I was unfamiliar with the case. After checking out both links for quite some time, but prior to reading the comments, I estimated:
80% (Knox)
60% (Sollecito)
95% (Guede)
90% (confidence in coincidence)
After reading the comments, I was a little surprised that the consensus seems to be decidedly against Knox’s guilt. The simplest explanation is that I’m just not a very good rationalist, but I don’t find that very satisfying. The four parts of the story that I felt were inconsistent with Knox being innocent were:
Knox’s initial account of the night. I tend to believe confessions; it’s a weakness of mine. With the exception of the wrong black man being implicated, I think the major thrust of it was true. Complete innocence would mean that the entire account was made up, which seems hard to believe, even if under heavy police questioning.
The bra was removed after Kercher’s death. Would Guede have done that? I think that evidence is much more consistent with someone cleaning up after the fact.
The body was covered. This is inconsistent with the actions of a rapist/murderer, but very much what you would expect of someone who had a close relationship with the deceased.
Knox did not flush the toilet. She says that she noticed that the toilet contained a deposit, yet she walked away without flushing. Why?
I’m not sure what role Knox had in Kurcher’s murder, but I feel very confident that she (and likely, but not necessarily, Sollecito) knew about the murder long before the police were called, and moved to cover it up. I can’t see that as anything other than a sign of guilt, unless my understanding of the evidence itself is wrong (which is certainly possible). I can understand if some feel the need for the motive to make sense to find in favor of guilt, but according to Knox’s initial account, she was stoned at the time—which lowers my personal threshold for the expectation of rational action.
The body was covered. This is inconsistent with the actions of a rapist/murderer, but very much what you would expect of someone who had a close relationship with the deceased.
I find the above incredible. I’d give it almost no weight.
1.What I gathered was that the police saw Knox’s text message to the bartender and then coerced a confession involving him. The fact that they got this confession when there is no way it could have been him suggests to me that much of the confession could be totally fabricated. For that matter, why would Knox name the wrong accomplice if they knew they didn’t cover up Guede’s presence at the crime scene?
One of my problems with the supposed cover-up is that if S and K were intoxicated during the crime and likely during the cover-up they A) wouldn’t have been able to distinguish between evidence implicating them and evidence implicating Guede and B) wouldn’t have been nearly as successful covering up physical evidence as they apparently were.
Perhaps Guede liked her and felt guilty. Part of the suspicion re: Knox was that she was insensitive after the fact. But this would be inconsistent with her covering up the body.
Knox was almost certainly seriously hung-over and not in the mood to go near fecal matter. Also, her roommates testified that she didn’t do a lot to keep the place clean in general. I’m also not sure how not flushing suggests guilt.
Marijuana does not undermine rationality to that extent. Reefer madness PSAs considerably overstated that :-)
I have to generally agree with you (and I’m also surprised that the majority here seems to believe in K+S’s innocence.
The other piece that seems strange is why Kurcher’s clothing was in the wash that morning. Just seems like something strange to do… a generally messy person doesn’t wash someone else’s clothing the morning after partying. Who else might have run the washer otherwise?
It’s questionable exactly how involved Knox and Sollecito were, but I don’t believe that they are completely innocent.
I was unfamiliar with the case but spend about 2 hours reading the two provided links.
My understanding was that the clothes washing was a rumor and never used as evidence. That said I find the amount of misinformation surrounding the case incredible problematic.
I was unfamiliar with the case. After checking out both links for quite some time, but prior to reading the comments, I estimated:
80% (Knox)
60% (Sollecito)
95% (Guede)
90% (confidence in coincidence)
After reading the comments, I was a little surprised that the consensus seems to be decidedly against Knox’s guilt. The simplest explanation is that I’m just not a very good rationalist, but I don’t find that very satisfying. The four parts of the story that I felt were inconsistent with Knox being innocent were:
Knox’s initial account of the night. I tend to believe confessions; it’s a weakness of mine. With the exception of the wrong black man being implicated, I think the major thrust of it was true. Complete innocence would mean that the entire account was made up, which seems hard to believe, even if under heavy police questioning.
The bra was removed after Kercher’s death. Would Guede have done that? I think that evidence is much more consistent with someone cleaning up after the fact.
The body was covered. This is inconsistent with the actions of a rapist/murderer, but very much what you would expect of someone who had a close relationship with the deceased.
Knox did not flush the toilet. She says that she noticed that the toilet contained a deposit, yet she walked away without flushing. Why?
I’m not sure what role Knox had in Kurcher’s murder, but I feel very confident that she (and likely, but not necessarily, Sollecito) knew about the murder long before the police were called, and moved to cover it up. I can’t see that as anything other than a sign of guilt, unless my understanding of the evidence itself is wrong (which is certainly possible). I can understand if some feel the need for the motive to make sense to find in favor of guilt, but according to Knox’s initial account, she was stoned at the time—which lowers my personal threshold for the expectation of rational action.
I find the above incredible. I’d give it almost no weight.
1.What I gathered was that the police saw Knox’s text message to the bartender and then coerced a confession involving him. The fact that they got this confession when there is no way it could have been him suggests to me that much of the confession could be totally fabricated. For that matter, why would Knox name the wrong accomplice if they knew they didn’t cover up Guede’s presence at the crime scene?
One of my problems with the supposed cover-up is that if S and K were intoxicated during the crime and likely during the cover-up they A) wouldn’t have been able to distinguish between evidence implicating them and evidence implicating Guede and B) wouldn’t have been nearly as successful covering up physical evidence as they apparently were.
Perhaps Guede liked her and felt guilty. Part of the suspicion re: Knox was that she was insensitive after the fact. But this would be inconsistent with her covering up the body.
Knox was almost certainly seriously hung-over and not in the mood to go near fecal matter. Also, her roommates testified that she didn’t do a lot to keep the place clean in general. I’m also not sure how not flushing suggests guilt.
Marijuana does not undermine rationality to that extent. Reefer madness PSAs considerably overstated that :-)
I have to generally agree with you (and I’m also surprised that the majority here seems to believe in K+S’s innocence.
The other piece that seems strange is why Kurcher’s clothing was in the wash that morning. Just seems like something strange to do… a generally messy person doesn’t wash someone else’s clothing the morning after partying. Who else might have run the washer otherwise?
It’s questionable exactly how involved Knox and Sollecito were, but I don’t believe that they are completely innocent.
I was unfamiliar with the case but spend about 2 hours reading the two provided links.
My understanding was that the clothes washing was a rumor and never used as evidence. That said I find the amount of misinformation surrounding the case incredible problematic.