Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

The sad case of Meredith Kercher

933 replies

FreeGeorgeJackson · 03/12/2009 18:11

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.

OP posts:
pofacedandproud · 08/12/2009 22:26

I think people don't generally contradict themselves unless trying to cover something up. that worries me a bit. It is so hard - the lack of forensic evidence is not to be ignored - but if anyone could make themselves appear guilty - Knox has, IMO.

Portofino · 08/12/2009 22:27

dittany, sorry but all the of the points that you mention can be entitely explained.

The clasp was knocking round in the dust for 6 weeks and also contained the dna of 3 other people. The knife was not properly handled and was open to cross contamination. The statement about Lumumba was taken under duress/without lawyer and disallowed for the criminal trial. It was only allowed into evidence for the civil matter of "false claims" made against him for which she was given an extra year in jail.

dittany · 08/12/2009 22:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 08/12/2009 22:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuelingFanjo · 08/12/2009 22:37

several other people's DNA was found on tha bra clasp, which was not collected as evicence until over 45 days after the murder and had been moved around the room in that time.

The DNA of the victim found on the knife is not strong enough to be considered evidence in most UK and American Courts, That DNA on the knife is not good evidence. It is not blood. Amanda Knox's DNA would be on the knife they say is the weapon as she often cooked at sollecito's appartment.

She retracted her statement about PL very soon after making it and after she was allowed to see a lawyer.

dittany · 08/12/2009 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 08/12/2009 22:39

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuelingFanjo · 08/12/2009 22:45

link to information about the statements

"Statements released without the proper legal guarantees can't be used contra se (that is, against the person who made those statements), nor even against other suspects, when there is already circumstantial evidence against the person who makes them.

But when that person is being heard as a witness, the total rebuttal provided by Article 63 (whereby the evidence may not be used at all, neither against the one who makes the statements, nor against other suspects) does not apply. However, in this case, the status of that person as a witness - and as such outside the case being investigated - protects them from possible abuse by the investigators (Cass.Sez.Un. 13/2/1997).

Arguing from these principles, the statements you [Amanda Knox] made at 0145 can only be used contra alios (against another person). As a result of those statements, the interrogation was suspended and you became "indagata"(a suspect).

The "spontaneous statements" made at 0545 are not admissible against you or against other suspects because you had already become "indagata" and you did not have legal protection.

However, the memoir you wrote was a spontaneous defensive act and is admissible against you.

In other words, Amanda became a suspect at 1.45 on Tuesday morning, November 6th 2007.

by 0145, she has said enough that she is now officially a suspect. According to the Court ruling cited above, whatever she said at that time may be used in evidence against other people, but not against Amanda herself, because she made these statements as a witness, not a suspect.

0545: Amanda makes a spontaneous statement which we do know something about, because part of it was leaked to the Corriere della Sera: "This whole thing has got me really confused but I'm really scared of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub where I sometimes work. I met him on November 1st after sending him a message in answer to one of his, in which I said, 'Ci vediamo'..." and so on. But whatever she said, this is the part that cannot be used either against Amanda or against other suspects, because she is now a suspect who does not yet have a lawyer.

Later that day: We don't know exactly the timing, but at some time on November 6, she calls for pen and paper and writes this note. She handed it to the police on the Tuesday evening. The Cassazione ruled that this entire statement is admissible as evidence against Amanda or anybody else."

wannaBe · 08/12/2009 22:46

"she often cooked at sollecito's appartment." She'd known him for six days. That statement makes it sound as if they were in a stable, long-term relationship, when actually he was just one in a long line of men she brought back to the flat when the desire arose.

And all this "what could have happened" talk is just speculation, when actually, they have both been found guilty of murder.

LeninGrad · 08/12/2009 22:46

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Portofino · 08/12/2009 22:46

dittany, OK they did it! Just explain to me WHY they did it?

Why is it so much easier to believe that 2 young students decided to attack and murder this poor girl, rather than to believe that it was just the drug dealer with a violent history who WAS forensically linked with the crime, who ran away and then accepted a fast track trial. Who never mentioned the presence of the other 2 before.

An hour or so before the killing AK had thought she was going to be working, S thought he had to take a friend somewhere. To me, they both ended up with a free evening - it would seem quite normal to go to his flat and do exactly what they said they were doing.

It is inexplicable to me that all of a sudden these 2, with no history of odd or violent behaviour would meet up with a guy that AK had met once or twice and S had never met, to violently attack and kill Ak's flatmate.

Tell me WHY they did it!

wannaBe · 08/12/2009 22:49

but just because it's not admissable, doesn't mean it's not dodgy as hell.

She still lied, the statement being disregarded doesn't suddenly preclude her from being a lier.

DuelingFanjo · 08/12/2009 22:52

Also interesting here

A week after the murder the Telegraph print a translation from the official judge's report on the murder of Meredith Kercher...

""As far as the juridical aspect of the case, there are no doubts at this moment in presuming this to be correct: that there was an initial wish of the three youths to try a new sensation, above all for the boyfriend and girlfriend, while for Diya (Patrick)the desire to have carnal relations with a girl he liked and who was refusing him, and in the face of a denial from the victim, they did not have the presence of mind to desist, but tried to forced the will of the girl using a knife that Sollecito always carried with him..."

no DNA evidence had been presented, This theory was based on nothing but a fertile imagination

ilovemydogandmrobama · 08/12/2009 22:54

Dueling is going to be called as an expert witness for any appeal So want to read the link re: DNA evidence from New Scientist, but can't get link to work.

dittany · 08/12/2009 22:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuelingFanjo · 08/12/2009 22:59

"when actually he was just one in a long line of men she brought back to the flat when the desire arose." really!

in a statement she made to the police I think she mentioned two or three men who came back to the house with her. here - questioned on 4th Nov 2007 about the men she who came to the house "The other men I brought back are one called Spyros, only once in October when he met Meredith; Daniele from Rome ? I don?t know his phone number ? who came twice."

here is the Perugia Blogger who thinks they are innocent.

LeninGrad · 08/12/2009 23:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuelingFanjo · 08/12/2009 23:05

"AK might have at least let D in" Lenin... who is 'D'?

DuelingFanjo · 08/12/2009 23:08

"So want to read the link re: DNA evidence from New Scientist, but can't get link to work."

ah - this might explain why Dittany has ignored it every time I have posted it.

"The case against them largely hinges on two pieces of DNA evidence. One is from a knife recovered from the kitchen drawer at Sollecito's apartment. The other comes from a portion of a clasp that was cut away from the bra Kercher was wearing. The forensic specialists question both.

In respect of the knife, the letter says contamination from other DNA present in the lab that did the analysis cannot be ruled out. The initial method used was standard: the DNA was amplified, then analysed using electrophoresis. This generates a graph consisting of a series of peaks, whose heights represent how much of certain DNA snippets are present. Taken together the peaks create a DNA "fingerprint" unique to an individual.

The lab says that DNA taken from the knife's blade produced a series of peaks that matched Kercher's DNA, while DNA from the handle produced peaks that matched Knox's.

To minimise the risk that some peaks arise from contamination, most US labs only count peaks falling above a height threshold of 150 relative fluorescence units (RFUs) and all dismiss those below 50. The trouble with the DNA found on the knife is that "most of the peaks are below 50", says Greg Hampikian of Boise State University in Idaho, who signed the letter and reviewed the DNA evidence.
Contamination fear

When this happens, samples can be rerun, but this doesn't appear to have been done in the Knox and Sollecito case. This means contamination cannot be ruled out, the open letter claims. The same lab may also have been running DNA profiles from other evidence in the case at the same time, it says, and tiny amounts of this could have contaminated the knife samples.

What's more, a sensitive chemical test for blood on the knife was negative, and it is unlikely that all chemically detectable traces of blood could be removed from the knife while retaining sufficient cells to produce a DNA profile. "No credible scientific evidence has been presented to associate this kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher," the letter concludes.

Evidence from the clasp is equally inconclusive, according to the letter. What looks like a mixture of different people's DNA was found on it, and Sollecito could not be excluded. However, because Sollecito had visited the women's home several times before the murder, his DNA could have made its way onto the clasp "through several innocent means", the letter says.

Neither Sollecito's nor Knox's DNA was found on the remainder of the bra, other items of Kercher's clothing, objects collected from Kercher's room, or in samples from her body ? although Guede's DNA was found everywhere, the letter points out."

shockedandhorrified · 08/12/2009 23:13

You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

Are you aware that there are people who knew Meredith who are regular posters here? Meredith's killers have been brought to justice and now they are faced with reading this vile speculation by some about what might have happened and the insistance by others that Meredith's murderers are somehow victims of a miscarriage of justice.

Were any of you actually in court? Did any of you actually have access to the real evidence? Not what is printed in the press and on random blogs on the internet but real evidence?

There is a lot of evidence that has not been made public. Those two are guilty as hell.

A beautiful young woman was brutally murdered and her killers have been brought to justice. The way people are defending them without any consideration for her friends and family is distasteful.

DuelingFanjo · 08/12/2009 23:14

the Perugia Blog from the begining I'm going to try to read it from the start.

DuelingFanjo · 08/12/2009 23:16

Sorry S&H, people are not trying to upset the Kerchers or their friends. Nor is anyone on any of the thousands of conversations on different forums.

dittany · 08/12/2009 23:17

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

DuelingFanjo · 08/12/2009 23:34

The prosecution used a hell of a lot of 'Coulds' in their case too.

DuelingFanjo · 08/12/2009 23:36

here DIttany

"n her statement, written at 11pm that day, Knox withdraws her accusations against Patrick Diya Lumumba, 37, a Congolese bar owner, saying that it all appeared to her "like a dream"