Amanda Knox (26 years in prison) and Sollecito (25 years) guilty of Meredith Kercher murder

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by DrHammondStoat

 

we all know guede was there he raped the victim. hes been sentenced to 30 years in jail. He's not been ignored.

The point I was trying to make is that police let him off various crimes before the murder and they knew he liked to walk around carrying a large kitchen knife. Why would they do this? They left this drug dealer and rumoured informant free to carry on with his 'business'. He was involved in all kinds of murky stuff and so it would seem the Italian police are too.

30 years for murderer is nothing. She will get out when she is 50 years plus, but that is maximum in Italy. She is a damn liar, lied about everything, about where she was at the time of the crime, lied and tried to put the blame on someone ese to get away with it, this shows she did not care at all. Changed her story over and over again. Lied and said that the barternder killed her.

Her footprints all over the pilow.
Victim dna on her bra.
Going shopping and cleaning up after she cut her throat.

And she screams, I did not do it, I'm just a small cute american girl so I did not do it. It's disgusting.

reply to post by pepsi78


1. No, there was a single shoe print on the pillow. And one that was so unclear that according to forensics it could have been up to 2 sizes either way from amanda's shoe size. Oh and it wasnt a shoe she owned either.

As for the other footprints that allegedly belonged to amanda... none of them were actually tested to confirm whether the footprints were blood. Amanda's dna was detected on a couple of footprints, all of which were in her own room. The others yielded no dna whatsoever. Which is quite interesting because meredith's DNA wasnt found to be on these footprints either. Which there should be if the stains were blood.

Plus, once again there's conflicting reports (there's some seriously BAD journalists out there), but apparantly it wasnt confirmed that the mixed DNA included amanda's blood.


2. Sollecito's DNA was on a bra clasp. The bra clasp in question wasnt even picked up for around 45 days after the murder. Thus leaving it open to being contaminated.
Ive not seen it myself but apparantly there's some crime program where the clasp is in the background and throughout the show it changes it location & becomes dirty.

3. If she was innocent then what else would you be expecting her to do in her spare time?

But with regards to the clean up.. the only place bleach was used was in sollecito's flat. Now that would say to me that they purchased it believing that it would get rid of all the evidence. They were that paranoid that they went to the lengths of cleaning sollecito's flat with it as well.
Wouldnt sollecito's flat be the last place they need to worry about cleaning up seeing as the murder didnt occur there?
If bleach had been used at the cottage then there would have been residual bleach. Which as mentioned earlier on in the thread, can be a catalyst for luminol i.e. the place should light up like a christmas tree. And seeing as the bleach could only have been used between the hours of 830 and 12, its odd that an odour of bleach was noted by the police in sollecito's flat.. but not the cottage.
So no bleach detected in the cottage.. seems odd that blood stains were left & various other bit of evidence in merediths room and other places in the cottage, yet sollecito's flat was given a good clean.

1. No, there was a single shoe print on the pillow. And one that was so unclear that according to forensics it could have been up to 2 sizes either way from amanda's shoe size. Oh and it wasnt a shoe she owned either.

You are distorting the facts, the foot print did match the size of amanda's foot, but there was no clear patern of the footprint.

Plus, once again there's conflicting reports (there's some seriously BAD journalists out there), but apparantly it wasnt confirmed that the mixed DNA included amanda's blood.

One
A knife that did not belong to amanda from another place had her
dna on the handle and dna on the blade of the victim.

Two
Amanda lied and told police that her roomate cut her self accidetly with the knife, but the knife was not even in the house at the aleged time, because it was from another house.

2. Sollecito's DNA was on a bra clasp. The bra clasp in question wasnt even picked up for around 45 days after the murder. Thus leaving it open to being contaminated.

How can it be contaminated if it was her bra, adn contaminated by who?

1
Once you get the body out of the apartament and you bleach the hole apartament how can you get contaminated if the victim is no longer there?
How do you get someones DNA on you if that person is no longer there.

2
45 days is a long time not to clean your bra, what this indicates is that the bra was left somewhere in the laundry basket without use the whole time, If dna of the victim was still found on it. Poor Amanda did not wash her bra, she forgot to bleach it so the cops found DNA on the bra.

3. If she was innocent then what else would you be expecting her to do in her spare time?

Not write about fantasies related to murderer that is for sure.

Dna is not the only factor that will incriminate a person.

People placed her near the place at the time, she lied and told police she was somewhere else.

She lied and tried to blame it on an incocent man, that should tell you something, should tell you how this person is. Sort of bitch that does not care at all for anyone, for who gets the blame as log as she is off the hook.


Any inocent girl will get scared and tell it like it is when her life and future is on the line but Amanda lied. You do not play with this kind of stuff unless you are behind it, doing it and that is what she did.

Above all there are too many circumstaces.

1
The knife had amanda's and the victims dna on the handle and on the blade and the knife was not from that place.

2
She lied over and over, even tried to blame an inocent man.

3
When police came to return the phones they found her using cleaning products right after the murderer. But what is more incriminating is that the store owner or what ever she was from the store told the police she saw her in the store buying cleaning products, placing her in the store at that time right after her roomate died.She told police she looked scared and pale. What are you doing in a store buying cleaning products if you have a corpse in your house and police does not know of it yet?

4
Another person placed her at the time of the crime close near to the location. She lied and told police she was somewhere else.


All this factors spell guilty, there is no other outcome, but I'll tell you something, she is lucky. If she was in United States they would of gone for the capital punishment, because she knew what she did and tried to cover this up.







[edit on 11-12-2009 by pepsi78]

Originally posted by pepsi78
1
Once you get the body out of the apartament and you bleach the hole apartament how can you get contaminated if the victim is no longer there?
How do you get someones DNA on you if that person is no longer there.

2
45 days is a long time not to clean your bra, what this indicates is that the bra was left somewhere in the laundry basket without use the whole time, If dna of the victim was still found on it. Poor Amanda did not wash her bra, she forgot to bleach it so the cops found DNA on the bra.

Just from this, I'm not sure how credible any of your other "facts" are. It wasn't Knox's bra clasp, it was Kercher's. And it had Sollecito's DNA on it, nothing was even there to indicate Knox had anything to do with the bra or clasp.

You need to do some more research into the case, clearly.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by Highground]

nothing was even there to indicate Knox had anything to do with the bra or clasp.


[edit on 12-12-2009 by Highground]

Except for the knife of course and the people that place her there at that time. Let's see if I got the rest of the facts straight.



abcnews.go.com...

A few days earlier, the owner of a supermarket in the area said in court that Knox had been in his store at 7:45 a.m., looking at cleaning products. Knox had previously said she had been asleep in Sollecito's apartment at that time. The owner said he did not remember if she bought anything. Police have previously said that they found a receipt for cleaning products from the same store in Sollecito's home and that they believe bleach and other products were used to clean up the murder weapon and the murder scene.The Telegraph: A new hole appears in Amanda Knox's alibi (March 21, 2009)15

Wait, so you have a corpse in your home and you go out to buy cleaning products at 7:45 in the morning "after sleeping late at your boyfriend, basicly telling a lie to the police that you were not there, you slept late over at your boyfriend.

You got two incriminating factors here.
One - you lie to the police.
Two - you buy cleaning products at 7:45 right after the murderer right near your place down the block.

Originally posted by pepsi78

nothing was even there to indicate Knox had anything to do with the bra or clasp.


[edit on 12-12-2009 by Highground]

Except for the knife of course and the people that place her there at that time. Let's see if I got the rest of the facts straight.



abcnews.go.com...

A few days earlier, the owner of a supermarket in the area said in court that Knox had been in his store at 7:45 a.m., looking at cleaning products. Knox had previously said she had been asleep in Sollecito's apartment at that time. The owner said he did not remember if she bought anything. Police have previously said that they found a receipt for cleaning products from the same store in Sollecito's home and that they believe bleach and other products were used to clean up the murder weapon and the murder scene.The Telegraph: A new hole appears in Amanda Knox's alibi (March 21, 2009)15

Wait, so you have a corpse in your home and you go out to buy cleaning products at 7:45 in the morning "after sleeping late at your boyfriend, basicly telling a lie to the police that you were not there, you slept late over at your boyfriend.

You got two incriminating factors here.
One - you lie to the police.
Two - you buy cleaning products at 7:45 right after the murderer right near your place down the block.

And none of this detracts from what I said.

There is no evidence indicating that Knox had anything to do with the bra or clasp. While that is a nice strawman argument you concocted, it does not refute my claim. Good day.

Originally posted by pepsi78

2. Sollecito's DNA was on a bra clasp. The bra clasp in question wasn't even picked up for around 45 days after the murder. Thus leaving it open to being contaminated.

How can it be contaminated if it was her bra, adn contaminated by who?

It was left at the house after the initial investigation. 45 days means allot of people could have contaminated it before it was secure. Several investigators are seen on camera picking it up and putting it back down in different location. They picked it up with gloves after handling other items without changing gloves therefore opened up the possibility of cross contamination. Good investigators would change gloves after every item is picked up and then inventoried. Otherwise DNA evidence is useless.

The other factor is Sollecito did both of the woman's laundry. Thus his DNA could of transferred onto the bra buckle while he folded the laundry.

DNA evidence is only relevant when somebody's DNA is not supposed to be at a crime scene. Amanda's and her boyfriends DNA should be where she lives and where he has visited. I bet her finger prints are on the door knob too, big friggin deal - they are supposed to be. Duh.

The idea that if their DNA is there they must be guilty of a crime is just plain stupid.

Bottom line - the tapes of the evidence collection is available to see and professionals have pointed out numerous errors in that collection which renders the results scientifically null and void.

Amanda was convicted not on evidence, but on character assassination by both the prosecutor and the British & Italian press.

The forensic evidence points to the black man from the Ivory Coast and him alone. Amanda was convicted because she is naive, made some stupid statements including her face book page, she was too promiscuous for the Italian press & jury and she falsely believed that if your innocent you won't be set up by police or be convicted.

The only thing Amanda is guilty of is being naive about the police and the world in general.


[edit on 12-12-2009 by verylowfrequency]

Originally posted by pepsi78
30 years for murderer is nothing. She will get out when she is 50 years plus, but that is maximum in Italy. She is a damn liar, lied about everything, about where she was at the time of the crime, lied and tried to put the blame on someone ese to get away with it, this shows she did not care at all. Changed her story over and over again. Lied and said that the barternder killed her.

Her footprints all over the pilow.
Victim dna on her bra.
Going shopping and cleaning up after she cut her throat.

And she screams, I did not do it, I'm just a small cute american girl so I did not do it. It's disgusting.

It is, it is.
American media again doing a good job at brainwashing, well her family and friends certainly helped.

reply to post by Bluebelle

And one that was so unclear that according to forensics it could have been up to 2 sizes either way from amanda's shoe size. Oh and it wasnt a shoe she owned either.

the shoe was between a 36-38. Doesnt match Guedes,kerchers or sols. Knox is a 37, what a coincidence. And its really hard to throw a pair of shoes away of course

knox claimed she tried kerchers door but found it to be locked. No prints of knoxs or guedes were found on the handle but solls were. Looks like another lie and would seem soll was the one who locked the door after the murder.

Knoxs prints were found only in one place in the whole villa. On a glass in the kitchen. No prints of hers not even in her own room!. Did someone say cleanup?

its a coincidence they lied to their roomate & the postal police that they had called the police when they hadnt.

Its a coincidence they both switch their cell phones off shortly before the murder.

Solls dad phoned his landline at 9:30pm there was no answer and left a message which wasnt returned until 12:30pm the next day. If only soll had answered the phone he would have a cast iron alibi. Except he didnt. Another coincidence.

Its coincidence they said they couldnt remember the events of the night becuase they had a few joints. When everyone knows cannabis doesnt have that effect.

Its a coincidence knox knew details of the murder without being told them by the police.

and of course all the dna & partially cleaned up footprints are all coincidence too.

Thats right these 2 are just the unluckiest people in the world. This array of coincidences on the night their flatmate is murdered. Amazing but we should really just let them go maybe pay them compensation for the trouble.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by yeti101


You want to argue about evidence? Then present the facts not something you read in the paper/internet or heard on television.

I haven't heard anything about the shoe print itself (the tread marks) - why is that is it because it is smeared? Without the tread marks the print could be from any shoe & multiple sizes.

So, tell me have you ever stepped in paint and then left a print? I have and you know what. Everytime I've done it I've never had my entire shoe in the paint, so I only get a portion of my shoe print left where I walk. So, by your method snce I wear a size 12 shoe and if only 2/3 of my shoe is covered in blood/paint then the shoe must be a size 8 because that's the size of the print I left. Then there's the other possibility that the shoe slid which would make a smaller shoe larger or a partially covered shoe a different size all together. Another words without a tread match, shoe size is just speculation.

I've heard there isn't a tread match? I could of been mislead, but it's not the crux of my argument here. It is your argument, so provide the evidence so we can actually see the tread that you claim matches. If you don't have it then you're just repeating what you've heard - an empty argument.

Come on Yeti, admit it you've been watching too much television and that's where your opinion comes from.

The FACT is they don't have a good shoe print with tread- otherwise the entire sole would match including the tread, they don't have the tread, they only have a smear which means it's a partial print and inconclusive as to who's shoe the print belongs to.

Curious can you or somebody point/link to a picture of the print and the supposed shoe that matches the print. You'd think if it was indeed a good match that it would be all over the place.

So, instead of the the speculation driven by media and people with an agenda. Lets see the actual evidence. Otherwise arguing about something we cannot see is just nothing but speculation. Speculation is not evidence to convict somebody of murder.

Thus provide the evidence or quit using it as your argument. You or the media or the prosecution saying it's a match without presenting it here is not a valid argument.

Your argument is empty without at least a picture of the evidence and a picture of the supposed shoe.

Put it up and then we'll can look at it and have a valid argument - otherwise it's meaningless if your going to use it in as evidence backing up your point of view.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by verylowfrequency]

reply to post by verylowfrequency


actually all the points I raised are taken from the prosecution evidence presented in court.

The bloody footprint in filomenas room matched knoxs, knox claimed she never went in that room. Looks like knox was the one who smashed the window & staged the breakin

now all you have to do is explain all the coincidences & lies by the defendants to make a jury think theyre not guilty. Thats the exact same evidence that will get you convicted in a UK or US court.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by yeti101


That's exactly what I thought. Your argument is empty, because you have not seen the evidence. All your doing is repeating what you've heard on the media. The prosecution makes a lot of claims that's their job.

Your claiming a piece of evidence was valid. I just blew your argument out of the water.

In this case you come here and argue that the shoe print is valid evidence and yet now you admit your just repeating what you've heard the prosecution says.

Clearly you don't have a clue about what goes on in a courtroom, my friend. The Prosecution always makes claims against the defendant.

What you are doing is coming to this website and claiming that the show print is a valid match and you don't even have a clue whether it is or not.

Quit making claims about evidence, when you don't have a clue as to what that evidence is. Otherwise you're just a parrot repeating what you've heard somewhere.

Coincidences mean nothing and you don't have a clue as your argument is empty - just as I expected.


[edit on 12-12-2009 by verylowfrequency]

reply to post by verylowfrequency


well when you have 3 expert witnesses, 2 of them idependent claim something under oath in court i tend to believe it and so does a jury.

But all those independent expert witnesses are corrupt of course

now all you have to do is explain all the coincidences & lies by the defendants to make a jury think theyre not guilty. Thats the exact same evidence that will get you convicted in a UK or US court.


[edit on 12-12-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by yeti101


Again - that's fine if you want to make commentary about the results of the case, but if you're going to come here and make claims about evidence and use it in your argument as to why you say somebody is guilty then at least make the effort to know what your talking about.

The fact is you don't have a clue about the evidence like most TV babies, you're just repeating what you've heard in the media and you've refused to actually argue the evidence with me. I was more than willing to look at your perspective, I'm perplexed that you have nothing to present.

Again, if all your going to do is parrot the media - than you might as well just cut and past their story instead of coming here claiming you know something about the case as if you did some actual research.

The fact is you don't know dick, but you represent yourself as if you do.

Don't make claims about people on websites when you don't have a clue what your talking about and have no intention of doing any research about the subject. Good day.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by verylowfrequency]

reply to post by verylowfrequency


what makes you think your qualified to contest forensic evidence against 3 experts? Blimey! the defense missed a trick not flying you over to take the stand. You could have blown them out the water im sure

also you seem confused as to what constitutes evidence. The lies & other circumstantial evidence are also part of the case. Sorry but a jury doesnt ignore it or say it means nothing. It means alot especially when theres been a murder. The same as in any court in the US or UK.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by yeti101]

reply to post by pepsi78


Yea like the other guy said, you need to do some more research. There's a hell of alot of conflicting reports and details that have materialised from nowhere in some stories. Its impossible to make any sort of judgement if you've just read one or two articles... especially from abc news etc.

reply to post by yeti101


Have you come across any info stating what meredith's shoe size actually was? All it seems to say everywhere is that it was incompatible.
And as with most other details in the case, there's conflicting reports... some sources say it was the exact same size, some say 1 size either way and some say 2.
But assuming the confusion over what particular size this print was is true.. nothing can be proved. Just read somewhere that the defence argued it could have been a crease in a blood stain, and when they requested an independent analysis of the print it was refused.
No its not impossible to throw a pair of shoes away, but then why wasnt anything else disposed of.. such as the knife, and sollecito's trainers?

I wouldnt like to speculate on how much DNA is usually found in a place where someone lives. All I know is that it isnt unusual to find DNA of the person living there, and that there was no evidence of a clean up.
Oh and amanda's footprints were found in her room, which were confirmed to be hers from the DNA extracted. Yet none of the other footprints allegedly belonging to her had her DNA on them.

Thats another thing actually, the other two flatmates footprints/shoe sizes arent mentioned anywhere. Seems like they havent been ruled out of having anything to do with the footprints.

As for the police being called, yet another part of the story which has conflicting reports, so cant make a judgement on that really.
The cell phone's being turned off.. the reasons they gave dont sound unusual, but coupled with what happened I can see how that looks dodgy. Although it cant really be deemed to have been unusual behaviour for them since they had only been together one/two weeks.

Everyone knows cannabis doesnt effect the memory? Im not exactly an expert on the stuff, but I was under the impression that short term memory loss was quite a well known effect. And a quick search on google has confirmed that. Plenty of links on there to articles about the effect it can have on short term memory.

and that there was no evidence of a clean up.

except the partially cleaned up footrpints in the hall & filomenas room. Also the fact no prints of knoxs were found apart from on 1 glass in the kitchen. No prints of knoxs found in her own room. Sounds like someones been cleaning... Also a new mop & bucket found with water in it under the sink.

Seems like they havent been ruled out of having anything to do with the footprints.

it was demonstrated in court using a giant projector with photos of the crime scene, ,matching points to the millimeter with foot prints taken from knox/soll at the police station. The same method was used to show why they were not gueds or kerchers. Followed by 2 more expert witnesses to say the same thing.

As for the police being called, yet another part of the story which has conflicting reports, so cant make a judgement on that really.

the telephone company records are not subject to judgement they are facts. Electronically recorded facts.

Everyone knows cannabis doesnt effect the memory? Im not exactly an expert on the stuff, but I was under the impression that short term memory loss was quite a well known effect. And a quick search on google has confirmed that. Plenty of links on there to articles about the effect it can have on short term memory.

well this is where your going to have to defer to my expertise. Short term memory loss would be like someone giving you a phone number then not being able to recall it. Chunks of the whole night dont disapear from your memory banks. trust me




[edit on 12-12-2009 by yeti101]

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by Bluebelle

 

And one that was so unclear that according to forensics it could have been up to 2 sizes either way from amanda's shoe size. Oh and it wasnt a shoe she owned either.

the shoe was between a 36-38. Doesnt match Guedes,kerchers or sols. Knox is a 37, what a coincidence. And its really hard to throw a pair of shoes away of course

That's exactly what I was thinking. So, she didn't "own" a pair of those shoes. Gee, hmmmm, trash can,burning, ditch out in the woods...I am sure I could think of a couple of thousand of other ways to get rid of a pair of shoes.

Originally posted by yeti101
except the partially cleaned up footrpints in the hall & filomenas room. Also the fact no prints of knoxs were found apart from on 1 glass in the kitchen. No prints of knoxs found in her own room. Sounds like someones been cleaning... Also a new mop & bucket found with water in it under the sink.

Where's the cleaning substance? Its been alleged that they used bleach to do the cleaning... It was certainly used to clean sollecito's flat. But zero evidence to show bleach was used anywhere near the crime scene.
A mop & bucket with water in it. Apparantly used to clean up a water leak.
If you're suggesting that this was used to clean something else up then why is there no trace of blood or anything else on said mop & bucket?

it was demonstrated in court using a giant projector with photos of the crime scene, ,matching points to the millimeter with foot prints taken from knox/soll at the police station. The same method was used to show why they were not gueds or kerchers. Followed by 2 more expert witnesses to say the same thing.

As no in depth analysis was performed on the luminol footprints, there's nothing to say that those particular footprints were out of place if they belonged to sollecito or knox.
Ive tried to stick to the most neutral presentations of the case, but this particular site allows you to see a comparison of the two footprints with the partial footprint found on the bathmat. Aside from that it was disputed that this was definately sollecito's footprint, it shows the prosecution were using pretty poor evidence.

www.friendsofamanda.org...

the telephone company records are not subject to judgement they are facts. Electronically recorded facts.

I dont doubt that they do have 'electronically recorded facts'. I meant with regards to the actual time being reported differently in the media & whether it was actually such a significant gap in times.
And something interesting from the pro-amanda website, Ive not seen this mentioned anywhere else but seeing as what they have stated in the 'case summary' section is presented in a logical manner it might be worth a mention. Scroll down to number 8...

www.friendsofamanda.org...

Because its one of the site's that is dedicated purely to a particular side of the argument Im a little doubtful as to whether thats true... but its a claim that doesnt seem to have been contested by the 'other side', and if true it would fit in with knox & sollecito's account of the police arriving later than they said.

well this is where your going to have to defer to my expertise. Short term memory loss would be like someone giving you a phone number then not being able to recall it. Chunks of the whole night dont disapear from your memory banks. trust me

If you dont mind me asking, what is your expertise on this subject?
Where did whole chunks of her memory disappear? They didnt just blank out the whole night... but if you can show me something that says it definately cant have effected them to the extent that details of the previous night were fuzzy then please do.