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.
Ok you don't know what you are talking about or you are trying to confuse people. I won't respond to you again because you are seriously uninformed on this case and the Italian justice system.
We have an extradition treaty with Italy because our legal people think their justice system is fair and comparable to ours. They understand it is 3 stage process in Italy, with the Supreme Court approval needed before any verdict is final. The first appeals trial was not conducted properly and the Supreme Court annullled it which doesn't happen too often. The judge in that trial was incompetent and didn't have any criminal case experience.
We'll go item by item. First, post any link that says the Supreme Court in Italy "has to confirm" lower court rulings.
(One of us does not know what they are talking about, and it is not me.)
The DNA testing for Meredith's blood was not performed by a lab that was certified for basic DNA testing, much less a lab that was certified to test for DNA using low copy number DNA profiling -- only a few labs in the world are so certified. Moreover, the lab was not independent, because the head of the lab was a consultant for and being paid by the prosecution.
Further, the police officer who selected the knife from the kitchen drawer did not see any blood on the knife whatsoever. It was taken on but a random selection.
Still further, the knife did not match either Meredith's wounds or the bloody imprint of a knife that was found on the bed.
As for the rest of your garbage evidence, it is clear to me (and I highly suspect that it is super clear to others) that you do not have a clue as to how to assess the reliability of your conclusion that Amanda murdered Meridith at the level of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".
I'm going to give you a big hint: the reliability of your inferred conclusion cannot exceed the reliability of the evidence-based premises used as the basis for it.
Who cares if the knife was taken at random, they found both Knox's and Kercher's DNA on it so it is DNA evidence. You can't argue that.
It was a certiifed lab, it is the top crimminal forensics lab in Italy. It is independent of the prosecution. Once the DNA was matched the prosecution and defense were given this information and obviously prosecution is going to use it in court. The lab is a government lab thus paid for by the taxpayers, not the prosecution. You aren't being logical.
THe knife did match the wounds because victim's dna on it.
There's not much evidence against Knox. There's some. But its mostly to do with how horribly she acted afterwards.
How do you explain Rudy Guede? What's the theory of what happened? Rudy rapes here then Knox and her bf kill her while Rudy is taking a dump? It makes no sense.
Lets apply Occam's Razor. Rudy Guede, in the midst of a criminal crime spree that included several other break-ins in the area, breaks into the home, finds Meredith, rapes and kills her, steals money from her purse and then flees to Germany.
How does Knox and her bf fit into that?
Guede did not break into any other houses in Perugia. He was never even charged with a break in. The school principal said that there was no sign of a break in at the school. He isn't a criminal if he was not even charged with a crime. lol
There is no evidence he broke into the house through that high window which would be the most illogical window for him to break into, near the road and much higher than the other windows including one around back that would have minimized his being seen by witnesses. You say he is an experienced burglar but you have him throwing rocks at the highest window at night near the road and then scaling up the wall l ike spiderman. the window was likte 16 feet above the ground and no burglar would do that. The grass below the window was not trampled, no scuff marks on the side of the house, no window glass was knocked off the sill to the ground, no debri in the house. Morever, glass was on top of the clothes in the bedroom which means it was a staging. the clothes should have been on top of the glass.
Wudge, you are a Friend of Amanda that posts regularing on Injustice or JREF. You are an advocate for Knox rather than objective observer in my opinion.
I rather talk about this case with people who just got interesed in it and don't have a dog in the fight. We are never going to agree w ith each other. You can research the Italian justice system process on your own if you are open minded about it. I don't have to spoonfeed you the info, you aren't in the baby seat anymore.
Guede broke into a law office and stole items. He also broke into a nursery.
Nobody testified to that in court. Hearsay isn't admissiable in court. He was never even charged with a crime.
Regardless, it does't prove he broke into this house. There is no physical evidence inside or outside the house he broke in and the room was staged b/c the glass was on top of the clothing that was thrown on the floor. He throws the clothes on the floor but stills nothing from the room? Lol Some burglar. He also climbs up to the highest window to get access to the house? You must think this guy is the dumbest dude in the world.
It was a certiifed lab, it is the top crimminal forensics lab in Italy. It is independent of the prosecution. Once the DNA was matched the prosecution and defense were given this information and obviously prosecution is going to use it in court. The lab is a government lab thus paid for by the taxpayers, not the prosecution. You aren't being logical.
THe knife did match the wounds because victim's dna on it.
Post links that back up your allegations; i.e.,
1) The lab was certified at the time of testing to perform low copy number testing.
2) The head of the lab, Dr. Renato Biondo, was not a consultant for the prosecution.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,447,145 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riggshall
Nobody testified to that in court. Hearsay isn't admissiable in court. He was never even charged with a crime.
Regardless, it does't prove he broke into this house. There is no physical evidence inside or outside the house he broke in and the room was staged b/c the glass was on top of the clothing that was thrown on the floor. He throws the clothes on the floor but stills nothing from the room? Lol Some burglar. He also climbs up to the highest window to get access to the house? You must think this guy is the dumbest dude in the world.
Well his bloody palm print on her pillow as well as his DNA and bloody foot prints at the scene are good enough for me. He was a known drifter who did petty crime such as theft. I really don't care about that aspect...it has nothing to do with all the DNA and palm print evidence left at the scene.
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.
