I read this entire thread and I did not see any evidence that links the boyfriend to the murder besides that he knew Knox.

Lets not do too much defending of the American legal system:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/63...llions-651002/

This dragonfly defence is pretty intriguing. Did the prosecution respond to this?

I mean, let's work on the assumption that knox+bf are guilty. They were horribly disorganised and poor at this killing business. They used a knife from home, didn't clean it properly, and didn't dispose of it. They used their key to open the door, then made a hash of faking a breakeven (smashing a window the wrong way/or was it on top of debris of a result of the fracas?). They didn't get their stories straight and knox lied countless times about where she was at the time of the murder. They left a footprint outside. She randomly excused her x-boss even though it obviously wouldn't go anywhere (the boss was working at the time lol). They both kept blogs which talked about how they were interested and sex and violence. Off at 7.30am (in a local shop; when she was meant to be sleeping) shopping for cleaning products (i mean lol). The list goes on.

So basically their attack lacked any real decent planning or organisation.

And yet they managed to commit a bloody and raging murder without leaving much if any evidence in the room? No clothes particles, no sweat or blood or fingerprints.

Did they just totally luckbox this? Is that realistic? Are there cases in the past where clearly unprofessional, personaly lust/anger-fuelled murders have left such a lack of evidence?

What, do you need someone to hold your hand whilst you piss too?

Ive seen most, if not all, of these lies repeated elsewhere and even her own defence team has agreed that she has lied several times.

When someone asks "where were you when she was killed" and you answer something that is proveable to be incorrect - what context exactly are you expecting that this is either normal or explainable?

Look, im not a forensics expert - i like watching CSI and Law and Order from time to time but thats the extent of my knowledge, yours too i assume - but what i am an "expert" on is seeing a list of lies and drawing a conclusion from that. I assume the jury thought the same and thats why this is key.

End of the day she put herself in prison. Either she killed Meredith or she lied so much when questioned she made herself look like she did. We can talk about how the Italian justice system has its flaws - all country's systems have their flaws - but she only has herself to blame for where she is and i cant feel bad about someone who is either a killer or just so dumb she might as well be removed from the gene pool.

Innocent people dont make up witness statements about people to frame them for killing "your friend".

Innocent people dont make up easily disproven alibis. Not as many as she did. Now if she lied once cos she was off banging the president of Italy i can understand it, but she settled on several alibis after the previous one was disproven.

There are several reasons this could be so, including them standing by whilst the third guy murdered her.

Alternately their scene of crime guys screwed something up. It took them 45 days to find the bra clasp - who knows what they missed and was then lost.

Fourthly, maybe they were just freakishly lucky and wore gloves and other protective gear so they didnt leave trace evidence.

Finally, they werent involved and are innocent.

Personally i believe it is mainly a mix of one and two, three and two are a good possibility, but scenario four is the least likely in the overall context of their lies. Who has a night of extremely heavy drug use then gets up at 5am to turn on their phone, chills for a couple hours and then goes off and buys cleaning supplies and then repeatedly, provably, lies to police during the investigation. In the overall context this is the least likely for me, with a mix of the other three

agreed.

the lies are so damning. if she was innocent, the truth would set here free in a heartbeat

You're right about most you say, Phill. They're both most likely involved in one way or another, but as I said earlier, I feel substantial evidence should be required to lock someone up for nearly three decades. If anything, they should be sentenced for bystander of murder or something alike, and face 7-8 years in prison. 26 years is just ridiculously long when you're not 100% certain.

On the lying subject, I think they're both involved in some way, as I said, and lied in order to get out of whatever sentence they'd get for that. One can also question why they haven't admitted this by now, I guess. It's a weird case.

Also, Italy doesn't have a President, but Prime Minister. Should be common knowledge.

I found this quote from here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...ody-footprint/


"...the defense claims that the crime scene was badly compromised during the collection of evidence. Alberto Intini, head of Italy’s national forensic team, disagrees. On the stand, he defended the forensics work and stressed that the crime scene had not been contaminated, especially under cross examination when the defense lawyers tried and failed to prove otherwise. "DNA does not fly around like pollen," he said, adding that he could prove it by the fact that his investigators left no traces during their work. “Not one fingerprint, footprint, genetic profile, or any nonidentifiable marks were found during the lab work which could be traced to any of the investigators on the scene."


The quote is somewhat enlightening to me. Despite having a master's degree in criminal justice, I like most of the people in this thread, don't really know the specifics when it comes to DNA collection and how it is left besides the obvious blood, semen, and the likes.

I just kind of assumed that the fact that she lived there would make it hard to pin down specific DNA sources as material as opposed to natural occurrence. My gums sometime bleed when brushing my teeth and I shed hair like most people do. I just figured that there would be DNA samples of mine all over the place. But apparently that isn't the case necessarily.

I did read that Knox's blood was in a shared bathroom that shouldn't have been there according to Knox. They were able to tell the age of it and Amanda said that she hadn't bleed in the bathroom that day. But like I said earlier I kind of take this with a grain of salt since I've been known to bleed in the bathroom without much thought.


On a different note, I would like to hear more from the people who knew her, more specifically the people that are not part of the Friends of Amanda spin campaign. Has anyone found anything from their two roommates that were out of town? I know that her alibi about their interaction via the phone didn't match. I was wondering whether they thought it was possible that she committed the crime or not.

The President of Italy might disagree with you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giorgio_Napolitano

Edit, i need to come back in a gloat at this pwnage. Should be common knowledge. Youre alright dude but lol at how dumb you look

If they were bystanders to the murder then they should confess to being bystanders. Until one of them stops lying and explains fully what happens we wont know. I know they have two appeals on the case, maybe on the second appeal one of them will confess to their exact roles.

But in the meantime if they are solid suspects for the murder, even with a lack of physical evidence, you need to charge them with the full amount. Its standard practice across the world and under the exact same circumstances in the US she would have been charged with murder. Whether she would be convicted or not is impossible to say, given the difference from majority vote to beyond reasonable doubt etc its possible she would have gotten a hung jury in the US, but i dont think any reasonable person can look at what has gone on and said with any certainty or even on balance of evidence that she wasnt involved in some way.

If she stood by and watched whilst the third guy did it i dont really care that she has been convicted of actually wielding the knife.

How could of none of us heard about this before

Foxy Knoxy threatened man with knife day before Meredith murder, says new witness


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/a...new-witness.do

Puts the Rudy guy with her as well.

Holy ****! wow, this case is nuts, I guess she was a little gangster

I wonder if this came out at trial? It sounds somewhat suspicious to me though. This guy comes forward over 7 months after the story breaks and Kercher is murdered. It says he has no record but do you think he was looking for attention?

So you're basically saying you're a forensic expert and know that the knife and bra clasp are complete BS? Because just the fact that the defense brought in experts to say that doesn't really mean a lot. They had to do that.

Wow this is some really good stuff that came out in the trial but hasn't been covered in the media because it gets too much into the details. Seriously everyone should read this whole thing before they try to form an opinion.


Him making up a story about the knife and not just saying "I have no idea how that got there" is pretty gigantic imo. It really shoots holes in the whole tampered/contaminated evidence thing. The media doesn't talk much about Sollecito because he's not a hot American chick. But his constant lies are really telling.

I like how the American media just ignores all the lies and stuff like this. I mean basically you have to believe the knife was a complete frame job (presumably because the police thought he was guilty but didn't have enough evidence) and still Sollecito decided to lie about it for some reason. Either that very unlikely chain of events, or he's guilty. You really can't have it any other way.

Ive found no other details or reports on this, but there is little to search on given the witness wasnt named.

With no other details or knowing what came of that my personal view is to treat it as dubious.

Btw, the article was 7 months after the murder, but from the article:

Hopefully someone with more googlefu than me can find a second source from later in the trial detailing what came of this.

Been pondering this. Its kinda weird. On the one hand he has also repeatedly lied which also looks guilty, but its odd that neither one has turned on the other.

I dunno, maybe Italian justice isnt like US TV where two people in a crime means one gets a reduced sentence to be a witness against the other.

But yeah, one thing definitely sure is that flow of events blows holes in the argument than the DNA was planted or contaminated etc. When the suspect doesnt find it odd that her DNA was on his knife and thus makes up a story of her going there and accidentally getting cut.

I mean i keep coming back to it, but seriously, innocent people dont do this.

Yeah they can't remember giant chunks of time from one night before the murder (because weed/hash makes you forget everything ), but somehow Sollecito remembers one time when they were cooking and he pricked Kercher's hand. He sounds like a pretty dim bulb.

I think I read that he testified at trial, but it wasn't a linkable source, just somebody else saying it when I was googling.

I agree that it seems weird, although maybe just because it is extra surprising to us that we aren't hearing about this testimony at trial, assuming it was allowed. If it was, you would think this would be all over the news since it is a huge development and answers a lot of questions.

Even an American sensationalized report might accuse this guy of making the story up. If I thought they were innocent and this was a frame job, I could get behind this being a ruse.



Not that this has anything to do with murder, but I was looking around to counter the Friends of Amanda image portrayed of her and read she was arrested shortly before leaving America. She was having a party at the university (of Oregon I believe) and decided it would be fun to stand in her yard and throw rocks at passing cars.

Also apparently she was a huge cum dumpster. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against sluts, but she was taking it to another level. Maybe to a point where it was a little more than just liking the cack.

She's sounding crazier by the second, do you have a link to this story?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...oxy-Knoxy.html


I got the school wrong

thx, this article sure doesn't make her look as naive and innocent as other stories would lead you to believe...really bewildering

This article mentioned that she was smoking skunk cannibis which is known to cause psychosis and schitzophrenia:

Although achieving top grades at university, she had started smoking potent 'skunk' cannabis regularly and declared to friends that her favourite "poison" was vodka

Here's a story about Skunk Cannibis, notice the story within the story about the guy who stabbed his parents to death after smoking it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...psychosis.html

This could be the explanation for the murder, perhaps after smoking this stuff she flipped out like this guy did

All this time I just thought they meant weed when they were saying cannibis. That **** sounds pretty severe. Chicks that really really like to heh high are pretty much always sloots.

Thanks for everyone in this thread as finding full, unbiased information about this case is quite difficult and I knew almost nothing about it before this week.

However, I have seen lots of references to or from the Daily Mail in this thread and I think it is important to point out this newspaper's reputation for everyone on here who aren't from the UK. Basically, it is exceptionally sensationalist and very hard to take seriously for anyone who has ever sat and read a whole one. They have their own agenda and can slant or manipulate news to a great degree. Basically, I would suggest that if you find some piece of information or news in the Daily Mail that you also look for another, more reputable (see: any), source.

Smear job tabloid yellow "journalism" isn't evidence of anything. Any American who supports the railroading of a another American in this sleazy fashion by a foreign country has no pride, disgraceful really.

I don't smoke weed but I always thought "skunk" just meant cheap weed, like "ditch weed" which is basically what growers in Kentucky grow out in the open to keep the DEA busy and so their numbers still look good without actually getting their cash crop seized.


Either way I'm not big on reflecting blame

america **** yeah

Here skunk means the most potent part of the plant, also the most expensive.

Smear job tabloid yellow "journalism" inst evidence of anything. Any American who supports the railroading of a foreign country by a sleazy American has no pride, disgraceful really.