She had already said she was present at the scene, that wasn't in question. What she did wrong was originally state she wasn't there but that she
was instead at Sollecito's home.
She only changed her story after there was evidence that her story did not hold up.
She puts this down to a combination of exhaustion, after being questioned for hours, and police interrogation tactics.
It's not exhaustion tactics, she lied from the first time, her first statement was that she was not there but viewing a movie on a computer and
sleeping late at her boyfriend after police asked for the first time I don;t see where her first statement spells exhaustion, she was not even
arested at the time, it was the statement she gave police after police took noticed of the body. She lied, she did it.
That is circumstantial evidence and should not be put forward as the basis of a strong case. Which it wasn't.
It's not just circumstantial , if people place her there, and then police find the cleaning products in her home from the same shop then it's more
then cirumstantial. What you get from this is:
1 Your aliby does not hold up.
2 People saw you.
3 You got the products in your home.
This is called evidence that you were involved in the murderer of your room mate.
A bloody print on the bed linens conveys the shape of the actual murder weapon and the the knife in question "doesn't match an outline of the knife
on the bed."
Another knife may have been used to finish the job besidides the knife in question, this does not exclude the evidence.
That aside, it's not surprising that Knox's DNA would be on its handle; she prepared dinner with Sollecito in his apartment.
Then what is the victims DNA doing there?
As to whether the DNA on the tip belongs to Kercher, experts disagree.
It's not true, I was viewing CNN, it was her DNA on the blade, the only question was how strong the trace was.
Patrizia Stefanoni, a police forensics expert who testified in the pretrial hearing in May, suggested that it was Kercher's DNA on the tip of the
knife — and that the way the genetic material was positioned indicated the knife had probably been used to puncture the skin.
If you get puncture in the right place in the gland you can die with just a single push.
2 The victim was never in that apartment, the DNA could not get on that blade unless the knife was in that apartment where the victim lived, what
this means is that there is premeditation of the act.
3 Amanda lied and told investigators the victim cut her self but it turned out to be a lie because of contradictory statments from her boyfriedn and
But other experts who have analyzed the DNA evidence for the defense suggest that poor sample quality and possible contamination undermine the
accuracy of these results.
What contamination? The knife in question was not found in the victim's home, but in Amanda's boyfriend home. It was not of that place. The DNA was
not suppose to be there at all unless at the time of the crime the knife made a journy to the crime scene. Whatever you say it does not excuse facts
that the victim's DNA was not suppose to be on that blade at all, no matter what quantity, quality of dna, trace and so on. The only way to have this
is for the knife to travel at the crime scene.
If you have an explenation then answer how did DNA of the victim got on the blade if the victim was never at that location.
I really do think you have fallen victim to the media hype that surrounded this case. Remaining objective is imperative.
All you statments are missinformed.
The evidence really isn't as strong as some would suggest.
I would say that it is.
[edit on 13-12-2009 by pepsi78]