AMANDA KNOX -- guilty or innocent???

[MilfDriller]

there is no remorse or sadness that her roommate was killed.

just let me tell u what happened to me...

[MilfDriller]

good post...

Very interesting email. I thought I was sloppy when writing emails, holy cow.

Personally I don't think there is enough evidence to convict Knox (or her boyfriend) for this murder without explaining their relationship with Guede and how they committed this crime together. Without that all of the other (very circumstantial) evidence gets me part of the way there but with still a reasonable doubt about their guilt. I simply couldn't convict without someone coming up with a plausible link between the parties here.

Having a crappy defense team isn't a crime. The knife DNA is very unconvincing to me. The rest of the DNA is explainable as them living in the same house. I just don't see any solid evidence here.

Someone please please explain to me how having them work together with Guede to murder Meredith makes ANY SENSE at all. Then you have to somehow prove that theory with at least some reasonable evidence. This is the part that's missing to me...

[Deuce]

Innocent, only circumstantial evidence.

[MilfDriller]

before i go on, id like to ssay that i was strictly told
not to speak about this, but im speaking with you people who are not
involved and who cant do anything bad except talk to journalists,
which i hope you wont do. i have to get this off my chest because its
pressing down on me and it helps to know that someone besides me knows
something, and that im not the one who knows the most out of everyone.

[MilfDriller]

Deuce, what do your profs say?

[Deuce]

Deuce, what do your profs say?

If she was in America she would have no reason to be guilty. All circumstantial, nothing to prove she was at guilt.

[bettilimbroke999]

IF AK is completely innocent, which is extremely hard to believe given her actions, then she could write a book on how to get falsely convicted of murder, start by buying drugs from the convicted rapist/killer and doing them with your bf during a crime that would clearly have alerted anybody within the apartment that something wrong was going on and somehow dont notice anything odd, next develop the old fashioned temporary amnesia defense that has been used at least 500 mil time unsuccessfully before, then give a story with more holes than swiss cheese about where you were and what happened then switch the details completely 400 times while doing cartwheels and smiling like you could give a horses ass less that your roommate just got her throat cut and raped by the drug dealer you'd invited over, basically create the image of an evil lying bitch that is guilty as sin at all times which if your innocent is not a smart thing to do

[Deuce]

I personally believe she is guilty but what is given to the courts and investigation taken, by American law, she is innocent. I know deep down she is guilty, somewhat like OJ.

[blueghost]

...why was hers and the victims blood found mixed in he bathroom sink,,,hmmmmmmmmmmm

[purecarnagge]

she deserves what she got, she had the chance to go to germany...and didn't

[BigdaddyQH]

Do not tell me about American Law. It has no place in this case. It's about time that Americans realize that when they go to another country, they are at that country's mercy. If they say guilty, your ass is gone. Period. End of Statement. The evidence was enough to convince whoever was in charge there. Life is what she deserves.

[Chuck Sims]

I watched the CBS 48 hours Mystery about this case. It was biased. Made it look like she was being railroaded with no evidence. After reading Amanda's e-mail, something is wrong with this girl. She says she was at the police station for 5 1/2 hours and then was picked up by her boyfriend for a "well deserved pizza". So after she finds her friend brutally murdered, she and her boyfriend go shopping for lingerie?

She may be innocent. However, when you falsely accuse a friend/bartender for the rape murder, I have little sympathy for the bitch. She is a college student. This was not some retard that did not know the ramifications of confessing to a murder.

[losturmarbles]

chuck, she was naive stupid kid. she is guilty of being a dumb bitch, but all the evidence of murder against her is circumstantial.

[losturmarbles]

Do not tell me about American Law. It has no place in this case. It's about time that Americans realize that when they go to another country, they are at that country's mercy. If they say guilty, your ass is gone. Period. End of Statement. The evidence was enough to convince whoever was in charge there. Life is what she deserves.

Big daddy, "The Law" is universal. The Law, or natural law, comes from the individual, not a government. governments are suppose to uphold "the law", which they sometimes fail to do because of unsound written laws and unsound interpretations of the law. if a country has an unsound written law that accepts weak dna evidence to convict someone of murder, then comparing their kangaroo court to american courts is perfectly acceptable. she can't be guilty there and not guilty here. somebody is not upholding the rule of law.

[losturmarbles]

I watched the CBS 48 hours Mystery about this case. It was biased. Made it look like she was being railroaded with no evidence. After reading Amanda's e-mail, something is wrong with this girl. She says she was at the police station for 5 1/2 hours and then was picked up by her boyfriend for a "well deserved pizza". So after she finds her friend brutally murdered, she and her boyfriend go shopping for lingerie?

She may be innocent. However, when you falsely accuse a friend/bartender for the rape murder, I have little sympathy for the bitch. She is a college student. This was not some retard that did not know the ramifications of confessing to a murder.

i haven't watched it, but what was biased about it?

[purecarnagge]

I watched the CBS 48 hours Mystery about this case. It was biased. Made it look like she was being railroaded with no evidence. After reading Amanda's e-mail, something is wrong with this girl. She says she was at the police station for 5 1/2 hours and then was picked up by her boyfriend for a "well deserved pizza". So after she finds her friend brutally murdered, she and her boyfriend go shopping for lingerie?

She may be innocent. However, when you falsely accuse a friend/bartender for the rape murder, I have little sympathy for the bitch. She is a college student. This was not some retard that did not know the ramifications of confessing to a murder.

after being interrogated for 5 plus hours...I'd say I'd want some deserved food as well. Hey but dont' worry the key piece of evidence was a bra clasp that wasn't found for 40 days of course it was never contaminated....

[MilfDriller]

more...

There's also the consideration that according to the police, there's no way the crime could have been pulled by one person; there is an absence of any evidence of Meredith defending herself with her nails for example, and only one defensive wound on her hands. However, there were "gripping lesions" on her arms, indicating at least one or two people were holding her.

In addition, there is the post-murder cleanup, the disposal of Meredith's cellphones, the staging of the break-in. Rudy Guede has no motive to do any of that.

[MilfDriller]

dude been doing his homework...


In your comment on the DNA on page 6, part 1a, you wrote, that Dr. Stefanoni is an “internationally respected forensic scientist.” Can you support your statement?

You wrote “There was not a big enough sample to allow for a re-test. That is certainly a problem, but it is not enough to overturn the finding.” It is important to bear in mind that low copy number (LCN) DNA profiling was the technique used on the knife: “Because LCN analysis by its nature is not reproducible, it cannot be considered as robust as that associated with conventional DNA typing.” http://www.denverda.org/DNA_Documents/CMJ%20Budowle.pdf
But the problems with LCN and Dr. Stefanoni’s protocols are more serious. The following paragraphs are from http://www.sciencespheres.com/

Even with those far more stringent protocols, LCN profiles are not allowed as evidence by the vast majority of the world's courts. But let's take a look at these proposed procedures that attempt to place LCN testing on a more reproducible, reliable basis. That way, we can illuminate the deficiencies in Stefanoni's science improv technique.

The following quotes are all from the Crown Prosecution Service in the U.K. at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/p...n_testing.html This is from an article that supports the use of LCN.

“The FSS LCN test requires an ultra-clean laboratory and so is more expensive and less widely offered than the standard test.... The site of this bespoke laboratory is remote from other DNA Units, operates stringent entry requirements, is fitted with positive air pressure and specialist lighting and chemical treatments to minimize DNA contamination.”

Stefanoni's procedure, in sharp contrast to these requirements, was performed in an ordinary DNA analysis laboratory with other DNA units present. An ultra-clean laboratory, positive air pressure systems, and photo and chemical DNA sterilization are vital techniques to avoid contamination of samples within the laboratory. None of these facilities and procedures appears to have existed for Stefanoni's test. That makes four more technique deficiencies.

“In LCN testing, each sample is divided into three parts or aliquots, and two of these are tested. The third is retained for further testing in the event of a failure or to confirm the presence of a mixture.... Only those DNA components that are seen twice are included in any calculation, to show that the result is reproducible.”

Stefanoni used 20% of the sample to test for blood, which came out negative. Whatever was on the knife, it wasn't Meredith's blood. Then she tested all of the remaining material at once, so there was no possibility of comparing two results, and nothing left for further testing. By the standards of the Crown Prosecution Services, Stefanoni's results would be thrown out by either of these criteria. And that makes two more deficiencies.
[End of Quote]

You wrote “One may regret the lack of a retest but it does not seem that the defence are arguing that the dna was not there at all.” I find this statement absolutely bewildering. The point of doing a retest is to see whether the DNA is really there or not.

You wrote “She said that there has been no instance of contamination of this sort in her lab in the last 7 years. She pointed to the fact that no DNA from any of her team was found on any of the objects tested:” But Dr. Stefanoni did not perform negative controls, or if she did, she did not report them. You also wrote, “the knife was found and put in a plastic bag, which was then put into a box. There does not seem to be any possibility of contamination at that stage” However, the US department of Justice advises, “Put evidence into new paper bags or envelopes, not into plastic bags.” (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles1/nij/bc000614.txt)


Dr Waterbury summarizes (http://www.sciencespheres.com/) the problems in the LCN DNA analysis of the knife:
So we see that in roughly nine distinct ways, Stefanoni's improv LCN DNA profiling was even worse than unproven and inadmissible LCN DNA profiling tests.
1. The DNA wasn't amplified enough; the very weak fluorescence was simply blown up.
2. The test site was not remote from other DNA tests to avoid contamination.
3. Specialized LCN-quality entry procedures to avoid contamination were not used.
4. A positive pressure environment was not maintained to exclude contamination.
5. Special LCN sterilization procedures to destroy errant DNA were not used.
6. The entire sample was consumed in a single test; no comparison of tests was possible.
7. No sample was retained for future reference. The test can never be reproduced.
8. No negative control tests were run to check for contamination.
9. No control tests to check for field contamination were performed.
[End of Quote]

Now let us turn to the open letter signed by nine DNA experts and see what they say about the knife. A pdf file can be found here: http://www.friendsofamanda.org/articles.html
They say that it is unlikely that the knife could be cleaned of all traces of blood yet retain enough DNA to produce a profile of the victim. They discuss that the highest peak in the electropherogram is only about 100 relative fluorescence units with many falling between 20-50. They note the lack of ability to reproduce this result, and they also note that electronic files that would allow independent analysis of the data have not been disclosed. They conclude, “No credible scientific evidence has been presented to associate this kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher.”

If someone wishes to dispute the scientific validity of the statements I have presented by quoting the comments of other scientists, I would be interested in hearing it. I will save the discussions of Sollecito’s explanation and of the bra clasp for future comments.

[MilfDriller]

No match w/ the knife.... and the bra clasp appears to be discredited w/ this info below.


With respect to the bra clasp you wrote on p. 13 that the DNA was “firmly-fixed.” This language might suggest that the DNA did not arise from transfer. However, the letter from nine forensic scientists I cited in a previous comment note, “DNA testing cannot determine how biological material was deposited onto an item of evidence.”

You wrote on p. 6, “aside from this case, there does not seem to be anyone who is denying that Dr Stefanoni is respected in her field.” This may technically be true, but Dr. Waterbury’s demolition of the LCN DNA tests performed under her direction raise extremely serious issues surrounding her credibility, as my previous comment discussed.

The bra clasp would be expected to pick up dust. Dr. Waterbury (http://www.sciencespheres.com/) wrote, “Testing a few other items from that pile to see if they, too, had picked up DNA dust from the floor would tell us whether there was anything special about the clasp. Of course, that wasn't done.” With respect to a video posted at this site, he wrote, “The handling of the clasp when it was retrieved from the scene is shown in the video above. The investigators, dressed in fancy white outfits, seem to play some kind of game with it. Why the outfits? They do nothing to prevent mixing contamination of the material at the scene. As shown in the closeup picture, the outfits, and their gloves, quickly become contaminated by DNA from various sources at the scene which can then be transferred to the evidence.”

There are some more issues I would like to address, but I will have to leave them for a future comment.

[MilfDriller]

Then again, this is also true. Why would he lie and say that the Eng gal had pricked herself w/ his knife at her apartment... but if they're forcing him to produce an answer to which there is none...

I notice that you have ignored what many people here have already said about the DNA evidence on the knife: that the most relevant evidence is how Sollecito came up with another unlikely ad hoc explanation for it. He said that Kercher's DNA was on the knife (whether or not it actually was) because she had pricked herself with the knife when she was cooking at his house. Since this explanation is a pretty desperate fabrication (no one else recalls Kercher ever visiting Sollecito's house), an objective observer is left to wonder why Sollecito and his defense team expected Kercher's DNA to be found on the knife instead of disputing the finding in toto.

Perhaps the whack-a-mole defense strategy seems plausible to you, but you can't blame anyone for wondering whether the mind-boggling series of contradictory statements Knox and Sollecito have made to investigators indicates desperation on their part to cover something up.

[purecarnagge]

she was railroaded and everyone knows it. This case was not beyond reasonable doubt... Oh well... Its Italy law

[MilfDriller]

pure, I was somewhat of that opinion... but after reading more and more and going over the details... it just doesn't make sense.

A similar example is the Nicaraguan case with the gringo kid... who was later set free after his false conviction and jail time. That was a clear-cut sham job. However, this case is different.

If she could just say this is what happened and that's it, there you have it. But there's something wrong here. The Amer guy in Nicaragua could do that.... but Amanda clearly cannot.

[losturmarbles]

women/girls tend to put emotions before rational thought. she was probably involved somehow or became aware of the murder at some point.

but the bottom line is there is no physical proof that would be permissible in an us court that she committed murder, her confession wouldn't be permissible in a us court, and everything else is circumstantial.

oj walks and this girl gets locked up.

[MilfDriller]

i haven't really been following the story all that much, but i was flipping through the channels the other night and this guy was on o'reilly. Peter Van Sant, a cbs correspondent, and he makes a solid case that she's innocent. (at least in the eyes of the law) here's the clip:

I've seen the video and there a few holes. Amanda's and the bf's alibi's don't check out. The statement that the bf was on the compu was verified as totally false when they checked his activity.

Purportedly, evidence exists that Meredith was held down during the rape/killing... ie, abrasions/bruises on her arms.. suggesting more than one person and explaining why there was nothing under finger nails.

My initial response after seeing the media coverage was dead on to what the youtube video states.... however, after digging further... shit doesn't add up.

O/c, the black dude is the killer and rapist. No doubt about it. And given the dead girl's 'cleanliness tendencies' which have been documented, I don't think she'd ever let that dude bang her w/o a condom ... or even go near him w/ a 10-foot pole.

[MilfDriller]

women/girls tend to put emotions before rational thought. she was probably involved somehow or became aware of the murder at some point.

but the bottom line is there is no physical proof that would be permissible in an us court that she committed murder, her confession wouldn't be permissible in a us court, and everything else is circumstantial.

oj walks and this girl gets locked up.

My inclination is to agree w/ you... yet I haven't really seen the evidence. Nothing is totally verified. The DNA on the bra strap after 40+ days... the DNA on a non-matching murder weapon.... In reality, I don't think those things add up.

But supposedly there is evidence of mixed blood of the girl and Amanda... as well as footprints... but I can't get any real verification on the majority of such evidence.

O/c, OJ is guilty as all hell.

I don't know... gonna keep digging.

[MilfDriller]

I'm still waiting for someone to give me a good theory about why Amanda and Rudy Guede would work together on this.

I'm not saying that motive it's necessary to prove motive in all murder cases. I don't care necessarily about motive itself but more of what the theory of the crime is. Do we have a consistent theory that fits all of the facts? I don't see anyone giving a good theory for why they would work together. Almost all of the evidence tying Amanda to Rudy is circumstantial or theoretical.

Keep in mind that my mind has been tremendously swayed but in this particular case I think it's important that a relationship be established between Knox and Guede. Maybe this bar is too high but I would rather let some guilty people go than convict innocents. I still have reasonable doubt that she was involved. There's just no reason to think Guede didn't act alone. Almost all of the other evidence is circumstantial or at least isn't 100% guaranteed in it's accuracy.

[MilfDriller]

There's also the consideration that according to the police, there's no way the crime could have been pulled by one person; there is an absence of any evidence of Meredith defending herself with her nails for example, and only one defensive wound on her hands. However, there were "gripping lesions" on her arms, indicating at least one or two people were holding her.

In addition, there is the post-murder cleanup, the disposal of Meredith's cellphones, the staging of the break-in. Rudy Guede has no motive to do any of that.

[MilfDriller]

The disposal of the 2 cell phones has me mystified.

Would the black guy rape her and kill her.... and then go, aw shit, I gotta throw out her 2 cell phones to hide them from police. huh? wth hell for?

that makes no sense.

and why the staged break-in?

the threw shit around and had tossed clothes around..... AND THEN!!! they broke the window. the glass fell on top of the clothes.... when it should've been the other way around.

[Chuck Sims]

In Italy, the jury only has to come back with a majority vote to convict. That sucks. Especially when you confess to the crime and falsely accuse the popular and friendly bartender of rape and murder in the small town. She was toast before the trial started.

[MilfDriller]

This is ASSUMING that dna on the tip of bf's knife (which was not the murder weapon) is valid. I have read that it was not blood. And if the knife was not used in the murder... not sure what sense that makes at all. ... except that the girl had never been to the bf's place yet her dna was there on some miscellaneous knife.

my instinct tells me that the whole knife deal (which wasn't even in the crime) is hogwash.

.....

As I've stated before, it doesn't matter if the DNA evidence on the knife is valid or not. Sollecito himself testified that Kercher had contact with the knife. Other testimony states that Sollectio was lying about Kercher's visit to his apt.

Why, Chris, would Sollecito attempt an innocent explanation for why Kercher's DNA was on the knife if he had no reason to believe the DNA evidence to be valid?

This, right here, this testimony verifies what the DNA expert found - that Kercher was in contact with the knife at some point. That is indisputable at this point. Not only do we have the DNA evidence, we have testimony from one of the killers. And he didn't testify that "maybe she pricked her finger." No, he affirmed it.

Guess what a Judge/Prosecution would say about it? Likely they would agree that the DNA testing is superfluous as Sollecito has testified that the blade was in contact with Kercher's blood. That's as cut and dry as can be.


And, I know, you'll continue to argue this sticking point - but that's because you're being disingenuous about the discussion. You don't care about honestly discussing this trial. Rather, you're only interested in supporting your pre-conceived notions regardless of what anyone else posts that destroys your position.

Take, for instance, this grasping at straws:

You: "No, the DNA evidence is invalid, see, here's a letter from scientists with a vested interest and no chance to run the tests themselves."

Other posters (myself included): "the DNA testing doesn't matter, Sollecito testified that it had been in Kercher's contact. Thus, the knife is irrefutably linked to her."

You: "irregardless, the DNA evidence isn't accurate."

Who cares if the DNA evidence is valid at this point. It's validity or lack-thereof will not exonerate Knox/Sollecito.

That, sir, is being disingenuous and approaching this discussion simply looking to justify your delusions. Have a nice day

[MilfDriller]

In what scenario does the crime happen?

African: You hold her down while I rape her.
Amanda/bf: You got it.
African: You got the knife, Amanda.
Amand: yep
African: now go ahead and slash the throat
Amanda: done deal
African: now I'm going to come, leave my dna everywhere and leave my feces in the toilet unflushed. I want you guys to clean up everything, move the body. I'll flee to Germany while you 2 stay here.
Amanda: Got it. Enjoy Germany.
Bf: shouldn't we stage a break-in to cover ourselves?
Amanda: Good thinking. Now I'll go dispose of her 2 cell phones.

[MilfDriller]

I agree with this...

That is a curious detail. There has been a lot of speculation about it. Apparently she did not die quickly. Some have suggested that they left her dying and they had to take the cellphones to prevent her calling someone. Given the injuries that is not likely to have been possible: but perhaps they did not know that? It is all guesswork but fiction often portrays superhuman efforts from the nearly dead...
That's almost certainly the issue. I don't have the cite but in Italy it is considered actionable to leave someone in mortal danger. I don't know if they were thinking clearly enough to realise that but for some reason the murderer(s) thought leaving the cellphones at the scene of the crime would be a bad idea.

Remember that before being charged, Ms Knox told some of Meredith's friends that she had bled to death slowly. This is another part of the crime details that at least one suspect knew before the police did. And Ms Knox knew this even though the door to Meredith's room was locked when the postal police arrived.

The most probable scenario is that Guede fled very quickly but that Knox and Sollecito remained long enough to know that Meredith wasn't dead after the initial attack(s).

[eastvan09]

this case is weird! Thanks Milf for posting all this info...

It seems like everyone was drunk + high on drugs the night of the murder. Is there any info about toxicology or which substances (and quantities) were in Meredith, Rudy, Amanda, and Boy Friend? That could shed some light on this...

[MilfDriller]

I do not have such info nor have seen any references.... I might say that almost all of the information I have gathered could be seen as speculation. Just words on the internet.

The only things I could likely say that I'm certain of is that 'Rudy' was there and sexually assaulted her... and likely killed her.

I don't think a woman such as Meredith is going to lay with some criminal thug w/o out a condom of her own volition (sp) (my Englihs is going).

Yet I feel that both Amand and the bf were there.... what went down, I have no idea.

I think this is my primary interest in the case now... what did Amanda do?

[eastvan09]

Rudy is tied with the strong physical evidence to the rape and murder. However Rudy did not use a condom and was not mindful to minimize leaving his DNA around the crime scene....

This leads me to a few thoughts:
1) Rudy is not an experienced, careful, serial rapist (sounds like his rapsheet was for small time crimes)

2) This rape/murder was not the result of much planning and intelligent thought (If Rudy's sole objective was to plan a rape and murder then he would drove around town and grabbed a drunk girl walking alone etc.... Then police would have a lot of work, finding the victim, the crime scene, evidence, info about the perpetrator etc... A rape and murder in a house with other people at home, and with people who know the perp, it doesn't add up)

3) Perhaps Amanda, BF, and Rudy were all very high/ drunk and crazy things happened... Amanda and BF are both blacked out and asleep... Rudy decides to have sex with Meredith and when she resists he rapes her. Then he kills her... But what of the marks on her arms indicating she was held.