Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What evidence exists that would be legit for a guilty verdict? The crime scene was not handled properly. The DNA evidence is very questionable. Everything is circumstantial and based on the suspicion.
Most convicts were convicted on circumstantial evidence. There isn't always DNA evidence. There was DNA evidence in this case and a good bit of it. You can't explain how Raffeale's DNA in abundance just happened to end up on the victim's bra clasp. You need to explain how it got there if not from him touching it because him touching is the probable scenario.
There is a mountain of evidence. I've already covered much of it. You don't appear open minded on this. Here is a website that covers it all: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page
You are asserting the crime scene was not handle properly but that is a false assertion. 2 juries rejected it.
Most convicts were convicted on circumstantial evidence. There isn't always DNA evidence. There was DNA evidence in this case and a good bit of it. You can't explain how Raffeale's DNA in abundance just happened to end up on the victim's bra clasp. You need to explain how it got there if not from him touching it because him touching is the probable scenario.
There is a mountain of evidence. I've already covered much of it. You don't appear open minded on this. Here is a website that covers it all: The Murder of Meredith Kercher
You are asserting the crime scene was not handle properly but that is a false assertion. 2 juries rejected it.
I'm surprised that you keep posting the same Wikipedia page but call me closed minded when I've posted numerous things to refute what the wiki page says. Wiki is not the most reliable source for information. I already responded to a lot of points on that page. Do you really think that waiting 48 days to collect DNA evidence at a crime scene is handling it properly? Do you think that collecting evidence with one pair of gloves is sound practice? It's not. I am interested in the facts.
I do not believe the U.S., atleast under an Obama administration, will allow her to be extradited. Obama loves WA state, and while that is just part of the story, and the State department will have the most influence, I still say she will be fine.
Two things have to happen for her to return to jail in Italy. Number one, lose her next appeal, and the US allow the Italians to extradite. The odds of both of those things happening are in favor of Amanda, IMO.
I'm surprised that you keep posting the same Wikipedia page but call me closed minded when I've posted numerous things to refute what the wiki page says. Wiki is not the most reliable source for information. I already responded to a lot of points on that page. Do you really think that waiting 48 days to collect DNA evidence at a crime scene is handling it properly? Do you think that collecting evidence with one pair of gloves is sound practice? It's not. I am interested in the facts.
DNA does have a time experiation. If they get a profile they can use it. You argument is like saying they can't use a fingerprint to identify somebody if 48 days had past. Part of the reason for the delay was the defense lawyers were stalling the process, probably so they can make this absurd argument.
That website isn't Wikipedia. It just uses a Wikipedia format.
They didn't use just one pair of gloves. They just didn't change them after handling each item. They are allowed to use some discretion when they change them. Given no technicians DNA was found on anything, you can't argue there was contamination from them. If they are working in the room and somehow transfer Raffe's DNA in the room to the bra clasp, it was still in the bedroom which still hangs Raffee and Knox.
I'm familiar with your sources. I know their arguments. This website refutes them as I have.
I do not believe the U.S., atleast under an Obama administration, will allow her to be extradited. Obama loves WA state, and while that is just part of the story, and the State department will have the most influence, I still say she will be fine.
Two things have to happen for her to return to jail in Italy. Number one, lose her next appeal, and the US allow the Italians to extradite. The odds of both of those things happening are in favor of Amanda, IMO.
Why would Obama care about Knox, a white girl who false accused an innocent black man of murder. In addition to that another black man was quickly imprisoned while the two rich white people are still free.
Why wouldn't Italy seek extradition given they took a lot of time to get a conviction? That would make it all a farce.
Big assumption. They weren't. They botched a fair amt. of forensic evidence.
Why would she kill her roommate? There's no motive, except a bizarre concocted "satanic sex game" story. It sounds like the prosecutor (who has a history of inventing "satanic" scenarios for crimes) is creating hype simply because the two girls involved were Americans, and the world "knows" American women are sex-crazed, based on all the grade-B movies and pornography that gets marketed abroad. This is a very wide-spread stereotype that results in routine harassment and even endangers women who look American (whether they are or not) throughout the developing world.
The whole thing is very shady. Knox has already done 4 years of jail time. The guy whose DNA was all over the place and on the victim is in jail. There's no legit reason to drag Knox back into it after she was acquitted.
You say that " because the two girls involved were Americans". Who are you referring to? Amanda and her roommate Meredith? Meredith is not American, she is from the UK and a citizen of the UK, not the US. Her father is British and her mother is Indian. Amanda and her roommate Meredith did not get along at all.
Yes, Knox did four years of jail time, but she was sentenced to a couple of years in jail because of her accusing that man who was a business owner of the murder. In my view, that is entirely too short a sentence as she knew that he did not commit the murder, but she accused him anyway. As a result, he spent a couple of weeks in jail and lost everything, including his business. Like everyone else here, I do not know if she committed the murder or not, but accusing that man when she knew he was innocent was truly an evil act.
Oh, it's already a farce. It's been a farce for awhile now.
Most people in Seattle are just rooting for the home team, so to speak.
The only farce was the 1st appeals trial because the judge with no criminal case experience didn't know what he was doing and may have been bought. It is rare for a trial to be annulled by the Italian SUpreme Court and they had like 16 different reasons for it.
I will be extremely happy once they put that murderer back in an Italian prison cell where she belongs. Hopefully the extradition process won't be lengthy.
Link to a story about Patrick Lumumba, the man that Knox accused and ruined. I wonder if she will pay him his legal judgement now that she has a money-making book out.
Amanda Knox's supporters could care less that she falsely accused an innocent man of murder. She is after all, protected by her "privilege" a la Susan Smith. Amanda Knox would have let an innocent man pay for her crime without even giving a d-mn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
