Active discussions

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

Talk
News
Original poster

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:
sherby · 05/12/2009 12:19

Where has the 'sex game' motive come from?

DuelingFanjo · 05/12/2009 12:23

"according to some reports it appears that the two defendants were surprised by police officers catching them cleaning up (the DNA) with a mop and a bucket of bleach"

ah right. i thought that might be where you are going wrong.

I wonder, was any of the victim's DNA found on the mop (they were not carrying a bucket)? I'll answer that for you - no there wasn't.

There was no clean up. You are taking gossip as the truth there.

How do you propose that people would clear up all traces of their own DNA from a crime scene while leaving an abundance of another persons - ie Guede? Is that possible!

DNA and fingerprints from Knox was found all over the rest of the house, not surprising as she lived there. Yet there was nothing to place her in the room where the murder took place. How come?

These are the issues which cast serious doubt on this verdict.

"the false alibis"

They did not give 'false alibis' - it was never proven either way that they were not at Sollecito's flat.

" the fingering of another man"

read my other posts. I strongly believe that Knox's statement (which she withdrew just hours later and which was not allowed to be introduced as evidence) was obtained incorrectly and with pressure applied.

I also believe that if the prosecution allow the Defence to see the evidence that they withheld from them all through the trial, these two people will be proved innocent.

Ronaldinhio · 05/12/2009 12:25

I am glad that there is some sort of verdict for Meredith Kercher's parents. It's unfortunate that none of the convicted have expressed any outward remorse.

I have no idea about the quality of the conviction but I have no reason to assume that it wasn't of the highest quality

I smiled at Bonsoir's comment because it seemed to sum up the entire case for many of the media pack and read like a Private Eye cover.
So much focus was placed on her looks that at times it seemed as those she was the sole accused.

I would assume that the jury who have been presented with all the evidence felt that there was no doubt. Our speculation, with only a snapshot of the evidence, on the validity of the verdict seems fairly par for the course.

Earthstar · 05/12/2009 12:26

Bucharest and Pinco - sorry, i didn't mean to anger you with my "rural" description - fwiw I would describe Cambridge in the UK in a similar way but "provincial" I guess would be more accurate! It just seems that the forensic investigation was less than professional here, remniscent of the McCann portugese investigation.

I do think that the forensic evidence presented should have been stronger, but I put the weak forensic evidence down to poor forensic rigour and not to the innocence of the accused.

DuelingFanjo · 05/12/2009 12:27

"Where has the 'sex game' motive come from?"

It was a presumed scenario based on no evidence which came from Judge Micheli before any DNA evidence from the scene had been analysed.

DuelingFanjo · 05/12/2009 12:29

"I do think that the forensic evidence presented should have been stronger, but I put the weak forensic evidence down to poor forensic rigour and not to the innocence of the accused"

do you not think it's even a little bit odd that they were so thorough with collecting the DNA evidence against Guede and yet it took them weeks to turn up any evidence to put Knox and Sollecito at the scene?

Original poster
FreeGeorgeJackson · 05/12/2009 12:30

i do agree that you cant giev any opinion on a case really wiht accuracy unless you were in the court nad read all the paperwork

OP posts:
Earthstar · 05/12/2009 12:33

"do you not think it's even a little bit odd that they were so thorough with collecting the DNA evidence against Guede and yet it took them weeks to turn up any evidence to put Knox and Sollecito at the scene?" - err well I don't know that to be the case, and it fits for me with lack of forensic rigour

DuelingFanjo · 05/12/2009 12:35

apologies, a correction - I meant Giuliano Mignini not Micheli!

Earthstar · 05/12/2009 12:36

DuelingFanjo you clearly feel passionately that there has been a miscarriage of justice, but really why dedicate so much of your time and energy to defending these 2 all day on mumsnet, what will that ever achieve?

DuelingFanjo · 05/12/2009 12:37

well it is the case and now you know! they found plenty of Guede's DNA in the room where Meredith was murdered and none of Amanda and Raphaelle's when they collected evidence at the begining.

DuelingFanjo · 05/12/2009 12:42

Because I get a bee in my bonnet about some tings and this is one of them. Plus I have time to kill.

That and people thinking someone is guilty because of the way they look/act.
I am passionate about it, I really think miscarriages of justice need to be spoken about.

Bucharest · 05/12/2009 12:42

I'm British by the way.

Just watching the lunchtime news and the irony of Amanda's family sat on the sofa being filmed watching the verdict with about 20 cameramen in the front room when the brother then stands up and says it's all the fault of the narsty media isn't lost.

Are they burning Italian flags yet in Starbucks city?

DuelingFanjo · 05/12/2009 12:45

I'm British too, by the Way

Bucharest · 05/12/2009 12:48

Fanjo, it seems we both got our lawyers wrong, mine is called Giulia not Giovanna.

DuelingFanjo · 05/12/2009 12:51

All those confusing Italian names!

pointydogg · 05/12/2009 12:59

How can anyone be passionately arguing one way or another here? If you weren't on the jury, I don't see how a person can argue with any credibility.

DuelingFanjo · 05/12/2009 13:10

Hypothetically, If I were on the jury, with the evidence made available publicly.... there's no way I could say guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

I can only comment on what is available publicly. If there was other evidence it will be revealed in the report the Italian courts have to release. Hopefully someone will translate that so that everyone will then know all the evidence.

In teh mean time I will support the appeal and if people make incorrect statements about the case and I am about I will correct them. i just think ridiculous fantasy should be questioned when it's presented as fact.

violethill · 05/12/2009 13:11

pointy - I entirely agree that no one can argue with any credibility - which is why I started my post by saying I have no idea whether they are guilty or not.

Some people clearly feel passionately about it though. Not sure why - but they clearly do.

Original poster
FreeGeorgeJackson · 05/12/2009 13:11

Im English i think

OP posts:
pointydogg · 05/12/2009 13:13

buy why support an appeal you only have limited information about?

DuelingFanjo · 05/12/2009 13:16

It's not that limited. The main prosecution evidence was available to all. I am supporting the appeals on the basis of what I know because what I know did not convict them beyond reasonable doubt.

pointydogg · 05/12/2009 13:18

It is limited insofar as it is not all the relevant information.

violethill · 05/12/2009 13:19

What is the position of Guede, the man already convicted? Didn't he opt for a fast track trial and was found guilty? Does he still maintain his innocence? Can he still appeal? If ne has no chance of appeal, and has a life sentence, then presumably he might be expected to admit his guilt and any involvement of others? (Assuming of course, he is guilty, and Knox and Sollecito were involved too?)

DuelingFanjo · 05/12/2009 13:26

I have no idea what other information they might have kept from people watching this case during this public trial. From what there is out there, all the DNA, the circumstantial evidence etc... I feel the veredict was wrong.

In so far as this thread and others like it are concerned I KNOW a lot of what people have posted is factually incorrect. If I see factually incorrect stuff being repeated here then challenge it. I just think it's horrible for people to base their opinion on stuff which can easily be shown to be completely incorrect information, and that maybe some people (and I mean all over the internet not just here) need to be clear about the truth of the 'facts' they are repeating if they want to support their view that these people are guilty.

At the very least it makes more sense to use the actual evidence presented to argue that they are guilty and I would have thought anyone who really wanted to have a reasonable and educated discussion about why they think these people are guilty would see the importance of using the facts. If they don't then it makes their argument unconvincing.

I'm going shopping