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.

Portofine,
he was originally given a longer sentence, but the prosecuters had successfully argued that it was actually Knox and her boyfriend who wielded the knife and inflicted the lethal blows, therefore it was deemed unfair that he got the longer sentence so his defence lawyer argued for it to be cut. Why is it wrong that the people found guilty of actually using the knife get a longer sentence than the person who did not? In my opinion, it makes no difference , if you taek part in pinning someone down and sexually assaulting them, and stabbing them you send the rest of your life in prison, not just 16 years. Meredith must have been terrified.

If Knox and her boyfriend get a not guilty verdict, then it changes the whole scenario prosecuters accused Guede of being involved in, i.e they said he did not wield the fatal blows, that someone else was involved etc. They cannot suddenly say, that they change their mind and actually he did wield the knife. They would ahve a hard time suddenly argueing that he managed to break into the house, sexually assault Meredith, pull her clothes off her, cut her bra, clamp his hands on her wrists, and face, and then stab her in the that several times from different angles with different knives by himself all whilst meredith hardly fought back (once he began stabbing her she would have known her life was in danger and not trusted she woudd be left alive by her attacker, plus most people automatically put their hands to the defend themselves, or up the the wound if it is in the neck), and only screamed once and then cleaned up in one bathroom, went to the loo in the other bathroom but did not flush, faked a robbery, left no fingerprints on the front door without anyone else being involved etc. Someone helped him, who because if it is not Knox and her boyfriend, someone else is out there and not even suspected. that is horrendous.

porto,
please do not be so rude.

When was I rude? But the facts work just as well with one attacker. It makes much more sense on a logical level and there IS STILL NO EVIDENCE that AK/RS were even there. Why should there be finger prints on the front door?

And why would a young couple who had been going out for ONE week set up a sex game with a bloke they don't know, and poor Meredith who was considered "prudish" compared to the much more "flighty" Knox?

Kelly, all the forensic analysts stated that it was reasonable that one person could have been solely responsible. It is very clear in that report. I would encourage you to look because you're clearly interested.

Page 122 half way down to start with.

Page 116 at the bottom and page 119 at the top. All concurring the the number of attackers is indeterminable. Can't copy and paste from iPhone.

There are at least two more I think. You are asking the same question the report answered for me. That and it confirming the utter bullshit that is the whole kitchen knife saga.

And it didn't say there were different knives. It said that some wounds were consistent with the knife that came from RS's kitchen, and that some definitely weren't. RS was known to carry a penknife. I think they found this in his room. It was not linked to the murder in any way.

I think that the fatal wound was NOT consistent with the RS kitchen knife.....

Exactly. The defence experts both said the kitchen knife was incompatible with either major wound with reasonable explanations. The most likely scenario is that a single pocket knife with an 8th blade inflicted all the injuries. Which fits the defensive injuries best too.

The fatal wound was compatible with the kitchen knife according to the prosecution. The defence were pretty convincing about why not.

"Someone helped him, who because if it is not Knox and her boyfriend, someone else is out there and not even suspected. that is horrendous"

I can't even see how this has to be the case. He could have done all of that on his own, he could have been in the house already and he could have used the toiled before he attacked her. he could have completely surprised her,. he could have broken in (via the window) and he could have cleaned up the house (hallway etc) by himself - though obviously not as well as he hoped.

We don't know but any of those things are possible and so he could have been alone.

Freaklikeme Thanks for the link to the Rolling Stone article - I've started reading it but am wondering about the author. Is this the same Nathaniel Rich who is an author and book critic? I'm wondering if he is the best person to believe?

DF - I think she made calls and stuff after getting home, so it would appear unlikely he was already in the house. I see that the summing up included a report that AK would "flee" Italy (ie go home) if freed, and about how much money her defense fund has - this would obviously interfer greatly with the Italian judiciary process, and is another reason she is guilty?

Every point of AK/RG/RS defence seems to hinge on the DNA evidence. They were convicted on many other points.

Not ONE of them has come up with a convincing alibi for their whereabouts that night.

They were not asked to explain their movements months after the event it was HOURS.

If my flatmate was murdered I think I could remember where I was the night before unless I was totally out of it on drink/drugs and not some 'harmless' weed.

Redruby,
Exactly, it is like I was saying CSI effect, everyone is convinced that DNA can be the only evidence and must be available in huge amounts (people have even implied that DNA cannot be reliable if it is amplified, despite this being a highly respected and commonly used technique). People forget that Levi Bellfield was convicted of the murder of Amanda Dowler without one bit on DNA evidence, and not one witness.
People forget about the witness statements, including one of the accused parents, the fact that they have lied several times etc.
People also seem to forget that in all cases like this you will have expert witness' giving contradictory statements to each other and it is up to the courts to decide who they believe. In this case one set of experts say the DNA evidence is not 100% reliable, but these experts are in fact only experts in the theory side, they have never one actually been practicioners in their filed and therefore have no experience of working in a lab or crime scene, whereas the other set of experts say the DNA evidence is reliable and are not only experts in the theory, but in the practice of DNA collection. Of course no-one thinks there could be any problems with the DNA used to convict Guede.
I wonder if Guede was white, Knox was a mixed race Briton, and Meredith was a white American we would be seeing the same attitudes from people.

Ah - throw the race card in! . There is still NO reliable evidence that puts AK/RS at the crime scene. None. It is nothing to do with Guede being black - more that he left copious amounts of DNA and bodily fluids at the scene. His defence did not deny that he was there - they are not calling the evidence into question. I have no idea what went on that night - I can guess at the truth - but in the UK I don't believe AK/RS would even have been charged with this crime. There IS reasonable doubt.

Please explain to me how 3 people are in a room - 1 leaves copious amounts of evidence to his presence and the other 2 leave none. AT ALL. What is the other evidence? Confused statements - a co-erced confession - behaving in an odd manner afterwards....?

What is the motive? A young couple who have been going out for a week set up a sex game with a bloke they don't know? Oh a RS remembers to bring his big kitchen knife along with him? A knife that couldn't have caused all the injuries. (RS carried a pen knife with him - he didn't use that) Then they leave the buiding without leaving a trace? How LIKELY does this sound to you?

Compared to a guy with recent form for breaking and entering, who left bodily fluids and DNA all over the scene, then fled the country.....?

Fair summary here.

This galls because I lurk on mn a lot and rarely post - only when I feel strongly or have 'specialist' knowledge.

In this particular case you can
a) say 'no-one will ever really know', which means you're not really interested enough to sift through the 400 page prosecution report and some of the 10's of forums and millions of posts on the crime. Fair enough, that's probably a healthier response than waking up on a Sunday morning and checking for new posts.

Or b) read a fraction of said report and forum and blog posts, take a considered position and then start trying to fight with people on the Internet.

I think it's really rude to just rock up, ignore all the facts AND opinion available and then call people racist.

I don't think she's guilty either. I think how she's been presented in the press is appauling. Can you imagine being accused of something so terrible, and a lot of it being based on a very skewed public bias against you? My dp knows only very little about this case but thinks she's guilty as she 'acts funny'. Says it all.

Their alibi is that they were together. Several people saw ak at rs flat and anyone who says they saw them elsewhere has been discredited. Computer and phone logs back up their stories somewhat and all computers seized were mysteriously victim of accidents meaning computer activity couldn't be used in court.
Rs was asked if he could be sure amanda stayed all night and he replied that he accepted she could have gone out while he was sleeping but the prosecution think they did it together so if she left without him it's not really relevant anyway.

Plent of people don't have an alibi for that night but it doesn't make them a murderer does it.

I have read loads about this crime, sifted the lies and misinformation fed to the press and personally believe there is no evidence to convict ak and rs of this crime.

What were the many other points ak and rs were convicte on?

redandgreen,
Red,
Someone on here said it was unfair that after all three were found guilty that Guede was not given a longer sentence. As he was not found to have actually inflicted the wounds, and the courts decided the other two did actually kill her it is damn well weird to say he should get a longer sentence. Also someone said they would never trust what he said despite the fact he has been found just as guilty as Knox and unlike Knox he has not changed his story. There is no reason to think he is any more unreliable than Knox. So yes I do think if he had been a white american and Knox had been a black african the attitude would be different.
And actually he did not leave very much DNA in Meredith's room, he only left a tiny bit of DNA evidence, and he claims it was left there consensually. RS has never given an explaination for why his DNA was there, all his defence have tried to do is rubbish one of Europe's leading DNA experts by getting in a theorist.

Dueling,
Their alibi has changed several times. The witness who puts them there has not been discredited by the court, the defence tried to discredit him, the prosecution supported him. It is up to the court to decide if they believe him or not. Also their alibi was contradicted by RS's own father who spoke to them on the telephone. One of their alibis was also contradicted by Rs's computer records.

I also find the fact that Knox claims to have found the place with the door open and blood on the floor and did not do anything, but then several hours later called a flatmate and said the open door and blood made her worried about meredith suspicious. She had not seen the other flatmate, had not tried to contact meredith yet she was worried about meredith not the other girl.
I also do not see why a burgulary was staged.

Also there is DNA evidence against them, one experts with no practical experience discredited the methods used, the other experts who are experts in DNA collection not just theory say it was fine, was done in the prescence of police and defence reps. The courts have to decide who they believe.

The only people who are claiming she is innocence do not seem to be aware of anything other than the defence arguements, which have been given a disproportionate amount of publicity in the UK. For instance there was hardly any publicity given to the statement supporting the DNA evidence yet the arguements against it were all over the British media. The media reported that international protocols were nt followed, yet did not report when it was pointed out there was no such thing as international protocols, and that in fact European protocols were followed to the letter.
Saying that I think she will get a not guilty verdict.

innocent, not innocence.