Ha! When have I ever mentioned anybody's appearance? You need to go back and read what I've actually written on this post. I don't need to postulate and come up with any theory thanks- I'll leave that to the actual judges. In any case, all the points that I've put across have been taken from the official report.
And why are you so arrogant to assume that you've read a lot more than I have? You've probably been reading some rubbish that friends of amanda have written. Don't you dare speculate as to what I have or haven't read. I think you'll find I'm slightly better informed than you.
Some of the hypotheses that people on this thread are putting across are just embarrassing, really, so I won't be offering my own anytime soon.
You need to just accept the fact that Knox and Sollecito have been found guilty in a court of law. When the verdict is confirmed, provided that Sollecito hasn't fled the country by that point, he'll be going to prison for a very long time. I highly doubt he won't throw Knox under the bus at some point if it looks like she won't be extradited. If that time comes, I'd love to hear your opinions then. There are quite a few people who would feel pretty stupid- I won't be one of them.
That's a bit rich coming from you. You like to give the impression that you're better informed than any poster who happens to disagree with you, but then sidestep any question about what you feel happened on tha fateful night. We know that Knox and Sollecito have been found guilty this time around, that's 2-1 to the Italian judges so far. But a good many people, better informed and more experienced than you or me, don't believe the evidence is strong enough to convict.
Just answer me one question, do you really believe that two young people would risk throwing away their entire future by torturing a young woman death for no apparent motive ? We have to assume they are reasonably intelligent, how could they have possibly hoped to get away with it. Why would they do it ? Nothing in their past gives any indication, can people turn into evil psychopaths overnight ?
What's your theory then ? That two young people, of previous good character, conspired to torture a young woman to death over some minor dispute about cleanliness ? Not only that, they decide to invite some local drug dealer that they barely knew along to rape her as well. On top of that, they behave so bizarrely after committing the crime that suspicion immediately falls on them. Yes, that all sounds very plausible.
If what happened was simple and easily explainable then there wouldn't be this endless speculation! The judiciary have concluded that the three people were responsible based on all the available evidence and I see no reason to doubt the judgement but of course it is baffling as to what exactly happened that night and who did what and why. I suspect we will never know. It's rare for murderers to admit to what they did or to explain why they did it.
That's a bit rich coming from you. You like to give the impression that you're better informed than any poster who happens to disagree with you, but then sidestep any question about what you feel happened on tha fateful night. We know that Knox and Sollecito have been found guilty this time around, that's 2-1 to the Italian judges so far. But a good many people, better informed and more experienced than you or me, don't believe the evidence is strong enough to convict.
Just answer me one question, do you really believe that two young people would risk throwing away their entire future by torturing a young woman death for no apparent motive ? We have to assume they are reasonably intelligent, how could they have possibly hoped to get away with it. Why would they do it ? Nothing in their past gives any indication, can people turn into evil psychopaths overnight ?
People don't turn into evil psychopaths overnight supposedly, but they can be very good at covering it up.
Very interesting. So, he says that there is more than enough evidence to convict her if she faced trial in the US, and would be looking at a life sentence or death penalty. And that if the extradition is decided on the evidence, she will be extradited.
DNA is a lot harder to transfer from one object to another than many people think. And since his own expert defence team couldn't come up with an explanation as to how his DNA got there, I highly doubt anybody posting on here can.
Anyway, it's not like this is the only piece of forensic evidence that was presented in court. Other forensic evidence and plenty of circumstantial evidence was used to convict the 3 of them, and pro-Knox supporters need to realise that there was enough evidence for them to be convicted. even if you put the DNA evidence to one side, there's plenty of other evidence which points to their guilt.
Can any of the pro Knox supporters explain to me how Knox knew that the Meredith's body was put in her wardrobe before the forensic experts had even figured that one out?
Not hard according to CNN and BBC experts though. And not at the level of DNA that the prosecution was accepting, that was below the normal level. Saliva from a soda straw?
If you take any one piece of circumstantial evidence, it is attackable. The staged break in? All the signs of stone throw from outside. The heroin user witness ? Not reliable. The bloodstained bathroom? Look at the real photo, not the stained one. Motive. Walked it back now. Bloody footprint? Guedes. Knife? Didn't fit wound.
Have a look at this. This was put up on youtube by a Seattle Newspaper, the West Seattle Herald. It's nearly 2 hours long, but it covers a LOT of the 'issues' being brought up, including the bra strap, the 'trial by media' of Knox etc, the Italian forensic 'evidence' and an explanation of what they believe the most likely scenario was.
This is a panel of people who are far from 'armchair/ DS detectives'.
It is forum of forensic and scientific experts, and authors who spoke at the James C. Pigott Pavilion on the Seattle University campus. IT's close to 2 hours but is fascinating.
They include:
- a journalist and award winning crime author who has become an expert on this case, regularly appearing on TV to discuss it
-FBI special agent of 25 years experience specifically into homicides, violent crime and terrorism. He testified before the 9/11 commission. He is a regular CNN contributor.
- A scientist/ Dr, who has 20+ years of PHD forensic expertise
- Investigative consultant for CBS news
- A judge
I think the FBI agent/ expert in particular may answer a lot of the supposed 'issues' that people have put forward in this thread re the most probable scenario- 1 murder, vs a '4 some sex game gone wrong'. His take on the forensic procedures as well covers a LOT of the questions people seem to have. His take on Rudy Guede also covers those on here that seem to think 'but he was just a burglar and so cannot really also be guilty of sexual assault or murder' type comments.
He also covers how it's entirely possible for it to just be a lone attacker, and examines how she was killed by looking at the knife wounds etc. He talks about the bleach vs blood luminol arguments. He also discusses the bra clasp, the gross incompetence and the supposed murder weapon.
The DNA/ forensic expert is also very interesting especially when he talks about the 'abuse of the DNA evidence' and discusses the DNA found on the knife in detail.
I'd be interested to hear people's views on this, and to see whether a panel of experts may be more convincing to them than the 'armchair DS detectives' OR a Wikipedia style link that seems to keep cropping up on here as some kind of 'proof of guilt'
DS it's over to you.
I'd also be interested to hear anais32, Jason Watkins, Epicuran, maninthequeue Richmond Blue, JulesF and Bollywood's take on this, although I assume that some if not all may well have already seen it. No obligation to reply to it of course.
That's a bit rich coming from you. You like to give the impression that you're better informed than any poster who happens to disagree with you, but then sidestep any question about what you feel happened on tha fateful night.
Quite. His MO seems to be throwing in bits of stuff that could (not does) link Knox and Sollecito to being involved, yet can't actually put together a coherent case as to how and why the pair of them were involved.
Have a look at this. This was put up on youtube by a Seattle Newspaper, the West Seattle Herald. It's nearly 2 hours long, but it covers a LOT of the 'issues' being brought up, including the bra strap, the 'trial by media' of Knox etc, the Italian forentic 'evidence' and an explanation of what the, most likely scenario was.
This is a panel of people who are far from 'armchair/ DS detectives'.
It is forum of forensic and scientific experts, and authors who spoke at the James C. Pigott Pavilion on the Seattle University campus. IT's close to 2 hours but is fascinating.
They include:
- a journalist and award winning crime author who has become an expert on this case, regularly appearing on TV to discuss it
-FBI special agent of 25 years experience specifically into homicides, violent crime and terrorism. He testified before the 9/11 commission. He is a regular CNN contributor.
- A scientist/ Dr, who has 20+ years of PHD forensic expertise
- Investigative consultant for CBS news
- A judge
I think the FBI agent/ expert in particular may answer a lot of the supposed 'issues' that people have put forward in this thread re the most probable scenario- 1 murder, vs a '4 some sex game gone wrong'. His take on the forensic procedures as well covers a LOT of the questions people seem to have. His take on Rudy Guede also covers those on here that seem to think 'but he was just a burglar and so cannot really also be guilty of sexual assault or murder' type comments.
He also covers how it's entirely possible for it to just be a lone attacker, and examines how she was killed by looking at the knife wounds etc. He talks about the bleach vs blood luminol arguments. He also discusses the bra clasp, the gross incompetence and the supposed murder weapon.
The DNA/ forensic expert is also very interesting especially when he talks about the 'abuse of the DNA evidence' and discusses the DNA found on the knife in detail.
I'd be interested to hear people's views on this, and to see whether a panel of experts may be more convincing to them than the 'armchair DS detectives' OR a Wikipedia style link that seems to keep cropping up on here as some kind of 'proof of guilt'
DS it's over to you.
I'd also be interested to hear anais32, Jason Watkins, Epicuran, maninthequeue Richmond Blue, JulesF and Bollywood's take on this, although I assume that some if not all may well have already seen it. No obligation to reply to it of course.
I think the word "Seattle" there tells us what we need to know about its impartiality.:)
I think the word "Seattle" there tells us what we need to know about its impartiality.:)
Did you actually read my post OR look at the video and listen to what they had to say before posting this?
If someone from the UK was accused of murder, do you not think that a UK team of experts may put forward their views IF they believe the accused to be innocent and if they think a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place?
Would their opinion be totally ruled out (regardless of their qualifications/ forensic expertise/ gravitas in their particular field) just because they were from the UK? (substitute 'UK' for 'London' or any major city if you believe that makes a difference).
The panel discuss your exact claim as to how and why they believe they are independent in their views/ opinions. This isn't like a local student journalist or her mum has gone up to claim their girl is innocent is it? There the claims of 'hometown bias' would perhaps carry more weight I would say.
Bear in mind they are putting their professional reputations on the line. Do you think they would do this just because of some 'Seattle' or indeed American bias?
Okay....the fact is there has been insufficient evidence presented (thus far) to return a guilty verdict, "beyond reasonable doubt".
However, if it's all the same to you, I have the freedom of speech here to state my personal feeling about Amanda Knox. My instinctive feeling is that she & the guy she was knocking around with at the time were, at the very least, involved in this brutal murder.
Every time I see Amanda Knox, I see anything but "beauty". What I do perceive is a sly, arrogant, stone-cold-hearted woman, with a remarkable sense of entitlement & self-preservation. And now she's safely back on American soil, despite trotting out the occasional misty-eyed emotion right on cue for the cameras, I believe she feels she's untouchable.
I'm aware all of this may be viewed as irrational reasoning, and you guys can shoot me down all you like. Nevertheless, these are my personal views on Ms Knox, and I stand by them. FWIW, my gut instincts about people are rarely proved wrong.
She must be guilty then - we have to respect your gut instincts. ;-)
He wasn't just a burglar. He was known for carrying a knife. He was also allegedly a pretty well known drug dealer.
Moreover, despite people saying the break-in couldn't have happened how it happened, Guede was caught just a week earlier using an identical break in (window around the same height - breaking it with a rock).
And people are claiming that it would be very unusual for Guede - as a burglar (and a serial one - he was allegedly committing burglaries daily) to 'upgrade' to rape and murder. Then how, pray did his semen get inside Kercher's body? Did she have consensual sex with him? Or perhaps Knox and Sollecito planted it there - while miraculously leaving no trace of themselves.
He wasn't just a burglar. He was known for carrying a knife. He was also allegedly a pretty well known drug dealer.
Moreover, despite people saying the break-in couldn't have happened how it happened, Guede was caught just a week earlier using an identical break in (window around the same height - breaking it with a rock).
And people are claiming that it would be very unusual for Guede - as a burglar (and a serial one - he was allegedly committing burglaries daily) to 'upgrade' to rape and murder. Then how, pray did his semen get inside Kercher's body? Did she have consensual sex with him? Or perhaps Knox and Sollecito planted it there - while miraculously leaving no trace of themselves.
OR was the DNA process very, very flawed? I've been reading about this all day until my eyes are bugged out, but on seeing the CNN report regarding the 'new' evidence, I am leaning more to the fact that Knox and her boyfriend were involved.
I'm not going into the why's and wherefore's tonight, I'm too tired - and in fact, it is all supposition at this point.
That's a bit rich coming from you. You like to give the impression that you're better informed than any poster who happens to disagree with you, but then sidestep any question about what you feel happened on tha fateful night. We know that Knox and Sollecito have been found guilty this time around, that's 2-1 to the Italian judges so far. But a good many people, better informed and more experienced than you or me, don't believe the evidence is strong enough to convict.
Just answer me one question, do you really believe that two young people would risk throwing away their entire future by torturing a young woman death for no apparent motive ? We have to assume they are reasonably intelligent, how could they have possibly hoped to get away with it. Why would they do it ? Nothing in their past gives any indication, can people turn into evil psychopaths overnight ?
Well since I personally know some of the people involved in this case, I think I probably am better informed than you'll ever be. Who I am is not your concern, and I don't feel I need to reveal my identity. That's all I'm saying on the matter. You can choose to disbelieve me- at the end of the day, whether you believe me or not is of no consequence to me whatsoever and I won't be discussing that particular element further.
I don't believe that any of them set out to kill her- unfortunately situations do get out of hand. As I said before, I'm in no position to hypothesise as I don't know- the only thing I will say is that I think Guede probably came onto her, the other 2 egged him on and restrained her, someone pulled a knife on her and maybe left a mark.
At that point, they probably realised that she'd go to the police- and as she knew her attackers, they knew they wouldn't get away with it.
So unfortunately, murder was their only option. Bear in mind that it's thought this attack happened in the space of about 15 mins- so there wasn't much time to think any decisions through properly. If you've taken part in sexual assault, and you know that the victim will go to the police, then what other choice do you have if you don't want anybody to find out? From the perpetrators' point of view, if they wanted any chance of saving their own skins then the victim had to be silenced. For me, that would be the only logical motive. For the record, I don't believe that anybody set out to sexually assault or kill her- as I said, AK, RS and Guede probably found it funny at first, but it just got out of hand, as sometimes things do. I see all these far-fetched hypotheses being bandied about- personally, I think that the truth is far simpler.
Comments
That's a bit rich coming from you. You like to give the impression that you're better informed than any poster who happens to disagree with you, but then sidestep any question about what you feel happened on tha fateful night. We know that Knox and Sollecito have been found guilty this time around, that's 2-1 to the Italian judges so far. But a good many people, better informed and more experienced than you or me, don't believe the evidence is strong enough to convict.
Just answer me one question, do you really believe that two young people would risk throwing away their entire future by torturing a young woman death for no apparent motive ? We have to assume they are reasonably intelligent, how could they have possibly hoped to get away with it. Why would they do it ? Nothing in their past gives any indication, can people turn into evil psychopaths overnight ?
If what happened was simple and easily explainable then there wouldn't be this endless speculation! The judiciary have concluded that the three people were responsible based on all the available evidence and I see no reason to doubt the judgement but of course it is baffling as to what exactly happened that night and who did what and why. I suspect we will never know. It's rare for murderers to admit to what they did or to explain why they did it.
I think as long as Amanda Knox stays away from Italy she'll be a free woman. I can't see America extraditing her to Italy.
Very interesting. So, he says that there is more than enough evidence to convict her if she faced trial in the US, and would be looking at a life sentence or death penalty. And that if the extradition is decided on the evidence, she will be extradited.
She will have to stay away from any country that has an extradition treaty with Italy.
Not hard according to CNN and BBC experts though. And not at the level of DNA that the prosecution was accepting, that was below the normal level. Saliva from a soda straw?
If you take any one piece of circumstantial evidence, it is attackable. The staged break in? All the signs of stone throw from outside. The heroin user witness ? Not reliable. The bloodstained bathroom? Look at the real photo, not the stained one. Motive. Walked it back now. Bloody footprint? Guedes. Knife? Didn't fit wound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcGYrufLupA
Have a look at this. This was put up on youtube by a Seattle Newspaper, the West Seattle Herald. It's nearly 2 hours long, but it covers a LOT of the 'issues' being brought up, including the bra strap, the 'trial by media' of Knox etc, the Italian forensic 'evidence' and an explanation of what they believe the most likely scenario was.
This is a panel of people who are far from 'armchair/ DS detectives'.
It is forum of forensic and scientific experts, and authors who spoke at the James C. Pigott Pavilion on the Seattle University campus. IT's close to 2 hours but is fascinating.
They include:
- a journalist and award winning crime author who has become an expert on this case, regularly appearing on TV to discuss it
-FBI special agent of 25 years experience specifically into homicides, violent crime and terrorism. He testified before the 9/11 commission. He is a regular CNN contributor.
- A scientist/ Dr, who has 20+ years of PHD forensic expertise
- Investigative consultant for CBS news
- A judge
I think the FBI agent/ expert in particular may answer a lot of the supposed 'issues' that people have put forward in this thread re the most probable scenario- 1 murder, vs a '4 some sex game gone wrong'. His take on the forensic procedures as well covers a LOT of the questions people seem to have. His take on Rudy Guede also covers those on here that seem to think 'but he was just a burglar and so cannot really also be guilty of sexual assault or murder' type comments.
He also covers how it's entirely possible for it to just be a lone attacker, and examines how she was killed by looking at the knife wounds etc. He talks about the bleach vs blood luminol arguments. He also discusses the bra clasp, the gross incompetence and the supposed murder weapon.
The DNA/ forensic expert is also very interesting especially when he talks about the 'abuse of the DNA evidence' and discusses the DNA found on the knife in detail.
There is a 2nd Q&A part which can be found here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcBEkf22m-o
I'd be interested to hear people's views on this, and to see whether a panel of experts may be more convincing to them than the 'armchair DS detectives' OR a Wikipedia style link that seems to keep cropping up on here as some kind of 'proof of guilt'
DS it's over to you.
I'd also be interested to hear anais32, Jason Watkins, Epicuran, maninthequeue Richmond Blue, JulesF and Bollywood's take on this, although I assume that some if not all may well have already seen it. No obligation to reply to it of course.
Quite. His MO seems to be throwing in bits of stuff that could (not does) link Knox and Sollecito to being involved, yet can't actually put together a coherent case as to how and why the pair of them were involved.
I think the word "Seattle" there tells us what we need to know about its impartiality.:)
Did you actually read my post OR look at the video and listen to what they had to say before posting this?
If someone from the UK was accused of murder, do you not think that a UK team of experts may put forward their views IF they believe the accused to be innocent and if they think a gross miscarriage of justice has taken place?
Would their opinion be totally ruled out (regardless of their qualifications/ forensic expertise/ gravitas in their particular field) just because they were from the UK? (substitute 'UK' for 'London' or any major city if you believe that makes a difference).
The panel discuss your exact claim as to how and why they believe they are independent in their views/ opinions. This isn't like a local student journalist or her mum has gone up to claim their girl is innocent is it? There the claims of 'hometown bias' would perhaps carry more weight I would say.
Bear in mind they are putting their professional reputations on the line. Do you think they would do this just because of some 'Seattle' or indeed American bias?
Maybe you'd prefer something from an Italian source?
http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/
She must be guilty then - we have to respect your gut instincts. ;-)
She'll have to find out which countries have this and then stay away from them then.
The fact as it stands is that she is a convicted murderer. Whether people agree with this is their prerogative.
And hope that nature never dictates that her travel is diverted through such a country.
Of course, and before that she was innocent, and before that she was guilty. Throw a dice!
He wasn't just a burglar. He was known for carrying a knife. He was also allegedly a pretty well known drug dealer.
Moreover, despite people saying the break-in couldn't have happened how it happened, Guede was caught just a week earlier using an identical break in (window around the same height - breaking it with a rock).
And people are claiming that it would be very unusual for Guede - as a burglar (and a serial one - he was allegedly committing burglaries daily) to 'upgrade' to rape and murder. Then how, pray did his semen get inside Kercher's body? Did she have consensual sex with him? Or perhaps Knox and Sollecito planted it there - while miraculously leaving no trace of themselves.
I'm referring to the status quo. Of course, the situation may change but we are here now!
That's the trouble - when new evidence comes out, as it does, apparently - who do we trust?
So even NOW, after being convicted of murder, his drug dealing is still only an allegation?
Interesting that!
The court.
OR was the DNA process very, very flawed? I've been reading about this all day until my eyes are bugged out, but on seeing the CNN report regarding the 'new' evidence, I am leaning more to the fact that Knox and her boyfriend were involved.
I'm not going into the why's and wherefore's tonight, I'm too tired - and in fact, it is all supposition at this point.
Oh, the court that changes its mind every five minutes?
Well since I personally know some of the people involved in this case, I think I probably am better informed than you'll ever be. Who I am is not your concern, and I don't feel I need to reveal my identity. That's all I'm saying on the matter. You can choose to disbelieve me- at the end of the day, whether you believe me or not is of no consequence to me whatsoever and I won't be discussing that particular element further.
I don't believe that any of them set out to kill her- unfortunately situations do get out of hand. As I said before, I'm in no position to hypothesise as I don't know- the only thing I will say is that I think Guede probably came onto her, the other 2 egged him on and restrained her, someone pulled a knife on her and maybe left a mark.
At that point, they probably realised that she'd go to the police- and as she knew her attackers, they knew they wouldn't get away with it.
So unfortunately, murder was their only option. Bear in mind that it's thought this attack happened in the space of about 15 mins- so there wasn't much time to think any decisions through properly. If you've taken part in sexual assault, and you know that the victim will go to the police, then what other choice do you have if you don't want anybody to find out? From the perpetrators' point of view, if they wanted any chance of saving their own skins then the victim had to be silenced. For me, that would be the only logical motive. For the record, I don't believe that anybody set out to sexually assault or kill her- as I said, AK, RS and Guede probably found it funny at first, but it just got out of hand, as sometimes things do. I see all these far-fetched hypotheses being bandied about- personally, I think that the truth is far simpler.