Associate
- Joined
- 15 May 2013
- Posts
- 149
- Location
- north east
let me gave 20 mins with her, ill rub her **** so good we'll get a confession.
boo ya
'murica
boo ya
'murica
Amanda Knoxx retrial
- Thread starter Jason2
- Start date
Your dad had a SL 55, so I can see where you're coming from.
Gated community, darling. Keeps the riff raff out, don't you know.
Jeepers creepers. Where the heck was this??
Oooookay...
The lack of DNA in a particular room, as far as I'm aware, isn't evidence that someone was not in that room.
Guede's DNA was found on a swab from Kercher's vagina, a blood stain on her handbag and the cuff of her top and her Bra. Sollecito's DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp.
Sollecito's DNA was only found on two items in the entire flat... the bra clasp in the bedroom and a cigarette in the kitchen - over 400 items were tested in total for DNA across the flat... even items in Knoxx's own bedroom didn't necessarily test positive for her own DNA.
In the big bathroom Guede had taken a massive dump and not flushed... this tested negative for his DNA, wet towels tested negative for DNA, DNA was found on the toilet paper belonging to Guede.
In the small bathroom DNA from Knoxx and Kercher is present in the form of mixed blood samples on the washbasin and the bidet. Knoxx's blood is on the tap, Kercher's blood is also present in the form of a streak running down the inside of the door and in a blood red footprint matching Sollecito on the bath mat. Guede's DNA isn't present in the small bathroom.
In Filomena's bedroom (the other flatmate who's room the 'break in' occurred in) no samples from the window, shutter, rock that broke the window tested positive for DNA. Do we then conclude that no-one was in the room and no one broke the window simply because no DNA was found?
There was an argument put forward that the DNA from Sollecito on the bra clasp was somehow contaminated, (with what it isn't sure, they've not found his DNA anywhere else in the flat aside from a cigarette) no hypothesis put forward by the defence as to how it has been contaminated... their argument has since been rejected by the latest appeal. Its still made in articles supporting Knoxx with various hand waving about length of time before the sample was collected while simultaneously not disputing the Guede DNA samples and painting the picture that the Italian authorities act like some third world country... while their handling of the case hasn't been ideal a DNA sample taken from a sealed crime scene some 43 days later isn't, as far as I'm aware, all that problematic and the defence have failed to make a reasonable contamination argument as far as the court is concerned.
This is the really odd bit for me - whats with all the blood in the small bathroom? Bearing in mind Kercher's body was found in her room behind a locked door and Gued's shoe prints lead directly from her room to the front door the blood samples in the bathroom leave a lot of questions:
Mix of Knoxx's and Kercher's blood in the bidet:
Knoxx's blood on the tap:
Kercher's blood on the inside of the door - I don't think anyone accidentally stood in this sample....
Kercher's blood on the bathmat - bare footprint closely matches Sollecito, doesn't match either Guede or Knoxx. No DNA from either Guede or Sollecito present in the small bathroom.
Do people just tread in blood like that and think nothing of it?
I mean do people just leave blood about the place like its normal... then when the local police arrive at the house unexpectedly regarding the mobile phones (not because they were called there) the alarm still isn't immediately raised re: any of this blood etc..
Mix of Knoxx's and Kercher's blood in the bidet:
Knoxx's blood on the tap:
Kercher's blood on the inside of the door - I don't think anyone accidentally stood in this sample....
Kercher's blood on the bathmat - bare footprint closely matches Sollecito, doesn't match either Guede or Knoxx. No DNA from either Guede or Sollecito present in the small bathroom.
Do people just tread in blood like that and think nothing of it?
I mean do people just leave blood about the place like its normal... then when the local police arrive at the house unexpectedly regarding the mobile phones (not because they were called there) the alarm still isn't immediately raised re: any of this blood etc..
The same photos are on the pro-Knox / Sollecito sites too. It's the captions that make the difference. Knox's blood mixed with Kercher's is not as straight forward as it sounds. All observations are theory laden.
Identifying blood is straightforward enough but then you look for DNA. Was the DNA originally from blood or somewhere else? Bear in mind this is in a bathroom the two shared. Ever shared a bathroom with multiple women and people that get frequent nosebleeds? I have.
Knox phoned her flatmates telling them about bloodstains before the police arrived (or were called for that matter) . Wouldn't it be more sensible to make sure it's cleaned up if it's yours and you have something to hide?
The amazing thing about this case is the availability of evidence to anyone who wants to go looking. Were it not for the abundant availability of evidence, I guess I'd just assume the Judges and lay people involved in the decision had a clearer picture than me.
Edit: the phone call timing doesn't even strike me as that odd. I chased off burglars from my parents house when I was about 15. Did I call the police first? No - was on the phone to my mum. In hindsight it's daft, but then you're not thinking clearly in such situations.
Identifying blood is straightforward enough but then you look for DNA. Was the DNA originally from blood or somewhere else? Bear in mind this is in a bathroom the two shared. Ever shared a bathroom with multiple women and people that get frequent nosebleeds? I have.
Knox phoned her flatmates telling them about bloodstains before the police arrived (or were called for that matter) . Wouldn't it be more sensible to make sure it's cleaned up if it's yours and you have something to hide?
The amazing thing about this case is the availability of evidence to anyone who wants to go looking. Were it not for the abundant availability of evidence, I guess I'd just assume the Judges and lay people involved in the decision had a clearer picture than me.
Edit: the phone call timing doesn't even strike me as that odd. I chased off burglars from my parents house when I was about 15. Did I call the police first? No - was on the phone to my mum. In hindsight it's daft, but then you're not thinking clearly in such situations.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
It was NOT Sollecito's footprint in the bathroom, it was Guede.... shockingly a guy covered in blood decided to clean as much of it off in the bathroom as possible before leaving and running around town covered in blood. So that is pretty explainable.
Likewise again, the samples of DNA found of Sollecito were seemingly not his, they were DNA that did not match all his strands of DNA, it matched someone with similar DNA< and it had multiple people, and was massively contaminated and the video clearly shows multiple investigators touching all over the room with the same gloves, they kicked the clasp around the floor while moving around the whole apartment.
Most of the "evidence" you are talking about is the BS nonsense the police kept leaking up to the first trial to frankly taint the trial and make her guilty in the potential juror's eyes.
Telling everyone there was a bloody Sollecito footprint when it matched the other Guede footprints is truly disgusting behaviour by the police, well it's pretty much criminal and disgusting they kept leaking evidence to the press full stop, but incorrect evidence to taint the public opinion before the trial merely makes it worse.
As for cleaning up, again she is said by the police in their insane story to have held her down while she was being stabbed, you are talking about, like Guede tracking blood onto everything you touch, everywhere, just taking off clothes would get trace blood everywhere. You can't hold someone down physically, stab them, and clean your DNA off the body while leaving Guede's DNA there. It's simply not possible(without a huge amount of premeditation, skill, knowledge, sealed suits to keep everything in, and the police argue it's not premeditated.
This is before you get to NO MOTIVE, which you will find is absolutely key in almost any policing system. There was no motive and zero explanation as to why someone would find someone they know being raped and not call for help but hold her down then kill her... it's nutso, and yet no one in her past, not one incident at school, from friends, no rumours in her home town about the animals she killed or cold way she acted with people. There is zero signs she's a sociopath, the police provide zero evidence of this but tried to paint smoking weed and having sex as making her a satanic cult type person.
Likewise again, the samples of DNA found of Sollecito were seemingly not his, they were DNA that did not match all his strands of DNA, it matched someone with similar DNA< and it had multiple people, and was massively contaminated and the video clearly shows multiple investigators touching all over the room with the same gloves, they kicked the clasp around the floor while moving around the whole apartment.
Most of the "evidence" you are talking about is the BS nonsense the police kept leaking up to the first trial to frankly taint the trial and make her guilty in the potential juror's eyes.
Telling everyone there was a bloody Sollecito footprint when it matched the other Guede footprints is truly disgusting behaviour by the police, well it's pretty much criminal and disgusting they kept leaking evidence to the press full stop, but incorrect evidence to taint the public opinion before the trial merely makes it worse.
As for cleaning up, again she is said by the police in their insane story to have held her down while she was being stabbed, you are talking about, like Guede tracking blood onto everything you touch, everywhere, just taking off clothes would get trace blood everywhere. You can't hold someone down physically, stab them, and clean your DNA off the body while leaving Guede's DNA there. It's simply not possible(without a huge amount of premeditation, skill, knowledge, sealed suits to keep everything in, and the police argue it's not premeditated.
This is before you get to NO MOTIVE, which you will find is absolutely key in almost any policing system. There was no motive and zero explanation as to why someone would find someone they know being raped and not call for help but hold her down then kill her... it's nutso, and yet no one in her past, not one incident at school, from friends, no rumours in her home town about the animals she killed or cold way she acted with people. There is zero signs she's a sociopath, the police provide zero evidence of this but tried to paint smoking weed and having sex as making her a satanic cult type person.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The bloody footprint was Guede's, the prosecution went out of their way, as with the bra clasp DNA to pain the picture these other invisible footprints were their's and bloody footprints.
What we're talking about is say, walking from bathroom to bedroom along a carpet and leaving a marginal imprint. They were tested for blood(non specific person) and Kercher's DNA, these footprints were negative for dna and blood. If someone came to your house and you used certain cleaning products you would have footprints everywhere, if they were tested for blood, the tests would be negative.
This isn't incompetence, it is telling the story you want to by actively lying, nothing more or less. Yet another case where, they didn't clean up their own supposed and obvious footprint.
There was no DNA left by Guede in the bathroom yet you're claiming he was in there while also citing the lack of DNA from Knoxx in Kercher's bedroom as reason to be skeptical that she was present in there.
What footprints are there from Guede? Guede was, as far as we know, wearing shoes the entire time - he leaves shoe prints with traces of blood straight from the door of kercher's room to the front door of the house.
The foot print on the bath mat matches Raffaele Sollecito:
Average isn't really a metric to be used in that way, it's not an indicator of quality but rather commonality.
Dowie, you keep quoting from www.themurderofmeredithkercher.com . Very few dedicated sites are truly objective on this. Most take sides, blatantly or not.
With that in mind, I googled the website name and came up with this: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/ . Hatchet job or reasonable objection?
Edit: and for what it's worth - I believe that footprint is unlikely to be Guede's and is much more likely to be Solliceto's.
With that in mind, I googled the website name and came up with this: http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/ . Hatchet job or reasonable objection?
Edit: and for what it's worth - I believe that footprint is unlikely to be Guede's and is much more likely to be Solliceto's.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html
I know which foot it looks like to me, I know why there would be blood when a killer tries to get blood off himself as much as possible and I know why there would be blood all over the bathroom. I don't know why two forensic experts, able to hold down a woman, spray her blood all over them, physically hurt her, leave DNA all over her and clean it up meticulously would leave such stains in the bathroom......
The footprint looks absolutely nothing like Sollecito's, and looks exactly like Guede's, the guy who confessed to killing her.
It's also unclear which of the photo's are pre/post spraying with luminol/other chemicals so hard to know how visible these things were if she took a shower in there(Haven't read enough to know if she did or not).
But a wet stain on a bathmat is something that wouldn't really make me look twice, when wet/fresh it would likely be darker/water like, it wasn't just blood but a mix of blood and water. I've previously gone in the bathroom with a nosebleed got blood in the sync, gone sat down and then gone back in and found a bit of blood around. It's not insane to not instantly jump to "someone has been brutally murdered" if you find a little blood on a tap or bottom of the sink, though again it's unclear how visible these stains where when first in there. For instance when was the last time you checked the inside edge of the door as you went in to a room to check for anything, let alone blood? A wet footprint in a bathroom is insanely obviously out of place?
There were blood soaked towels in the apartment(unclear from reading if in bathroom, bedroom, elsewhere. Which doesn't really support the careful cleaning up and disposal of evidence by Knox/Sol, why would they leave the towels there but you know, take the knife away(police's story) and bleach stuff but leave the towels. What story that does support as well as Guede's bloody footprint(it's clear as day his), is that he took his shoe off and attempted to clean as much blood off himself as possible using towels/taking shoes off and wiping them. Not that I've ever covered up a murder i committed, but I'm fairly sure I'd focus on huge amounts of blood on the top of the shoe visible when walking around than the bottom.
I know which foot it looks like to me, I know why there would be blood when a killer tries to get blood off himself as much as possible and I know why there would be blood all over the bathroom. I don't know why two forensic experts, able to hold down a woman, spray her blood all over them, physically hurt her, leave DNA all over her and clean it up meticulously would leave such stains in the bathroom......
The footprint looks absolutely nothing like Sollecito's, and looks exactly like Guede's, the guy who confessed to killing her.
It's also unclear which of the photo's are pre/post spraying with luminol/other chemicals so hard to know how visible these things were if she took a shower in there(Haven't read enough to know if she did or not).
But a wet stain on a bathmat is something that wouldn't really make me look twice, when wet/fresh it would likely be darker/water like, it wasn't just blood but a mix of blood and water. I've previously gone in the bathroom with a nosebleed got blood in the sync, gone sat down and then gone back in and found a bit of blood around. It's not insane to not instantly jump to "someone has been brutally murdered" if you find a little blood on a tap or bottom of the sink, though again it's unclear how visible these stains where when first in there. For instance when was the last time you checked the inside edge of the door as you went in to a room to check for anything, let alone blood? A wet footprint in a bathroom is insanely obviously out of place?
There were blood soaked towels in the apartment(unclear from reading if in bathroom, bedroom, elsewhere. Which doesn't really support the careful cleaning up and disposal of evidence by Knox/Sol, why would they leave the towels there but you know, take the knife away(police's story) and bleach stuff but leave the towels. What story that does support as well as Guede's bloody footprint(it's clear as day his), is that he took his shoe off and attempted to clean as much blood off himself as possible using towels/taking shoes off and wiping them. Not that I've ever covered up a murder i committed, but I'm fairly sure I'd focus on huge amounts of blood on the top of the shoe visible when walking around than the bottom.
Last edited:
Unless someone here can get hold of the original DNA lab data (not the report, the data), and the complete chain of evidence, for each and every exhibit, then everything everyone here says about the DNA "evidence" is little more than guessing and heresay. Reading it in the papers does not make it true (the papers know less about forensic science than you do) and neither does reading it on a website.
More to the point, DNA evidence in a shared household can politely be described as "of limited use". Most objects would be hopelessly cross-contaminated by all the occupants, and even if they weren't, you couldn't prove it. One woman's DNA on another bra strap? Even if true, some more obvious explanations:
1) it was trodden on with bare feet while on the floor.
2) It was handled at some point before the crime by the "suspect".
3) The "suspect" borrowed it (for those here who still haven't met any women, they will share clothing, even intimate clothing).
And those are just the obvious ones. DNA evidence (even when true, and all of this is suspect) shows only contact, nothing else. That's usually direct contact, but not always - cross-contamination can occur, even if the Defence tend to overplay that hand. Particularly when a load of clueless coppers paw around a hot-ticket crime scene. And it's not just the Italians that mess up crime scenes.
More to the point, DNA evidence in a shared household can politely be described as "of limited use". Most objects would be hopelessly cross-contaminated by all the occupants, and even if they weren't, you couldn't prove it. One woman's DNA on another bra strap? Even if true, some more obvious explanations:
1) it was trodden on with bare feet while on the floor.
2) It was handled at some point before the crime by the "suspect".
3) The "suspect" borrowed it (for those here who still haven't met any women, they will share clothing, even intimate clothing).
And those are just the obvious ones. DNA evidence (even when true, and all of this is suspect) shows only contact, nothing else. That's usually direct contact, but not always - cross-contamination can occur, even if the Defence tend to overplay that hand. Particularly when a load of clueless coppers paw around a hot-ticket crime scene. And it's not just the Italians that mess up crime scenes.
Rafaelle Sollecito had spent hours in that apartment - cooking, playing guitar etc. Yes they found a cigarette butt and perhaps the disputed bra clasp that had his DNA on them.
It's not the lack of DNA, it's the lack of well, anything at all really.
Remember, most of the evidence was gathered while the investigators were building a case against Knox, Sollecito and the barman. The prosecutor prematurely (and idiotically) announced case closed. And then it turns out that they have positively identified Guede - massive inconvenience and cue face saving exercise.
Without arrogance of the investigators / prosecutors in those key couple of weeks I think we'd have a much clearer picture.
Edit: I see that the lastest judge is now under investigation for comments to the media. This is precisely the sort of thing that exasperates me about this case. It's not like the judge couldn't forsee there might be consequences: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26026872
Last edited:
Totally agree... everything on this case seems to be incredibly polarised... its frustrating to read articles, sites supporting one view or the other where so much spin is present. I'm still not saying Knoxx is definitely a killer its just that a lot of this thread seemed to be treating this as though it was completely obvious that she's innocent when it doesn't appear to be obvious either way so posting some of the evidence used against her is worthwhile IMO. I only took a closer look at this after the Harvard Law Professor made a statement that there was plenty of evidence against her and she could well have been found guilty in the US too. He's spent time reviewing the case, the evidence itself and so I thought it would be worth reading about it further rather than relying on press articles (unfortunately the sites presenting the evidence are biased to one side or the other). The Italian authorities haven't done themselves any favours however various things have been spun to the extent that you'd think everyone working for the police in Italy is an incompetent idiot and its some sort of third world country. There's also various lies about why Knoxx had to repeatedly change her story... supposed long interrogations etc.. poor innocent pretty girl in a foreign country...
That was the defence argument at the first appeal but the measurements don't fit... also I'm not sure where you are getting the other Guede footprints... the luminol, as far as I'm aware, shows footprints from Knoxx and Sollecito - regardless of the presence of blood or lack of it in the footprints it shows Guede was wearing shoes and Knoxx and Sollecito were going around in bare feet.
Perhaps Guede, if he was a lone killer, took a shower and hung about doing a partial clean up... it doesn't seem like the sort of thing a burglar who was distrurbed would do if they then murdered someone... also he had time to take a shower but still didn't steal anything from the flat. Perhaps Knoxx and Sollecito did tread in blood, though the lack of blood in the corridor is confusing... Frankly I think trying to come up with scenarios, motives etc.. for this case is futile - we'll never likely know who did what.
The lies from Knoxx and Sollecito, the police arriving unexpectedly potentially disturbing a cleanup, the seemingly fake break in, the DNA evidence (which obv the defence disputes or tries to explain away), footprint evidence, autopsy conclusion that there were multiple attackers, witness hearing multiple footsteps running from the villa that night does not look good at all.
I think you're confusing thing with those explanations as you seem to be under the impression it was Knoxx's DNA we're talking about - it was Sollecito's DNA and its unlikely he borrowed the bra.
It was in Kercher's room albeit only removed some 43 days later, her body was discovered behind a locked door and so far the defence has put forth a contamination argument, currently the court has rejected the argument. So regardless of the empty hand waving from the press and any arguments we can put back and forth here as armchair DNA 'experts' the court current has dismissed the DNA contamination argument.
Well that's my point - we know he's been to the apartment a few times yet his DNA was only found in two places... my point was that the lack of DNA from a person in a particular room seemingly doesn't say anything about whether that person has been in a room or not.
Yup, some aspects of the handling of this case are becoming farcical... on the one hand the idea that we tar all Italians as being incompetent idiots is rather silly on the other hand things like this and the dubious prosecutor from the first trial simply allows the press to spin those stories to paint exactly that picture.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
There is no footprint evidence, the luminol shows footprints... full stop, it's a house, people walk around barefoot in the house. The ONLY bare footprint that has any relevance to the case at all because is has Kercher's DNA in it, is one that matches Guede in every way possible except if you purposefully ignore what the footprint is showing and decide you want it to match Sollecito, that is what the police did.
Where is the other Guede footprint from, the only footprints of Sollecito and Guede aren't just in the house
The defence/prosecution took prints of their feet with which to match the ones in the house from.
The ones that match knox/sollecito are simple footprints in a carpet, nothing more or less, they have no blood and no dna, every house will have marginal impressions in carpets that will show up under spraying. The only incriminating one was the one in the bathroom, the police insisted it was Sollecito's, anyone with a pair of eyes can see it's Guede's, it really is that simple. It was yet another lie from the police.
You're incorrect saying the measurements don't fit, look at the site I linked. They measured what is very clearly a sticking out second imprint alongside the big toe. Look at the print of Sollecito's foot, the big toe comes to a point and his second toe doesn't sit anywhere near his big toe. Guede's is a even toe width and his second toe rests on the ground alongside the right tip of the big toe. The impression is clear as day two toes, the insane/incompetent/lying investigators measured the width across TWO toes and matched that width to Sollecito's big toe. The measurement is as said actually the big and second toe, and matches Guede's, as does the foot shape, the toe shape and makes sense in terms of what happened. Guede killed her, got blood on him, went into the bathroom to wash some of it off.....
The footprint in blood and water is absolutely Guede's.
AS for the DNA bra clasp, again, read up on it. The DNA matched SOME but NOT ALL off Sollecito's DNA strands, it had many peoples DNA on it.... the videos CLEARLY show investigators poking around various bits of the crime scene without changing gloves. There were no controls run for many of the DNA tests which makes it hard to prove no cross contamination in the lab itself. We know the bra clasp made contact with both investigators who are touching other things in the apartment, people who walked around an apartment with his DNA around other places in the apartment.
His DNA was only found in two places because they were only checking for DNA in relevant places. It makes no sense to test every single piece of DNA in the kitchen if nothing happened there and there is no reason to think Sollecito hadn't been in there.
Also the police did NOT arrive unexpectedly, and they did not disturb a clean up. This is nonsense. Sollecito phoned the police, simple as that, the other police showed up first for whatever reason I can't remember. They had a phone conversation where the other(non postal) police phoned them back because they couldn't find it and they gave them directions.
There was no clean up and no evidence of any clean up, there was no police showing up by surprise, they were called. Most of this is leaked to media info before the trial of which none is remotely true. A genuine and honest police force generally doesn't leak lies to discredit their main suspect in the media before a trial because they had nothing in the trial with which to actually prove any level of guilt.
Where is the other Guede footprint from, the only footprints of Sollecito and Guede aren't just in the house
The defence/prosecution took prints of their feet with which to match the ones in the house from.The ones that match knox/sollecito are simple footprints in a carpet, nothing more or less, they have no blood and no dna, every house will have marginal impressions in carpets that will show up under spraying. The only incriminating one was the one in the bathroom, the police insisted it was Sollecito's, anyone with a pair of eyes can see it's Guede's, it really is that simple. It was yet another lie from the police.
You're incorrect saying the measurements don't fit, look at the site I linked. They measured what is very clearly a sticking out second imprint alongside the big toe. Look at the print of Sollecito's foot, the big toe comes to a point and his second toe doesn't sit anywhere near his big toe. Guede's is a even toe width and his second toe rests on the ground alongside the right tip of the big toe. The impression is clear as day two toes, the insane/incompetent/lying investigators measured the width across TWO toes and matched that width to Sollecito's big toe. The measurement is as said actually the big and second toe, and matches Guede's, as does the foot shape, the toe shape and makes sense in terms of what happened. Guede killed her, got blood on him, went into the bathroom to wash some of it off.....
The footprint in blood and water is absolutely Guede's.
AS for the DNA bra clasp, again, read up on it. The DNA matched SOME but NOT ALL off Sollecito's DNA strands, it had many peoples DNA on it.... the videos CLEARLY show investigators poking around various bits of the crime scene without changing gloves. There were no controls run for many of the DNA tests which makes it hard to prove no cross contamination in the lab itself. We know the bra clasp made contact with both investigators who are touching other things in the apartment, people who walked around an apartment with his DNA around other places in the apartment.
His DNA was only found in two places because they were only checking for DNA in relevant places. It makes no sense to test every single piece of DNA in the kitchen if nothing happened there and there is no reason to think Sollecito hadn't been in there.
Also the police did NOT arrive unexpectedly, and they did not disturb a clean up. This is nonsense. Sollecito phoned the police, simple as that, the other police showed up first for whatever reason I can't remember. They had a phone conversation where the other(non postal) police phoned them back because they couldn't find it and they gave them directions.
There was no clean up and no evidence of any clean up, there was no police showing up by surprise, they were called. Most of this is leaked to media info before the trial of which none is remotely true. A genuine and honest police force generally doesn't leak lies to discredit their main suspect in the media before a trial because they had nothing in the trial with which to actually prove any level of guilt.
Last edited:
Given the complete polarisation of this case, people are discussing this here pretty amicably TBH! Should be applauded...
Daily Mirror was reporting yesterday that Rudy Guede is being given day release to do a history degree, as he's been a model prisoner.
Cue lengthy statement from his lawyer about how he saw someone that looked a bit like Sollecito running from the scene and Knox outside afterwards. Basically changed his story again and his best defence is someone else stabbed Meredith and when he realised she was dying he legged it, rather than call an ambulance.
Guede's original 30 year sentence (before it got reduced on appeal ) was the nearest thing this case has seen to justice.
Cue lengthy statement from his lawyer about how he saw someone that looked a bit like Sollecito running from the scene and Knox outside afterwards. Basically changed his story again and his best defence is someone else stabbed Meredith and when he realised she was dying he legged it, rather than call an ambulance.
Guede's original 30 year sentence (before it got reduced on appeal ) was the nearest thing this case has seen to justice.
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,188
I watched the BBC3 documentary on the case, and I think Knox and / or the boyfriend are guilty. However the Italian prosecutors made a right mess of it, and I don't think the admissible evidence is strong enough to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Right at the start of the documentary they said that two phones were found in a garden, and that triggered the first police visit - what were the details behind that?
Right at the start of the documentary they said that two phones were found in a garden, and that triggered the first police visit - what were the details behind that?