what do you think happened to meredith Kercher

Why should they? :confused: I said possible. It's not definite and it cannot be proved without witnesses or other meaningful evidence.

One possibility (please note this time: possible) is that they were witnesses to the murder but were threatened by Guede (and a possible accomplice) and were in fear of their lives. The point is, you can't convict someone based on conjecture, or because they act a bit odd.

The prosecution put forward a case of "the sex game gone wrong" scenario - that was disproved, therefore the defence wins.

Your posts have been pretty much saying that they were innocent. I'm saying the evidence says otherwise even if you can't convict for murder.

You are having to postulate unrealistic scenarios to explain their actions.

I am saying it is more likely they are guilty of participating or covering up the murder, and are simply staying quiet, due to lack of evidence for a "beyond all doubt" conviction.
 
Last edited:
Your posts have been pretty much saying that they were innocent.

But it seems I was right ;)

You are having to postulate unrealistic scenarios to explain their actions.

As unrealistic as the official scenarios of "4-way sex games with an African drifter" or "satanic rituals by a she-devil"...

Anyway, it's past my bedtime. Good result today - it's restored my faith in humanity a little :)
 
But it seems I was right ;)

No... you don't know. Innocent until proven guilty is not logic. It is simply a legal right.

As unrealistic as the official scenarios of "4-way sex games with an African drifter" or "satanic rituals by a she-devil"...

Anyway, it's past my bedtime. Good result today - it's restored my faith in humanity a little :)

Satanic rituals? You do not need to provide a motive to suggest they are guilty of participating or covering up a murder. It helps when you have evidence not good enough for a conviction (ie desperate prosecutors), but not necessary.
 
Well I think one thing we can conclude from this is that Italian police are a bit inept...

The 'interrogation' without a lawyer and botched collection of DNA evidence certainly didn't help things in this trial.
 
That was much shorter than I was expecting :(

I cannot say they are guilty, just as you can't say they are innocent.

Unless they properly explain their actions (which they didn't in the case from what I've read), I will always doubt any innocence.
 
Back
Top Bottom