I believe Dr Sollecito has said that his son plans to show up on Nov 6 to give a statement to the court. They are optimistic about the verdict now that only Knox's DNA is on the knife.
Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#3
- Thread starter wasnt_me
- Start date
- Status
I believe Dr Sollecito has said that his son plans to show up on Nov 6 to give a statement to the court. They are optimistic about the verdict now that only Knox's DNA is on the knife.
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,949
:seeya: Yes, Papa said that Raf would be there ...
BUT -- he said that before all this recent hoopla about the DNA on the knife ...
Now, what I want to know is this :
HOW does the FOA and Raf supporters KNOW there is no DNA on the knife, when the Appellate Court has not even convened to discuss the findings ?
Is there a leak -- or is it wishful thinking ?
JMO but I think the Appellate Court will get it right this time because they have orders from the Supreme Court to do so ...
:moo:
Well, all the press/news releases from Italy have said that there was no dna found belonging to Guede, Kercher, or Sollecito. Just Knox. It will be interesting to hear Sollecito's statement (or read of it) on Nov 6.
The Appellate Court has orders from the Supreme Court on how to rule? I think I see where the wishful thinking is coming from.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,949
:seeya: Ah yes ... the press -- who get their "marching orders" from the PR machine hired by Knox's family ...
Ah ... and isn't it very interesting that there is supposedly no DNA on the knife that belongs to Sollecito ?
:waitasec: AND ... that knife was found in HIS [Sollecito's] kitchen ...
:moo:
Yes, but I did not know the Italian press were part of any PR campaign....
whoanellie
Member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 277
- Reaction score
- 4
I was just reading this post from Oct. 2013, around a month ago, and once again, the same argument is made about MK's DNA being found vs not found as amounting to conviction/acquittal, respectively.... I really cannot wait to read Wednesdays court hearings, and then at the end of the month, the ruling. The spin is making things seem all but over, or unreal.....:facepalm:
<modsnip>
http://allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/...t-may-hinge-on-dna-evidence-on-butcher-knife/
ETA I guess we have already gone over this and clarified it; I just find it difficult to have faith in this process finding the truth. I guess it sounds "mystical", but if Knox and Sollecito perchance really are guilty - and I waver back and forth on this - wouldn't it have been providential to have MK's dna found in the sample? As in, "it was meant to be", etc.
<modsnip>
http://allthingscrimeblog.com/2013/...t-may-hinge-on-dna-evidence-on-butcher-knife/
ETA I guess we have already gone over this and clarified it; I just find it difficult to have faith in this process finding the truth. I guess it sounds "mystical", but if Knox and Sollecito perchance really are guilty - and I waver back and forth on this - wouldn't it have been providential to have MK's dna found in the sample? As in, "it was meant to be", etc.
Whoever expressed the idea that Meredith's DNA would be in this new trace? Certainly not the prosecution. It is only the defense who are trying to spin this test to deny there ever was Meredith's DNA at the tip of the knife. It is basically still the same old argument that failed in the first trial.
Just look at this picture and the location of the swabs. You see trace I is relatively far from trace B. Swab E is even closer. Why don't they say that swab E proves that Meredith's DNA was never on the knife? Or that swab D means that AK's DNA wasn't on the knife? There is no logic in reasoning that trace I being AK's means that trace B was not Meredith's. It makes no sense at all. JMO.
http://truejustice.org/ee/images/perugia/frontpage104/10430.jpg
I know; Otto has also clarified this. I guess this is an example of media bias or spin. Which is why Nov 6, and then the verdict, will finally (it is hoped) illuminate all. Until then, I guess I should stop doing so much internet trawling and reading. . .ETA: And of course this from the above linked piece is what the one side is still somehow going by, even though the appellate decision was overturned by the SC:
<modsnip>
Yes; I had wondered if the Italian Supreme Court would really quote a line from OJ Simpson's lawyer.....:waitasec:
primitivefuture
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2013
- Messages
- 285
- Reaction score
- 6
Hi all. I'm new to WS and have been reading all the posts on this thread and obviously noticing there are plenty of people convinced of AK's guilt as well as those convinced of her Innocence. Is there a thread anywhere that predominantly addresses that topic? With a list of evidence and people arguing both sides? I know people are debating on this thread. I suppose I'm looking for something a bit more specific, as I was previously convinced of her innocence and now I'm really not sure. It's late and I'm not even sure this question makes sense. I've never posted on a message board before, so maybe it's right in front of my face. Thanks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
redheadedgal
Former Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2007
- Messages
- 4,659
- Reaction score
- 104
:wagon: welcome to WS primitivefuture !! :wagon:
here is a link to the AK/MK threads... i would suggest starting with #22-23
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/search.php?searchid=7961634
here is a link to the AK/MK threads... i would suggest starting with #22-23
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/search.php?searchid=7961634
Exactly, It is strange that RS's DNA was not found anywhere on that knife, since he would have used it often to cut fish etc. washed and dried the knife many times after use. Yet even after normal use and many washes his DNA was not found anywhere especially not up near or under the very shaft of that knife.
Strange then that AK within a few days of meeting RS that her DNA should be found up at the very shaft of one of his kitchen knives, a knife that happens to be compatible with wounds on the victim. This fact suggests to me that her DNA did not get there through normal use otherwise RS's would be found there too. This also coupled with the fact that MK's DNA was also found near the tip of the knife ( the B trace that seems to have been swept under the carpet by the recent spin ) is very damning evidence IMO.
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,949
There is lots of evidence besides the DNA on the knife ... too much to list in one post, so I recommend the following websites :
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Florence_Appeal_Factsheet
:seeya: Hope this helps !
Oh, one more thing: this is not a "retrial" ... this is a "re-do" at the Appellate Court level ordered by the Supreme Court in Italy.
The Trial Court decision still provisionally stands : GUILTY !
Harmony 2
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,875
- Reaction score
- 22,187
Friendly reminder:
Copying/pasting from blog sites such as the injusticeinperugia and the truejustice sites, for example, is not allowed. It is acceptable to post the link and to paraphrase what is said but copying and pasting verbatim is not allowed. Please contact me or another moderator if you have any questions in this regard...Thanks!!
Harmony 2
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2008
- Messages
- 12,875
- Reaction score
- 22,187
Hello!!!! I am looking forward to reading your posts. Thank you for joining in the discussion...
The trial is over. It lasted nine months, and all three accused murderers were found guilty. All three appealed the verdict. Guede's verdict was confirmed, and he is in prison. Sollecito and Knox successfully appealed their verdicts, but the prosecution appealed that decision, and it was annulled. Today, that appeal is being heard again.
When you ask what evidence there is besides the DNA on the knife, I have to ask, have you ever heard of anyone being convicted of murder on the basis of nothing more than a speck of DNA on a knife? I think this case could be made based solely on old fashioned circumstantial evidence ... lies, staged scene, absence of alibi, false accusations and so on.
- Status