Amanda Knox

[LadyBeagleEyes]

Her appeal is being heard at the moment, and there is a good chance she'll be freed.
So who did kill Meredith?
If she and her ex boyfriend are deemed innocent, I hope the Italian police will continue to look into the case and get some justice for her.
I don't understand why they say the DNA is flawed, or have Knox's parents just managed to hire some very smart lawyers?
It's such a sad case.

Electra - so in this case the rule of law has been followed. Doesn't mean that justice has been done though.

Maybe justice would have been done if they had had someone sensible running the case who had not already been discredited on another case.

The trail will have run cold now. If they had looked at the facts maybe they would have caught whoever else was actually involved if anyone else was.

"the same evidence that convicted Guede"

hnestly, it was not the same evidence at all. Guede could request that the huge amount of his DNA found at the scene be re-tested but I would say for sure that they would not have a problem with that. They found his DNA all over the crime scene and they didn't with AK and RS. RS's dna was found in his own flat! Same true of AK.

There was nothing in the room apart from the contaminated bra clasp which put RS in there and IIRC nothing at all of AK.

You are very wrong to believe that the DNA for Guede was found and collected in the same way as AK and RS's.

"the many pages of other non dna evidence" can you be more specific?

"the white people get off and the black person is in jail. In fact the victim was an minority and so is the person in jail - and the two white people get off"

this wasn't about race it was about who is guilty and Rude Guede is guilty and just happens to be black just as MK is dead and happens to be black. No one 'got off'.

"yet Guede is in jail for murder with other people and it's the same unsafe dna"

It wasn't unsafe, though I am sure he could argue this in his new trial if they allow one. Not that it will do him any good IMO.

If he is released it will be because of the monumental cock up by the authorities.

Pajamas I am sorry for your loss.

It was the same evidence re dna - same lot looking at one crime scene - how did they cock up the processing dna evidence of two people and not the third. Surely they used the same processes.

giveitago, for Guede there was semen, a bloody handprint, a footprint, some used toilet paper which all placed him at the scene. Loads of DNA, it's undeniable.

For AK there was nothing at all at the murder scene. For RS there was a smidge of DNA on a bra strap that had been left lying there by the police for weeks and could have easily been transferred there during the investigation rather than the murder as they weren't careful when handling it.

Do you understand the difference?

Yes, Noble, understand perfectly thanks. But we weren't at the trial (at least I wasn't) and the Kercher family noted there were pages and pages of other evidence.

So they are let off - because the inital trial was deemed flawed for them. That does not prove their innocence or guilt in this case. It just means the appeal was was won based on the flaws of the police dna investigation.

Other evidence was circumstantial.

If there is no DNA to show that they were at the scene of the murder, and there was loads of DNA to show that the other guy was there (so, no effective clean-up operation then), then how on earth can you claim that they were there?

Apart from which, there was no motive. The prosecution themselves said it was senseless.

So you've got a crime which you can't show they were present at and which you can't explain them committing without resorting to satanic rituals.

Perhaps they didn't do it?

Perhaps not - perhaps yes. But given the defence won the appeal on dna contamination and lack of dna evidence gathering process, we will never know either way.

I hope they find the 'real' criminals but they won't as the case will not be reopened at present as the prosecution feel they have their case right.
Italy has it's own legal processes. It works or doesn't work for them just as our processes work and don't work for us.

Don't you think if they were there at the murder scene and committed murder, there would have been better DNA evidence, like there was for Guede?

If the DNA evidence placing them at the scene (or rather RS at the scene and AK with the 'murder weapon' - is it likely she murdered someone then took the knife home, gave it a quick wash and put it back in the drawer?) is rubbish, which experts say it is, then the circumstantial evidence they've got is pretty worthless. They weren't at the murder scene.

Noble - were you one of the investigators?

I've seen articles in the UK, US and Italian press - all giving very different versions of events.

So we JUST DON'T KNOW. But they were let off because of flaws in gathering and processing dna evidence. Doesn't prove guilt or innocence either way.

I read the DNA report summary.

You can't convict someone of a crime when the only thing tying them to a crime scene is some shoddy trace of DNA evidence which could have arrived at the crime scene in any number of ways. When there's no motive. When there are no witnesses. When it doesn't make any sense outside the fevered imagination of a discredited prosecutor.

"I've seen articles in the UK, US and Italian press - all giving very different versions of events"

it's very easy to find out what was entere into the trial as evidence. You should quite easily be able to trawl through what's in the papers and dismiss the dross. All the relevant true evidence presented is very easy to track down so don't rely on press reports.

Maybe I just ask what is deemed the "normal" way to respond when you're an inexperienced 20-year-old, high on pot, and you suddenly discover the bloodied, dead body of your friend? Are you meant to prepare for this sort of thing in advance? Will I find guidelines on Correct and Acceptable Behaviour detailed in The Lady?

Much as it must have seemed odd that AK behaved in the way she did - and yeah, cartwheels, wtf?? But extreme shock does extremely weird things to a person, and many people go into some kind of denial as a defence mechanism to protect them from the full horror. Anyone who's experienced the violent death of a loved one will know this very well.

I can well imagine that poor MK's family will have gone into shock and done different odd things. One really shouldn't be prescriptive about this sort of thing.

If I heard correctly, there is going to be a programme on Woman's Hour tomorrow morning about Amanda Knox and how women on trial are often portrayed by the media.

I remember the press trying to paint Maxine Carr as some Myra Hindley sort of character and it turned out she wasn't even there!

Er, Maxine Carr gave Huntley a false alibi, knowing those girls were missing - she may not have been there but she was certainly no Snow White!

And just because the evidence was flawed doesn't mean Knox and Sollecito didn't do it.

And just because her confession is inadmissable doesn't mean it's not true - even if as another post claimed earlier that a percentage of confessions are true, by the poster's own admission, the chances of the confession being real is a much higher percentage and therefore much more likely,.

And why did she accuse an innocent man?

And why, when neither of their phones had ever in their lives been switched off so early, did the timing of that coincide with the murder? Why did they switch their phones off only on that night when they had never ever done that before?

And why did Guedde say they were there?

And why did Sollecito lie about having called the police?

Far, far more likely that they went to the cottage, high on drugs, and decided to have some very sick 'fun', having found Guedde and Meredith to be inside. And things got extremely out of hand.

The Knox family were very media friendly and therefore they had the backing of the media. The Kerchers, on the other hand, have remained dignified throughout and therefore they were not courted by the media.

Sollecito also comes from a wealthy family and they were able to buy the best defence lawyers.

They got away with murder because of a bungled police investigation, media backing and inept forensics.

But, for some reason people want to believe that her confession was a lie, her accusation of Lumumba was a lie, yet she is telling the truth when she says she wasn't there.

giveitago Knox and Sollecito were not 'let off'.

The biggest 'flaw in gathering and processing dna evidence' is that there was no credible dna evidence from them at the scene or anywhere else.

The appeal judge said they had been 'acquitted because they have not committed the crime.'

If someone who sat in judgement over them for 10 months JUST KNOWS they didn't do it, how come you're disagreeing with him?

Yummy - your points have already been covered on this thread.

And Guede did not say they were there initially. He blamed the murder on a shadowy stranger whilst he was in the toilet. It was later on (and probably on the advice of his lawyer who knew they had the others in custody) that he included them in his story.

This was the FIRST weekend they had spent together - it is not SO odd that they chose to turn their phones off, if their parents were in the habit of ringing for example. They wanted to remain undisturbed.

And Sollecito DID call the police. There was some discrepancy over what time he called and what time they arrived, but the Communication police turned up independently as someone had found Meredith's phones.

YH - I am not saying she did nothing wrong but what I am saying is that she was portrayed in a misleading way by the media at the time.

I used to switch my phone off when I was away at uni if I was with my boyfriend because my parents called a lot.

And it's not that people believe she said she wasn't in the room - there isn't any evidence that she was. I can't believe there would not have been something.

Exactly - they never did it BEFORE because this was a new realtionship. I can totally understand that you might not want to be disturbed by calls when you are having a romantic night in. I don't see at all why this MUST be construed as sinister.

They had been going out for 6 days!

I can't believe that there are people who are this easily led by the tabloid press. It makes me despair, honestly.