Meredith Kercher case

[Ally]

[I][B]
At worst she helped kill Meredith, at best she knew what happened, even if she didn't participate, in my opinion. Why point a finger at Lumumba unless she was trying to hide something.

Are you kidding? Why point a finger? If I were in a foreign country, had only rudimentary knowledge of the language, was fairly a weak person and was interrogated for 18 hours straight, I'd probably point the finger at all sorts of people who might have been involved.

I find it interesting that with not a single piece of physical evidence tying her to the case, not a single shred of actual physical evidence and not even circumstantial evidence tying her to case either, people are so easily convinced she did it. Based on absolutely nothing.

[tji]

Hi Ally

Yes but he wasn't involved, he had an alibi, as far as I am aware she didn't. If I was in a foreign country with only a rudimentary knowledge of the language I wouldn't say anything until I had someone with me to translate.

There are two ways to look at this, she went though hell because of Police incompetence or she is one of the luckiest people going, because of Police incompetence.

There was no physical evidence found, but given the way the evidence was collected that doesn't mean it wasn't there. Unfortunately we can't prove a negative.

I think this case boils down to personal opinion of the information given. I personally think Guede was involved but I don't think he acted alone. To the extent of Knox's and Sollecito's involvement I am not sure, but I think they were involved.

Tracy

[Ally]

Hi Ally

Yes but he wasn't involved, he had an alibi, as far as I am aware she didn't. If I was in a foreign country with only a rudimentary knowledge of the language I wouldn't say anything until I had someone with me to translate.

Yes, I know he wasn't involved, but what precisely does that have to do with her guilt? It's not indicative of her being involved, it's indicative of her being stupid and weak.

There was no physical evidence found, but given the way the evidence was collected that doesn't mean it wasn't there. Unfortunately we can't prove a negative.

But in fact there was physical evidence found--of Rudy Guede who admits to being there and having sex with Meredith. So on the night a woman is raped and killed, they find physical evidence of a man who admits to being there, but not of Knox and Sollecito who say they were not there that night.

Physical evidence was absolutely found. They just didn't find a single shred of evidence that she or her boyfriend was there. My. How convenient?

I think this case boils down to personal opinion of the information given. I personally think Guede was involved but I don't think he acted alone. To the extent of Knox's and Sollecito's involvement I am not sure, but I think they were involved.

Okay fine. It's based on personal opinion. So what precisely, in your personal opinion is there that in any way shape or form links Knox or Sollecito to the crime?

Because everyone, including Guede say that the three of them were not acquainted and in HIS version of events, he had consensual sex with Amanda, then went to the bathroom and came back in to find Meredith dead and Sollecito fleeing while Amanda waited outside. So according to his (DNA proven there) events, Amanda and her boyfriend just randomly up and decide to slaughter her roommate while he's in the can. For no apparent reason or motive, just hey, let's go kill my roommate and run!

[mariab]

Ally has a point here, on all counts.

[John Hacker]

Finally.

I'm suprised, but the court came back with the only supportable verdict. 4 years late, but better than never I suppose.

The entire narative pushed by the prosecution was rediculous from day one. For the thing ever to be been admitted into court was a huge miscarriage of justice. It robbed two young people of years of their lives, inflicted pain and confusion on the victims family by giving them an inaccurate view of how and why their daughter died and caused the real killer to receive light sentence due to his alleged minor role in the crime. Frankly, it's sickening on all counts.

The court seemed to recognize this when issuing their verdict. In overturning the original conviction they had two options. Either to drop it by finding that their was insufficient evidence or to find them actually innocent. They went the extra mile and found them innocent of the charges.

A few quick comments on the discussion so far....

tji,

Lamumba got fingered by Knox during the initial questioning session. The police were pushing her to implicate him based on a text on her phone from the night of the crime ("see you later") which the police took as an agreement to meet. If you ask leading questions of someone under stress you're going to get the answers you're looking for eventually.

She should have kept her mouth shut at that point but unfortunately she went along and implicated an innocent man for which she was rightfully convicted.

trib,

Why long odds on a lone killer? The case was clearly consistent with a single attacker from the beginning. The "expert" that the prosecution used to try to establish that there were multiple attackers used some seriously tortured reasoning. Read the motivation report from the original convition for details. It's an interesting read and hilarious in a sad sort of way.


Regards,

John

[Ally]

I just realized I said Guede said he had consensual sex with Amanda, and of course I meant Meredith. My mistake and it's outside the time window to edit.

[Errata]

I gotta say, this whole case makes me very glad that places I visit merely have extremely corrupt law enforcement, and not incompetent law enforcement.

[louisa]

If you visit Britain you could experience both.

[Abby Normal]

Bottom line is the Italian court system is a kangaroo court-The monster of Florence and Amanda Knox exemplify this. Middle ages superstitious nonsense.

Just the opposite of here in the US where its the dumb ass juries cant (or wont)understand the evidence and let everyone go free from OJ to Tot-mom.

[tji]

Hi Ally/John

I really can understand why you believe her innocent, the more accounts I read the more conflicting it gets. Until there is an unbiased account of the night that are not media or family orientated accounts then we are not going to know. It is a shame/shock that her Police interviews weren't recorded.

However at this moment in time I still believe her to be involved somewhere down the line from the information available. It is just like the McCann/ Jon Benet cases etc. People have the same information given but reach different conclusions.

If the accounts I have read turn out to be false/misleading, I will be the first to admit to being wrong, until then though, I still feel that she was involved, there are too many unanswered questions that need answers.

Tracy

[Ally]

TJI,

I understand you say you believe her "involved". You've said that. But WHY do you believe her guilty? What I am asking you is: Based on what? You've said based on the accounts you've read. Okay, what accounts? What exact evidence did they present? What fact? What specific piece of information?

[John Hacker]

tji,

There are 2 compelling reasons I think they're innocent.

1) A crime like this simply doesn't happen. You don't get 3 people with little or no association (2 of whom with no criminal background) to gang rape and murder an accquaintence. Especially with no one ratting the others out. Every single scenario painted by the prosecution was lurid, over the top and monumentally stupid.

However, the crime is exactly what would be expected with a robbery/assault case with a single perpetrator. And convieniently the one person who can be proved to have been there and assaulted Kercher has a history of burglery and threatening people with a knife.

2) The motivations report from the original trial summarizes WHY they were convicted in the first place. After reading that it was more than clear that the case was non-existant. The reasoning was shoddy, the investigation mishandled and deference was given to the weakest prosecution arguments over strong ones raised by the defense.

The laughable antics of the prosecutions DNA "experts" were called out in the original trial and the objections were ignored. Until the independent experts came back saying the exact same thing. But a quick read through the report was all it took to know LONG ago that they bungled.

This was a case where the prosecutions theory was conceived by a crazed tabloid writer, investigated by the keystone cops and Inspector Cleasaeu and judged by someone who apparently rides the short bus to the bench each day before issuing his judgements written in crayon.


The problem is that the drug orgy story was simply much better than the lone killer story.

It had sex. It had drugs. It had a pretty and unlikely killer. (Who can resist the face of evil peeking out from behind the beautiful mask?)

It had something for almost everyone. The media got a story. The prosecutor got his undeserved moment of fame, again. The victim's family got triple the justice requred. The actual killer got his sentenced reduced.

But what the heck. It WAS a great story.

[Chris]

TJI,

I understand you say you believe her "involved". You've said that. But WHY do you believe her guilty? What I am asking you is: Based on what? You've said based on the accounts you've read. Okay, what accounts? What exact evidence did they present? What fact? What specific piece of information?

There's a huge amount of information about the case available on the Internet. I came across this blog today, whose author discusses the issues in great depth, and is obviously far from convinced that Knox and Sollecito are innocent:

http://maundygregory.wordpress.com/

[Ally]

Is that person with that blog TJI? I really am not interested what every random person on the web says. I am asking a person who has stated their opinion here to provide the reasons for that opinion. So far, from what I can determine in that blog, they ignore and spin or completely disregard the vast majority of the evidence and their opinion comes down to: she's a liar and a crappy person. Okay. Everyone is a liar to some degree or another and most are crappy people. What exactly proves murder?

But again, I am not interested in random bloggers as I am not having a discussion with them.

[Chris]

So far, from what I can determine in that blog, they ignore and spin or completely disregard the vast majority of the evidence and their opinion comes down to: she's a liar and a crappy person.

I spent a lot longer than ten minutes looking at it earlier today, and I think your impression is quite wrong.

If you want a detailed discussion of the evidence against Knox and Sollecito, you'll find it there.