So the verdict is apparently due in the Meredith Kercher murder trial today

[PortofinoRevisited]

BBC Link

The appeal after the overturned convictions. I hope this can all be brought to a close now.

And if you have any doubt about the craziness of the Italian courts, just look at this

www.smh.com.au/world/italian-court-overturns-paedophile-conviction-as-11yearold-in-love-20140102-hv7ak.html

\link{http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-case-harsh-verdict-italian-justice\Guardian CIF piece - 'Knox and Sollecito case delivers harsh verdict on Italian justice'}

'A case that began as tragedy and turned swiftly to farce under the glare of the international media spotlight has thus taken on new tragic overtones. It boils down to an Italian justice system more interested in saving face than in looking at the evidence.

'In another judicial environment, the focus might be on the multiple pieces of evidence presented in court by the Perugia police and by the original prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, which fell apart on closer scrutiny ; on the fact that Mignini was fighting off criminal charges of prosecutorial misconduct when he mounted the original case; on the fact that Sollecito was put in solitary confinement for six months solely on the basis of the blood-stained print of a shoe that was later demonstrated not to be his ; or on the fact that chief homicide detective on the case, Monica Napoleoni, has since been removed from her job on suspicion that she abused her position to try to intimidate her ex-husband in a child custody dispute.'

I have been reading this thread with some confusion. The thing I keep coming back to is that no DNA evidence of either AK or RS was found in the room where the murder was committed. How are they supposed to have done it then? That's the thing I can't understand - even with all the confusing tales of lies and changing alibis and how long the first police interview was - even after some strange behaviour on both their parts - how can they have done it without leaving a trace of themselves?

Genuine question - I'd like to understand, I really don't know what the answer is myself. Is there evidence that has since been withdrawn or really no DNA trace of them (but plenty from RG)?

The author of the Guardian piece is the co author of RS book.

Exactly TheONeWithTheNicestSmile - there is so much evidence of the lies from the police and prosecution

there are, unfortunately, corrupt police in every country. We have our share here. It doesn't make me think that every case ever brought is corrupt though.

The author of the Guardian piece is the co author of RS book

I know. He has presumably seen a lot of documentation that we haven't.

Exactly SpaceIsBig - it is impossible to be involved in a violent struggle and bloody murder and leave no trace that you were there.

\link{http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sollecito-accuses-italian-police-of-violence-2366163.html\Indie report from shortly after first appeal}

(RS says he was treated violently too - & I read elsewhere that there are no tapes of his preliminary interview/s either)

'Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann noted that Mr Sollecito, who spent 1,448 days behind bars, and Ms Knox were "completely innocent" of murder and assault. An appeal against the acquittals by the prosecution is expected to be launched next year'

"completely innocent" of murder and assault

Completely innocent is in quotes so presumably he used those actual words?

I didn't see any reference to a magic hoover or witchcraft being mentioned by the prosecution in the trial, but I if you could provide a link that would be good be.

And I can certainly see why they would stay away from any RS connection. They couldn't risk being associated with the actual crime. Maybe AK had to think quickly and threw out a wide ball with PL. Not saying that is what happened as none of us can know for sure what the real story is.

Flora, if that is from Hellmann, there had to be a retrial as it was considered to be flawed.

"Let us never doubt what nobody is sure about."

No conflicting interests at all then re Guardian piece. I guess the judge in the Florence trial has seen a lot of documention that we haven't too.

The judge in Appeal Trial 1's exact words were "di non aver commesso il fatto" which is legal formula and used in every "let em go" judgement.

"of not having committed the fact".

Not exactly the same as "completely innocent" if we want to be picky, but more or less.

Floracare were you involved in establishing the 'Meredith' site that assumes AK and RS are innocent?

Btw, for those interested in the corruption element (and I'm not disabusing anyone of the fact that it is rife) you might want to spend some time reading archive newspaper articles about the intercepted phone calls between Daddy Sollecito and Sister Sollecito (a policewoman) regarding the important political bod(s) that she had done favours for in the past, and who now she felt could be called upon to pull some strings.

Corruption in Italy is a 2 way street.

The thing I keep coming back to is that no DNA evidence of either AK or RS was found in the room where the murder was committed
RS's DNA was found on the bra strap which was in the room where the murder was committed.
I find it interesting that all those convinced of AK's innocence and equally convinced of Rudy's guilt think that the DNA collection and testing was fine when it happened to Rudy but failed when it applied to AK and RS despite the fact that most of the testing was conducted in front of representatives from RS' legal team (AK's team chose not to send a representative).
I genuinely don't know whether AK or/and RS are guilty or not but I have read the translated court documents and there are a few questions I keep coming back to.
Perhaps the AK supporters on this thread can shed light on them?
how did AK know how and where Meredith was murdered before the information was released by the police? There are signed witness statements from the other flatmates that say AK said Meredith's throat was cut, that she took a long time to die and that she was murdered beside the wardrobe (even though when the room was opened Meredith's body was in the centre of the room on the floor and not* beside the wardrobe and her body was covered by a sheet hence no-one could see how she had been injured).

• why did AK mention a sexual motive for the murder in her statement yet that information had not yet been released?

Also for the commenters above saying AK must have been hit during her interrogation because Patrick said he was hit too, why did you not mention that Patrick also said AK should be found guilty and that she was a liar? I think he would be rather shocked to find himself used to validate any of AK's arguments when he holds her responsible for ruining his life and his business. And, again, his anger against her doesn't mean she is guilty of murder.

The Patrick thing seems to derive purely from her text to him on her phone, after he told her not to come in because the bar was quiet.

She replied saying "see you later" & to the Italian police, when they read the message, this meant she was literally going to see him later that evening (not getting the colloquial English usage) so they started asking her about him - when she repeatedly said he had not been there they hit her (until she "told them what they already knew" )

Was Patrick ever aware that she had not freely volunteered his name to the police?

nobody hit her.
The police successfully sued her for slander for claiming this.

Again, depending on what version of events you want to believe, the prosecution claim that AK was the first to mention PL's name.

I find it interesting that all those convinced of AK's innocence and equally convinced of Rudy's guilt think that the DNA collection and testing was fine when it happened to Rudy but failed when it applied to AK and RS

Not sure if you're referring to me here, but that's not what I think - I assumed the process was the same for all of them, and that the result was rather more DNA of RG, and none (i thought) of the other two.

So - it's the bra clasp that puts RS at the scene. Do we know who's bra it was? And then was there a clean-up of the rest of the murder scene which missed the RG (not imputing a magic Hoover, as I think the RG DNA was inside MK and her bag)? Is that the argument - I'm just trying to understand, not an AK supporter especially, but this was the area which I've not understood as in some ways it should be really straightforward: either there is DNA links to put Ak and RS at the murder scene (and I'd assume there'd be quite a bit), or there's signs of a clean up. But doesn't seem clear cut either way hence my hesitation.

What a system Nancy66, you can be sued for reporting the abuse of police

How can you be so sure she wasn't hit, if you haven't seen tapes of the interrogation? Why did Patrick Lumumba claim to be beaten and racially abused by the same police? Is he also lying and why haven't the police sued him for slander?

KateAdiesEarrings - not involved in any of the sites, apart from widely reading. There are some crazy people on both sides, but I do strongly believe there far more than resonable doubt - and some fairly good evidence of their innocence

Was the whole room tested for dna? Are there areas where RG dna should be but isn't? That would be the only way that AK and RS could have removed their dna by also removing some of RG's. If that makes sense.
I am so confused by all of the evidence everthing you read is contradictory. The bloody footprints which were then said to be bleach but then another report said they had to be blood as the time lapse of the luminix being put on the bleach would have evaporated.

she was sued for slander. that's pretty common.

there is just no evidence to support the claim she was hit.

I've never heard of PL claiming he was abused by the police. maybe he did. never seen in anywhere though

I find it interesting that all those convinced of AK's innocence and equally convinced of Rudy's guilt think that the DNA collection and testing was fine when it happened to Rudy but failed when it applied to AK and RS - it wasn't DNA that convicted Guede. It was palm prints and fingerprints and shoe prints.

There is also a huge difference between standad DNA results - and the Low Copy Number DNA results, which were used on the bra clasp and the knife. Low Copy Number DNA is far more likely to produce contamination and all sorts of controls and special handling and precautions need to be taken, none of which was done.

Read the conclusions of the Independent experts if you want to know more. The police were even caught trying to enter fake control documents into the court files - and I don't think the defence have still seen the actual DNA control documents, which is what you need to see if the result was reliable

How did AK know how and where Meredith was murdered before the information was released by the police? There are signed witness statements from the other flatmates that say AK said Meredith's throat was cut, that she took a long time to die and that she was murdered beside the wardrobe (even though when the room was opened Meredith's body was in the centre of the room on the floor and not beside the wardrobe and her body was covered by a sheet hence no-one could see how she had been injured)

There's a reference to her overhearing that Meredith's throat was cut in \link{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher#cite_note-85\the Wikipedia article}

'At around 3 pm police requested the flatmates and their friends to attend the police station for further enquiries. In the car, Knox sobbed when she overheard that Kercher's throat had been cut'

\link{http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/5524671/Throat-cutting-of-Meredith-Kercher-was-brutal-says-Amanda-Knox.html\Telegraph report of AK's testimony in June 2009}

Nancy66 - PL gave an interview to the Daily Mail claiming his abuse. They use direct quotes of him claiming that he was beaten and racially abused - the journalist later confirmed she had recordings of his abuse claims and that he was paid well for the article.

It is not for Amanda Knox to prove she wasn't hit - the police should produce the tapes to prove that she wasn't. This is why interrogations of suspects are supposed to be recorded - and why this has been referred to the ECHR