captcorajus

Braz, WHAT initial evidence against them???

-1

0

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

No, I'm not saying that at all!

You are assuming that the assertion of staging is true and there are no alternate explanations... so no.

Here is a neat little compilation I found prepared by "Friend of Amanda" that summarizes the important points nicely. It's easy reading and worth a look

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/files/amanda_knox_case_summary.pdf

2

0

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

captcorajus16y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

I apologize, you are correct... I was inferring reasonable suspicion. Conclusively implies 100% certainty and that's hardly ever possible in any case.

I can say that I am 95% sure, Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with this crime base on the evidence presented. I can say I am 95% sure that Guede Killed Meredith Kercher.

To get an idea of how warped this investigation has been, let's look at a statement from trial judge Judge Paolo Micheli who discounted the "lone wolf" theory and how he arrived at his conclusion:

“I took the opposite approach to that of the defence teams. The lawyers claimed that there was no proof of conspiracy... (read more)

3

0

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

captcorajus16y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Sorry Braz, but that's still Interpretative Observation. The staging/ alteration itself is open to interpretation 1) at trial the defense presented a very viable argument as to why the scene was NOT staged (Filomena had unsupervised access to her room to retrieve some personal items and may have moved things. There's more to it, but I can't specifically remember and I'm too tired to go hunting for links.). and 2) You still must somehow connect Knox and Sollecito to the staging (if such staging actually occurred... which you can't conclusively prove either).

Objective level facts of Guede:

I can conclusively prove that Guede had sexual contact on the night of the murder, he was there, and Kercher bled extensively in his presence.

Good night Braz.

1

0

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

captcorajus16y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

I'm sorry Brazl, but now you're just reaching and I'm going to have to call you out on it. No offense. For your argument to have weight it must be based in facts.

My original argument was that had the investigators followed the facts, Knox and Sollecito would not have been (let me add the word "viable" here for clarification) suspects. Your arguments have done nothing to undermine that assertion. If anything, they've only strengthened them, for you have yet to name ONE objective level fact to tie them to the crime.

Even in a circumstantial case, you still need facts to support it.

2

0

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

captcorajus16y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Exactly, and were Knox and Sollecito the only two people charged in this case you MIGHT have a case (a very poor one).

However, to compound the problem even more, you have another suspect for whom the evidence is overwhelming.

The evidence against Guede is so geometrically out of proportion than that against Knox and Sollecito that it defies logic.

How can that be, if these three people participated in this crime?

The only logical answer is very simply... it can't.

3

0

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

captcorajus16y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Is it ok if I give you six?

interpretive observations:

(1) A room in the crime scene apartment has been ransacked but no valuables (which were in plain view) were taken;

(2) A window in that same room has been broken with marks suggesting it was broken from the inside;

(3) the same window is on the second floor and can be seen from the street. Further, there is no obvious reason why a burglar would need to get in through an upper floor;

(4) Bloodstains indicate that the victim died with her bra on and the bra was removed a few hours later; and * (This was the opinion of a judge. A Forensic scientist for... (read more)

3

0

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

captcorajus16y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

My arguments have remained consistent. You are the one that keeps inserting interpretative observations into this discussion rather than sticking with the objective level facts.

2

0

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

captcorajus16y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

Ah, but you are under the FALSE assumption that their stories should match or even be cohesive! Investigators will tell you that people's recollections of same events, especially when they are under pressure often vary widely.

Eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable type. Thus, if their stories matched, that may indicate a rehearsal before hand. If they had been involved in the killing do you not think they would have tried to get their story straight? They had 5 days to talk about it.

Thus, in reality, this points more to a lack of guilt that an indicator of it. Here's a fun read:

http://truthinjustice.org/untrueconfession.htm

Anyone with a cursory knowledge of police interrogation techniques knows... (read more)

3

0

Replying toThe Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

captcorajus16y

The Amanda Knox Test: How an Hour on the Internet Beats a Year in the Courtroom

The problem is there is no "subsequent evidence!!" Behavior is not evidence. You must prove that the accused were involved in a crime. Otherwise, lets burn witches.

Footprints in blood? No. Luminol reveal no blood, so footprints in the hallway of a person who lived there means nothing. Likewise, Knox's DNA mixed in droplets of Kercher's blood in the bathroom that they shared is hardly startling. DNA of people who cohabitate mixes all the time whether or not a crime is committed.

There are only TWO pieces of evidence that are said to connect Sollecito and Knox to this crime. The knife and the Bra clasp. An independent report done by the innocence project who directly examined the tester's reports clearly show this "evidence" is hardly proof of anything.

Some wonderful links, that include actual crime scene video shot by investigators and the DNA report compiled by the Innocence Project:

http://vvoice.vo.llnwd.net/e16/4193542.0.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHleYhBJy8k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLE4s3jXTVU&feature=player_embedded

http://www.thewrap.com/blog-entry/2354

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n71ZJPBq8uk&feature=player_embedded#

And a link that was requested by Braz:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523400,00.html