Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL* #2

[aa9511]

The only way the knife will make a difference, IMO, is like what Andrea Vogt said - if they find Meredith's DNA or Rudy G's DNA.

 

[sherlockh]

The only way the knife will make a difference, IMO, is like what Andrea Vogt said - if they find Meredith's DNA or Rudy G's DNA.

I am not sure. It confirms that there was DNA on the knife. It destroys the whole starch argument that we heard before. Meredith's DNA on the tip of the blade already indicated that this was the murder weapon. So this is more proof that Knox handled the murder weapon. I don't really see how this would be good for the defense.

 

[Mollyandme]

I am not sure. It confirms that there was DNA on the knife. It destroys the whole starch argument that we heard before. Meredith's DNA on the tip of the blade already indicated that this was the murder weapon. So this is more proof that Knox handled the murder weapon. I don't really see how this would be good for the defense.

i concur was kinda on the fence but now i'm thinking guilty for a multitude of reasons explained and backed up with links to the facts by the wonderful posters here, thanks guys, you have swayed me

 

[Sonata]

I am not sure. It confirms that there was DNA on the knife. It destroys the whole starch argument that we heard before. Meredith's DNA on the tip of the blade already indicated that this was the murder weapon. So this is more proof that Knox handled the murder weapon. I don't really see how this would be good for the defense.

I don't really find it that compelling since there is no denial that AK used that knife at times.

I have never thought that knife was the murder weapon. I don't see why they would bother taking it back to RF's place with them. That makes zero sense. Wouldn't they just dump it somewhere like Meredith's phone?

And why bother taking a massive kitchen knife over there when there were undoubtedly many more knives in the flat anyway?

Even if I thought they were guilty, I still would not think that knife was the murder weapon.

 

[sherlockh]

I don't really find it that compelling since there is no denial that AK used that knife at times.

I have never thought that knife was the murder weapon. I don't see why they would bother taking it back to RF's place with them. That makes zero sense. Wouldn't they just dump it somewhere like Meredith's phone?

And why bother taking a massive kitchen knife over there when there were undoubtedly many more knives in the flat anyway?

Even if I thought they were guilty, I still would not think that knife was the murder weapon.

Why don't you reason from what the evidence tells you instead of making up a scenario and then claim that it makes no sense? There is Meredith's DNA on the tip of the knife. This strongly indicates that it was used during the murder. Also the experts concluded that the location of Knox's DNA do not indicate 'normal use'. This 2nd trace seems to confirm that conclusion. Why go against this evidence? What is your proof that they got it all wrong?

Sollecito didn't own that knife. It was part of the inventory of his rental apartment. He might have thought it would look suspicious if he threw it away. There is a picture of the kitchen drawer somewhere from where they took the knife. It showed a bread knife and that is about it. Where is your proof of this 'many more knives'?

 

[SMK]

Why don't you reason from what the evidence tells you instead of making up a scenario and then claim that it makes no sense? There is Meredith's DNA on the tip of the knife. This strongly indicates that it was used during the murder. Also the experts concluded that the location of Knox's DNA do not indicate 'normal use'. This 2nd trace seems to confirm that conclusion. Why go against this evidence? What is your proof that they got it all wrong?

Sollecito didn't own that knife. It was part of the inventory of his rental apartment. He might have thought it would look suspicious if he threw it away. There is a picture of the kitchen drawer somewhere from where they took the knife. It showed a bread knife and that is about it. Where is your proof of this 'many more knives'?

Why does MK's dna not show up now? Just confused as to why they don't mention it, now that the knife evidence has been re-introduced.

 

[Sonata]

Why don't you reason from what the evidence tells you instead of making up a scenario and then claim that it makes no sense? There is Meredith's DNA on the tip of the knife. This strongly indicates that it was used during the murder. Also the experts concluded that the location of Knox's DNA do not indicate 'normal use'. This 2nd trace seems to confirm that conclusion. Why go against this evidence? What is your proof that they got it all wrong?

Sollecito didn't own that knife. It was part of the inventory of his rental apartment. He might have thought it would look suspicious if he threw it away. There is a picture of the kitchen drawer somewhere from where they took the knife. It showed a bread knife and that is about it. Where is your proof of this 'many more knives'?

I'm not claiming to have proof. None of us are involved in the case, we're just speculating. That's pretty much all we can do.

If you're going to use behavioural analysis as evidence against AK, I don't see why it's so absurd for me to use intuitive speculation about scenarios that we cannot prove either way.

 

[Sonata]

Does anyone here think we'll ever outright know the truth about this case?

Just curious, because I fear very strongly that we never will! I wish someone would confess something concrete.

 

[sherlockh]

Why does MK's dna not show up now? Just confused as to why they don't mention it, now that the knife evidence has been re-introduced.

This is a different trace. Only this one trace is being tested. Not the whole knife. This trace is close to the handle. Meredith's DNA was closer to the tip of the knife IIRC.

 

[SMK]

Does anyone here think we'll ever outright know the truth about this case?

Just curious, because I fear very strongly that we never will! I wish someone would confess something concrete.

Yes, I feel the same - that I have tried to figure out all these years the truth of the case, but both sides have their strong points. Without an outright confession, we will never be sure, or at least that's how I feel.

 

[sherlockh]

I'm not claiming to have proof. None of us are involved in the case, we're just speculating. That's pretty much all we can do.

If you're going to use behavioural analysis as evidence against AK, I don't see why it's so absurd for me to use intuitive speculation about scenarios that we cannot prove either way.

These are facts.
- Meredith's DNA was found on the blade of the knife
- Knox's DNA was found on the knife and the expert said that it was found in a place that does not show 'normal use' (as in cooking)
- There were not many more knives in Sollecito's kitchen drawer

From these facts (as well as compatibility with the major wound) the judges (and so do I) reasoned that the kitchen knife was the murder weapon. They do not speculate.

 

[Sonata]

These are facts.
- Meredith's DNA was found on the blade of the knife
- Knox's DNA was found on the knife and the expert said that it was found in a place that does not show 'normal use' (as in cooking)
- There were not many more knives in Sollecito's kitchen drawer

From these facts (as well as compatibility with the major wound) the judges (and so do I) reasoned that the kitchen knife was the murder weapon. They do not speculate.

As we all know, these findings have been accepted and refuted at different times. So yes, everyone on this forum is indeed speculating.

 

[sherlockh]

As we all know, these findings have been accepted and refuted at different times. So yes, everyone on this forum is indeed speculating.

Everybody on Websleuths is just speculating? Every case has a defense team that tries to refute evidence. It doesn't mean that the evidence was actually refuted. You can't speculate about hard facts. If you say there were "undoubtedly many knives in the flat" then you were simply wrong.

 

[Sonata]

Everybody on Websleuths is just speculating? Every case has a defense team that tries to refute evidence. It doesn't mean that the evidence was actually refuted. You can't speculate about hard facts. If you say there were "undoubtedly many knives in the flat" then you were simply wrong.

I don't see how I can be wrong or right. We just don't have that data. Ok, there is a photograph of a drawer. What about if there was a knife block? Or dirty knives on the side? Or clean knives in the drying wrack? What about RS's alleged collection of knives?

I'm sorry, but I am of the opinion that we are all speculating. We are simply too uninvolved in the case to be doing anything other than that.

 

[sherlockh]

I don't see how I can be wrong or right. We just don't have that data. Ok, there is a photograph of a drawer. What about if there was a knife block? Or dirty knives on the side? Or clean knives in the drying wrack? What about RF's alleged collection of knives?

I'm sorry, but I am of the opinion that we are all speculating. We are simply too uninvolved in the case to be doing anything other than that.

We have lots of data. Lots of case files are online, and many have even been translated into English. <modsnip>

 

[Sonata]

We have lots of data. Lots of case files are online, and many have even been translated into English. Your version of 'speculating' includes denying the case files and denying hard facts. I guess everybody is just speculating that the Earth is round also.

:floorlaugh:

My version of speculating is the generally accepted one, which means "expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence". The key part being incomplete evidence, which I explained thoroughly in my previous post.

The whole reason that this case has dragged on for so long is because of incomplete evidence. If the evidence were complete, it would be extremely easy to convict with no further trials.

To think that anyone on this forum is able to know anything outright about this case would be naive, unless they have some deeper level of involvement. Since I am self-reflective enough to know that I am a distant observer and that my opinion is purely mine and not a fact, yes; I am quite sure that I am speculating.

I would be very surprised that anyone would think otherwise.

 

[otto]

:floorlaugh:

My version of speculating is the generally accepted one, which means "expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence". The key part being incomplete evidence, which I explained thoroughly in my previous post.

The whole reason that this case has dragged on for so long is because of incomplete evidence. If the evidence were complete, it would be extremely easy to convict with no further trials.

To think that anyone on this forum is able to know anything outright about this case would be naive, unless they have some deeper level of involvement. Since I am self-reflective enough to know that I am a distant observer and that my opinion is purely mine and not a fact, yes; I am quite sure that I am speculating.

I would be very surprised that anyone would think otherwise.

The case hasn't "dragged on" because the evidence is vague or incomplete. The trial was completed after nine months, per Italian practice. Three people were convicted and imprisoned. We had one appeal, that was annulled. That took more time. Now we are having a repeat of the appeal. That is why the case is still being heard. It's not unusual for a murder trial and appeals to last several years.

In the motivation reports, we have a summary of the arguments that were presented during the trial. In the conclusion, we have a ruling on each of the arguments. Those rulings in the conclusion are considered to be the facts of the case.

It is true that several people in the US (that have no connection to the murder investigation) have attacked the reasoning of the court and attempted to interfere with the process by spreading false information with the help of a Public Relations firm. The information released by the PR firm does not constitute a legal argument, but rather it represents the underhanded perspective that if an American woman is convicted of murder in a foreign country, it must be because the justice officials in that foreign country are out to get her - for no reason other than the fact that they are all "lunatics" with nothing better to do with their time.

 

[Sonata]

The case hasn't "dragged on" because the evidence is vague or incomplete. The trial was completed after nine months, per Italian practice. Three people were convicted and imprisoned. We had one appeal, that was annulled. That took more time. Now we are having a repeat of the appeal. That is why the case is still being heard. It's not unusual for a murder trial and appeals to last several years.

In the motivation reports, we have a summary of the arguments that were presented during the trial. In the conclusion, we have a ruling on each of the arguments. Those conclusions are considered to be the facts of the case.

It is true that several people in the US (that have no connection to the murder investigation) have attacked the reasoning of the court and attempted to interfere with the process by spreading false information with the help of a Public Relations firm. The information released by the PR firm does not constitute a legal argument, but rather it represents the underhanded perspective that if an American woman is convicted of murder in a foreign country, it must be because the justice officials in that foreign country are out to get her - for no reason other than the fact that they are all "lunatics" with nothing better to do with their time.

I disagree. The appeals and annulment are directly related to difficulties involving the evidence. That was the basis of the release of AK and RS. And it is not that normal for things to bat back and forth quite so much in a murder trial. Appeals are quite usual, but release and potential re-incarceration are not.

If the evidence was so complete, then an appeal would not have resulted in a totally different outcome.

 

[sherlockh]

I disagree. The appeals and annulment are directly related to difficulties involving the evidence. That was the basis of the release of AK and RS. And it is not that normal for things to bat back and forth quite so much in a murder trial. Appeals are quite usual, but release and potential re-incarceration are not.

If the evidence was so complete, then an appeal would not have resulted in a totally different outcome.

You could indeed speculate why there was an invalid appeal court that released them with such complete evidence. As it stands now the evidence is complete and that is being appealed. In Italy there is always an automatic appeal so to say that the appeal indicates difficulties with the evidence makes no sense.

 

[Sonata]

You could indeed speculate why there was an invalid appeal court that released them with such complete evidence. As it stands now the evidence is complete and that is being appealed. In Italy there is always an automatic appeal so to say that the appeal indicates difficulties with the evidence makes no sense.

It's not the appeal that indicates it but the result of the appeal regardless of the annulment.