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

[Linda7NJ]

No, there is not. You can deny it if makes you feel better, but there is not plenty of evidence to convict AK and RS. Of course you refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have no evidence AK was in the hallway or that she and RS did a clean up. Or even that she, RS, and RG acted together. It is either circumstantial or speculation.



We will just have to agree to disagree.

There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence. I don't know about Italy but here in the USA circumstantial evidence is EQUAL to direct evidence . Regardless what a defense attorney tries to tell you. It's written in EVERY jury instructions read by the judge.
I image it's the same in Italy because she was indeed found guilty. Twice.
There was also DIRECT evidence given by eyewitnesses that places her in places she denies being.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

I'm sorry but you'll have to site a source for this because AK's was the new DNA found during this segment of the trial. It was all over the news.

Ah, never mind. I see in the most recent retesting, they found AK's DNA on the handle but not MK's.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...fe-bears-suspect-dna-victim-article-1.1508420

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheKnife.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24534110

http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/31/world/amanda-knox-evidence/

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/knox-co-defendant-address-italian-court

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-sollecito-case-harsh-verdict-italian-justice

 

[Myvice]

No, there is not. You can deny it if makes you feel better, but there is not plenty of evidence to convict AK and RS. Of course you refuse to acknowledge the fact that they have no evidence AK was in the hallway or that she and RS did a clean up. Or even that she, RS, and RG acted together. It is either circumstantial or speculation.

We will just have to agree to disagree.

Do you think that considering AK and RS said they had lunch at AK's the day of the murder there would be fingerprints of theirs in the kitchen? There was 1 fingerprint of AK's on a glass and 1 fingerprint of RS's on the fridge.

How could that be if there wasn't a cleanup?

Fingerprints mean as much as DNA and AK's DNA is there in multiple places but not so for fingerprints. Why would that be?

 

[otto]

Well, they are talking about disciplinary action against Nencini (Sollecito attorneys) ....I guess I take them too seriously.....aargh...

There is talk about there being no evidence, that Knox was wrongfully imprisoned, that it was a "railroad" job, that everyone is out to get Knox, and now that the entire verdict will be annulled because the Judge did exactly what has been done by previous Judges in this case.

It's all imaginings.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence. I don't know about Italy but here in the USA circumstantial evidence is EQUAL to direct evidence . Regardless what a defense attorney tries to tell you. It's written in EVERY jury instructions read by the judge.
I image it's the same in Italy because she was indeed found guilty. Twice.
There was also DIRECT evidence given by eyewitnesses that places her in places she denies being.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I already know circumstantial evidence is admissible, but there is simply not enough. As I said, you cannot even place them at the crime scene or in the hallway. How can you convict someone if you can't even place them there?

I doubt any jury would convict based on this evidence in the United States and I have served on a jury before.

 

[SMK]

I don't think so. Hellman made a few remarks to media because of the international attention. Nencini did the same thing. No one did anything about it when Hellman spoke to media, so at most Nencini will have his wrists slapped. My understanding is that no one is allowed to discuss what went on in the deliberations, and no one has. This is just posturing from the defense because they have nothing else to grasp onto at this time.

Okie, thanks. I guess I am a sucker for these types of headlines and pieces.... :crazy: Since no one seems to find it worrisome, neither then will I.

ETA:
Not to belabor, but this really won't lead to trouble? Just checking one last time:

Judge Nencini now faces disciplinary action for breaking the judicial code and could be demoted by transfer to a lesser court.

The head of the Italian National Association of Judges Rodolfo Sabelli condemned the remarks as ‘inappropriate’ saying: ‘I won’t enter into the merits of the interview but the fact of a senior judge making comments before he releases the judgment and one day after the sentence in a case that is in the public eye is inappropriate.’

Last year another senior judge was investigated for giving an interview about the conviction of Silvio Berlusconi in his tax fraud case. Berlusconi’s lawyers tried to appeal after the interview but the judgement had already been approved by the Supreme Court and they were unsuccessful.

http://www.gadailynews.com/news/reg...es-of-revealing-interviews-about-verdict.html

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

Do you think that considering AK and RS said they had lunch at AK's the day of the murder there would be fingerprints of theirs in the kitchen? There was 1 fingerprint of AK's on a glass and 1 fingerprint of RS's on the fridge.

How could that be if there wasn't a cleanup?

Fingerprints mean as much as DNA and AK's DNA is there in multiple places but not so for fingerprints. Why would that be?

If they had lunch at the apartment that AK shared with MK, why would there not be fingerprints of theirs in the kitchen? And of course DNA of AK would be there in her own kitchen. If she did a clean up, neither her fingerprints nor DNA should be there.

 

[Myvice]

I already know circumstantial evidence is admissible, but there is simply not enough. As I said, you cannot even place them at the crime scene or in the hallway.

I doubt any jury would convict based on this evidence in the United States and I have served on a jury before.

Of course they have been placed at the crime scene. AK's blood was found in the small bathroom and she said it wasn't there the night before. Her mixed DNA was also found in FR's room where the burglary was staged. There was more than one crime that night making the whole house the crime scene.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I already know circumstantial evidence is admissible, but there is simply not enough. As I said, you cannot even place them at the crime scene or in the hallway.



I doubt any jury would convict based on this evidence in the United States and I have served on a jury before.

People have been convicted on far far less.
There is no substitution for common sense.
You can not even fabricate a plausible explanation as to how Meredith's blood ended up in that bathroom and that blood covered foot on that bath mat. I'm giving you free rein to make up anything you want and it just can't logically be done.
Same with whoever cleaned up that hallway. Logically there is only one person on the planet that would have a reason to clean up the scene. That persons name is Amanda Knox.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[otto]

AK's DNA was never found on the knife and the repeat testings showed that Meredith's DNA wasn't on it either. RS's DNA was on it, but of course it would be since it was his utensil that came from his kitchen drawer in his apartment. If it was scrubbed clean, why was RS's DNA still on it?

You've never been accused of murder, so you don't know what someone would or would not do under such a stressful situation that could result in them being imprisoned for 25 years.

Sollecito's DNA was not on his own knife. Knox's prints were found on the handle, and her DNA was found where the handle meets the blade. Meredith's DNA was found on the blade of the knife. The sample belonging to Meredith was larger than the sample belonging to Knox. The sample belonging to Meredith was completely consumed during testing, so no retesting was possible ... so there was no repeat test.

All defense lawyers were invited to attend the DNA testing and were given ample opportunity to speak up if they objected to any part of the analysis. They couldn't be bothered to show up ... their loss.

 

[Myvice]

If they had lunch at the apartment that AK shared with MK, why would there not be fingerprints of theirs in the kitchen? And of course DNA of AK would be there in her own kitchen. If she did a clean up, neither her fingerprints nor DNA should be there.

That's the point. They only found 1 fingerprint of hers in a kitchen she had just made lunch in. There was a clean up.

Unless you wiped Everything down, you would leave fingerprints on dishes you had washed and put away.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

Of course they have been placed at the crime scene. AK's blood was found in the small bathroom and she said it wasn't there the night before. Her mixed DNA was also found in FR's room where the burglary was staged. There was more than one crime that night making the whole house the crime scene.

You mean the drop of blood that they even said could have been there for weeks? No, that doesn't place her at the crime scene. They didn't place her in the bedroom, where Meredith was murdered, or the hallway, and I see no reason why Knox's DNA would not be found in any room that she lives in.

How did AK and RS manage to clean MK of their DNA but leave RG's?

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

Sollecito's DNA was not on his own knife. Knox's prints were found on the handle, and her DNA was found where the handle meets the blade. Meredith's DNA was found on the blade of the knife. The sample belonging to Meredith was larger than the sample belonging to Knox. The sample belonging to Meredith was completely consumed during testing, so no retesting was possible ... so there was no repeat test.

All defense lawyers were invited to attend the DNA testing and were given ample opportunity to speak up if they objected to any part of the analysis. They couldn't be bothered to show up ... their loss.

Sorry. I just read the sources and they say MK's DNA was not on it. All of them do. I even linked them in a previous post.

 

[Myvice]

You mean the drop of blood that they even said could have been there for weeks? No, that doesn't place her at the crime scene. They didn't place her in the bedroom, where Meredith was murdered, or the hallway, and I see no reason why Knox's DNA would not be found in any room that she lives in.

How did AK and RS manage to clean MK of their DNA but leave RG's?

AK said herself that the drop of HER blood on the sink was not there the day before the murder.

 

[Yellow]

I'd have no problem telling you exactly what I did last night and who I was with.
That doesn't seem too tricky or difficult a question to expect a straight answer for.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think too often people think of AK's actions as being as how they would react or behave as an adult. They don't think how they would behave or react as a 20 yeta old stoned kid. Also, when one is in college and you do the same things day in and day out the days can run into each other. Add to that the fact that one is stoned or doing drugs and I think it is perfectly understandable that they don't have a timeline down.

Older people tend to have routines, kids don't. One night they may order pizza at 3am, the next night they may sleep all day and not get up till noon. I don't find anything ususual in not being able to give definite times.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

AK said herself that the drop of HER blood on the sink was not there the day before the murder.

Then I guess she and RS are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They did selective cleaning and managed to get rid of almost all of their DNA but leave almost all of Rudy's behind on the victim and the crime scene.

 

[Myvice]

Sorry. I just read the sources and they say MK's DNA was not on it. All of them do. I even posted them.

MK's DNA was not found where the blade meets the handle. That is what they tested this summer. MK's DNA was found before these tests.

 

[Yellow]

AFAIK, the Supreme Court will be the final ruling. The ECJ is not a court of appeals for decisions on a national level and can neither modify or set aside rulings made by a national court unless there is an egregious legal error in interpreting EU law - such as human rights, taxation or free movement.

It is highly unlikely any remedy could be found (in the form of an appeal) via the European courts, IMO, as most member states pass national legislation to be compliant within the parameters of EU law.

JMO and FWIW

I read that Italy has been found to have more violations by the European court of human rights than any other EU nation. - over 900 instances. Yet Italy does not seem to care. I imagine this case will join the list if they are stupid enough to base their ruling on the DNA evidence.

 

[ashleigh_schwartz]

MK's DNA was not found where the blade meets the handle. That is what they tested this summer. MK's DNA was found before these tests.

Well, I read them, and the MK DNA they found initially was not derived from blood and was below intl standards. They also say that DNA experts agree MK's DNA was not on it.

 

[Jessica2012]

Wasn't Amanda's footprint also found on the pillow?