Amanda Knox guilty of Meredith Kercher murder Options

[katharinekatkat]

Not even true. Her DNA was found on a knife. She tried making the case that it wasn't the weapon that was used, but obviously that was rejected. DNA is evidence is DNA evidence is DNA evidence. It's pretty damning, regardless of the rejected counterarguments against it.
So did Knox. What were his motives that you allege, btw?
When there's DNA evidence, I think they have every right to try to get a confession... And there's nothing to suggest they used violence or seriously threatened her for it. You're saying that a person who knows that they're innocent would lie just to get out of a room, even though they should still be physically fine after 14 hours? Admitting to being there just to sleep or something? Really?
And most of the replies in this thread are evidence that other Western media has had WAY too much of an influence on people as well.
Lying is when someone doesn't tell the truth, to the best of their knowledge. She lied, since she changed her story many, many times.

DNA evidence doesn't leave room for "reasonable doubt." You've obviously bought into the counterarguments made by the defense to attempt to delegitimatize the DNA.

I think the vast majority of the posts in this thread are really silly. Not going to Italy because an American girl murdered another girl and her family's attempting to portray it as being because of anti-Americanism?

#1. Oh, I guess you didn't know that the supposed "DNA" found on the knife is so LOW and insignificant that it wouldn't be allowed to be considered actual "DNA" in the majority of the rest of the world including Canada and the United-States. I've read at numerous places that the DNA found was less than 10% chance of it being Amanda's.

#2. Also, they found finger-prints all over the crime scene of the third person convicted of this murder (already sentenced to 30 years in prison) but none of Amanda Knox and her boyfriend. How could they have cleaned their prints but left all of the other guy's prints? It just doesn't make sense and it doesn't add up. She simply wasn't there.

#3. How do you explain that the video of the interrogation miraculously disappeared? How do you explain that Amanda's computer's hard-drive was destroyed? Those things would have proved that Amanda and the victim were friends and would have revealed what really happened during the interrogation.

#4. Also, the interviewers that interviewed Amanda (in which the video disappeared) are trained to break the mafia and terrorists. They WANT and WILL get any answer they want. They are programmed to do so. Its called PRESSURE. You can't question someone for 14 hours with no food or water and PRESSURE them to say something and call it a "confession". That's against the law, in this country anyways.

#5. This case has gone far and beyond a reasonable doubt. Not even close. There's simply NO proof that she committed the murder and there's simply too many things that are questionable and unsure. You can't convict someone to 25 years in prison with NO DNA evidence, no witness, a non-documented interrogation, a questionable prosecutor and an overly influential society.

Edit: I suggest you watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buDZ6_GkSaU

The video basically says the DNA is weak and would be non-admissible in the US.

This post has been edited by katharinekatkat: Dec 28th 2009, 2:35 PM

[kamil24]

Yup, It would be impossible for her and her boyfriend to clean up all fingerprints and evidence from this crime scene.

[adamsmo]

#1. Oh, I guess you didn't know that the supposed "DNA" found on the knife is so LOW and insignificant that it wouldn't be allowed to be considered actual "DNA" in the majority of the rest of the world including Canada and the United-States. I've read at numerous places that the DNA found was less than 10% chance of it being Amanda's.

That's the defense's argument. I was aware of this argument - not that something I didn't know. It is only ALLEGED that the DNA was "low" and "significant." The amount of the DNA is not public information, it is only something perpetuated by the defense. Essentially, you're just siding with the defense's rejected arguments.

#2. Also, they found finger-prints all over the crime scene of the third person convicted of this murder (already sentenced to 30 years in prison) but none of Amanda Knox and her boyfriend. How could they have cleaned their prints but left all of the other guy's prints? It just doesn't make sense and it doesn't add up. She simply wasn't there.

Gloves of some sort? a HUGE portion of murders and murderers convicted don't have fingerprints found at all.

#3. How do you explain that the video of the interrogation miraculously disappeared? How do you explain that Amanda's computer's hard-drive was destroyed? Those things would have proved that Amanda and the victim were friends and would have revealed what really happened during the interrogation.

And that would have proven her innocence? Her interrogation and what was gotten from it is on record. What about how she placed calls and sent many messages on her phone before the murder, yet turned it off immediately after it's believed to have taken place and had turned it off for a long, LONG time?

#4. Also, the interviewers that interviewed Amanda (in which the video disappeared) are trained to break the mafia and terrorists. They WANT and WILL get any answer they want. They are programmed to do so. Its called PRESSURE. You can't question someone for 14 hours with no food or water and PRESSURE them to say something and call it a "confession". That's against the law, in this country anyways.

So what? They're trained to break the mafia. I don't know where you'd get that these people deal with terrorists, let alone to a significant extent, but that's irrelevant. You think people who are trained to break certain kinds of people don't know how to differentiate between a mafia member and a 20 year year old girl? Despite the DNA evidence, which would surely give higher reason to believe it and treat her more harshly?

#5. This case has gone far and beyond a reasonable doubt. Not even close. There's simply NO proof that she committed the murder and there's simply too many things that are questionable and unsure. You can't convict someone to 25 years in prison with NO DNA evidence, no witness, a non-documented interrogation, a questionable prosecutor and an overly influential society.

You're, again, denying the most damning evidence of all - the DNA, which you choose to side with the defense in it's unanimously rejected arguments. The prosecutor is "questionable" because it's a justice system, and with ANY justice system, prosecutors are accused of wrongdoing, regardless of what actually happened. So he has been trained to work with mafia members - and? You think a professional prosecutor isn't going to know the difference to treat a girl - WITH DNA evidence somewhat differently? Really? ...You base it on....? Oh, right - the defense's - again - rejected arguments.

Edit: I suggest you watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buDZ6_GkSaU

The video basically says the DNA is weak and would be non-admissible in the US.

It's presumption that it wouldn't be admissible in the U.S. We have no actual, empirical information about it. It is the defense's argument. A rejected argument, a commonly rejected argument, at that. How are you so quick to side with the defense, and continue saying their arguments as if any of what they say is public information, or based on empirical information? Not any facts?

That, and you helped prove my point with that video. You used Fox News, and I said long ago in this thread that the American media is parroting the defense's talking point.

This post has been edited by adamsmo: Dec 31st 2009, 12:56 AM

[katharinekatkat]

That's the defense's argument. I was aware of this argument - not that something I didn't know. It is only ALLEGED that the DNA was "low" and "significant." The amount of the DNA is not public information, it is only something perpetuated by the defense. Essentially, you're just siding with the defense's rejected arguments.
Gloves of some sort? a HUGE portion of murders and murderers convicted don't have fingerprints found at all.

And that would have proven her innocence? Her interrogation and what was gotten from it is on record. What about how she placed calls and sent many messages on her phone before the murder, yet turned it off immediately after it's believed to have taken place and had turned it off for a long, LONG time?
So what? They're trained to break the mafia. I don't know where you'd get that these people deal with terrorists, let alone to a significant extent, but that's irrelevant. You think people who are trained to break certain kinds of people don't know how to differentiate between a mafia member and a 20 year year old girl? Despite the DNA evidence, which would surely give higher reason to believe it and treat her more harshly?
You're, again, denying the most damning evidence of all - the DNA, which you choose to side with the defense in it's unanimously rejected arguments. The prosecutor is "questionable" because it's a justice system, and with ANY justice system, prosecutors are accused of wrongdoing, regardless of what actually happened. So he has been trained to work with mafia members - and? You think a professional prosecutor isn't going to know the difference to treat a girl - WITH DNA evidence somewhat differently? Really? ...You base it on....? Oh, right - the defense's - again - rejected arguments.
It's presumption that it wouldn't be admissible in the U.S. We have no actual, empirical information about it. It is the defense's argument. A rejected argument, a commonly rejected argument, at that. How are you so quick to side with the defense, and continue saying their arguments as if any of what they say is public information, or based on empirical information? Not any facts?

That, and you helped prove my point with that video. You used Fox News, and I said long ago in this thread that the American media is parroting the defense's talking point.

I don't even have the energy to counter back right now. I'm sorry.

It is a fact that the DNA was NOT double tested and it is a FACT that the peaks of it were so low that it wouldn't of been admissible in other countries. I don't understand how those things were assumptions?

I am not "siding" with the defense. I am simply stating the same things they stated because they are true.

Are you claiming the defense is lying and making up things? I feel like they are presenting real proof that she had nothing to do with the murder.

Another thing, how can you not have any doubt when there was absolutely NO evidence found at the CRIME SCENE that she was even there? She wore gloves? That's just ridiculous. Not a hair, not a footprint, not a fingerprint, not a piece of skin, no kind of print, NOTHING. Yet the REAL murderer (IMO) had tons of prints/evidence at the crime scene.

This case was about saving the prosecutor's career. If he had lost this case, he would've lost his career.

Edit: Oh, and to your "so what" comment about the interrogation, they are GOOD at forcing people to give them the answers they WANT TO HEAR. Not necessarily the truth. That's what I was trying to say. I don't think it should be considered a "confession" when the next day she told people she was scared and just gave up and said what they wanted to hear. I believe her.

This post has been edited by katharinekatkat: Dec 31st 2009, 4:05 PM

[Iluvthespotlight]

I'm not trying to say it's 'anti Americanism' or 'Oh no this angel faced girl could never have done such a thing' or anything like that. But when it comes to the situation where she 'lied' in interrogation. I hardly find that condemning. Since they found a text on her phone from her boss, that said something like "You don't have to come into work tonight' and 'OK then see you later" and then the police insinuated she was alluding to the fact her and her boss were going to meet up later for this so called 'sex game' or murder Meredith or something. THEY were the ones trying to get her to admit that this man had been involved. And telling her that she must not remember what happened because she was blocking it out. And eventually she just went with it and signed the confession. It's a common interrogation method to tell someone they have proof they were at the crime scene is it not?

Now, yeah she could be making all this up. We don't know because correct me if I'm wrong, there are no tapes of her interrogation.

But it sounds pretty basic and plausible to me. I'm not saying she did or didn't do it. I'm just saying I personally don't find her naming that one man as the murderer when the police basically fed it to her as something that makes me believe she did it. I'm only talking about this one particular aspect of course.

[katharinekatkat]

I'm not trying to say it's 'anti Americanism' or 'Oh no this angel faced girl could never have done such a thing' or anything like that. But when it comes to the situation where she 'lied' in interrogation. I hardly find that condemning. Since they found a text on her phone from her boss, that said something like "You don't have to come into work tonight' and 'OK then see you later" and then the police insinuated she was alluding to the fact her and her boss were going to meet up later for this so called 'sex game' or murder Meredith or something. THEY were the ones trying to get her to admit that this man had been involved. And telling her that she must not remember what happened because she was blocking it out. And eventually she just went with it and signed the confession. It's a common interrogation method to tell someone they have proof they were at the crime scene is it not?

Now, yeah she could be making all this up. We don't know because correct me if I'm wrong, there are no tapes of her interrogation.

But it sounds pretty basic and plausible to me. I'm not saying she did or didn't do it. I'm just saying I personally don't find her naming that one man as the murderer when the police basically fed it to her as something that makes me believe she did it. I'm only talking about this one particular aspect of course.

THANK YOU. The thing is, EVERY single aspect is questionable and unsure (as you have shown with one of the aspects above). How can they convict her?

[Zfan]

Dec 22

"An Italian appeals court upheld the conviction of Rudy Guede for murdering British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy and reduced his sentence by almost half to 15 years, news agency Ansa reported.

Guede, 22, said he wasn’t satisfied with the ruling because he is innocent, Ansa reported from the court in Perugia. Guede was originally sentenced to 30 years for murder and sexual assault."

[adamsmo]

It is a fact that the DNA was NOT double tested and it is a FACT that the peaks of it were so low that it wouldn't of been admissible in other countries. I don't understand how those things were assumptions?

Are you kidding? It matters if the DNA was double-tested, why? DNA is DNA. The only people who are saying that the "peaks of it were so low" are the defense. I'm sorry, but that is merely the defense and American media saying it. Absolutely nowhere else, let along a western Democracy, which actually has a quite strong justice system, contrary to what the gullible would like tot believe.

Are you claiming the defense is lying and making up things? I feel like they are presenting real proof that she had nothing to do with the murder.

Yes, I am. Saying the defense "'made' things up" is hardly slanderous, as it happens in a far disproportionate number of cases than those who tell the truth. Are you suggesting most on the defense side of cases tell the truth? Wow, naive about nearly every justice system in the world, much?

Another thing, how can you not have any doubt when there was absolutely NO evidence found at the CRIME SCENE that she was even there? She wore gloves? That's just ridiculous. Not a hair, not a footprint, not a fingerprint, not a piece of skin, no kind of print, NOTHING. Yet the REAL murderer (IMO) had tons of prints/evidence at the crime scene.

Again, nevermind the DNA evidence that you discount merely because the defense does.

This case was about saving the prosecutor's career. If he had lost this case, he would've lost his career.

Doubtful he would have lost his career, at all - you base that on....? Oh, the rhetoric of some critics of him.

Edit: Oh, and to your "so what" comment about the interrogation, they are GOOD at forcing people to give them the answers they WANT TO HEAR. Not necessarily the truth. That's what I was trying to say. I don't think it should be considered a "confession" when the next day she told people she was scared and just gave up and said what they wanted to hear. I believe her.

Not even the best interrogators can make someone so innocent, as you allege, virtually confess to something in a time that would really be harmless to... the "innocent alleged" murderer. Obviously she said they did that - can you tell me what murderer wouldn't try to backtrack once in public after?

Clearly, you've bought the defense's amply rejected arguments, once more.

This post has been edited by adamsmo: Jan 7th 2010, 8:54 AM

[katharinekatkat]

Are you kidding? It matters if the DNA was double-tested, why? DNA is DNA. The only people who are saying that the "peaks of it were so low" are the defense. I'm sorry, but that is merely the defense and American media saying it. Absolutely nowhere else, let along a western Democracy, which actually has a quite strong justice system, contrary to what the gullible would like tot believe.
Yes, I am. Saying the defense "'made' things up" is hardly slanderous, as it happens in a far disproportionate number of cases than those who tell the truth. Are you suggesting most on the defense side of cases tell the truth? Wow, naive about nearly every justice system in the world, much?
Again, nevermind the DNA evidence that you discount merely because the defense does.

Doubtful he would have lost his career, at all - you base that on....? Oh, the rhetoric of some critics of him.
Not even the best interrogators can make someone so innocent, as you allege, virtually confess to something in a time that would really be harmless to... the "innocent alleged" murderer. Obviously she said they did that - can you tell me what murderer wouldn't try to backtrack once in public after?

Clearly, you've bought the defense's amply rejected arguments, once more.

#1. Well, we both don't KNOW for a fact what happened the night of the murder. So why is it so bad that I agree and believe the defense side? Why are you so "right" to believe the other side? From what has been presented in court as evidence, I can definitely side with the defense. The only argument you have is the "DNA" which wasn't double tested and wasn't high enough to really know for a fact that it was even Amanda's. So it's not like I'm way off base or something. BTW, this is not made up by the defense. This has been admitted to. They KNOW the sample was too small to double test and they know that the DNA they found was weak. So stop trying to make it seem like it's not true.

#2. Your being naive thinking that, under pressure, people won't just say things to just get out of an interrogation. It happens all the time. I did a paper about it last year, actually. If you want I can give you some examples. It happens hundreds of times in North America. I've said this before, but the people that do the interrogation are there on a mission to get the answer they want. I don't care what you think, to me it is unacceptable to accept an interview that lasted 14 hours long, that is not video-taped nor documented. In fact, now they say they can't even find the transcript of the damn interrogation. It shouldn't be accepted in a court of law.

#3. I know the defense often make things up. I'm not stupid. I just happen to believe them this time, and I think that the other side is the one that made things up to try to get a conviction.

This post has been edited by katharinekatkat: Jan 7th 2010, 5:00 PM

[katharinekatkat]

Not even the best interrogators can make someone so innocent, as you allege, virtually confess to something...

BTW it wasn't even a confession. She said she was there and heard everything happen. She never said she killed her.

This post has been edited by katharinekatkat: Jan 7th 2010, 5:02 PM

[adamsmo]

BTW it wasn't even a confession. She said she was there and heard everything happen. She never said she killed her.

Admitting you're in a place and being aware of an incident, though not its specifics, isn't an admission, why, with DNA evidence? I'm sorry, but your attempt at a counterargument doesn't do anything to negate anything I said. I don't know for a fact that Ted Bundy nor Ed Gein was, though the evidence was far more compelling, but evidence is evidence is evidence, regardless of attempts to discount it. And naive about interrogations? Please, that's one of the most commonly use arguments, even with serial killers (Ed Gein, who inspired the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films, included.) You're very, very, very liberal about being guilty without a reasonable doubt.

This post has been edited by adamsmo: Jan 10th 2010, 7:54 AM

[katharinekatkat]

Admitting you're in a place and being aware of an incident, though not its specifics, isn't an admission, why, with DNA evidence? I'm sorry, but your attempt at a counterargument doesn't do anything to negate anything I said. I don't know for a fact that Ted Bundy nor Ed Gein was, though the evidence was far more compelling, but evidence is evidence is evidence, regardless of attempts to discount it. And naive about interrogations? Please, that's one of the most commonly use arguments, even with serial killers (Ed Gein, who inspired the Texas Chainsaw Massacre films, included.) You're very, very, very liberal about being guilty without a reasonable doubt.

Yes I am.

Evidence is evidence, right? The only evidence you keep coming back to is DNA. That DNA isn't even sure to be hers.

That is a REASONABLE DOUBT in my opinion. It's practically the definition of a reasonable doubt for freak's sakes!

This post has been edited by katharinekatkat: Jan 12th 2010, 1:16 AM

[Meeshy]

Dragging this up because an expert testified that the DNA evidence was unreliable.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/2...ce-contaminated

Two Rome University professors said there was no certainty that traces of DNA, found on a knife allegedly used in the murder, belonged to Kercher.
They added that a trace of Sollecito's DNA on Kercher's bra clip, the vital piece of evidence linking him to the murder scene, could have got there by contamination, as the defence team said at the trial.

The DNA traces on the knife, which were discovered by police in Sollecito's kitchen, appeared "unreliable in as much as [they were] not supported by scientifically validated analytic procedures", the experts' report said.

I personally think she's not guilty.

This post has been edited by Meeshy: Jun 29th 2011, 6:04 PM

[Steven]

I saw this on the news again. I think she's innocent.

[1201O]

Are you kidding? It matters if the DNA was double-tested, why? DNA is DNA. The only people who are saying that the "peaks of it were so low" are the defense. I'm sorry, but that is merely the defense and American media saying it. Absolutely nowhere else, let along a western Democracy, which actually has a quite strong justice system, contrary to what the gullible would like tot believe.

Again, nevermind the DNA evidence that you discount merely because the defense does.

Doubtful he would have lost his career, at all - you base that on....? Oh, the rhetoric of some critics of him.
Not even the best interrogators can make someone so innocent, as you allege, virtually confess to something in a time that would really be harmless to... the "innocent alleged" murderer. Obviously she said they did that - can you tell me what murderer wouldn't try to backtrack once in public after?

Clearly, you've bought the defense's amply rejected arguments, once more.

Sorry for responding to an old post, but I had to point out the serious errors in this comment. When using DNA as evidence in court, at least in the American Justice system, said DNA evidence will hold little to no value if there isn't enough DNA for the opposition to double test the evidence through an objective third party. You can't just take a tiny amount of DNA have it tested once and then claim DNA is DNA is DNA, you are guilty. In order for it to qualify as scientific evidence, you need to get the same results more than once, in other words, double checking. That's how all scientific procedures work.

Also, it is possible for experienced interrogators to get innocent people to confess to crimes, I don't know where you're getting that it isn't. There have been several studies done around the world to show that this true, of course cases like these are more commonly associated with war criminals/suspected terrorist than in a case like this. But still it is possible.

Clearly you've already convinced yourself that this girl is guilty and nothing anyone else says, short someone producing a video showing someone else committed the crime, will change your mind.

That being said, I don't know wether or not this girl is guilty, but from the supposed evidence revealed to the public so far, it's ridiculous to say that WITHOUT A DOUBT she committed the crime and deserves her sentence. You're innocent until proven guilty, and this evidence doesn't prove she's guilty (nor does it prove her innocence but that's not the objective.) Of course, in what adamsmo is right about, is that all the evidence in the case isn't necessarily revealed to the public, so there may be more evidence that proves guilty, we wouldn't know. That doesn't mean the court maybe right though, no justice system is full proof, they have made mistakes in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

This post has been edited by 1201O: Jun 30th 2011, 11:32 AM

[katharinekatkat]

Sorry for responding to an old post, but I had to point out the serious errors in this comment. When using DNA as evidence in court, at least in the American Justice system, said DNA evidence will hold little to no value if there isn't enough DNA for the opposition to double test the evidence through an objective third party. You can't just take a tiny amount of DNA have it tested once and then claim DNA is DNA is DNA, you are guilty. In order for it to qualify as scientific evidence, you need to get the same results more than once, in other words, double checking. That's how all scientific procedures work.

Also, it is possible for experienced interrogators to get innocent people to confess to crimes, I don't know where you're getting that it isn't. There have been several studies done around the world to show that this true, of course cases like these are more commonly associated with war criminals/suspected terrorist than in a case like this. But still it is possible.

Clearly you've already convinced yourself that this girl is guilty and nothing anyone else says, short someone producing a video showing someone else committed the crime, will change your mind.

That being said, I don't know wether or not this girl is guilty, but from the supposed evidence revealed to the public so far, it's ridiculous to say that WITHOUT A DOUBT she committed the crime and deserves her sentence. You're innocent until proven guilty, and this evidence doesn't prove she's guilty (nor does it prove her innocence but that's not the objective.) Of course, in what adamsmo is right about, is that all the evidence in the case isn't necessarily revealed to the public, so there may be more evidence that proves guilty, we wouldn't know. That doesn't mean the court maybe right though, no justice system is full proof, they have made mistakes in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Great post, and I agree completely.

[TwoJacks]

I have always believed she was innocent. A little strange maybe, but no murderer.