspicion. I don't think she actually murdered anyone but there is a possibility she was there, even not considering her "confession". You should do some reading yourself. http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Problems_With_The_Alibi (http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/P ... _The_Alibi) Does a pretty good job listing the "lies" and inconsistencies of their story. Oh, and the witness who said Amanda came in his store the morning after the murder and went to the cleaning supply section, when she claimed she was sleeping. There's also two witnesses that place them near the apartment during the timeframe of the murder when they claim they weren't. etc. Plenty of stuff that raise questions.
> ...



Yes of course. I was only saying it's not unreasonable to have suspicion.


----------



## Diffusor (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



ed buller @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> blame napoleon ......
> 
> as to that website ; http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/
> 
> ...



All that stuff has citations. The stuff about the store owner testimony was taking from the Massei report for example.

Plenty of stuff to be suspicious of that are confirmed facts.

Also, what is interesting to me is when the Italian police did the oldest trick in the book and said Raffaele was no longer corroborating her story trying to turn them against each other, which she then panicked, which led to her "confession" note.


----------



## Moderato Maestoso (Jan 31, 2014)

The English jurist William Blackstone wrote:

“All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.”

The sentiments were echoed by Franklin.

Did she do it? I don't know. I don't for a second believe that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Never has Blackstone's Formulation - as it has become known - seemed more apt. The Italian legal system makes courts in Banana Republics look like models of jurisprudence.

England's legal system may not be perfect, but it's close. All I can think is what an utter, utter tragedy for the victim's family.

Martin

Edit: can someone enlighten me whether the Italian system is adversarial or inquisitorial?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Diffusor @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Yes of course. I was only saying it's not unreasonable to have suspicion.



But there's not nearly enough reason. I notice you used the old "the only one who has made up your mind is you" thing, the problem which befalls anyone who says "all the reliable evidence points one way". The "balanced" thing to say is that "well, ya know, who knows". But it is disingenous to say that's the correct response in every situation.

I started reading about the case a few years ago cos I couldn't figure it out from the media reports - I had no vested interest in the case beyond the same morbid curiosity that seemed to have gripped a lot of people. When I looked into all the available evidence I figured that there wasn't really any, and the alleged motives made no sense to me.

It's revealing that you find it "interesting" that when the prosecution lied regarding her boyfriend, that got Amanda Knox to give her "confession". How extraordinary that someone who has been questioned for 5 days, for 14 hours a day, with no legal representation and unrecorded (Knox also says she was struck twice), that when she is told her boyfriend has abandoned her that she crumples and invents stuff she didn't do to make it all stop. For further reading, start here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession . 

The issues you brought up from the anti-Knox/Sollecito blog (make no mistake - that is exactly what it is) regarding the alibi are pretty much non-issues. Antonio Curatolo was a fairly tragic figure, whose testimony demonstrably had his dates confused with the previous night - http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/m ... -testimony - while Hekuran Kokomani's testimony was quite literally all over the place - http://www.examiner.com/article/more-on ... knox-trial .

It's all fairly typical stuff - make a big deal out of the tiny (and widely discredited) contrary voices and ignore the huge gaping hole in the physical evidence, or verifiable circumstantial evidence. But even if you do listen to the voices of those two people whose testimony has been discounted (and - shock - don't realise that if you've taken pot you might not have a cast iron itemised list of what times things happened that night), you're still a million miles away from being beyond reasonable doubt (as Martin eloquently points out).

And that's the core issue here. The case is so hopelessly flimsy, presided over by a prosecutor himself convicted for abuse of office. It's not good enough to say "wow gee, maybe the homeless guy who got his dates confused was somehow right all along somehow". There needs to be compelling evidence tying either Knox or Sollecito to the scene of the crime, and despite 6 years of trying, no-one has come up with anything that holds water. That should be enough to let this matter rest.


----------



## ed buller (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Diffusor @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> All that stuff has citations. The stuff about the store owner testimony was taking from the Massei report for example.
> 
> Plenty of stuff to be suspicious of that are confirmed facts.
> 
> Also, what is interesting to me is when the Italian police did the oldest trick in the book and said Raffaele was no longer corroborating her story trying to turn them against each other, which she then panicked, which led to her "confession" note.




there are really no confirmed facts...other than the man in jail killed her...that's it

the police reports about her confession !!!! sorry these are facts ????

witness testimony is NOT a fact....neither is hearsay . As to the forensics...read the report. We have been lied to by the italian police and prosecutors office via the media from day one. All to cover up their atrocious investigation. This is all a face saving operation for the medieval italian justice system. While the real murderer get's out of jail in a few years. He'd have served what ...10 ? and yet "foxy KnoxY" should serve 26 !!!!!!

e


----------



## Diffusor (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



ed buller @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Diffusor @ Fri Jan 31 said:
> 
> 
> > All that stuff has citations. The stuff about the store owner testimony was taking from the Massei report for example.
> ...



I meant they are facts in the sense that witnesses gave testimony. Some people are thinking some of this stuff is completely made up..


----------



## choc0thrax (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

Amanda Knox has always seemed cold and weird but we'll never know if she had a hand in it. I can't blame her for not wanting to go back to Italy - it gets so hot there and I couldn't find one McDonalds that had a breakfast menu.


----------



## Diffusor (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Guy Rowland @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Diffusor @ Fri Jan 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes of course. I was only saying it's not unreasonable to have suspicion.
> ...



What about the store owner's testimony? How do you explain that?

And she was not interrogated for 14 hours a day for 5 days. Only person who says something like that is Amanda and her family and then that was repeated til it became true. 

Look, I am not saying that Amanda is guilty but you can't say she is innocent for sure either. There are just too many red flags, each one in itself wouldn't be a big deal, but the "circumstantial" entirety raises a lot of question. People in the US have been convicted with far less "evidence".


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

You know what - forget everything I wrote, and just read this instead. So much more succinct and, well, forensic.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... an-justice


----------



## devastat (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

I haven’t looked much into this, but i have always found it highly suspicious for Amanda Knox to change her story so many times - even if she was under enourmous pressure from the Italian police. To go from telling the police that she was covering her ears hearing the victim scream, to never being in that house that night raises some questions..


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

PS to diffuser after a quick google - and this will be the last specific dead end I'll bother researching as a pattern is clearly emerging. Regarding the store owner:



> Quintavalle is the store owner that testified that he saw Amanda in his store the morning after the murder. Quintavalle claimed Amanda was in the store and she was showing an urgency to buy something in the cleaning section but left without buying anything. Investigators checked Quintavalle's roll of tickets and found no bleach detergent was purchased. Yet the court concluded Amanda purchased bleach anyway. No bleach receipt was ever produced. In fact, there was already bleach at the cottage. Quintavalle's testimony contradicted the statements that he made to Inspector Orestes Volturno on November 19, 2007.
> 
> The court inexplicably ignored the testimony of Inspector Volturno who subsequently questioned Quintavalle after the initial questioning that happened within a day or so of the murder. Volturno's service record shows he questioned Quintavalle on November 19, 2007. The record makes it clear that Quintavalle was shown photos of Amanda and Raffaele and he said they had been to his store two or so times but not on November 2nd. and they were always together. The record indicates that Volturno spoke with Quintavalle and then his two employees. On March 21, 2009 Volturno testifies to the same.



And as a footnote:



> Quintavalle only came forward almost a year later following contact with a reporter which ended up getting him on TV. Quintavalle claims Amanda was wearing a cap and scarf and she wore a grey jacket. Quintavalle states that he only saw the side of Amanda's face. Then he claims it was Amanda's blue eyes that he remembers despite earlier saying he never saw the front of her face. No grey coat was ever found to be part of Amanda's clothing and it doesn't match anything anyone else ever saw. Ana Marina Chiriboga who worked in the store was asked in October, 2008 if she had seen Amanda on November 2, 2007 and she said no which she repeated in court on June 26, 2009



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

In my view none of this amounts to "any evidence whatsoever". But say it again - not nearly, nearly, NEARLY enough to reach a level of "beyond reasonable doubt", which absolutely has to be criteria - surely we can all agree on that?


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



devastat @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> I haven’t looked much into this, but i have always found it highly suspicious for Amanda Knox to change her story so many times - even if she was under enourmous pressure from the Italian police. To go from telling the police that she was covering her ears hearing the victim scream, to never being in that house that night raises some questions..



sigh...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession


----------



## AC986 (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



choc0thrax @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> - it gets so hot there and I couldn't find one McDonalds that had a breakfast menu.



Yeah but it's a dry heat.


----------



## Diffusor (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Guy Rowland @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> PS to diffuser after a quick google - and this will be the last specific dead end I'll bother researching as a pattern is clearly emerging. Regarding the store owner:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes of course. Reasonable doubt has not been met (is that even part of the law in Italy?) and of course the prosecutors botched the whole case. But in the same token do you have any doubt that Amanda is innocent or are you utterly convinced?


----------



## devastat (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Guy Rowland @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> sigh...
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_confession



Here is an interesting recent article related to the inconsistencies in their testimonies. And I'm not saying that they are guilty, just that the whole case is highly suspicious..

http://abcnews.go.com/International/ama ... d=22306461


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Diffusor @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Reasonable doubt has not been met (is that even part of the law in Italy?) and of course the prosecutors botched the whole case. But in the same token do you have any doubt that Amanda is innocent or are you utterly convinced?



I think it's extremely unlikely that Knox and Sollecito are guilty in any way. Somewhere between 97-99% sure I'd say, and this article gives a good overview why - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... an-justice . The absence of physical evidence, the lack of credible circumstantial evidence, the lack of coherent or consistent motive and the appalling track record of the prosecution are all compelling (while the prosecution have failed to find anything suspicious in the character of the defendants, the original prosecutor was himself sentenced for abusive of office and the chief homicide detective on the case, Monica Napoleoni, has since been removed from her job on suspicion that she abused her position to try to intimidate her ex-husband in a child custody dispute).

But it is POSSIBLE they are guilty? Sure - just very very unlikely.


----------



## AC986 (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



devastat @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> I haven’t looked much into this, but i have always found it highly suspicious for Amanda Knox to change her story so many times - even if she was under enourmous pressure from the Italian police. To go from telling the police that she was covering her ears hearing the victim scream, to never being in that house that night raises some questions..



Sorry but I suspect there's a misunderstanding.

None of any of that matters. That is irrelevant and is all conjecture.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



devastat @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Here is an interesting recent article related to the inconsistencies in their testimonies. And I'm not saying that they are guilty, just that the whole case is highly suspicious..
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/International/ama ... d=22306461



Do I have to read all 7 pages of this ABC piece? Is it going to say "she originally said things and changed her mind?" Please point me to the important bits that wouldn't be covered by her being coerced into a false confession.


----------



## devastat (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Guy Rowland @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Do I have to read all 7 pages of this ABC piece? Is it going to say "she originally said things and changed her mind?" Please point me to the important bits that wouldn't be covered by her being coerced into a false confession.



Hmm.. maybe the central line in the article is that she changed her story 4 times after the event, and that there was a lot of inconsistiencies and contradictory evidence in her descriptions of the events not only in the police interrigation, but also in a letter she wrote to her family..


----------



## AC986 (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

None of that matters.


----------



## Diffusor (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



devastat @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Guy Rowland @ Fri Jan 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Do I have to read all 7 pages of this ABC piece? Is it going to say "she originally said things and changed her mind?" Please point me to the important bits that wouldn't be covered by her being coerced into a false confession.
> ...



Definitely red flags. I don't buy the false confession thing anyway. She only gave her "confession" after she was led to believe Rafaeli was ratting her out, in which she accused another innocent man as well.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Diffusor @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> Definitely red flags. I don't buy the false confession thing anyway. She only gave her "confession" after she was led to believe Rafaeli was ratting her out, in which she accused another innocent man as well.



:roll: 

You mean after 5 days very long interrogation (where she was initially told she was providing witness testimony), unrecorded, in a language with which she had only a poor grasp, in a country she'd spent only two months in, with no lawyer present, after being endlessly told she must confess and it was the only way this ordeal would stop, after being physically hit (she claims) and after she was lied to and told her lover had abandoned her she broke down? Yes, wildly implausible.

You do know how common false confession is? You do understand the basic psychology? Now, given that it's common and known phenomenon and even the Italian court rendered this charade inadmissable, what is hard to believe about not being able to trust that statement as true and authentic?

Think about all those elements, just take one - not being recorded. Why was it not recorded? Isn't that page one in interrogating suspects? Why would you not record a suspect's interview? Simple incompetence or something darker perhaps?

Despite all the supposed evidence you brought up that has all been discounted, despite me and others repeatedly pointing out the lack of physical evidence or coherent / plausible motive and the criminal record of the prosecution - people believe what they want to believe. I just feel sorry for Knox and Sollecito that they appear to be paying the price for that truism.


----------



## RiffWraith (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

I just realized something.

The thread topic is wrong. It says "Meredith Kercher trial". Meredith was never on trial.

If this is an attempt at "remembering the victim", this is the absolute wrong way to do that.

Might I suggest changing the title to be accurate, and say, "Amanda Knox trial". And throw in the BF as well, perhaps. After all, we are in fact talking about the trial and not the victim, for the most part, no?

Cheers.


----------



## Jaap (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*

As long as there is the possibility that she gave the wrong confession under this amount of stress, there is also the possibility that she gave on purpose a wrong confession.

I understand your points in defending here Guy, but the other side could be as true as well.

I have no idea what happened. I know by experience how extremely stressful a police investigation can be. I have been questioned once 5 hours in a row with only a small smoke break about a very horrible thing that happened in my life. At such moments you are emotionally devestated and they have good techniques to ask the same in a thousand different ways that in the end you start to doubt everything you say and think.

Therefore I think Amanda could have said things that she never wanted to say or where not true and where said under too much stress. 
However that she was heard under a lot of stress doesn't prove it. It could be just a possibility. I think it's quite gray, a bit of both sides.

What amazes me however is that the world is reacting quite fierce on this (and that is good), but I think people have been sentenced for life prison in many countries (mine included) for far less and even been sentenced to death while evidence was far less clear. 
No legal system is flawless and I think most crimes are not as black and white as they seem to be to the outside world.


----------



## Diffusor (Jan 31, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Jaap @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> As long as there is the possibility that she gave the wrong confession under this amount of stress, there is also the possibility that she gave on purpose a wrong confession.
> 
> I understand your points in defending here Guy, but the other side could be as true as well.
> 
> ...



Sorry to hear about your loss!


----------



## Jaap (Feb 1, 2014)

Thank you diffusor for your kind words!

Reading back my post I realise I might have hijacked it with some emotional input which is not what I meant to do. I am gonna edit the post to keep it more on topic. My point was to point out how stressful police investigations can be in extreme situations.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 1, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Jaap @ Fri Jan 31 said:


> As long as there is the possibility that she gave the wrong confession under this amount of stress, there is also the possibility that she gave on purpose a wrong confession.
> 
> I understand your points in defending here Guy, but the other side could be as true as well.
> 
> ...



You make a lot of good points, Jaap. I certainly agree no legal system is flawless - in the UK we've had some real horrors. The first that springs to mind is an inquest into the Hillisborough football disaster, where over 90 people died following severe overcrowding in spectator pens. Its eventually come to light that the police lied in their statements and for decades sought to surpress their own culpability.

And I also agree that this case has the limelight while many others - equally deserving - do not. I'm glad Amnesty International exists.

Where (perhaps unsurprisingly) we might differ is that in my view the Kercher murder case is left with pretty much nothing once the inadmissible statements and unreliable witnesses are discounted. It's not impossible that Knox or Sollecito are guilty, but I'd say at this point its pretty much impossible to declare their guilt "beyond reasonable doubt".

BTW - Riff, I changed the title of the thread. It makes most sense to call it the Meredith Kercher murder trial, as we're discussing the whole wider case and everyone involved. Slightly tangentially, one revealing aspect to the case is that, however much people try to keep the debate broad, the discussion always centers on Amanda Knox. In this thread, as pretty much everywhere, people discuss what she did / said far more than the theoretically equally culpable Sollecito.


----------



## RiffWraith (Feb 1, 2014)

*Re: Meredith Kercher trial*



Guy Rowland @ Sat Feb 01 said:


> BTW - Riff, I changed the title of the thread. It makes most sense to call it the Meredith Kercher murder trial, as we're discussing the whole wider case and everyone involved. Slightly tangentially, one revealing aspect to the case is that, however much people try to keep the debate broad, the discussion always centers on Amanda Knox. In this thread, as pretty much everywhere, people discuss what she did / said far more than the theoretically equally culpable Sollecito.



It absolutely makes no sense to call it the Meredith Kercher trial. You have it wrong. You call the trial by the name of the person on trial - even if the discussion always centers around that person. When George Zimmerman was being tried, was it the Trayvon Martin trial?

You don't name the victim here - that may cast them in a bad light. You are making it sound as tho Meredith is the one on trial. You name the accused.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 1, 2014)

That sounds like semantics to me, Riff. it's the trial of her murder, and the discussion involves several people - Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox, Rudy Guede (convicted but still highly revelevant) and maybe a mystery other person.


----------



## Phil Garbutt (Feb 1, 2014)

In any case, Guy seems to have his mind 100% made up. Seeing the same evidence, it just goes to show how peoples opinions can be different. Thats life I suppose but I absolutely believe that she is as guilty as sin


----------



## José Herring (Feb 1, 2014)

I always thought Amanda had the cold detached remorseless gaze of a serial killer. But, the Italian courts failed to prove anything other than she may have been a witness. 

Unfortunately if I'm correct, and she is a killer, it will only be a matter of time before she's in trouble again. So we can take a wait and see attitude.

As far as extradition, that's not going to happen.


----------



## TheUnfinished (Feb 1, 2014)

Jesus, I'd hate for some of you guys to be on the jury if I was facing a potential miscarriage of justice.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 1, 2014)

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, isn't it? Evidence vs "she looks a bit funny to me".


----------



## José Herring (Feb 1, 2014)

Sorry, the trial bugs me. Nobody has any problem believing the black guy did it. But you get some cute white girl and everybody is like "Oh she was coerced poor little thing". Fuck that!


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 1, 2014)

josejherring @ Sat Feb 01 said:


> Sorry, the trial bugs me. Nobody has any problem believing the black guy did it. But you get some cute white girl and everybody is like "Oh she was coerced poor little thing". Fuck that!



Again (and I appreciate I really am a crushing bore on this point, all due apologies) - it's the evidence, Jose. DNA all over the crime scene from Rudy Guede (bloodied hand prints, fingerprints etc), none from Amanda Knox. Or that other white guy that no-one can remember, who appears to be about to serve 26 years.


----------



## José Herring (Feb 1, 2014)

He may have done the actual killing. Of that I have no doubt. He plead guilty. But her story that she had no part in it. Just isn't true. As a matter of fact there is no fact that she has mentioned as the the events of that night that turned out to be true. So she's lying. People lie for one reason. To coverup the actual events. She was there. She either participated or saw the whole thing. Then didn't contact police until the next day.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 1, 2014)

josejherring @ Sat Feb 01 said:


> He may have done the actual killing. Of that I have no doubt. He plead guilty. But her story that she had no part in it. Just isn't true. As a matter of fact there is no fact that she has mentioned as the the events of that night that turned out to be true. So she's lying. People lie for one reason. To coverup the actual events. She was there. She either participated or saw the whole thing. Then didn't contact police until the next day.



Oh gawd, is this the false (and legally inadmissible) confession yet again? To repeat - no physical evidence tying her (or Sollecito) to the scene of the crime, and no reliable witness or circumstantial evidence either. But, to be fair, I'm boring myself on this point now (and on my other "people believe what they want to believe" one). Sigh.


----------



## José Herring (Feb 1, 2014)

Fact is that she never told the truth about where she was and what she was doing. Finding "no phycial evidence" isn't the same as being innocent. Just means that she can't be procecuted. So on that point, we agree. She should be set free. But that doesn't mean she's innocent, and I'm boring myself trying to point out the difference.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 2, 2014)

josejherring @ Sat Feb 01 said:


> Fact is that she never told the truth about where she was and what she was doing. Finding "no phycial evidence" isn't the same as being innocent. Just means that she can't be procecuted. So on that point, we agree. She should be set free. But that doesn't mean she's innocent, and I'm boring myself trying to point out the difference.



But there's a huge logical inconsistency in your argument - you boldly assert she's "never told the truth" about where she was, but there's no evidence to back up that statement. Has it been proven she wasn't where she says she was? No. The only known "lies" are in her inadmissible confession. I think you need to be extremely careful regarding calling a woman (or man) a liar based on what they say under extreme psychological duress (in conditions widely proven to elicit false responses).


----------



## ed buller (Feb 2, 2014)

it seems to me that some people just LIKE the idea of her being guilty...regardless of the evidence. I think that's why she is repeatedly convicted. There is overwhelming evidence saying that it was the man currently in Jail. Even though the prosecutors offered him a reduced sentence IF he claimed to be acting with them they still can't find ANY corroborating evidence. It just comes down to what they THINK happened. The really sad thing is that this pattern is repeated everywhere.....including this forum. It's just about "a feeling" ....god help us is we can get locked up for 26 years based on ..."a feeling"....surely that was so BC ?

e


----------



## AC986 (Feb 2, 2014)

Phil Garbutt @ Sat Feb 01 said:


> In any case, Guy seems to have his mind 100% made up. Seeing the same evidence, it just goes to show how peoples opinions can be different. Thats life I suppose but I absolutely believe that she is as guilty as sin



It does not matter what you believe. You may very well be right. Let's face it, you have a 50% chance of that.  

None of that matters and is pure conjecture. I just don't think reading this that a lot of you actually understand the point of this thread.

I've been on a jury twice. One was a murder case, one was theft. Sure, when you're sitting there hour upon hour you allow subjective thoughts into your head all the time. And when you finally get into the jury room (Matt are you listening) you would be amazed at the fucking bigotry that has already taken place. Most people in my experience anyway, have a really difficult time in separating fact from their own personal hatreds that is just usually a reflection of their own mental faculties and shortcomings.
These people should be made to watch 12 Angry Men before they even go near a courthouse. Or minimum an IQ test.

In other words, what anyone believes actually happened at the scene and subsequently in the Italian courtroom drama, is irrelevant now.

That said, she is definitely in trouble on the extradition. Must be favourite to get sent back, although I would hope the US authorities would see sense on this one.

It doesn't matter that she's either guilty or not guilty anymore. There's been way too much press and bias in the media one way or another to make this viable IMO.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 2, 2014)

adriancook @ Sun Feb 02 said:


> These people should be made to watch 12 Angry Men before they even go near a courthouse. .



perfect

e


----------



## Moderato Maestoso (Feb 2, 2014)

adriancook @ Sun Feb 02 said:


> That said, she is definitely in trouble on the extradition. Must be favourite to get sent back, although I would hope the US authorities would see sense on this one.



I'd like to think that the sheer ridiculousness of the Italian justice system would be enough to persuade the US courts to block the extradition. It doesn't meet any viable first-world standards for fairness or justice.

Sadly, I doubt very much that I'd be amazed at the amount of bigotry and the number of preconceived notions that walk into a jury room. I'm regretfully coming down on the side of judge-led trials rather than trial by jury, which in an ideal world would be the fairest system. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world, and at the risk of sounding incredibly arrogant, 'people', generally speaking, are pretty thick...

M


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 2, 2014)

12 Angry Men and IQ tests both sound like good ideas to me!

I think judge-only trials are potentially even more open to corruption. But there's definitely room for improvement on current systems. Does anyone know of any countries which are considered to have a more robust system? Something in Scandanavia, perhaps?


----------



## Diffusor (Feb 2, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sun Feb 02 said:


> 12 Angry Men and IQ tests both sound like good ideas to me!



I agree! I think we should have a iq test to be able to vote in the US too.


----------



## Diffusor (Feb 2, 2014)

Guy Rowland @ Sat Feb 01 said:


> Six of one, half a dozen of the other, isn't it? Evidence vs "she looks a bit funny to me".



Earlier in the thread you said she was interrogated for 14 hours a day for 5 days. That simply is not the case. I think the first night she only spoke to the police for 5 or 6 hours. The whole idea of false confession under duress in this case is vastly overstated, every timeline I have seen doesn't suggest intense prolonged interrogations. And again, she didn't make her vague "confession" statement until after she thought her boyfriend was giving her up and she started panicking, and is when she started throwing out her bosses name and making other implications.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 2, 2014)

Just when you thought there were no new farcical depths to which this case would go, this just in....

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... rs-remarks

(PS to diffusor - true, not the first day or two were that long. But if even the Italian kangaroo court ruled the conditions leading to the statement made it inadmissible, its high time you let it go...)


----------



## Moderato Maestoso (Feb 2, 2014)

Ha! What a joke... This is going to go the way of the Berlusconi farce. The Italians I know and have discussed this with are hugely embarrassed by their country's 'justice' system.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 8, 2014)

This is a good article / interview by the Guardian's Simon Hattenstone

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/f ... -interview

I've little doubt it will change anyone's mind about her if they think she's guilty, but its an interesting look into the madness of her world. I agree with Simon's observations - I think her relative immaturity has been part of the reason why some people find her suspicious (doesn't always behave how I think I would = guilty of violent murder)


----------



## Phil Garbutt (Feb 8, 2014)

Guy, really.
the articles in the guardian were written by "Simon Hattenstone has been corresponding with Amanda Knox since 2009, and was with her as she awaited the verdict in her retrial for the murder of Meredith Kercher."

In the first one, explanations in the first paragraph (which the whole article hinges on) revovlves around the word "could".

To me you have already totally made up your mind on erronous "facts" so will never change but your last post "I've little doubt it will change anyone's mind about her if they think she's guilty, but its an interesting look into the madness of her world. I agree with Simon's observations" of course we understand that you believe Simons observations (whether true or not) but very few of his observations are made from fact, & this for the last few years.

Nothing has changed my convictions


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 8, 2014)

Phil Garbutt @ Sat Feb 08 said:


> Guy, really.
> the articles in the guardian were written by "Simon Hattenstone has been corresponding with Amanda Knox since 2009, and was with her as she awaited the verdict in her retrial for the murder of Meredith Kercher."
> 
> In the first one, explanations in the first paragraph (which the whole article hinges on) revovlves around the word "could".
> ...



Of course - the facts of the case are discussed elsewhere. As I clearly said (and you quoted), this isn't a piece to change anyone's mind. But its an interesting piece if you consider - as I do - that the facts of the case (as opposed to hunches, intuitions and a propensity to believe unreliable witnesses) very very very clearly point towards innocence. To me, its an insight into what is a horrendous and ongoing ordeal that she and Sollecito are going through.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 8, 2014)

It seems to me phil that you just "feel" that she is guilty . You have no evidence to support this "feeling" as there isn't any. At least nothing that would be allowed in a proper court of law. By proper i mean outside of the courts covered by the "code napoleon ". But for you "felling" is enough. To me that is scary.

e


----------



## AC986 (Feb 9, 2014)

Ed I've explained to him 3 times.

He doesn't get it.

Let's say for arguments sake Phil I think she is guilty. I would still say she has to walk in that case. You're getting confused with what you think, with what legally should happen.

And let's take this further on. Let's say she goes back to trial and they pick you and 11 others like you, as one of the jury members. 

She cannot possibly have a fair trial at any future date. There has been way too much press and media speculation.


----------



## JonFairhurst (Feb 9, 2014)

Let's see if she floats.


----------



## ed buller (Feb 9, 2014)

still the best way to tell

e


----------



## José Herring (Feb 9, 2014)

It's amusing to me that those who profess her innocence never seem to mention that her multiple stories just don't add up. At no point in this trial did she ever offer up any credible story as to her whereabouts that evening. So then her defense, and quite understandably, is to attack the lack of evidence rather than to prove that during that time she was elsewhere.

So it's the " I can't prove that I didn't do it, so you need to prove that I did do it".  Or better known as the OJ defense.

At any rate, I like John's idea.


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 9, 2014)

josejherring @ Sun Feb 09 said:


> It's amusing to me that those who profess her innocence never seem to mention that her multiple stories just don't add up. At no point in this trial did she ever offer up any credible story as to her whereabouts that evening. So then her defense, and quite understandably, is to attack the lack of evidence rather than to prove that during that time she was elsewhere.
> 
> So it's the " I can't prove that I didn't do it, so you need to prove that I did do it".  Or better known as the OJ defense.
> 
> At any rate, I like John's idea.



Jose - whichever way you look at it, that post is total BS I'm afraid.

First, she has had a consistent story ever since her inadmissable and very quickly retracted confession (and indeed before it too) - she was in her boyfriend's flat, end of story. There have been no credible witnesses no challenge this. I don't know why any of that is either amusing or suspicious. Strangely, I think it was the guy whose DNA was all over the crime scene and anyone whose DNA was absent probably wasn't involved, but that seemingly esoteric point doesn't seem particularly persuasive for some people. I also don't know why its so hard to believe that a well built man with a weapon is capable of overpowering a slight woman on her own, but again it seems to present problems to some people.

Second, all this has been much discussed in this thread.

Given that, this post looks suspiciously like trolling to me - I really do expect more of you than that, you're a good guy.


----------



## Phil Garbutt (Feb 9, 2014)

DNA evidence is very compelling (read overwhelming) to say that she was there & very much involved. This will be my last word on the situation because its beating one's head against abrick wall


----------



## Guy Rowland (Feb 9, 2014)

Phil Garbutt @ Sun Feb 09 said:


> DNA evidence is very compelling (read overwhelming) to say that she was there & very much involved. This will be my last word on the situation because its beating one's head against abrick wall



Er no, it's the opposite. The knife containing her DNA does so because it's her kitchen knife (surprise), was chosen at random by the police and has been shown to not match Meredith Kercher's wounds. There is no other DNA evidence linking her to the crime. By contrast, Rudy G's DNA was everywhere at the crime scene.


----------



## AC986 (Feb 9, 2014)

Phil Garbutt @ Sun Feb 09 said:


> DNA evidence is very compelling (read overwhelming) to say that she was there & very much involved. This will be my last word on the situation because its beating one's head against abrick wall



So if they stuck you on the jury, you would pretty much know what your verdict would be?

And that is the problem. You may well be right about everything you say. But can you now see that as a problem?


----------



## ed buller (Feb 9, 2014)

"she turned me into a newt !"............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................." I got better"


----------

