Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#3
- Thread starter wasnt_me
- Start date
- Status
OldSteve
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 4,946
- Reaction score
- 170
That last paragraph is exactly my feeling too, and what I've been going on about since I recently came back to this case!
I think in this age of high-tech DNA analysis, circumstantial evidence is unfortunately taking a backseat to the need to present DNA evidence of some sort to a jury.... Can you imagine a prosecutor presenting a case
in which he/she says, we've found some DNA but it's inconclusive...
:floorlaugh:
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 104
n/t-- these two sites are pro-guilt and contain numerous mistakes.
if you want to read truly unbiased material, read the two threads i posted earlier in the thread. they'll give you the gist of the evidence so you can interpret it for yourself
~n/t~
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 17,670
- Reaction score
- 72
There was a lot of discussion about the knife hence the reason for my asking if there was any other evidence brought forward that was missed the first time around. I only found out about Amanda's DNA on the knife and not Sollecito from reading posts here. Of course I believe in circumstantial evidence and many were convicted solely on that basis. I was specifically referring to physical evidence in my post. I'll read the links posted. Thanks for your reply.
~n/t~
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 17,670
- Reaction score
- 72
n/t-- these two sites are pro-guilt and contain numerous mistakes.
if you want to read truly unbiased material, read the two threads i posted earlier in the thread. they'll give you the gist of the evidence so you can interpret it for yourself
Thanks. I followed the first trial and was pro guilt. This redo should be interesting. I don't know what to think now.
During the trial, Knox's fingerprints on the knife were presented as evidence that she was responsible for injuries to Meredith. Knowing today that Knox's DNA is also on the knife, along with Meredith's DNA, doesn't really change anything. The only new piece of information, one that surprises me, is that Sollecito's DNA is not on his knife.
What do you think this indicates?
The prosecution has theorized that this means that the knife was thoroughly washed by Knox. We know that Knox said that Sollecito cooked for her, and we know that he prepared the meal on the night of the murder. How is it possible that his DNA is not on the knife - where he had lived for a couple of years, but her DNA is on the knife - even though she had only been visiting for a couple of weeks and she said that he prepared meals for her.
But is she thoroughly washed it, why were her and MK's DNA left? And why not dispose of the knife? The knife bit is very murky and puzzling to me.
I have no idea. Why do murderers keep trophies? Why would Sollecito think that police would search his apartment? There would be no obvious reason.
Meredith's DNA was in a grove on the blade of the well cleaned knife. Knox's DNA was found after taking handle apart. Sollecito was living in a furnished apartment. Where is the DNA from people that actually lived in the apartment?
Points well taken.
Sollecito landed in Florence today ... looking forward to what he has to say tomorrow in court.
http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/2013/video/l-arrivo-di-sollecito-a-firenze_2003687.shtml
http://www.tgcom24.mediaset.it/2013/video/l-arrivo-di-sollecito-a-firenze_2003687.shtml
I guess it's time to stop lurking and make a few points, in no particular order.
1. I do not believe AK or RS killed MK. And I mean that literally. Neither one used a knife on her or held her while someone else did.
2. I do believe both AK and RS know more than they are telling, and they will likely take it to the grave. What they know makes for great speculation and discussion, but unfortunately that's all it is.
3. All of the discussion around the behaviour of AK and RS indicating guilt is ridiculous. I have been working in IT (a field known for odd characters) for almost 30 years, and I have seen my share of strange. Simply put, we are all different; we all handle things differently; we all speak differently; we all react differently. What a boring world we would live in if that were not the case. Every time I hear someone say they acted strangely, they are really saying that's not how they would have acted. First, so what? Second, let's circle back to this question next time you're accused of murder.
4. Forensic evidence. This is the fun one. I am all for forensic evidence, but the pendulum has swung too far. If there is sufficient forensic evidence, and it tells a story, and that story is backed up by other evidence, great. A speck of DNA, that was too small to be tested during the initial trial, that does not line up with other DNA to tell a story, let alone back up a story presented by other evidence, is insufficient.
The discussion and debate on this forum has been great. And in my mind, this is the very definition of reasonable doubt. Is it possible AK and RS, with RG killed MK? Yes, it's possible. But from everything I have read, it seems far more likely that they didn't do it. And besides, let's say for a minute they did, and they are set free (for good). Does anybody really believe they are going to do this again. Do they pose a threat to us? Seems to me it would be a greater injustice to lock them up.
There you have it. I have a thick skin, so fire away.
Jim
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
1. I do not believe AK or RS killed MK. And I mean that literally. Neither one used a knife on her or held her while someone else did.
2. I do believe both AK and RS know more than they are telling, and they will likely take it to the grave. What they know makes for great speculation and discussion, but unfortunately that's all it is.
3. All of the discussion around the behaviour of AK and RS indicating guilt is ridiculous. I have been working in IT (a field known for odd characters) for almost 30 years, and I have seen my share of strange. Simply put, we are all different; we all handle things differently; we all speak differently; we all react differently. What a boring world we would live in if that were not the case. Every time I hear someone say they acted strangely, they are really saying that's not how they would have acted. First, so what? Second, let's circle back to this question next time you're accused of murder.
4. Forensic evidence. This is the fun one. I am all for forensic evidence, but the pendulum has swung too far. If there is sufficient forensic evidence, and it tells a story, and that story is backed up by other evidence, great. A speck of DNA, that was too small to be tested during the initial trial, that does not line up with other DNA to tell a story, let alone back up a story presented by other evidence, is insufficient.
The discussion and debate on this forum has been great. And in my mind, this is the very definition of reasonable doubt. Is it possible AK and RS, with RG killed MK? Yes, it's possible. But from everything I have read, it seems far more likely that they didn't do it. And besides, let's say for a minute they did, and they are set free (for good). Does anybody really believe they are going to do this again. Do they pose a threat to us? Seems to me it would be a greater injustice to lock them up.
There you have it. I have a thick skin, so fire away.
Jim
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wouldn't it be an interesting world if we could look at people that committed murder and estimate that it's unlikely that they'll murder again, so hey, it would be an injustice for those murderers to be punished.
Regarding everyone handling things differently, when murderers lie, have no alibi, stage a murder scene, accuse innocent people of murder, make up ludicrous explanation for evidence, and lie some more, they are not actually handling things differently, they are handling things in the exact same way as other murderers.
I think there are many people (not just on this site, but in general) who feel as you do. I know I began by thinking them guilty in 2007, then swung to being convinced of their total innocence in 2009-10, then when Hellmann was overturned began to question and consider guilt, and finally, do not know where I should firmly stand, but am hoping the court in Florence will come back with a clear, concise, and strong ruling which makes real sense.
In the end, the court must be very clear and very strong, because this pro and con, back and forth has been protracted and very confusing. If they are innocent, I hope that will come back loud and clear. If they are truly culpable, then I hope that in turn will come back in a strong ruling.
It is interesting in today's news we see an example of this: Ryan Ferguson was found guilty of a murder, and was serving a 40 year sentence. He and many others proclaimed his innocence: Some believed, some did not; it went back and forth, he was a liar, he was railroaded, etc. on and on for 10 years - today, his conviction was overturned and he is free. Case closed , for better or for worse. Sometimes only the court can decide. Whether right or wrong, some logic must be applied, and then it is time to move on...:moo:
ETA:In so far as not needing to lock them up, as it is well behind them, etc.: If they are guilty - and I say IF, because I confess I truly don't know, and leave it to the expertise of judges and courts - then there is a punitive aspect to justice ( being locked up for what they took from the Kerchers) which would make incarceration reasonable.
Yes, one wonders what he will say.
I get the feeling he will simply make the same old statements as always , (generic phrases about innocence, time to put an end to all this, etc.; with his showing in court to please his lawyers and to look conscientious) which will not effect the ruling in any way.
What I cannot wait for is the verdict: I myself have been through so many twists and turns with this case, and have wavered and gone back and forth to such an extent that now, whatever the court rules - Guilty, or not guilty - I am ready and prepared to accept as Gospel.:scared:
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,947
BBM: Yes, very surprising and very suspicious, IMO ...
Sollecito made a statement that he "pricked" Meredith with that knife when she [Meredith] was at his apartment and they were cooking ...
BUT Meredith was NEVER at Sollecito's apartment !
Obviously, Raf was backtracking with this "story" to cover his tracks ...
:moo:
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,947
:seeya: Thanks, otto, for this update !
:twocents: It's going to be very interesting to see what happens now that 1 of the 2 defendants have landed in Florence ...
So ... will Raf stay til the end -- or will Dr. Sollecito [Raf's father] rush him out of there to a country that has no extradition treaty with Italy ?
:waitasec: Now this is serious wishful thinking : but I sure wish Raf would come clean !
:moo:
- Status