Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #15

[ashleigh_schwartz]

Sorry, I don't mean to ignore or irritate you. I've stated many many times here that I have no idea what the motive was and I'm uncomfortable guessing. No one ever knows what goes on in a killers head. Murder hardly ever makes any sense to me. Jealousy? Got carried away? Heavy mind altering drugs? I have no idea.
It's usually one of these...greed, revenge, jealously, thrill, conceal another crime...pick one.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But the problem is there is no evidence that AK and RS wanted to murder MK. AK and MK hadn't even fought before and AK. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. It doesn't make sense and I'm not sure why many people want this to be more than what it looks like.

 

[Linda7NJ]

It isn't far beyond a reasonable doubt. You don't have evidence that they were in the hallway or even at the crime scene (Meredith's bedroom). There isn't even a murder weapon. Sorry, but I think it's insane to claim that they are absolutely guilty. If they were, you wouldn't even have to ask questions or speculate. No one speculates about Guede being there and committing the murder because the evidence is concrete. Not the same for AK and RS.

Not to mention, you have, not once, answered my question about why AK and RS would team up with RG to murder MK.

A murder weapon unfound ...does that mean a murder didn't take place? If a killer successfully disposes of a murder weapon does he/she get a pass?

Are all questions answered in every murder case?

Does every single question have to be answered to solve a murder case and convict?

The bloody footprint on the mat and the hallway clean up put Amanda there. The blood of Meredith in that bathroom and the lack of Rudy footprints going to that bathroom puts Amanda there. Her bloody footprint on that bath mat puts her there with bloody feet...in the bidet...on the sink.

Who else would clean the hallway?






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

Out of curiosity, if you don't believe the freshly scrubbed knife from RS's flat was the murder weapon, why do you think he told a lie about pricking MK with it while she was eating with them at his home?

Was it a lie? I don't know, but if it was, perhaps he lied because he didn't want to go to prison. Saying she was pricked before the murder sounds a lot better than saying, "I don't know how that got there."

What I do know is that his maid had cleaned his apartment and that Meredith's DNA was not found on that kitchen knife after it was repeatedly tested. I also know that knife didn't match the wounds that were inflicted upon Meredith.

It seems awfully stupid for someone who is so skilled at cleaning crime scenes to throw the murder weapon back in his kitchen drawer with all of other utensils instead of ditching it.

 

[Myvice]

But the problem is there is no evidence that AK and RS wanted to murder MK. AK and MK hadn't even fought before and AK. I'm sorry, but I just don't buy it. It doesn't make sense and I'm not sure why many people want this to be more than what it looks like.

I personally don't think many people WANT this to be more than it looks like. I think there is just too much evidence pointing to them to ignore it.

What would be the motivation for people wanting to make it look like more than it is? I've never met AK. Why would I want her convicted if I thought she was innocent?

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

A murder weapon unfound ...does that mean a murder didn't take place? If a killer successfully disposes of a murder weapon does he/she get a pass?

No. When I mentioned the murder weapon, I meant that there was no murder weapon found implicating AK and RS. Like I said, if you are going to lock them up for 25 to 28 years, you better have sufficient evidence. In this case, they couldn't place them in the hallway or the crime scene and didn't even have a murder weapon. That is my point. They don't have sufficient evidence against them.

Are all questions answered in every murder case?

No, but most should be before you imprison someone. Convicting people based on insufficient evidence is what results in many innocent people being punished when they should not have been.

Does every single question have to be answered to solve a murder case and convict?

No, but almost none were answered in this case.

The bloody footprint on the mat and the hallway clean up put Amanda there. The blood of Meredith in that bathroom and the lack of Rudy footprints going to that bathroom puts Amanda there. Her bloody footprint on that bath mat puts her there with bloody feet...in the bidet...on the sink.

These are all lies. There is absolutely no evidence that AK was in that hallway and even at the trial, they said that the tests came back negative.

Who else would clean the hallway?

I do not know, but speculation is not good enough. Your logic is basically this - it wash't RG, so it was AK despite no evidence of her doing that or being there. That should never fly in something as serious as this.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Was it a lie? I don't know, but if it was, perhaps he lied because he didn't want to go to prison. Saying she was pricked before the murder sounds a lot better than saying, "I don't know how that got there."



What I do know is that his maid had cleaned his apartment and that Meredith's DNA was not found on that kitchen knife after it was repeatedly tested. I also know that knife didn't match the wounds that were inflicted upon Meredith.



It seems awfully stupid for someone who is so skilled at cleaning crime scenes to throw the murder weapon back in his kitchen drawer with all of other utensils instead of ditching it.

IMO there was more than one knife involved. Rudy only has two hands.
The bruising inside Meredith's mouth proves to me a hand was clasped over it. Rudy's hand was on her wrist.
If one hand was on her mouth...what was he doing with the other hand? It had to be holding a knife. How does that work. That would leave her hands free. But she has no true defensive wounds to her hands.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Myvice]

Was it a lie? I don't know, but if it was, perhaps he lied because he didn't want to go to prison. Saying she was pricked before the murder sounds a lot better than saying, "I don't know how that got there."

What I do know is that his maid had cleaned his apartment and that Meredith's DNA was not found on that kitchen knife after it was repeatedly tested. I also know that knife didn't match the wounds that were inflicted upon Meredith.

It seems awfully stupid for someone who is so skilled at cleaning crime scenes to throw the murder weapon back in his kitchen drawer with all of other utensils instead of ditching it.

Yes, it was a lie. MK had never been in his house.

Do you think it is OK to lie? If you're innocent you don't need to lie. JMO

The knife had been scrubbed with something abrasive making it stand out from the other utensils. That's why the cops took it. It was not proven that the knife wasn't the murder weapon and AK's DNA was found on the tip. There just wasn't enough DNA to do further testing.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

I personally don't think many people WANT this to be more than it looks like. I think there is just too much evidence pointing to them to ignore it.

What would be the motivation for people wanting to make it look like more than it is? I've never met AK. Why would I want her convicted if I thought she was innocent?

Most of the evidence points to RG and not to AK and/or RS unless you are counting mere speculation as "evidence," in which it is not.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

Yes, it was a lie. MK had never been in his house.

Do you think it is OK to lie? If you're innocent you don't need to lie. JMO

The knife had been scrubbed with something abrasive making it stand out from the other utensils. That's why the cops took it. It was not proven that the knife wasn't the murder weapon and AK's DNA was found on the tip. There just wasn't enough DNA to do further testing.

AK's DNA was never found on the knife and the repeat testings showed that Meredith's DNA wasn't on it either. RS's DNA was on it, but of course it would be since it was his utensil that came from his kitchen drawer in his apartment. If it was scrubbed clean, why was RS's DNA still on it?

You've never been accused of murder, so you don't know what someone would or would not do under such a stressful situation that could result in them being imprisoned for 25 years.

 

[Myvice]

AK's DNA was never found on the knife and the repeat testings showed that Meredith's DNA wasn't on it either. RS's DNA was on it, but of course it would be since it was his utensil that came from his kitchen drawer in his apartment. If it was scrubbed clean, why was RS's DNA still on it?

You've never been accused of murder, so you don't know what someone would or would not do under such a stressful situation that could result in them being imprisoned for 25 years.

Actually, MK's DNA was indeed found on the knife. During the retesting AK's DNA was found on the knife. I've never heard about RS's DNA on it so I can't comment on that.

 

[Linda7NJ]

No. When I mentioned the murder weapon, I meant that there was no murder weapon found implicating AK and RS. Like I said, if you are going to lock them up for 25 to 28 years, you better have sufficient evidence. In this case, they couldn't place them in the hallway or the crime scene and didn't even have a murder weapon. That is my point. They don't have sufficient evidence against them.







No, but most should be before you imprison someone. Convicting people based on insufficient evidence is what results in many innocent people being punished when they should not have been.







No, but almost none were answered in this case.







These are all lies. There is absolutely no evidence that AK was in that hallway and even at the trial, they said that the tests came back negative.







I do not know, but speculation is not good enough. Your logic is basically this - it wash't RG, so it was AK despite no evidence of her doing that or being there. That should never fly in something as serious as this.

You're forgetting Amanda and RS's own words.
RS put Meredith's blood on that knife.
Her DNA was found on it. amplifying low copy number is common and acceptable. The sample was small and it was used up. The test could not be replicated. That's unfortunate. The first result STILL found Meredith DNA. They didn't find mine or yours. They found hers.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Myvice]

MK's DNA was found on the tip...AK's was found in the groove where the blade meets the handle.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

Actually, MK's DNA was indeed found on the knife. During the retesting AK's DNA was found on the knife. I've never heard about RS's DNA on it so I can't comment on that.

MK's DNA was found on the kitchen knife in the initial test and the DNA they did find was below intl standards, but after testing it repeatedly, they found that it wasn't. They didn't find AK's DNA on the knife at all. Only RS's DNA was on it, which makes sense since it is his knife.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Most of the evidence points to RG and not to AK and/or RS unless you are counting mere speculation as "evidence," in which it is not.

If you look at the whole picture. There is plenty of evidence to convict all three.
What I see people doing is taking evidence one piece at a time and bending over backwards attempting to manufacture implausible reasons to dismiss it. The problem is...they're having to do that over and over and over to the point of ridiculousness. IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

You're forgetting Amanda and RS's own words.
RS put Meredith's blood on that knife.
Her DNA was found on it. amplifying low copy number is common and acceptable. The sample was small and it was used up. The test could not be replicated. That's unfortunate. The first result STILL found Meredith DNA. They didn't find mine or yours. They found hers.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

MyVice already asked me about that and I already responded.

 

[Myvice]

MK's DNA was found on the kitchen knife in the initial test and the DNA they did find was below intl standards, but after testing it repeatedly, they found that it wasn't. They didn't find AK's DNA on the knife at all. Only RS's DNA was on it, which makes sense since it is his knife.

I'm sorry but you'll have to site a source for this because AK's was the new DNA found during this segment of the trial. It was all over the news.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

If you look at the whole picture. There is plenty of evidence to convict all three.
What I see people doing is taking evidence one piece at a time and bending over backwards attempting to manufacture implausible reasons to dismiss it. The problem is...they're having to do that over and over and over to the point of ridiculousness. IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, there is not. You can deny it if makes you feel better, but there is not plenty of evidence to convict AK and RS. Of course you refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have no evidence AK was in the hallway or that she and RS did a clean up. Or even that she, RS, and RG acted together. It is either circumstantial or speculation.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Linda7NJ]

AK's DNA was never found on the knife and the repeat testings showed that Meredith's DNA wasn't on it either. RS's DNA was on it, but of course it would be since it was his utensil that came from his kitchen drawer in his apartment. If it was scrubbed clean, why was RS's DNA still on it?

You've never been accused of murder, so you don't know what someone would or would not do under such a stressful situation that could result in them being imprisoned for 25 years.

I'd have no problem telling you exactly what I did last night and who I was with.
That doesn't seem too tricky or difficult a question to expect a straight answer for.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

MK's DNA was found on the kitchen knife in the initial test and the DNA they did find was below intl standards, but after testing it repeatedly, they found that it wasn't. They didn't find AK's DNA on the knife at all. Only RS's DNA was on it, which makes sense since it is his knife.

That's not true.
Please read
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_copy_number


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

I just wonder if Sollecito's attorneys can make Nencini's remarks compromise the ruling......

I don't think so. Hellman made a few remarks to media because of the international attention. Nencini did the same thing. No one did anything about it when Hellman spoke to media, so at most Nencini will have his wrists slapped. My understanding is that no one is allowed to discuss what went on in the deliberations, and no one has. This is just posturing from the defense because they have nothing else to grasp onto at this time.