Well you didn't do a very good job. There's a world of difference between male serial killers which are common compared to a first time female sex killer who used a knife to cut another girls throat.

You said Ted Bundy's crimes were unheard of 30 years ago? Ever heard of Jack the Ripper?

Amanda was charged and convicted of robbery. She wasn't caught in possession of stolen property and her fingerprints weren't on the dumped phones. There is no evidence she committed any robbery at all other than Guede saying she in his lame "i didn't do anything wrong" story but he never testified she did. It's Guede's DNA on the purse with Meredith's blood.

Amanda was charged and convicted of sexual assault. HTF does that even work between girls? They have no DNA of Amanda on the victims legs or anywhere it would need to be to prove she that did. It's Guede's DNA inside the victim. It was all Mignini's perverted fantasy.

If two women can partake in sexual activity together, then they can sexually assault one another also. It is possible to sexually assault someone without putting a dick inside that person.

You don't understand how the law works. If you direct and/or participate in a crime, or help cover it up, you can be charged with the crime. Even sitting in the kitchen with your hands over your ears to block out victim's scream (followed by helping to cover it up) can make you an accomplice to a crime.

If this isn't obvious, consider that a getaway driver can be charged with robbery even though he simply sat in the car and then drove.

These are basic legal principles, the charges were 100% standard in any legal system including the US.

I do understand the law, it's you who doesn't. Being in the kitchen with your hands over your ears while someone is putting a knife in a girls throat makes you a witness, not an accomplice.

No the charges weren't standard. You need proof for each charge against each individual person. It's not there was a sexual assult so therefor we'll just charge everyone even though we've only got evidence for 1 guy.

Or money went missing so we'll charge everyone even though one guys DNA is actually on the purse where the phones, credit cards and keys were stolen from.

What about if you restrain the girl while someone else puts a knife in her throat and fingers her?

Does that make you a witness, an accomplice, a murderer, or merely guilty of assault/depravation of liberty? If we're sticking to the view of the law you seem to be putting forward, people would get slaps on the wrist for participating in a murder, provided they didn't actually do the killing stroke.

There are levels of complicity in a crime and the events surrounding it that can make you as guilty - or even more guilty - of the crime as the person who actually did the deed.

You can be charged for murder even if you didn't hold the knife or do the killing thrust. You can be charged for sexual assault even if you didn't touch her genitals.
You can be charged with robbery even if you didn't touch the money.

This is really standard stuff.

And for all of this you need evidence. For sexual assault you need DNA in the right places to prove it or credible witnesses to say they saw it. There is none. You can't just create a perverted fantasy and say it happened based on nothing.

For robbery you need her caught with Meredith's keys, credit cards, phones, or her fingerprints or dna on the purse or phones. etc etc

This is really standard stuff.

There is evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that Knox and Sollecito were present during the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher and the theft of her belongings.

Using your logic, if three people get together and murder someone, wearing gloves, then keep their mouths shut, you can't convict anyone because there is no evidence to prove who did what role, including the killing stroke. I find that position untenable and so does the law.

Be honest. Do you think intelligent people would be arguing this, and two Italian courts with multiple judges upholding a conviction, if this was based on "nothing"? This position seems a little untenable, frankly.

So in a robbery, only the guy actually carrying the loot, or someone who forgets to wear gloves, goes to jail, even if you can prove the complicit presence of others?

You're presenting an interesting angle but I find it too unsophisticated to capture legal realities.

Here is Dateline - Deadly Rivals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dukxY-NNChY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Wade

A 20 year old girl stabs another girl. No sexual assault.

There's stalking, harassment, threatening text and voicemails, witnesses. The motive was a guy who dated them both and played them off against each other creating a rivalry and jealously.

If you want to present a bizarre conspiracy theory where two students who had been dating six days spontaneously team up somewhere with a third guy they didn't know to commit a rape and murder together within 1 hour, you better have damn good evidence and a plausible believable story to explain it.

There is no evidence Amanda committed a robbery. There is evidence Guede did. His DNA and Meredith's blood was found on the purse. He was a burglar recently caught in a nursery with stolen property.

Guede wasn't even charged with robbery in this case which was just incredible.

If this captured the reality of the case, I would agree with you.

There are multiple independent pieces of strong evidence, all consistent with one another, each not explainable except by the fact that Knox and Sollecito were in the murder room, actively involved, and helped clean things up. What's more, their behavior on multiple levels implicates them strongly and appears inconsistent with innocence, making the case even stronger.

What do you do with this information? Let them walk? There's a dead girl who deserves justice and strong evidence these two people were involved in a significant way...

I love when Fat Tony posts. So much stupidity contained in one person. This is the typical Knox supporter,

I think he is a liar but my argument in his respect is quite simple.

1) Greg Hampikian is the source of the claim that Meredith's profile on the knife is a partial profile.

2) A total of 11 experts including C&V have stated that it is Meredith's full profile.

3) A first year science student who looks at the data would be able to see that it is Meredith;s full profile.

------------

So in conclusion Greg Hampikian is a liar who intentionally participated in a propaganda effort. As such he is not a qualified scientist since part of being a scientist.

What part of this do you have trouble understanding?

There's certainly no justice for the dead girl when rapist killer Guede gets released next year after only 7 years and the witch hunt against innocent students continues so they can save face and avoid a national scandal if the victims family ever snapped out of it and realized what a sweet little deal Guede got and they'd been manipulated by the people they trusted including their lawyer Maresca.

That's the way I see it.

FatTony,

Same question I asked 239 -- how do you feel that Knox is going to be convicted and that she'll most likely be returning to jail?

I think they'll be convicted next time. I don't believe either of them will ever return to jail.

New prosecutor will just say the SC says she's convicted of aggravated calunia, therefor you must find them guilty.

Boy are you in for a surprise.

Sollecito has already said he will attend the trial so unless he pulls off a daring escape from the courtroom he will be going back to jail. edit-not appeal, trial.

If that's what happens, what a travesty it would be. It seems to me you need to prove the murder charge in order to say that she lied to cover up her involvement in the murder. Hopefully that's not the reason the SC vacated that part of the decision.

FatTony, keep posting you're always good for a laugh.

Actually I don't know why I bothered typing this. It's no like he's really a man of his word.

imo, there is no way he's going back for another sham trial.

Umm I didn't post that re Ted Bundy.

I guess you've never heard of Charles Manson. He never killed anyone with his own hands. He was the ring leader that talked others into doing his dirty work. (there was one victim named "shorty" that is speculated he might have helped inflict wounds. But it is not known and was never proven in court.)

He was convicted of the murders through the joint-responsibility rule, which makes each member of a conspiracy guilty of crimes his fellow conspirators commit in furtherance of the conspiracy's objective.

If you want to present a bizarre conspiracy theory where the prosecutor within hours of being assigned to a murder case hatches a plot to indict and convict an otherwise innocent American girl and an innocent Italian boy as collateral damage which requires him to coordinate efforts of the investigation team, local police, state police, the crime lab, the forensics lab, experts, lay witnesses, interrogators, interpreters, judges, appellate judges, supreme court judges, and the media, you better have damn good evidence and a plausible story to explain it.

He may be an expert, but he's an expert that sold his services to the highest bidder. Beyond that, Hampikian probably is not that concerned that this would ever get back to him given the fact this is an Italian case and he would never have to face any blowback in the U.S (presumably, the area in which he most commonly is hired).