I posted this on JREF.
<modsnip>?
If you think that AK and RS are guilty support your conclusion with actual facts as <modsnip>.
None of the basic foundations of actually proving the case have ever been satisfactorily addressed by the prosecution.
Perhaps some of the <modsnip> can start with answering the basic question in proving a defendant's guilt and address these fundamental questions?
The facts as best as I can gather from this case.
Meredith Kercher was killed sometime between 21:00-23:59 on Nov. 1, 2007. RG's DNA should not have been located on her body.
Connection between the killers?
The prosecution never supplied any connection between RG and AK other than a few inconsequential exchanges of salutations and perhaps some small talk. The prosecution failed to provide any evidence at all that RG and RS have ever met outside of court proceedings.
I have never read of a case where three people have come together without a basis or foundation of a minimal acquaintanceship (never mind the limited ability to communicate due to Amanda's weak native language skills at the time) and kill a person. I cannot rule out the possibility of this phenomena happening, but the prosecution never gave any proof of its existence in the form of anything such as expert's testimony, etc.
Motive?
The prosecution alleged at least five different motives in the original case.
1. Sex game gone bad
2. Drugs
3. Robbery
4. Hatred/Jealousy towards MK by AK
5. AK is a sociopathic killer.
Which would be fine if they had bothered to prove just one of those theories.
Let's look at the the last one just for fun, since that seems to be Mignini's M.O. for prosecuting and gathering facts. If AK were a sociopath, there would be a history of violence, or at the very least serious anti-social behavior in her past. Fights and criminal charges would suffice to show a pattern. At the very least, there should be a record of educational (teachers/administrators) or psychological evaluations that raised red flags. The prosecution provided not one shred of evidence supporting this assertation.
Opportunity?
The prosecution alleges the crime occurred around 23:00-23:30 which contradicts Mr. Curatolo's testimony (AK and RS would be otherwise occupied) putting the two at the cottage on the night in question, if he is not already disqualified as a credible witness by his heroin usage and his confusion over the night in question (in regards to non-existent disco busses running on the night in question).
The more likely time of death is probably around 21:00-21:30 due to the digestive process found on the victim, given the testimony of her friends she had her last meal, and the known facts of her last hours.
The prosecution never supplied any connection between RG and AK other than a few inconsequential exchanges of salutations and perhaps some small talk. The prosecution failed to provide any evidence that RG and RS have ever met outside of court proceedings.
The ony credible witness puts AK and RS at RS's place at 20:45. So, the only thing we know for reasonable certainty, if we disregard AK and RS, is that the couple were outside the cottage on the night in question with RG nowhere in sight.
In Conclusion
For the <modsnip>, here is a thought experiment. Imagine some rich ***** is accused of murdering her husband. We all know she did it. The prosecution claims the motive was money, she was having an affair, and she hired a close friend and a limited acquaintance to kill her husband. Case closed.
Except, they never provide any evidence of any adultery, or any financial incentive. The two people she supposedly hired have no history of murder for hire. There is no evidence of any conversations, statements, or payment that would implicate her or one of the alleged accomplices. The murder weapon is never located. One of her alleged hit men was a small time burglar whose DNA was located at the scene of the crime. The accused has no record. Finally, throughout the trial the prosecution and police continually are found to be guilty of lying and misconduct.
What is more likely the accused with no history of violent acts or a criminal record orchestrated a murder or was even involved? Or the person with history of breaking and entering with a knife panicked and escalated his criminal behavior?
If this crime happened the way the prosecution claims, then it was a highly improbable occurence and they need to meet a high burden of proof to prove their case. Unfortunately, the prosecution never bothered to meet even the minimum level.
Which is why I find the whole affair so nauseatingly frustrating. Barbie Nadeau's latest "guilty or innocent-it's complicated" <modsnip> has sent me over the edge. No, it's not too complicated, if you can ever bother to think critically for yourself and not hide behind the safety of the crowd. Not to mention how she tries to minimize her involvement in creating this circus. Nadeau is the Judith Miller of this sordid affair. It takes stenographers like them and the masses blind faith acceptance of their dictation to create these sorts of clusterf@*#$. Valerie Plame got pilloried while Scooter Libby got fast tracked and his sentence suspended on his way to an eventual presidential commutation, while Bush, Cheney et al got away scot-free. In this case, Amanda Knox has been demonized as Rudy Guede has gotten his sentence continually reduced, while Giuliano Mignini, et al have so far gotten away scot-free.
