Kercher murder Trial

[Thanas]

So how about this rephrasing of the position? None of the evidence presented in public hearings reasonably indicates that Knox is guilty. Then we must explain why a guilty verdict was handed down. Barring evidence presented in private hearings, being influenced by a media narrative becomes a reasonable explanation for why a guilty verdict was handed down. That doesn't demand a vast Italian conspiracy to lock her up, any more than right-wing US media bias demands a vast Republican conspiracy.

It is extremely unlikely that professional judges were completely swayed by media opinion, unless they managed to get the worst of the bunch. And seeing as how the lay court judges have to at least demonstrate that they are not complete morons - unlike the US - I find it quite unlikely that they were swayed by this. Having seen both the US and the Italian system in action I think I have a bit more experience than you or most of the board in this matter. Yeah Yeah, appeal to authority, but so far there is no real reason for me to infer otherwise.

For me, though, what is most convincing is not the quality of the evidence that has been presented but rather what evidence has NOT been presented. Why was Knox's DNA found NOWHERE in Kercher's room? Why is there no motive? Why is there not a shred of evidence that there was some sort of elaborate sex game being played (aside from evidence that Guede, and Guede alone, had sex with Kercher)? Why is there no link between Guede and Knox and her boyfriend? The evidence is simply not there.

German media did report that Guede used to sell drugs to Knox. If that has been debunked, let me know.

[Surlethe]

So how about this rephrasing of the position? None of the evidence presented in public hearings reasonably indicates that Knox is guilty. Then we must explain why a guilty verdict was handed down. Barring evidence presented in private hearings, being influenced by a media narrative becomes a reasonable explanation for why a guilty verdict was handed down. That doesn't demand a vast Italian conspiracy to lock her up, any more than right-wing US media bias demands a vast Republican conspiracy.

It is extremely unlikely that professional judges were completely swayed by media opinion, unless they managed to get the worst of the bunch. And seeing as how the lay court judges have to at least demonstrate that they are not complete morons - unlike the US - I find it quite unlikely that they were swayed by this. Having seen both the US and the Italian system in action I think I have a bit more experience than you or most of the board in this matter. Yeah Yeah, appeal to authority, but so far there is no real reason for me to infer otherwise.

Yeah, not just appeal to authority, but a generalization fallacy too. In any case, if media bias is out, what explanation is there for a guilty verdict in the absence of sufficient evidence? Private hearings where some evidence was presented that was not made available to the public?

[Thanas]

Yeah, not just appeal to authority, but a generalization fallacy too. In any case, if media bias is out, what explanation is there for a guilty verdict in the absence of sufficient evidence? Private hearings where some evidence was presented that was not made available to the public?

Who knows? I'd rather trust the Italian court than some generalized judgements on the internet from people who do not even know how the jury system in Italy works. But obviously, it must have been a faulty judgement because...of what? The decision has not even been released yet. There is no basis for judgement to be made about the decision yet. If this was a case where media bias or some other illicit things decided it, the appeal will show that. And then there is a final appeal after that.

It just irks me when armchair legal experts proclaim judgement on a difficult and complex case without even knowing the slightest thing about the Italian legal system.

[Edi]

Actually having personal experience of a situation is not an appeal to authority when that type of situations are discussed. I agree with Thanas that it's useless to make any kind of pronouncements on this case before the decision is released. After that there is some substance to go on.

[Surlethe]

Yeah, not just appeal to authority, but a generalization fallacy too. In any case, if media bias is out, what explanation is there for a guilty verdict in the absence of sufficient evidence? Private hearings where some evidence was presented that was not made available to the public?

Who knows? I'd rather trust the Italian court than some generalized judgements on the internet from people who do not even know how the jury system in Italy works. But obviously, it must have been a faulty judgement because...of what? The decision has not even been released yet. There is no basis for judgement to be made about the decision yet. If this was a case where media bias or some other illicit things decided it, the appeal will show that. And then there is a final appeal after that.

It just irks me when armchair legal experts proclaim judgement on a difficult and complex case without even knowing the slightest thing about the Italian legal system.

I'm not sure I agree, based on the bolded above. One can judge based on available evidence and reach a pretty definite conclusion under the assumption that publicly available evidence is comprehensive - a judgment to be revised, of course, upon reading the decision. I mean, it's not like this is a breaking case where no investigation has occurred and all assertions are hearsay or rumor; the facts are, AFAIK, pretty established. And since the facts are known, judgments about guilt or innocence are not, IMHO, unfounded.

[Thanas]

Who knows? I'd rather trust the Italian court than some generalized judgements on the internet from people who do not even know how the jury system in Italy works. But obviously, it must have been a faulty judgement because...of what? The decision has not even been released yet. There is no basis for judgement to be made about the decision yet. If this was a case where media bias or some other illicit things decided it, the appeal will show that. And then there is a final appeal after that.

It just irks me when armchair legal experts proclaim judgement on a difficult and complex case without even knowing the slightest thing about the Italian legal system.

I'm not sure I agree, based on the bolded above. One can judge based on available evidence and reach a pretty definite conclusion under the assumption that publicly available evidence is comprehensive - a judgment to be revised, of course, upon reading the decision. I mean, it's not like this is a breaking case where no investigation has occurred and all assertions are hearsay or rumor; the facts are, AFAIK, pretty established. And since the facts are known, judgments about guilt or innocence are not, IMHO, unfounded.

I remembered reading the Spiegel about it and it made a pretty compelling case after reading it. Among other things, iirc, the article claimed Knox and Kercher had a history of jealousy, that Knox was known to be something of a weirdo with a penchant for sick stuff and that she had drug dealing ties with Guede. Now, admittedly I read that quite some time ago (back when Knox was first arrested) so my recollection may be shaky. It may be that those rumors have been debunked or not, but from what I read in the german media back then, the case is not as much of a conspiracy or scapegoating of Knox as it appears. That said, Spiegel itself seems to have changed its tune and calls the evidence doubtful now. So it may appear that there are doubts, but I myself would not pass final judgement until I read the final decision.

Everything else is just speculation.

[Thanas]

In short, some of the evidence that is being told in german news:

- Evidence does point to a cleanup (for example a lot of blood was traced with Luminol that had been swept away), some of Kercher's blood was found mixed with water etc.
- Sollecitos DNA was found on Merediths Bra
- bloody footprints, compatible with Knox's, were found on the scene (they had been scrubbed but were traced with luminol)
- bloody footprint compatible with Sollecito found on mattress
- print of a women's shoe on the body of Kercher compatible only with Knox, not with meredith


Newsweek also has a good artcle on it.

[KrauserKrauser]

So your opinion is based on media based speculation and not hard facts revealed during the course of the trial?

At the same time you believe the judges in the case that were exposed to the same early, often and constant speculation to have been able to completely remove that biased, non-evidence based bullshit that was the media was spewing from their decision?

Definitely no chance that those judges got the same BS ideas in their heads and declared her guilty before the trial even began. Definitely not. Because........profit?

[Thanas]

So your opinion is based on media based speculation and not hard facts revealed during the course of the trial?

You missed the part where I said that i'll wait for the decision before I start making judgements? I am merely pointing out that the case is not really that much one-sided in Knox's favor.

At the same time you believe the judges in the case that were exposed to the same early, often and constant speculation to have been able to completely remove that biased, non-evidence based bullshit that was the media was spewing from their decision?

Definitely no chance that those judges got the same BS ideas in their heads and declared her guilty before the trial even began. Definitely not. Because........profit?

Nice strawman. Keep at it. I said it is unlikely that they convicted her on media say-so alone. How the heck do you get "no chance" from that statement?

[Melchior]

So your opinion is based on media based speculation and not hard facts revealed during the course of the trial?

At the same time you believe the judges in the case that were exposed to the same early, often and constant speculation to have been able to completely remove that biased, non-evidence based bullshit that was the media was spewing from their decision?

Definitely no chance that those judges got the same BS ideas in their heads and declared her guilty before the trial even began. Definitely not. Because........profit?

Actually, the media initially admirably focused on the bad, brown people (this happens less than in the USA, but unfortunately it happens). There is no particular animosity toward attractive american foreign exchange students and Sollecito is from a powerful, well-connected family. The italian judicial system is generally very garantist and is often criticized has having too low conviction rates.

[Big Phil]

snip

I'll point out a couple of things from your Newsweek post:

Rudy Guede: The prosecution alleges that the three of them raped and murdered Meredith Kercher. Their star witness, Rudy Guede, says he was taking a shit in the bathroom, and when he came out Kercher was dying after Knox and Sollecito had supposedly murdered her. The inconsistency of their start witness is appalling.

Murder Dynamic: The prosecution continues to pursue the "sex game" theory. Assuming Kercher was an unwilling participant (they haven't alleged she wanted to be fucked by Guede while Knox and Sollecito held her at knifepoint), they're arguing that the injuries are consistent with multiple assailants. Perhaps, but many rape victims, particularly when threatened with a weapon, don't fight back. This evidence is pretty questionable, no matter what Newsweek says.

Knox's Confession: A "verbal confession" was tossed out of court; a "written confession" was allowed as evidence. I haven't seen the "written confession" transcribed anywhere, so I only know what is being reported. According to Knox, it was a "hypothetical scenario" that the police asked her to describe. Since the interrogation session was never recorded, who the fuck knows what it really was.

Cartwheels, splits, vibrator, and motive: Blatant slander and lies (apparently). Knox testified that she did yoga in the police station and that the police asked her to show them a few positions. The police version, plus (GASP) a vibrator were simply there to cast Amanda Knox as a slut (and every knows slut = murderers)

Knife: Not the murder weapon, found by "police intuition" (think it might be a plant?), could not be double tested according to protocol for lack of DNA. Furthermore, if it was a murder weapon, why would they put it back in the drawer with other cooking utensils?

Mixed Blood: The phrase Newsweek uses is "blood and DNA of the roommates had commingled." I don't know exactly how to interpret this; mingled DNA is to be expected in a house shared by roommates; was it DNA that mingled, or blood?

Fingerprints: "No fingerprints or DNA belonging to Knox was ever found in the room where Kercher was murdered."

Footprints: Hurts Knox/Sollecito depending on which version of the story you prefer; if you prefer the police version, then it's damning evidence. If you believe Knox came home and took a shower without noticing anything wrong, then it makes sense their prints were there.

Bra Clasp: with Sollecito's DNA on it was not collected until six weeks after the murder, and the clasp "appears to have been moved more than a meter from its original location." That looks really bad, like the police planted evidence.

Newsweek summarizes the case pretty well:

Forensic evidence: Minimal
Murder Weapon: Not Found
Motive: None (possibly burglary; or as the prosecution alleges, Knox hated Kercher and was a murderous "she-devil")
Confession: None from Knox/Sollecito. Guede was found guilty in his own trial based on physical evidence at the scene.

Also from your earlier post you mentioned that "Knox and Kercher had a history of jealousy, that Knox was known to be something of a weirdo with a penchant for sick stuff and that she had drug dealing ties with Guede." If that isn't blatant slander and character assassination, I don't know what is. In court, none of that was ever proven; some wasn't even introduced as evidence. She's a "weirdo" because she has a vibrator, or does drugs? Sick stuff? Like what, having sex with guys? Sounds like a typical American college girl in a foreign country, doing some stupid shit and behaving like an idiot, but that doesn't make her a weirdo or a murderer.

And the jealousy bit: based on testimony from Filomena Romanelli (one of Knox's roommates), their relationship started off well but they eventually drifted apart (hardly surprising, considering that they were very different personalities). No testimony of jealousy, just a story told by the prosecution with no supporting evidence.

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Internatio ... 939&page=1

[Liberty]

Thank you SancheztheWhaler, that's my point exactly!

One thing, though - Guede's original story was that an unknown Italian man killed Kercher while he was in the bathroom. Guede's DNA was all over Kercher, but Guede said that that was because he had been having consensual sex with her before going to the bathroom. However, there is no knowledge of Guede having ever had a relationship of any sort with Kercher (who had a boyfriend at the time, in my understanding). Anyway, did Guede change his story? He was convicted some time ago, but I know he's appealing it.

[Thanas]

Mixed Blood: The phrase Newsweek uses is "blood and DNA of the roommates had commingled." I don't know exactly how to interpret this; mingled DNA is to be expected in a house shared by roommates; was it DNA that mingled, or blood?

According to german media it was blood that mingled, but of course it could be that the media reporting is inaccurate.

Footprints: Hurts Knox/Sollecito depending on which version of the story you prefer; if you prefer the police version, then it's damning evidence. If you believe Knox came home and took a shower without noticing anything wrong, then it makes sense their prints were there.

Yeah, she just stepped in blood and did not notice it? And what's the cleanup?

[Stofsk]

Yeah, she just stepped in blood and did not notice it?

Yes, it is very possible.

[Thanas]

Yeah, she just stepped in blood and did not notice it?

Yes, it is very possible.

Your appartment is flooded in blood and you do not notice it, but cross it to take a shower? I'd think that after turning on the lights you'd notice such a sticky and red substance.

[[R_H]]

Was she wearing footwear when she stepped in the blood? If she was barefoot or wearing thin socks, there was no way she couldn't have notice stepping in to something.

[lance]

Yeah, she just stepped in blood and did not notice it?

Yes, it is very possible.

Your appartment is flooded in blood and you do not notice it, but cross it to take a shower? I'd think that after turning on the lights you'd notice such a sticky and red substance.

She might not have turned on the lights.

[Liberty]

Yeah, she just stepped in blood and did not notice it?

Yes, it is very possible.

Your appartment is flooded in blood and you do not notice it, but cross it to take a shower? I'd think that after turning on the lights you'd notice such a sticky and red substance.

Knox says she returned to her apartment on the morning of November 2nd after spending the night with her boyfriend. She said the door was open, and she thought that was odd. Kercher's door was closed, as one would expect, and she didn't try to go in - why would she? It was locked too, but she wouldn't have known that. Anyway, she wanted to take a shower, so she went into the bathroom she shared with Kercher. She said there was some blood in there. Not a "flood" of blood, just some. She thought that was odd, but she thought it was menstrual blood, so she was disgusted rather than afraid something was wrong. She took a shower and got dressed, but she couldn't completely shake the feeling that something was off. She went into the larger bathroom for something, and the toilet was open and there was a big turd in it. According to her story, that's when she finally felt that something was surely wrong, so she left (because she was scared) and went back to her boyfriend's apartment. So again, not a flood of blood, not even a lot of blood, and she thought it must be menstrual blood. So it makes sense that her footprints would be there in small amount of blood in the bathroom.

Also, what I've read indicates that Kercher's blood in the bathroom was mingled with Knox's DNA, not her blood.

And in case someone asks, no, she would not have known her roommates' cycles and thus know that Kercher was not on her period. Men somehow assume that we women naturally know these things. We don't.

[Thanas]

The amount was not small. The wounds on Kercher would have resulted in heavy bleeding.

And this still does not explain the cleanup.

[Stofsk]

Yeah, she just stepped in blood and did not notice it?

Yes, it is very possible.

Your appartment is flooded in blood and you do not notice it, but cross it to take a shower? I'd think that after turning on the lights you'd notice such a sticky and red substance.

I was referring to how it is very possible for someone to step in blood and/or get some blood on clothing (for example) without being aware of it. By itself it is not proof of anything, but in circumstantial cases, no single piece of evidence can be judged in isolation to other pieces of evidence - it is the combined or united force of every piece of evidence that matters in circumstantial cases.

[Liberty]

The amount was not small. The wounds on Kercher would have resulted in heavy bleeding.

And this still does not explain the cleanup.

The massive amount of blood was in Kercher's room, NOT the bathroom. And Kercher's door was closed and locked.

Also, I have seen no actual evidence of a cleanup.

[Thanas]

The amount was not small. The wounds on Kercher would have resulted in heavy bleeding.

And this still does not explain the cleanup.

The massive amount of blood was in Kercher's room, NOT the bathroom. And Kercher's door was closed and locked.

The amount was certainly big enough for Knox to leave a footprint in it. There also was a footprint of her shoe on Kercher's body.

Also, I have seen no actual evidence of a cleanup.

Massive amount of blood was apparently scrubbed away and was found using luminol.

[Thanas]

She might not have turned on the lights.

Do you shower in the dark?

[Gaidin]

She might not have turned on the lights.

Do you shower in the dark?

I don't need the living room light on to do so. From the standpoint of lights other than the bathroom, yea, I guess I can shower in the dark. Walking through your apartment in the dark is pretty easy if you have a general idea where all the big furniture is. I do it all the time.

[Big Phil]

She might not have turned on the lights.

Do you shower in the dark?

You have a point; it doesn't make a whole lot of sense that someone could fail to notice large quantities of blood as they walk through it, unless it was pitch black. That's a strike against Knox, and a fairly big one.

On the flip side, we don't know how much blood there was, or whether it was noticeable. If it wasn't all that bright, congealed blood could be mistaken for soda spilled on the floor; they're both sticky and wet, after all. Knox claims she had been doing hashish the night before; somebody hung over from alcohol or drugs isn't exactly observant or thinking clearly. I haven't seen any photos of the bloody footprint or what it would have looked like to Knox.

Massive amount of blood was apparently scrubbed away and was found using luminol.

But there's no evidence that Knox and Sollecito were the ones who cleaned up; remember, none of their DNA was found in Kercher's room (except for a bra clasp found six weeks later). Based on the physical evidence, it was Guede who attempted a cleanup.

According to german media it was blood that mingled, but of course it could be that the media reporting is inaccurate.

This one confuses me, because there seem to be different articles reporting different things. If it was blood that was mingled, I don't believe the prosecution ever introduced into evidence photos or medical exams of cuts on Amanda Knox. If it was her blood that mingled with Kercher's while she was busy stabbing her, you would expect Knox to have been cut or scratched somewhere, and she wasn't (at least there's no evidence that she was). There's a witness who stated that she saw a scratch on Knox's neck a day or two after the murder, but there are no photos of such a scratch.

Two other things that trouble me:
1. The break in location (from the Newsweek article)
"The prosecution alleges that a break-in was staged by Knox and Sollecito in Romanelli's room: the window was broken with a large rock and the room was ransacked, but nothing was taken—even though expensive sunglasses and jewelry were in plain sight. Clothes were pulled from Romanelli's dresser drawers but the glass shards from the broken window were found on top of them, leading police to believe that the window was broken after the ransacking took place, not before."

I understand why the police believe it was staged, but again playing devil's advocate, I would ask a question and pose an alternate scenario: Guede breaks in and starts rummaging around, Kercher hears him and comes to investigate, Guede chases her back to her room, rapes, and kills her, then flees the house in a panic without taking anything. The question is for a police cop or anyone who knows anything about crime scenes; why does the glass shards on top of the clothes indicate the break in was staged. Could the clothes not have been pulled from the drawer before the break in, perhaps by the girl who lived in that room, and left there? Is there testimony from Romanelli that she hadn't left any clothes on her bed? I'm unclear on this one.

2. There was a witness (Hekuran Kokomani) who claimed that he was confronted by a knife-wielding Amanda Knox, Rafaelle Sollecito, and Rudy Guede outside the house on the night of the murder. Now, I know that prosecutor's sometimes need to rely on questionable witnesses, but his testimony appears to have been a complete fabrication. Given the quality of the eyewitnesses the prosecution put forward (a vagrant, a convicted murderer whose story doesn't match the prosecution's story of the crime, and a questionable eyewitness (in prison for beating his girlfriend at the time) telling a fantastic tale, and the questionable eyewitness' attorney, among others), and the lack of physical evidence, I'm a little flabbergasted that the prosecution wasn't laughed out of court. The prosecution in this case just seems inept (reminds me of OJ Simpson), and the jury verdict unbelievable (also reminds me of OJ).

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... slain.html Describing Kokomani's testimony
http://blog.seattlepi.com/print.asp?entryID=149984 follow up on Kokomani