6 ms·

The media has truely outdone itself is mis-reporting this case, and sadly this article - surprisingly for one focused on rational thought - is no exception. The

The media has truely outdone itself is mis-reporting this case, and sadly this article - surprisingly for one focused on rational thought - is no exception. There is a body of hard evidence, including forensic, such as (but not an exhaustive list): - 4 mixed DNA samples of the Knox and Kercher. Bloody footprints that match. Blood on the tap put Knox at the crime scene that evening or in the early morning. - A bloody bra in the washing machine - Attempts to frame an innocent man for the crime. - Repeated lying to authorities regarding her whereabouts. Still no fixed alibi. - Knox and Kercher's house was cleaned with bleach. - Sollecito's trainers were cleaned with bleach. A defect in the sole match a blood print on the scene. The decision went through going through 19 expert judges and 6 lay judges. Conviction was unanimous. Certainly, we can ignore some of the strange behaviour of the convicted (the phone calls, the lies, her past). But the case is much stronger than what this article makes out. This is an English translation of the judge's summary: http://www.zimbio.com/Amanda+Knox/articles/58/Understanding+Micheli+2+Judge+Micheli+Rejected http://www.zimbio.com/Amanda+Knox/articles/58/Understanding+... Other links: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_media_should_approach_the_case_if_justice_is_to_be_done_and_seen_to/ http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_m... http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/why_defendants_mostly_dont_testify_those_devils_that_lurk_in_the_details/ http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/why_d... http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/highlights_of_the_testimony_on_6_february_and_7_february/ http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/highlight... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3629353.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article36... http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-knox http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/08/kercher-trial-kn... edit: I left out a few other key points to the prosecutions case: - Eye witness putting all 3 suspects together outside the cottage that night, and the night previous. - Knox and Sollecito standing outside the crime scene when the police arrived with mop and bucket. Rational thought takes anyone first to the conclusion that there was more than one killer. Guede left the scene soon after the murder (eye witness reports; evidence of cleaning, Guede's own statement). It is clear the crime scene was later returned to, and altered to cover evidence (faked break-in; footprints; removal of bra from the body). With all the additional evidence against Knox and Sollecito, physical and circumstantial, clear motive, and consitantly irrational behaviour, gives a very strong prosecution case. This article touches on little of these facts.

awa 17y ago
My counter points: 1. No hard link shown between Guede and Knox/Sollecito 2. Lack of DNA evidence for Knox/Sollecito while plenty was present for Guede. 3. No evidence was shown that proved the houses were bleached after the murder Regarding these points: - Eye witness putting all 3 suspects together outside the cottage that night, and the night previous. - Knox and Sollecito standing outside the crime scene when the police arrived with mop and bucket. From what I read these were given by unreliable sources (drunk homeless man) The police comes out pretty tainted in my opinion and it seems they were eager to find scapegoats early in the investigation. Also, I don't find a clear motive for Knox/Sollecito. Not participating in a sex orgy?? It seems more probable that Guede raped and then murdered the victim. Also, in the initial testimony guede doesn't mention Knox or Sollecito being involved
- heyitsnick 17y ago
  Have you read the Judge's summary? It was very enlightening to me having read many mis-reports from media sources. I will reply to your points in turn, but to be clear, I'm not specifically arguing for or against the conviction; I'm saying that this article grossly ignores many of the facts of the case. It appears that large parts of the American media have painted this case as some loon prosecutor bent on convicting an American girl with flimsy flawed evidence and a fanciful idea of some Satanic sexy orgy gone wrong. There's been a lot of column inches devoted to discussing some of the things this article breaks down (the strange behaviour, the telephone calls). I can understand the media focusing on this (it's what the public find interesting, not the detailed crime scene details). But as this article is about digging for information and applying reasonable thought, it's disappointing they chose to ignore the large body of evidence presented at the trial that lead to their conviction. To your counterpoints: 1. If I recall, there is good (not the drunk homeless man) eyewitness testimony of the 3 meeting prior to the night in question. - There is fair amount of DNA evidence (see my parent post, and the links). Yes, some may appear potentially flawed (e.g. bra clasp). However the judge considered and admitted the evidence. Consider that a panel of legal experts considered and unanimously convicted based on this evidence. - From truejustice.org regarding evidence of a cleanup: "The ONLY fingerprints of Amanda Knox in the entire house were found on a glass in the kitchen. Even in her own room there was not one print." - Yes, the eyewitness isn't great. But again, the evidence was admitted by the judge for reasons given in the judge's summary. - The police themselves were the eyewitnesses to them being at the crime scene with mop and bucket. - Whether the police appear tainted is worth considering, but doesn't explain away a body of hard evidence that was admitted in court. - Your theory that Guede was a lone-wolf rape and murderer was quickly dismissed by the judge, given the huge body of physical evidence suggesting other people involved (again, see my post and the report). edit: This is a great link that goes over some of your points (motive, DNA evidence etc: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_media_should_approach_the_case_if_justice_is_to_be_done_and_seen_to/ http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_m...

awa 17y ago

My counter points: 1. No hard link shown between Guede and Knox/Sollecito 2. Lack of DNA evidence for Knox/Sollecito while plenty was present for Guede. 3. No evidence was shown that proved the houses were bleached after the murder Regarding these points: - Eye witness putting all 3 suspects together outside the cottage that night, and the night previous. - Knox and Sollecito standing outside the crime scene when the police arrived with mop and bucket. From what I read these were given by unreliable sources (drunk homeless man) The police comes out pretty tainted in my opinion and it seems they were eager to find scapegoats early in the investigation. Also, I don't find a clear motive for Knox/Sollecito. Not participating in a sex orgy?? It seems more probable that Guede raped and then murdered the victim. Also, in the initial testimony guede doesn't mention Knox or Sollecito being involved

heyitsnick 17y ago
Have you read the Judge's summary? It was very enlightening to me having read many mis-reports from media sources. I will reply to your points in turn, but to be clear, I'm not specifically arguing for or against the conviction; I'm saying that this article grossly ignores many of the facts of the case. It appears that large parts of the American media have painted this case as some loon prosecutor bent on convicting an American girl with flimsy flawed evidence and a fanciful idea of some Satanic sexy orgy gone wrong. There's been a lot of column inches devoted to discussing some of the things this article breaks down (the strange behaviour, the telephone calls). I can understand the media focusing on this (it's what the public find interesting, not the detailed crime scene details). But as this article is about digging for information and applying reasonable thought, it's disappointing they chose to ignore the large body of evidence presented at the trial that lead to their conviction. To your counterpoints: 1. If I recall, there is good (not the drunk homeless man) eyewitness testimony of the 3 meeting prior to the night in question. - There is fair amount of DNA evidence (see my parent post, and the links). Yes, some may appear potentially flawed (e.g. bra clasp). However the judge considered and admitted the evidence. Consider that a panel of legal experts considered and unanimously convicted based on this evidence. - From truejustice.org regarding evidence of a cleanup: "The ONLY fingerprints of Amanda Knox in the entire house were found on a glass in the kitchen. Even in her own room there was not one print." - Yes, the eyewitness isn't great. But again, the evidence was admitted by the judge for reasons given in the judge's summary. - The police themselves were the eyewitnesses to them being at the crime scene with mop and bucket. - Whether the police appear tainted is worth considering, but doesn't explain away a body of hard evidence that was admitted in court. - Your theory that Guede was a lone-wolf rape and murderer was quickly dismissed by the judge, given the huge body of physical evidence suggesting other people involved (again, see my post and the report). edit: This is a great link that goes over some of your points (motive, DNA evidence etc: http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_media_should_approach_the_case_if_justice_is_to_be_done_and_seen_to/ http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/how_the_m...