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?

I'm assuming there's no new evidence, therefore nothing we haven't read before...

10,000 pages of evidence was presented at this trial.

You keep saying this, but there was no evidence before and AFAIA no new evidence has come to light.

Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside MK's body and his handprints made with her blood were found under her body.

That's the kind of evidence needed for a murder conviction.

Alisvolatpropiis I suggest you start reading up on criminal judgments Presuming that you have, since you use judgment without an "e", are you in a position to comment on Burden of proof, sufficiency, standard of proof, types of evidence, including real evidence, admissibility, relevancy, the best evidence rule, presumptions, weight and proof of facts without evidence in Italian law compared to English law? And any procedural differences that might have an effect?

I know I'm not, and I teach the damned subject!

I find it very hard to believe that a 20-something year old uni student would be capable of stabbing another person 40+ times in cold blood. I just don't see it.

Knox isn't entirely innocent. I think she knows more than she has ever let on, probably to save her own ass, but I really do not think she is the psychopath they make her out to be.

No, it isn't,

Merely that beyond reasonable doubt that one believes the other accused people to have been involved in the murder.

Forensic evidence is helpful but not necessary.

Basic UK law.

I have no idea but I don't think anyone can have faith in any judgment given now.

Alisvolpropiis Are we really going down the poor prett white girl school it thought

Why not? If it affects the way the evidence is presented? If that indeed happened, then it would be highly relevant to question it.

I think she is guilty. I also think she has convinced herself of her innocence

LessMiss

There are people who teach it and people who practice it for a reason.

Yes, I think she is.

Well if she's trying to save her ass she has failed surely?
So does this mean she won't go to jail despite being found guilty and sentenced?

'It was easy to imagine, Mignini continued, that Amanda was so angry with Meredith for criticising her uninhibited attitude to sex that she insulted her flatmate and perhaps shouted at her: "you acted the goody-goody so much, now we're going to show you. Now you're going to be forced to have sex!'

Really? Not exactly a credible or realistic argument...

Merely that beyond reasonable doubt that one believes the other accused people to have been involved in the murder

I think that's stretching similar fact a tad further than was it was ever intended!

It is a utter tragedy however you look at it. Meredith died a horrible death. If Knox is innocent her life has even destroyed. If she is guilty she is currently free.

No i do not think Knox or Sollecito are guilty

there is a problem when you use dna, highlighted in cases like this. of course there dna will be all over the apartment and on Kercher's items

the whole kissing scene has been totally blown out of proportion, how do we know how we would act if we found out a flat mate had been brutally murdered. this case has become sensational, a sex game that went wring wtf and to hide the shoddy work of the police investigation

There are people who teach it and people who practice it for a reason

And there are those of us who do both.

And now no one will have confidence in any judgment given. The to-ing and fro-ing has destroyed any chance of that.

ali could you outline more clearly what evidence is making you think they are guilty?

I find it very hard to believe that a 20-something year old uni student would be capable of stabbing another person 40+ times in cold blood. I just don't see it

There was a very interesting program on tv, not sure which chanel about child killers last night and what motivates them, possible explanations, interesting stuff about group murder, wanting to fit in and so on.

One part explained high achieving students from good school, most expected to go onto uni or a levels; suddenly going on the rampage inside victoria train station with machetes and weapons...

drugs change your perceptions, getting carried away...who knows what the mood was that night...

I could. But you could look for yourself.

Well, I have. Quite thoroughly. so if you're so sure of yourself, what am I missing?

Guilty

I wasn't aware I was sitting on a jury. What makes you so sure she, and indeed he, are innocent?

certainly, as far as I know, she never exhibited signs of a potential murderer from what I've read.

It seems hard to say she's guilty beyond reasonable doubt really, given the bollocks evidence.