The sad case of Meredith Kercher

[FreeGeorgeJackson]

I feel for her parents. The trial seems to have gone on for ages doenst it?
I cant see ( form what i read) how kNox will get off.

"df, why do you believe so strongly that she is innocent?"

because the evidence put forward does not prove her guilt.

"To the extent that you think that she has been framed by the authorities?"

I really don't know. Maybe. I do believe that the evidence has been contaminated in some way. I don't know if it was intentional though.

I think the DNA on the knife would not have been allowed in many other courts and I am surprised that it was allowed as evidence in the Italian courts.

I think that the motive put forward by the prosecution is fantasy.

The journalist who wrote the link DF provided is based in Seattle- not that that means anything necessarily, just thought it worth noting.

Also, it seems there are a few discrepencies in it. ALthough possibly it is just where more things have come to light or stories changed since.

oh! there's a great blog out there by a guy based in Perugia. he thinks their innocent. thought it was worth noting.

I trust the Italian system as much as any other. This isn't about me being anti Italian. Mistakes happen in all courts all across the world.

they're not their!!! OMG! Arrgh!

No Dittany - perhaps, just perhaps her alibi about being at her boyfriend's was the only one she had and she told the truth?

Just because her alibi can't be verified doesn't mean it's false.

You asked me where I thought she was if she wasn't at Sollecito's flat. My answer was that I didn't know. just because I don't know doesn't mean she had to be somewhere else. it just means that I don't know.

The prosecutors think that she was at the house when the murder took place. She says she wasn't. I believe her when she says she wasn't.

But if you can 'see' it from outside the courtroom, the possibility that she was "framed", the "fantasy" motive, surely the jurors (who include people more experienced and qualified than us to make judgements on such things) would also have been able to see it as a possibility?

They have made the judgement that despite some difficulties in the evidence, despite the possibility that they have been framed or compromised in some other way, they are guilty.
Miscarriages of justice do happen, but so do ridiculous conspiracy theories.

Do you also believe RS to be innocent? If things are as corrupt as you are painting, wouldn't his family have held some weight in the system?

yes I believe RS is innocent also.

I don't think a family can have weight in a system, I don't think they should be able to.

I think the prosecution should prove a case beyond reasonable doubt.

I will read the report about the decision the judges made with interest, and I will watch the appeal with interest. I have no idea if she was framed, as I said I feel that it's likely there was contamination but I have no idea if that was intentional.

Link to the Perugia blog?

Although, the reason I mentioned it was worth noting wasn't intended to be a snip- I guess you took it that way as you repeated my phrasing, rather that the American press seems to have taken this very personally, and in her home town even more so.

A person in Perugia thinking they are innocent isn't really a comparison with that.

she has been proven to be a lier though.

She has given different statements, one which states she was at his house, one which states she stuck her fingers in her ears to block out the screaming. Whichever statement is true (if either of them are true), she is a proven lier.

But the statement re. the fingers in the ears was given under duress with no lawyer or translater present and was disallowed.

To me, I don't care where she was or what she was doing. The prosecution have given NO evidence to show that she was in the room at the time of the murder. Nor S either. There is however lots of evidence that G was there!

The burden should be on the prosecution to PROVE that they committed this crime. To me they did not do so. The evidence is sketchy and circumstancial. The only person linked forensically to this crime is Guede, the drug dealer with a history of violence who ran away after the crime!

"Erm, it could be verified. By the guy whose apartment she claims she was in - her boyfriend. He said she left and didn't know whether she came back or not. She says she was there all night.

One of them is lying and oops! they both got charged with murder."

or both of them were telling the truth in their original statements.

"she has been proven to be a lier though."

she has been proven to have lied once while questioned for hours without a lawyer. Sure - I know this was a really really bad lie and it got someone else in a lot of trouble but I personally believe that there were added circumstances which led her to give a false statement. She retracted this very soon after.

"and started contradicting themselves" they only started contradicting themselves when questioned for several hours without a lawyer. personally I think that's quite important when taking these statements into consideration.

Yes, thank you DF. I'm genuinely puzzled about the press reports that it was a 'sex crime gone wrong' involving several people, and why AK has been painted as this sexually deviant woman when the facts don't warrant it.

Lenin, I thought maybe something similar, but there is NO evidence that they were in that room.

I'm quite interested in the supposed drug and drink fuelled binge. Was any evidence given to support this? Were they tested, were there vodka bottles in the cottage etc. I haven't seen anything that backs up this hypothesis.

In fact my rather limited experience of marijuana smoking is that it makes you relaxed, giggly and more likely to fancy a kebab than to plan and carry out a violent attack. It also causes short term memory loss!

I apologise if this sounds flippant, but the "motive" is based on this hypothesis.

Lenin, IIRC Amanda knox was told during questioning that they had evidence she was there, that she must have been there, that she must have forgotten. Possibly they told Sollecito the same thing about her and that's when he changed his story to say that he couldn't be sure if Amanda was with him all night? I don't know though. Am not too clear on what Sollecito said and when.