Ive also read that prosecutors over there aren't in the habit of asking co-conspirators to turn on each other in exchange for lighter sentences. It may actually never happen.

Right, which means Rudy's story of seeing them when he came out of the bathroom probably isn't true. Which was my point. Either Knox and Rudy were in on it together, or she really wasn't there and had nothing to do with it. But even then, there is almost no doubt she knew Rudy, and my guess is would have suspected him, especially if she knew he fled town. I mean it seems unlikely that if she really had no idea who did this, but they're telling her it's an African from the hair in Kercher's hand, that Rudy's name wouldn't have come up at some point. No?

Which just shows how dumb Rudy is if he makes up a story that Knox and Sollecito would have no reason not to turn around and implicate him in, which they didn't do.

Strange.

You people who are saying she didn't do it, or in any case that there isn't enough evidence to convict: you really, truly believe that an obvious psycho who has (beyond dispute) spun multiple lies about what she was doing that night, and who bought bleach that night, twice, really wasn't involved? Really? What was the bleach for, then?

I mean you can wave your stars and stripes all you want, but would any of you feel at all safe if this nut were your girlfriend... or would you feel like hiding the knives?

using Bayesian analysis:

A: The known facts and testimony could have arisen if the defendant is guilty,

B: The known facts and testimony could have arisen if the defendant is innocent,

C: The defendant is guilty.

we need to believe in A and not-B

I think this is very easily satisfied on the reported facts, and thus resulting in conclusion C

The bleach was never proven, just an eyewitness who put her and Raff at the cleaning store at 7:45am, where he let her in and they went to look at cleaning supplies. Receipts supposedly were found at his house but were never brought forward at trial.

The police also said they smelled the odor of bleach when they went to the house on Nov 6th. The cleaning lady also testified that she had cleaned the house a day before the cops got there and did not use bleach. The defense countered that the cleaning lady should have noticed the bleach smell and maybe the cops "mis-smelled". Also possibly the bleach was used after the cleaning lady left or she just didn't notice it.

Also the forensic expert who examined the knife said it had striations that would indicated it had been cleaned vigorously. Afaik the defense didn't counter this.

So that's your bleach/cleaning evidence in a nutshell. I'm eagerly awaiting a balanced, highly detailed book on this whole trial with every bit of evidence, statements, timelines laid out.

Why?

Quick summary:

-The Italian police are corrupt ****s.
-Amanda Knox got screwed, but probably deserves every day of jail time.

Correct?

I don't think this has be established either way here whether they were presented at trial or not, Phill's continuing BS regarding the matter hasn't helped much in confirming it one way or the other either.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...noxs-note.html

Im gonna reference this link in the reply below, but first i need to point out that Amanda said:

Did she implicate him because she assumed he would have no alibi. She read "no one at my work" as he was closing the bar early and would be alone in his flat or whatever.

Its interesting to me and im glad i found this transcripted note.

Knox and the boyfriend have implicated each other several times, including the "i saw blood on his hand" bit.

It is uber odd that they havent implicated each other more, but then maybe the Italian system doesnt give leniency to confessions and just being aware of the murder might give a sentence harsher than actually being convicted of it (guaranteed life over what her own lawyers were saying is 10 years if convicted).

Hopefully someone else can deconstruct some of the details of that note. My first impressions are its uber odd what she is saying and it doesnt sound like someone who is innocent, more a bad liar. I dont think she said a single thing in the note that couldnt later be backed out of, but at the same time she didnt snap implicate this guy she knew for just a few days despite him "having blood on his hand" etc.

Beyond odd.

Because there is so much disinformation you have to sift through on the internet, and then so many frustrating little bits and pieces that you read but can't verify, or find out late in the game. I want the entire picture of everything that was said, and everything the police knew from start to finish.

Do you have some kind of auto-script that pages you whenever the word 'receipt' comes up in this thread? I notice you've been silent on just about everything else in the last 30 posts or so.

That seems like kind of a stretch. From what I gather basically the police knew they had some African (negroid w/e) hairs at the scene and they had a text message from Lumbuba telling her not to come in, then her replying, "ok see you later". Which is funny because it sounds like the Italian police took that literally, when she probably meant it the way an American says it - just another form of goodbye.

My guess on this is that the police felt she was hiding something, knew there was an African involved, so were grasping at the only link they had from her to someone of African descent. She saw an opportunity and under the pressure cracked and went with it. Then she thought better of it the next day and/or talked to a lawyer and decided to send a note recanting the whole thing. Oh yeah, either that or she got confused between her dreams and reality and drifted into some sort of stress-induced hallucinatory dream state.


Can you link to Knox, Sollecito implicating themselves?

I agree with that, I have no idea what's going on with this case, it's pretty much impossible to figure out from the small amount that I've seen on TV. But then I remember that I just don't care, and was sort of curious as to why others do.

Because it's fascinating.

There has yet to be a single source anyone has found that has all the details. This case has huge publicity and if i were a writer i know id be gathering as much stuff as possible, flying to Italy to try and get the court documents and interviewing as many people as possible.

Virtually every single report of the events are biased in one way or another or just very very liberal with how much fact checking they make.

Hopefully when the judges release their reasoning for passing this judgement we will get a clearer picture, but im with Suzzer that this needs a dedicated journalistic research and a book of it is guaranteed to be controversial either way.

There are questions about the prosecutor, but ive yet to see anyone make any judgement negative or otherwise on the police or experts who examined the evidence etc. In fact id go so far as to say there is zero reason to think the police are any more corrupt than any other police force anywhere else in the world. There is zero evidence they "beat" her, in point of fact the defence team hasnt been able to produce any credible evidence of this despite it being hugely beneficial and the police are in fact suing Knox's parents for libel/slander for what they have said about them in interviews.

The second is less up in the air. Its possible she got worse time that she deserved (ie if she helped cover up or didnt prevent a murder maybe she gets a max of 15 years) but if she got "screwed" its only because she was a terrible defendant.

What have i got to do with this. It appears the receipts dont exist, unlike you i find articles, read and digest their info, form conclusions, then reform conclusions based on new info when it comes out.

In fact ill go so far as to stipulate that barring any evidence to the contrary i will agree they were not presented at trial. Which is basically what ive already said. I have no vested interest in this case, i just find it interesting to find out the details since the media on both sides has done such a piss poor effort.

On that note, someone really ought to email a link to this thread to various new organisation, why are we doing better work than many "professional" journalists on this despite having basically zero resources or sources within the trial and case itself.

True, but that's how I would arrive at the simplest explanation (like I've said, it doesn't mean that the simplest explanation is correct).

When I look at all the other circumstantial evidence, a ton of other issues come into play, like:

Was the DNA tested using a a technique that is fair and reliable?

Where the eye witnesses reliable (eye witness testimony is said to be notoriously unreliable)

How did these three people suddenly find themselves together when there was apparently not much, if any, previous relationship?

How did this new relationship lead to such a henous crime in such short order?

Were the suspects interogations obtained under duress and could this lead to inconsistencies in their stories even though they were not involved?

Etc, etc.

Whereas the purported facts about Rudy Guede are that Rudy had a criminal past and was known to have robbed someone at knife point in the past (even scaled up to high windows to gain access). Rudy was said to have an infatuation and/or attraction to Merideth. Rudy is purported to be a known liar. Rudy admitted to being at the crime scene. No one disputes his DNA was at the crime scene. He admitted to having consensual sex with Merideth. He fled the country. When first interogated, he made no mention of Amanda nd Sollecito.

I just find the evidence around Rudy to be far less in question than the circumstantial evidence related to Amanda/Sollecito and therefore conclude the simplest explanation is that Rudy did it.

I only say the above in response to the occam's razor comment.

I'm not saying everyone is wrong who thinks Amanda & Sollecito were involved & I'm not saying the evidence against them should be ignored, I'm merely suggesting that the simplest answer might be that Rudy did it, but maybe you're right and it's not the simplest answer. I really don't know how to prove that one way or another. I'm not calling anyone out here or trying to "win" an argument, I'm merely voicing my questions and issues however absurd they may appear to be, so feel fre to rip em up.

Something that causes me to stumble is the motive and description of how the prosecutors said the crime occurred and that all three conspired together to kill Merideth. I actually think Rudy's explanation makes more sense (even though his explanation is highly dubious and I'm not saying it's accurate and he's telling the truth, I just think it plays out more logical than a 3 party sex murder game):

Yesterday he said he had met Ms Kercher at a disco on Halloween night in 2007, and had made a date to see her the following evening at the whitewashed hillside cottage she shared with Ms Knox and two Italian women.

He told the appeal judges that he went to the cottage on the evening of November 1, 2007, but felt unwell, and although he had been "intimate" with Ms Kercher they had not had sex. He went to the bathroom with his iPod on and listened to three tracks. "Then I heard Meredith's and Amanda's voices, arguing about some missing money," he said.
He said Ms Kercher said: "My money, my money, I can't stand her any more." Other witnesses at the trial have testified that Ms Kercher was concerned about cash missing from her bedside table.

Guede added: "I was listening to music and at one point I heard a very loud scream."


He said he rushed into Ms Kercher's bedroom and saw an unidentified man with a knife who tried to attack him. He said he heard the man say, "'Let's go, there's a black man", and looking out of the window he saw the fleeing "silhouette" of Ms Knox. In past testimony Guede has said the man resembled Mr Sollecito.


He found Ms Kercher stabbed in the throat and lying in a pool of blood in her bedroom. "When I close my eyes I still see red everywhere," Guede said. He tried to staunch the blood with a towel and save Ms Kercher's life, but fled the scene in a panic and "a state of shock".


"I am not the one who took her life," he told the court. "I don't know if I could have saved her. That's the only thing I can apologise for." Turning to Francesco Maresca, the Kercher family's lawyer, he said: "I want the Kercher family to know that I didn’t kill their daughter and and I didn’t rape her."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6921995.ece

It seems possible (however unlikely) that Rudy had a date with Merideth (although I thought she had a boyfriend) and during the course of their date things got sexual, he took a break to go to the toilet and while there Amanda and Sollecito arrived (thus explaining why all three were at the crime scene).

Merideth got into an argument with Amanda about money and then Amanda pulled out a knife (like she purportedly did to the guy than drove his car into their bag).

Merideth screams (as confirmed by witnesses in the area that heard a loud scream)

Amanda is startled and stabs Merideth in the kneck.

Rudy comes out and Sollecito (who apprently doesn't know him) says lets go, the black man will get the blame and they flee the scene.

Rudy in a panic tries to help Merideth and then it dawns on him that given his criminal past he will probably get blamed for this and flees in a panic. He decides to go to the disco to create an Alibi, then decides he better leave the country altogether

Hey this scenario may be unlikely and I'm not saying this is what happened, but it seems to have more logic to it than the sex/game scenario.

If the prosecutor can imagine what happened, why can't we?

A more convincing explanation of how the crime occurred and what the motive was would help me give greater weight to the circumstantial evidence against Amanda and Sollecito. Like I've said, I'm not saying they're innocent, I'm just not at a point where I could vote to convict.

I'm probably too skeptical and open minded to be a good juror (paradox eh?).

Some of us are probably more qualified than the pundits on CNN et al currently talking about this case. I just need some kind of official title other than "internet enthusiast".

It is strange, I thought I read that the police brought up the bartender and then Amanda said he did it, not that she brought him up out of the blue.

Sorry, I can't remember where I read this, so I can't provide a link and my memory could be completely wrong, if anyone has a good link to a story describing how the bartender got implicated, please let us know

guilty of stealing my hear with those piercing blue eyes

If I had to make my best guess my best guess at this point would be that Sollecito and Knox somehow put Guede up to raping, scaring, maybe cutting her a little. Possibly because Knox hated Kercher and wanted her out of the house. Guede was known to have knives and threaten with them, also he has some youtube video where he says "I am dracula I want to drink your blood". So maybe they come up with some kind of plan to terrorize Kercher during a heavy smoking session.

Then somehow things went wrong, either pre-planned by Knox, or because she somehow realized during the rape that if Kercher lived Knox would probably be implicated. During the rape if Knox or Sollecito ever show themselves, they pretty much have no choice at that point but to go through with killing her. I wouldn't be surprised if Knox delivered the fatal cut - possibly while Guede was talking a crap - which he very likely might not have been expecting. Then he bolts and Knox enlists Raff to start working on the cover up.

Somehow it just seems more likely to me that they wanted to hurt/scare her than a full blown plan to murder.

I agree, its a huge leap, just stood out for me.

I think your timeline and reasoning is fairly sound and i agree with the language barrier coming into play with the "see you later" text. It probably loses its meaning in translation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...noxs-note.html
As for implicating each other, the note (linked above) says that in Amanda's words:

"I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused"

Then later:
"What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember."

and finally:
"One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock. After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish."

-----

So what we have is him contradicting her story according to her and she says that she has huge memory loss of what happened between approx 1900 and 2300 but afterwards she sees him with blood on his hand, which she ignored because it might have been from the fish.

Im sure there are better examples out there but he has said to the police at some point she was not with him that night. The current alibi for both is that he was on his computer at home (proven false) and she was with him from approx 1600 that afternoon through to 1000 the following morning (proven false).

Btw, from that same note she mentions:
"After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).

The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house."

Were i a cynic, id say this was a weird thing to remember and its odd to forget everything from approximate midnight through to 10am, including waking up 5 hours later to check your phone and less than 3 hours after that wait for the supermarket to open.

I mean, maybe she bought bleach and maybe a mop to clean up the water mess from the broken pipe, or maybe that being one of like 5 details from that night she remembers in order to cover up that they bought bleach and the flat smelt of bleach etc.

But what is key is the phrasing "i remember waking up the morning of Friday...around 10am". Is her story she woke up and went to the shop, but doesnt remember for drug related reasons, then she went back to his flat, cleaned the place up using the bleach (hence the smell) and then went back to sleep for an hour or two then work up completely sober at 10am. Now thats just beyond odd to me.

Patrik Lumumba is the owner of the bar where she worked. Although he claims he had pretty much fired her before all this happened. This article is pretty interesting, although obviously he has an ax to grind: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hs-murder.html

The police by this point knew an African was involved and did have a text exchange between her and Lumumba earlier that night. So they probably did bring him up first. SOP to just pursue any lead like that and interrogate the witness about it to see if it bears any fruit.

Dude, I'm not waiving any stars and stripes. I don't have any afinity for Amanda or Sollecito nor do I have any animosity against Italy and I certainly don't have blind unbending support for America and it's judicial system

No system is perfect and people aren't perfect.

I'm a skeptic by nature with a natural distrust of people (however good or bad this may be), so I question eye witness testimony in a high profile case like this because I can't help but wonder about their motives and if they are trying to interject themselves in order to get their 15 minutes of fame. It is my understanding that eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable and given the climate in which this case has occurred, I can't help but wonder if some witnesses might not have their memories influenced by what they've read and heard in the media.

I'm also highly skeptical of the press and believe all stories are tainted by the perspective, opinions & beliefs of the writer, so what I'd like to have in order to form my opinion is the actual evidence and testimony heard in court. Until then I have to rely on various sources and try to determine how accurate and reliable each claim is.

I also don't feel qualified to classify Amanda as an "obvious psycho". I don't know her and all I have to go by is what I read and I hear all kinds of descriptions of her. If I only considered the worst, then I might consider her a psycho, if I consider all sides, I'm left thinking she's like all of us, a mixture of good, bad and ugly.

Many of us have smoked pot, most of us have drunk alcohol to excess, many or most of us have had illicent sexual incounters (or at least wanted to) but does that make us psycho or a murderer? I don't think so.

Maybe I'm not as sharp as you guys (I'm certainly not at poker), but I don't see things as clear or black and white as many do, so I have questions and I have doubts.

Right or wrong, that's how I see things

DITTO!!!

this post detailing your "intellectually l33t" skeptism of everything apparently is worthless in relation to critical examination of available information, which others have done and have actively tried to do unlike your dumb skeptic ass.

Really all your post says is that the people making the critical evaluation of available evidence are not omniprescient Gods, in which case, NICE STORY HANSEL!!