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've spent quite a bit of time trying to find an account of the evidence from a reliable source and think I'm best waiting till the ruling is released in the next 3 months as everything I read seems to countered and disputed.

Themurderofmeredithkercher.com and murderofmeredithkercher.com are two cases in point.

I'm surprised that Guede who surely has nothing to lose has not implicated them in the crime.

My personal view is that the two have some involvement somehow. Perhaps Amanda let Guede into the house then left and returned later to discover the murder, panicked, and fled? Somehow she's not able to say she did that and from those actions she and Rafeal ended up faking a break in and moving Meredith's body?

Crazy behaviour but feeling guilty can make people do all kinds of strange things.

But forensics showed two murder weapons used suggesting a second person.

I feel so sorry for Meredith's family and hope when the ruling is released it gives undisputed clarity to what really happened.

Amanda says the police asked her if PL could have been involved. She said he could have been and immediately retracted that. But police refused to accept her retraction.

Wrt DNA. I remember reading about the Jonbenet Ramsey case and that an unknown male's DNA was found on her knickers. But apparently this DNA could even have come from someone touching it at the factory where the knickers were made. So it seems as if DNA evidence is not always clear cut though it can be compelling.

I personally that she is guilty of something. It could be the murder, it could be setting up Meredith to be attacked without meaning for her to be murdered, or any number of other things. It's also apparent that she is dishonest and manipulative.

The knife and bra clip DNA is very difficult to rely on as the sole credible link to them being in that room. The circumstantial evidence however really suggests that they know what happened. I don't believe that two knives and multiple wounds necessarily means that Guede acted with someone else. But the continual changing of the story, of turning the phones off, of their lies and inconsistencies between the stories, of framing someone else - well it very strongly suggests that at the very least they're guilty of perverting the course of justice. My guess? they bought their weed from Guede. They invited him to that flat at some point, and they discovered what he had done but for a reason that's unfathomable to me, they colluded in a cover up. They were too afraid to call the police in the first instance, so called his sister. They are guilty of SOMETHING but who knows what.

the two of them have spent years being intesively media coached. Sollecito's family has connections with some of the prosecution experts. His flit to Austria yesterday (after the morning's rockstar entrance with his entourage) and holidays to countries with no extradition treaty with Italy suggest he knows damn well he'll be found guilty.
I think also that the acquittal last time is NOT a verdict of "innocent" it's not found guilty - probably because of the undoubted police incompetence in evidence collection.
I don't belive that police incompetence means they're innocent.

In my humble opinion there is not enough evidence to find AK and RS guilty beyond reasonable doubt. I do, however, find it extremely strange that ak implicated Patrick lamamba. I know this was apparently after hours of questioning in a foreign language but to say she covered her ears to drown out the screams whilst he did it is certainly an elaborate "vision". I'm not sure I believe her explanations about that one to be honest. All in all, it seems very unlikely to me that they murdered Meredith.

I think it's possible that maybe, somehow they heard something going on but did nothing, didn't help or call the police etc for whatever reason maybe because they were in possession of drugs, high, too drunk, didn't realise the extent of it and simply just not wanting to be involved.

For clarity, Guede initially did not implicate Knox. At his trial he suggested an unknown man had committed the murder while he was in the bathroom. The court found that his version of events did not match the evidence and convicted him. He then appealed and implicated Knox, stating that she had been in the apartment at the time of the murder and that he had heard her arguing with Meredith Kercher. After Knox and Sollecito were convicted his sentence was cut from 30 years to 16 years. This suggests a deal whereby he implicated Knox in return for a reduced sentence.

For what it is worth the prosecution seem to have abandoned the "sex game gone wrong" theory (just like they abandoned their original "satanic ritual" theory) and moved onto it being an argument about cleaning the flat.

a young girl brutally murdered by one man does not catch our imagination quite so much

The evidence is that poor Meredith was held down whilst she was stabbed - the marks on her body showed that there was more than one person involved.

Putting my judge pants on; yes I believe she is guilty. Purely based on instinct / not liking the cut of her jib. She comes off as very manipulative and calculating.

However, the way the case has been handled I don't think she should have been found guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, based on the available evidence. I don't think the USA (or any other country) should extradite any of its citizens unless they are guaranteed a fair trial.

*judgy pants

Also, if she actually isn't guilty then this really has been a horrible miscarriage of justice and I feel bad for thinking she is guilty.

The evidence is that poor Meredith was held down whilst she was stabbed

That is the prosecution's interpretation of the evidence. The marks on her body could also be interpreted in other ways.

Hmmm, I think the evidence seems to suggest that there is something she and Sollecito were hiding. Not based on the DNA evidence or cartwheels etc., but mainly the fact of the staged burglary and their lies about their alibis/where they were/what time they called police and so on. The bits of evidence that are not disputed seem to suggest that Guede dd it but couldn't have staged a fake burglary afterwards and that someone else had some hand in moving the body and disturbing the crime scene. Sollecito's changing stories and the evidence that he wasn't using his computer when he said he was etc. seem very suspicious. Were they present and then for whatever reason altered the scene in such a way that they were frightened of being implicated, hence trying to cover it up? And then they got stuck in trying to maintain stories that were manifestly untrue? But if so why not just come clean about having been there (too frightened they would then be done for being accessories to murder?)

Of course we'll never know for sure. We weren't there.
What we can have is an opinion. I don't think she killed MK, but I have a suspicion she was there and knows what happened.
I've been watching her interview for an American chat show on YouTube.
In it she is asked "Did you kill Meredith Kercher?" AK replies "no."
She is then asked "were you there?" Again she replies "no", but then gives a very obvious nod of the head.
Is this her saying one thing yet meaning another? Maybe I'm reading too much into it.

I really really hope that some posters on here are never called for jury service.

I think it would be very easy to panic and contradict yourself if you were being interviewed in a country where you didn't know the legal system and your rights and didn't know the language well. I did a year abroad with uni and I wouldn't have known what to do at all if I was arrested. I wouldn't have known if we were discussing what actually happened or if I was discussing what could have happened. I wouldn't have known if I was entitled to a lawyer or how to contact one. I could imagine very easily the stress and confusion and language barrier leading to all sorts of things being said.

I agree Flowery. I hold the dubious distinction of almost being in that position. On my year abroad, we had bother with our neighbour, who hated the fact that furrin trollops (his words) were upstairs. He called the police on us on numerous occasions (we weren't the first, the language school we were at, and the local plod, were used to him) and accused me of being a prostitute. The police came knocking and took my passport away. I was shit scared and was running round like a headless chicken. Luckily, we found the person from our university who was looking out for us, and he "sorted it" along with the language school. But I don't know what I would have done/said had I really been carted off and locked up, then interrogated.

That does sound scary! It's like when I think how difficult it was to try a and explain to a subway worker that I wasn't trying to use a ticket from the day before, I'd poked the wrong one in the machine. We'd been warned that they were strict so to be careful with using the tickets properly. I couldn't think of the words to explain what I'd done because I'd never had to before. And then I was panicking that I was going to get into more trouble so probably didn't look at all innocent. In the end he let me wander off because he couldn't understand me and I was so stressed I couldn't understand him. I can't imagine how much that must be magnified for questioning about murder with actual police! Plus the language barrier changes so much more than just the words. All the nuances and the way you say things will affect the police's opinions and they won't have had any of that.

I don't understand or can think of a possible reason why her body would have been moved and why would someone take her bra off - after she had died??

Perhaps the bra was taken off to make people think it was sexually motivated?

The break in was staged however as the glass fragments showed this. So presumable whoever murder Meredith she probably knew.

Also wasn't RG in Mexico after the murder? Mexico has no extradition treaty with Italy so why would he return?

the fact of the staged burglary

This is disputed. The prosecution's arguments that the burglarly was staged do not entirely hold water. The defence argue that some of the "evidence" that led police to believe the crime scene had been staged was created by the actions of their own investigators. For example, they claim the police found a pair of bloody boots next to Meredith Kercher's head and shoved them under the bed. The bloodstain created by the boots when they were moved then became part of the "evidence" of a staged burglary.

someone else had some hand in moving the body and disturbing the crime scene

Again, strongly disputed. The prosecution case is that the body was moved away from the wardrobe and the bra removed some time after death. However, some forensic scientists dispute the theory that the bra was removed post mortem as there was blood on Meredith Kercher's breasts suggesting she was still alive. And there does not appear to be any credible forensic evidence to suggest that anyone other than Guede and Meredith Kercher had been in the room. The prosecution argument is that Knox and Sollecito removed all evidence of their own presence to such a degree that forensic investigators were not able to find anything but left extensive evidence of Guede's presence undisturbed. Whilst that is not completely impossible it is incredibly unlikely.

I don't understand or can think of a possible reason why her body would have been moved

Just for clarity, the prosecution do not allege that the body was moved from a completely different location, just that it was moved away from the wardrobe.

Wasn't there something about covering her up because that was a compassionate (female) thing to do? Maybe that's linked.

Just for clarity, the prosecution do not allege that the body was moved from a completely different location, just that it was moved away from the wardrobe.

Yes I know that. I never said she was moved to a different room - just that the body was moved.

I also find the hand print in blood so strange. If you were going to kill someone why would you leave such damning evidence?
If the body was moved after she had died (and she didn't die straight away) the killer presumable didn't leave in a hurry, and would have had enough time to attempt to remove the hand print?

I think it's quite possible to be a not very nice person while not being guilty of murder. I don't find Knox particularly likeable but murders in which a man and a woman kill another woman in some strange sex game/ritual are exceedingly rare. So even without looking at the evidence, you could just think about the probability: which is more likely, that Guede acted alone, or that two men and one woman acted together on a rather bizarre motivation?