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

[aa9511]

http://www.theweek.co.uk/europe/ama...ed-killer-decision-almost-final#ixzz2rzgu1Luw

Excellent article....thanks SMK.

Amanda herself is basically admitting that PR is her only hope...that is the way I interpret various comments she makes about why she speaks out. She always said, This is what happened to me, and what's happened has happened, so now all I can do is testify to it - meaning talk about it. She cloaks it as if she's trying to "help others" with her story. One example is in her recent Guardian interview. I truly believe that she thinks PR will save her.

 

[Jessica2012]

The definition of a crime scene is not fluid, and should not change depending on the name of the victim. If it is reasonable to collect evidence in and arround the body, outside of the room where the body was discovered (eg: footprints leading from the bedroom down the hallway or to the bathroom), in a secondary location (eg: hotel, restaurant, gas station, apartment), and in a vehicle, then this is not only true of one murder investigation, it is true of all murder investigations.

It makes no sense to say that when someone is murdered, police are incompetent if they do not restrict their investigation to 2 feet on either side of the deceased, yet that is what Knox would like people to do. Why should Italian police be handicapped when investigating a murder, yet police from all other countries are allowed to collect evidence from where ever the investigation leads?

For example a hitman hired to murder someone. Is the person who hired the hitman not as equally responsible for the murder because there is no evidence of them at the precise location of the murder?

 

[aa9511]

This is the victim in this case.

link

Beautiful. RIP Meredith. Your sweet soul lives on through your family.

 

[iluvmua]

Also, the bloody scene in the bathroom, and Amanda's blood mixed with Meredith's. That didn't come from her period, what a crock!!!

Don't forget about the blood in the sink that must have come from a pricked ear according to amanda.

 

[otto]

Well, where's the proof they were there in the room at the time of the murder? I can't find it. I need some evidence to say "yes, they were in that room that night."

There is ample evidence of RG in that apt, which is a place he did not live and was not invited to. There is ample evidence of RG in MK's room, and on/in MK's body. Amanda lived in that apt.

As far as I know, in the bedroom, there is a palm print from Guede on the pillow, which was used to identify him. His DNA was on Meredith, on the cuff of her sweatshirt, on the outside of her purse, and there were shoe prints that were consistent with his shoe sole pattern and shoe size. There is a shoe print on the pillow case which is consistent in size to Knox. Her lamp is in the bedroom on the floor. Sollecito's DNA is on Meredith's bra. All three convicted murderers left something of them in Meredith's bedroom.

Outside of the bedroom, there is additional evidence implicating all three suspects. Guede left DNA in the large bathroom and bloody prints in the hallway (heading for the exit), Sollecito left a bloody foot print in the small bathroom, and Knox left luminol revealed bloody prints in the hallway. Knox also left mixed blood/DNA samples in the bathroom and in Filomina's bedroom. Comparatively, Knox left ample evidence, Guede left ample evidence, and Sollecito was more careful, leaving the least amount of evidence.

 

[otto]

I don't know about other parts of the world, but here...motive doesn't need to be proven in order to convict. Discerning a motive is always attempting to entering someone else's head. A murderers head. Unless of course the murderer documented it in writing or in video ...but then...I'm not sure what a killer says...should be swallowed 100%. I'm of the mindset no one can ever know what they were thinking.

Motive is not required in a US trial. In Italy, the prosecutor should conjecture a motive, but it is conjecture and not evidence.

 

[iluvmua]

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't RS say the reason why his DNA was on the bra clasp was because he touched her shoulder.

or something along those lines.

 

[Madeleine74]

For example a hitman hired to murder someone. Is the person who hired the hitman not as equally responsible for the murder because there is no evidence of them at the precise location of the murder?

Of course they are. I'm not arguing otherwise. However, said hirer of hitman is not going to be convicted without evidence of some kind linking him/her. Everyone and their brother-in-law may believe (perhaps even 'know' in their heart) this hirer did the hiring, but there needs to be evidence to prove it BARD to obtain a conviction. (And yes, I know Italy convicted AK & RS, no need to point that out. But we're addressing your hypothetical here).

 

[Amber29]

Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't RS say the reason why his DNA was on the bra clasp was because he touched her shoulder.

or something along those lines.

I believe his father suggested that maybe AK had borrowed MKs bra at some point.
Strange how innocent people feel the need to justify evidence against them.

AK with her bathmat story and RS with the knife pricking.

 

[aa9511]

I've seen this in comment sections on many news sites as well. There are people saying the Kerchers should "just let it go and move on" and that "deep down they know Knox is innocent" and that by going on the media they are just trying to win sympathy so the U.S. is more likely to extradite Knox... Really it's all just pretty sick IMO.

Well even Amanda said, in so many word, move on Kerchers. In her statement released yesterday - she said:

"First and foremost it must be recognized that there is no consolation for the Kercher family. Their grief over Meredith's terrible murder will follow them forever."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-knoxs-full-statement-guilty-verdict/story?id=22304469

Let's see, so since her statement was concerning the verdict, she is saying that the verdict is no consolation for the Kerchers, because nothing can bring back Meredith. So basically she is saying that the whole trial is for nothing, because they have already had their loss, and nothing will heal their pain of losing Meredith.

Let's see - if we follow her logic, why then there shall be no trials whatsoever, in the world, anywhere. Because once a victim is gone, of course, they're gone. Nothing can bring them back.

So is that what she is proposing? That we let murderers walk free all over the world - because, you know, they have already taken their victims, so what's the point?That is what she is saying, in so many words. In a cloaked kind of way. But her point is clear. She wants the Kerchers to stop seeking justice for Meredith, because nothing can bring Meredith back.

Amanda: the only reason you feel this way is because you're the murderer in this case.

So of course you want them to just forget about the whole thing. Easy for you to say.

JMO.

 

[Madeleine74]

Here's where I think there's a huge disconnect:

I'm not saying AK & RS are "innocent." I mean how can I truly know that 100% for sure? I can't unless I was a witness to the actual murder.

What I am saying is I cannot find the evidence to prove guilt BARD they were there that night, involved in that particular crime. I don't care about demeanor rumors and people's perceptions of narcissism and coldness. I'm talking plain evidence that convinces me of their guilt BARD. I was never able to cross that threshold. And it has nothing to do with "supporting" anyone. I'm evaluating the evidence.

I know fully well who is the victim in this case. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Making emotional arguments does zero to help (me) evaluate evidence. It may be helpful for others, but it's not something I'm able to use to determine guilt or innocence BARD.

 

[ShadyLady]

I just want to add, it would be impossible to check every centimeter of a large area for DNA. So there might have been Knox DNA there and it was missed. Also, what was found on Knox's lamp found in Meredith's room? Wiped clean too?

And who admitted to using beach and mop that day??

 

[LinasK]

But Amanda and Rafaelle were not on hard drugs...they only smoked pot!!!! Firsthand experience-----smoking a joint DOES NOT make a killer..smoking a joint mellows one, not enrages ...

Pot is still a drug, and it still impairs your judgment!

 

[Madeleine74]

I just want to add, it would be impossible to check every centimeter of a large area for DNA. So there might have been Knox DNA there and it was missed.

Yes that's very true. There could have been. But none was brought forth into evidence and if one is using evidence (and not supposition or emotion or assumptions) to determine guilt, then that's a big piece missing. At least it is for me.

Show me evidence of her in that room that night. She can't levitate and she can't selectively remove her presence and that of RS as well but manage to leave Guede's. I'm down with convicting for sure. As long as I have evidence that proves it to me BARD. So far I have not seen that evidence.

 

[aa9511]

Just reading the first 2 paragraphs, it's quite difficult to believe him:

:waiting: :waiting:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...noxs-ex-boyfriend-i-wasnt-trying-to-flee?lite

They both lie, lie lie, what else do we expect from them at this point?

JMO.

 

[aa9511]

And admits it being out of Italy for the verdict.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Linda, did we not both predict that he wasn't in the afternoon session b/c he was fleeing?? OMG. :floorlaugh:

 

[otto]

Here's where I think there's a huge disconnect:

I'm not saying AK & RS are "innocent." I mean how can I truly know that 100% for sure? I can't unless I was a witness to the actual murder.

What I am saying is I cannot find the evidence to prove guilt BARD they were there that night, involved in that particular crime. I don't care about demeanor rumors and people's perceptions of narcissism and coldness. I'm talking plain evidence that convinces me of their guilt BARD. I was never able to cross that threshold. And it has nothing to do with "supporting" anyone. I'm evaluating the evidence.

I know fully well who is the victim in this case. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous. Making emotional arguments does zero to help (me) evaluate evidence. It may be helpful for others, but it's not something I'm able to use to determine guilt or innocence BARD.

The Massei Report explains the evidence. Was that not helpful?

 

[aa9511]

Well it's only just deserts for Amanda, since she and her family and team have played the "poor innocent little American abroad" card to death. :violin: And America IS an arrogant country. A little self-reflection has been needed here for quite a while. A glance through the Knox threads is enough to see that a good chunk of the American public views Europe in general, Southern Europe especially, and Italy in particular, with great disdain. And not just regarding this case - it's a general attitude Americans have towards Europe. I will not bring up all the politically-tinged examples drawn from the news and political discussion that I could from over the last decade especially. But we all know its there, if we are honest.

It's why when I go visit family in Portugal, if strangers ask, I tell them I'm Canadian lol. They know the attitude that many Americans have. And it's that attitude Amanda panders to so well.

Yes. And it's Italy, not a third-world country where, yes, corruption runs rampant in some of those countries. But this is Italy, for Goodness sake! That's why the US has an extradition treaty with them - b/c it respects their justice system. If they didn't respect it, they wouldn't have signed the treaty with them in the first place. That's just common sense.

 

[Amber29]

Well even Amanda said, in so many word, move on Kerchers. In her statement released yesterday - she said:

"First and foremost it must be recognized that there is no consolation for the Kercher family. Their grief over Meredith's terrible murder will follow them forever."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/amanda-knoxs-full-statement-guilty-verdict/story?id=22304469

Let's see, so since her statement was concerning the verdict, she is saying that the verdict is no consolation for the Kerchers, because nothing can bring back Meredith. So basically she is saying that the whole trial is for nothing, because they have already had their loss, and nothing will heal their pain of losing Meredith.

Let's see - if we follow her logic, why then there shall be no trials whatsoever, in the world, anywhere. Because once a victim is gone, of course, they're gone. Nothing can bring them back.

So is that what she is proposing? That we let murderers walk free all over the world - because, you know, they have already taken their victims, so what's the point?That is what she is saying, in so many words. In a cloaked kind of way. But her point is clear. She wants the Kerchers to stop seeking justice for Meredith, because nothing can bring Meredith back.

Amanda: the only reason you feel this way is because you're the murderer in this case.

So of course you want them to just forget about the whole thing. Easy for you to say.

JMO.

I agree with you but I also feel her "first and foremost" is almost a way of getting the condolences for the Kerchers out of the way. Like, "let me just say this so I can get on about me,me,me."

 

[aa9511]

Reporters should report the news and not their "opinions", IMO.

Oh, you mean like American reporters, such as those on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.?