To ask if you think that Knox is guilty?

[superstarheartbreaker]

I have no idea but it seems that her kissing her boyfriend at the time was seen as suspicious whereas I don't think that this is suspicious at all. DNA is...kissing one's lover.no. It's not even that inappropriate to kiss ones lover in the face of tragedy.
Didn't she do cartwheels though?

Think she's guilty.

It's an interesting idea Vida and is possible, if unlikely. But I find it hard to believe that AK and RS were off their heads on drugs and yet careful enough not to leave any traces or touch any blood.

Isn't it more likely that they just weren't there at all?

I've never heard RG's hair was found

Sorry - you are correct. Should have checked rather than relying on memory. Some sources say his hair was found but I haven't found anything official.

For the rest, it depends what you mean by "extensive". Your list of evidence is nowhere near complete. RG's shoeprints (at least 3), fingerprints and DNA were found in the bedroom. He only left one bloody palm print on the pillow case beneath the body but he also left bloody handprints on the walls. To quote from the evidence he is, "confirmed then to have touched more or less everywhere in the room, even with his hands stained with blood". His DNA was found on Kerchner and her clothing. His skin cells were inside her body. His blood mixed with hers was in bloodstains on the inside of her shoulder bag.

You seem to be advancing the theory that there wasn't much evidence of Guede and therefore it is not surprising that there was no evidence of Knox and Sollecito. The prosecution's forensic experts disagree with you. They believe that evidence of Knox and Sollecito must have been present. Their explanation is that Knox and Sollecito carefully cleaned away evidence of their presence leaving the evidence of Guede's presence intact.

By the way, the court was of the view that there is indeed overwhelming physical evidence of RG's guilt. That is why they convicted him. There is no significant evidence against him other than the forensic evidence. So if you say there is overwhelming evidence of his guilt you have little choice but to accept that there is overwhelming physical evidence.

Thanks prh, I like a debate!

I did mention the shoeprints, fingerprints (on the pillow) and DNA (on her bra, bag and jumper)

Yes, he said that he 'touched everywhere', that's in the sentencing report. But in the same report, it lists the physical evidence they found. Which is my list. See page 5 of themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Giordano_Sentencing_Report No 'bloody handprints on the walls'. No fingerprints apart from the one on the pillow. Do you have a different source?

So my point about biological traces not being THAT easy to spread stands. And is actually strengthened. He 'touched everything' YET his traces weren't everywhere. Although he probably said that to cover himself, knowing his traces would be found somewhere.

I don't want to get hung up on this point, someone asked if I had a theory on why no Knox DNA was in the room. I'm no DNA expert. But I'm just using common sense.

I'm not 100% sure they're guilty either, although leaning towards it. Trying to make sense of it...

Did the court really think they cleaned the bedroom? I thought they cleaned the hallway of footprints, but have never heard any suggestion they cleaned anything in the bedroom. Would you be able to share your source for that? As I say, I haven't read everything yet, so would really appreciate it.

What's the theory about the simplest version of events being the most likely?

So either they were in the room, but managed to leave no trace despite a violent attack or managed to erase all trace of two of them while leaving only Rudy's handprint etc, or they weren't in the room at all? Hmm, I know which one I believe.

However they do seem to be hiding something as they can't seem to get their story straight. It's baffling.

I don't accept that overwhelming guilt = overwhelming physical evidence, by the way.

I think Rudy Guede is overwhelmingly guilty, due to a relatively small amount of physical evidence (7 things, including DNA on clothes and in her vagina, palm print, shoe prints and faeces in toilet) found in damning places.

My point is, the press give the impression that his physical evidence was EVERYWHERE. All over the room. Hundreds of traces. It was not.

Occam's Razor, Trixy.

Parsimony

I don't see how you can judge a murder on whether or not people appear to be murderers. It has to be judged on the evidence. The evidence is not conclusive here, but does indicate that it is more likely than not that they were involved in Meredith's death. This is what Alan Dershowitz is saying. Amanda Knox does seem to come under the angel/devil split that women in particular are often subjected to. Maybe she is not a psychopath, but just a very mixed up, confused young woman who while taking drugs did a terrible thing. But if the balance of the evidence indicated she was involved, I think she should be jailed, for the sake of justice for Meredith.

I think people have been conditioned by the media to believe that Knox is a 'cold hearted killer'. no one here, to my knowledge, has met her. how the hell do you know whether her behaviour was 'normal' or not?

I have taken it from the Death in Perugia book that AK typically did not behave normally - bursting into loud song, insisting on speaking Italian to Dutch visitors etc. She herself said nothing embarrassed her. So she was socially awkward/ self centred/ obnoxious (delete to taste) before MK died - it's not like there was a behaviour shift from gracious to odd.

that's what I mean though doctrine - without knowing her personally, it's pretty much impossible to say what is 'odd' or 'normal' for her.

that's not entirely true about the CCTV footage.
There was CCTV installed in a nearby underground car park - some of which caught an area outside and close to the cottage.

there is some very very poor footage of a female figure that could have been Meredith but was certainly never confirmed to be her.

It was also never confirmed to be Rude Guede on CCTV either. It absolutely does not look like him to me - looks like a much burlier white man.

I just commented about that on the other thread Nancy.

(I do keep chuckling at everyone's amateur proclamations about DNA and stuff though. Don't real investigators and medical professionals rue the day that CSI ever started? I remember seeing a documentary lamenting the fact that now everyone thinks a) they can solve a crime b) that we all go round literally dribbling DNA everywhere c) that all we need is Horatio and his raybans to come striding over and Everything Will Be Nicely Solved. )

Sadly, real life isn't like that.

From the evidence there is, I'd say it's about 50:50 whether or not the Italian court got it right.

A lot of the so called 'facts' on here about DNA, CCTV, police beatings, autopsy results are coming from pro Amanda sites.

What we DO know for an absolute fact. 100 per cent bang on the money is that Amanda Knox lied on more than one occasion

Can you point me in the direction of the other thread, please?

It's in 'in the news'

Nancy, wasn't she given a sentence of 3 years 7 months for the slander of PL which was deemed to be covered by the 4 years already served?

So she was punished already for that lie.

Yes, that's right. She has served the sentence for slander.

I don't know if she's guilty or not.

I hope she is though, because I hate the thought of an innocent person going through what she's going through.

At one point, when PL was still in custody & before his alibi was confirmed, they were looking for RG as a 4th participant in the 'sex game gone wrong'; & possibly a second woman too because of an unidentified heel print in the house.

Talk about AK lying - the police made it up as they went along

There are recordings & transcripts of RS' s 'emergency' calls, the timings of which were used as evidence.