What do you think about the Kercher/Knox murder trial?

[Kathyis6incheshigh]

Latest here

I find it hard to believe she did it - seems very trumped up. So much of the evidence seems to be to do with Knox not behaving 'appropriately', but how would you behave if something so shocking happened as the murder of your flatmate? I can imagine it taking a while to sink in.

What did she do that was attention seeking? Maybe she was in shock, I read the police thought her behaviour was a bit odd, giggling ,etc. But shock can do funny things.

As for Joanna Lees she went out of her way to avoid the press after what happened and was hounded by the paps.

am inclined to agree, duelling....

joanna lees?

I don't see anything in Amanda Knox's behaviour in court that is attention seeking. She walks in, she smiles sometmes, she frowns other times. I think it's so easy to srutinise people's behaviour and then attach some meaning to it when it really is just normal behaviour.

Stripey, here's an example ofher behaviour afer being asked if she might have any idea how her flat mate was killed

"Knox?s face betrayed no sign of anguish or sorrow when police took her to the cottage to help them search it. Inside the cottage, when investigators asked her about the way Kercher may have died, Knox made the same gesture again and again: ?She?d press her hands to her temples and shake her head, as if she was trying to empty her brain of something she?d been through"

Once again, someone there is trying to attach reasons to her behaviour. I would say pressing hands to temples and shaking her head could just as well be a sign of someone in distress.

There's also stuff about how she bought underwear a couple of days after the murder and how that showed she wasn't distressed and might be hiding something. I am guessing that she was not allowed to return to the house or collect any clothes while the investigation continued and so buying underwear seems like quite a normal thing to do if you ask me.

hasn't this trial concludrd yet? seems to have been going on a long time

"The DNA evidence they have against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is just so bad"

Hmmm, how do YOU know this though? Unless you have access to more information/evidence than the rest of us (and I understand you might well do, I am not being sarky) - that's equally as daft as people saying I know she is guilty because of how she acted.

I don't know if Ms Knox is guilty or not, that's for the jury to decide - but the way her family and supporters have conducted themselves doesn't do them much credit, IMO.

Must admit I've always thought she was guilty of 'something' but at the same time, like other posters, I've never really understood how the three suspects could be involved together.

Maybe Knox just didn't much like Meredith (that's what the press seems to suggest) and actually she really didn't care a great deal about what had happened to her. It makes her a v cold hearted, self involved girl but not necessarily a murderer.

Janos - the DNA evidence which has been offered up in public by the prosecution has been really bad, their case is much more to do with the circumstancial evidence.

The knife they claim is the murder weapon (Found in Raffaele Sollecito's flat) does not fit the stab wounds or the imprint of the knife left on the vicim's duvet. The DNA of the victim they found on the blade of the knife was so small they could only test it once. The footprint they wanted to prove is Raffaele Sollecito's to place him at the scene is not a good fit. The bra clasp they offer up as evidence as it has Sollecito's DNA on it was handled by so many people that several other people's DNA was found on it also, it's possible that the clasp was contaminated at the scene.

All these things are readily available in the trial reports.

As is the fact that Guede left a bloody handprint on the wall of the murder victim's room, DNA on her purse, inside her, on her and all over the room, while there was very little of the other two accused's DNA at the scene - i.e in the bedroom where the murder took place.

In what way have Knox's family and friends conducted themselves badly?

Pickupthismess.

I think that the two girls had an amicable friendship but nothing too close. They had a bond because they both spoke English and were certainly friendly enough to socialise with eachother but I think the press has made much more of their supposed dislike of eachother than was necessarily true.

I can't see how Knox has been hard hearted.

i don't understand why, if there was a suspect, evidence via CCTV and DNA etc, why the need to charge two others , especially if the police were on shaky ground?

and why is the convicted man appealing? and why did he have a fast track trial?

lots i don't understand about this case

Well I haven't followed it closely but I remember reading that Maredith was sick of Knox bringing differnet guys home evry few nights and being untidy (just general crap) and they had only known each other a few weeks so I don't think they count as buddies.

I think she has been cold hearted - turning cartwheels in the police station, laughing and joking etc. I used to live in Italy and I was out there this summer. All my Italian friends thought she was guilty as sin, mainly because they see her mucking around in court and not taking the charges or the murder very seriously.

Type too fast!!

what way was she mucking around in court? I've not really heard much about that?

Well the Italians told me she pulled silly faces at friends/family, giggled at bits that were really inappropriate, rolled her eyes again when it it was inappropriate and serious. They were thoroughly unimpressed because even if innocent they felt she should show respect for the court and the family of Meredith.

She certainly seems to be very immature and somehow not really to have taken on board that she is being tried for a really horrible murder of her supposed friend or at least flatmate.

this is really interesting. Note though that it is put together by people who think Knox is not-guilty. Still, the stuff there is all about the actual evidence (or lack of) and if you read it you will see that the police had already decided the motive for the murder was a sex game gone wrong way before they had any DNA Evidence, and that the DNA evidence strongly implicates Guede and Guede alone.

I really honestly think that Knox and her boyfriends are victims in all this.

A murder trial is just about DNA evidence though, is it? There are murder cases where a conviction has been based on circumstantial evidence.

In answer to your question about how they have conducted themsleves, I would include her (Knox's) parents giving a lenthy interview to a British paper (The Guardian) about how wonderful she was and could not possibly be involved.

here

And this from BBC News: Battle beyond the Kercher trial

this is good

and led me to this - the head investigator was so convinced she was guilty and here's one reason

"when he handed Amanda a pair of shoe covers, "As she put them on she swiveled her hips... my suspicions against her were raised.? " I mean - REALLY!?

why would anyone turn cartwheels in the police station?

as for the rest, mabye she was in total denail and felt the whole thing was so surreal and tried to take it less seriously?

don't know, but if they have a conviction and there is shaky evidence for these two, why has it been purseud?

"I would include her (Knox's) parents giving a lenthy interview to a British paper (The Guardian) about how wonderful she was and could not possibly be involved."

how is that conducting themselves badlly?

Are they supposed to just stay silent despite much of the so called evidence being completely useless and wrong?

"I really honestly think that Knox and her boyfriends are victims in all this"

No, they aren't.

Meredith Kercher was the real victim.

I'm no expert on the Italian (or indeed any) legal system, but I'm pretty sure that they will be privy to evidence that we don't get to see.

Also, none of us apart from Meredith's family and friends are in a position to to make any comment at all on what sort of relationship the girls did or did not have and even they wouldn't know everything.

I am still 80% sure she is guilty. I have always found it strange she implicated that guy (Patrick) and he looked pretty like Guede.It's as if she knew the real culprit and then tried to find a scapegoat.

Re cartwheels. Even she admits she did that. She was showing an audience of policemen her gymnastic skills. But shows she was really pretty underwhelmed by the seriousness of her situation.

"Are they supposed to just stay silent despite much of the so called evidence being completely useless and wrong?"

You don't know this though, do you? It's just your opinion.

And as for the interview, the letters from James Snaith and Keren David say it quite neatly.

"if they have a conviction and there is shaky evidence for these two, why has it been purseud?"

Yes, why has it been pursued if that's the case? Good point.

"why has it been purseud?"

please read the information here

Pickupthismess, she was held without a lawyer and questioned for hours. A text message to the man she implicated was interpreted as her planning to meet up with him on the night of the murder. I firmly believe she implicated him because she was bullied into it. if you read the blog I posted you will see that recordings of this interrogation have been withheld by the prosecution, that Knox was lied to about her boyfriend's statements, that the prosecutors had already made their minds up that she, her boyfriend and the man she implicated were guilty. they led her to that 'confession' before even being aware that Guide was involved. in the end they couldn't prosecute the man she implicated because he had a cast iron alibi, they they just exchanged Guide for him but maintained the 'sex game gone wrong' story despite there being no DNA evidence of sexual contact between knox, her boyfriend and the victim.

Honestly - read the stuff I have linked to. it explains it all much better than I can.

"You don't know this though, do you? It's just your opinion"

it's opinion based upon court testamony and refuted evidence!

I don't know what the victim's family thinks - do they believe that Knox and her boyfriend are responsible? I've not read anything from them yet but would be interested to know. I would guess they know as much about the evidence as we (I) do?

I understand that DuelingFanjo but it is just your opinion but it's obvious that there will be information and evidence the jury will be privy to that none of us, posting here, will ever see or ever be aware of.

I do think it's very sad that some people seem to be forgetting about Meredith and her family in their rush to give sympathy and support to Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito.

BTW I don't recall them rushing to give lengthy tabloid-esque interviews or speculating endlessly on trial evidence, but I may be wrong there.