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
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 between the three because they didn’t know each other and Kokomani’s testimony wasn’t reliable. They also said that it would have been impossible for them to have organised the crime since they had previous commitments which then fell through. My starting point was the three’s presence in the room where the crime was committed”
i.e. Let’s just forget about doubts that Knox and Sollecito knew Guede and were involved in a conspiracy, and just assume that’s true. WTF? Innocent until PROVEN guilty is suppose to be part of the Italian justice system, yes?
Begin with a flawed premise, you come to a flawed conclusion.
The judge further states that he discounts the contamination of the bra clasp because Sollecito had no reason to go into that room. Well, what about the three unknown people’s DNA on the bra clasp? Who are they?? They are not anyone connected to anyone with the flat as it was compared to all the tenants and their boyfriends. A lab tech’s maybe?
Knox and Sollecito are simply not viable suspects in this crime… at ANY point, and the evidence has been blatantly “shoe horned” to make them fit from the beginning. Under close scrutiny and logical thinking it just doesn’t make sense… from the beginning days of the investigation, to the closing arguments of the prosecutor who couldn’t settle on a theory of the crime.
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.
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.
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.
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 the defense later refuted this contention.)
(5) When the police arrived at the crime scene apartment, one of the victim’s flatmates was standing there with her boyfriend and with a mop and a bucket.
(6) inconsistent stories.
At the end of each of these ask yourself this… how does this connect Knox or Sollecito to the crime?
Objective level facts:
Guede’s DNA inside kercher
Guede’s Bloody fingerprints (with Meredith’s blood) on kersher’s pillow case
Guede’s feces in the toilet
Guede’s DNA in Kercher’s purse
Ask yourself this. How does this connect Guede to the crime?
See the difference?
I sell cars for a living. My BS detector is off the scale. ;)
The opinion of this case by another attorney (just for fun):
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.
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 its just one big “gotcha” game. Confusing the suspect, and undermining their understanding of their reality is basic to “breaking” a suspect. It’s a shame that we don’t have a video of the interrogation (as required by Italian law). So we only have the police version of events to go by as to what transpired. As you might guess, that doesn’t inspire me with a lot of confidence as to the veracity of their statements.
And, hey, while we’re on the subject of changing stories: the initial theory of the crime was a ritualistic rite to celebrate halloween, then it was a sex game gone bad, then it was an argument over Meredith’s missing rent money, then it was revenge on the “smug,” “prissy” girl, then it was “sometimes there is no reason.
Mignini changed his story more times than Amanda and Raffaele put together, but that doesn’t seem to bother a lot of people.
It really bothers me.
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:
Whether to suspect her or not isn’t the issue. By virtue of her being the victim’s roommate, the police should look at her. That’s CSI 101.
However, announcing that the case is closed, and that the murder was the result of a ritual sex game gone wrong before you’ve looked at the forensic evidence seem not only premature, but unprofessional. How can you even come up with such a theory on your interpretation of behavior alone? That says more about the observer than the observed, eh?
For example, much has been made about the “cartwheels” in the police station. Were you aware that Knox was a dancer and practiced yoga? Where you aware that she frequently used yoga positions to relieve stress? Where you aware on the night this was observed she had gone to the station with Sollecito who had himself been summoned by the police? She went voluntarily to the police station. That’s not the behavior of a guilty person. No one that knew her was surprised that while she was waiting she would do yoga stretches to relieve tension. Yet the police took this behavior as odd, and that she wasn’t properly grieving for her roommate, yet for Knox, this was normal. This is what I’m talking about… making premature assumptions with little corroborative evidence invariably heightens the odds of coming to the wrong conclusion.
I’m saying that the evidence they had on hand at the time does not add up to the conclusion they reached.
Here’s exactly how Knox arrived on the radar as a suspect. You tell me if this sounds right:
″...Edgardo Giobbi, a police forensic scientist, told the court in Perugia how during a search at the house just hours after the murder, he handed Knox a pair of shoe covers to prevent contaminating the evidence.
“As she put them on she swiveled her hips, pulled a face and said ‘hop la’ - I thought it was very unusual behavior and my suspicions against her were raised,” Mr. Giobbi told the court...”
My reaction to this statement was something along the lines of, “WTF?”
It is natural in ANY investigation to first look at the people who live at the house, but you can’t let that give you tunnel vision to the physical evidence around you.
Respectfully, it doesn’t matter. You’re missing the whole point… and I’m not trying to be flip. I apologize if it appears that way. Let’s play devil’s advocate and say there was unequivocal proof of staging/ alteration of the crime scene occurred. You must now prove that Knox or Sollecito were the ones that did it. Your suspicion that they did it is not evidence.I understand about “initially”, but in order to conduct the investigation you must start with the obvious and work from there. I find it very difficult to START my investigation with Knox as a suspect based on what was found initially.
The further away you move from the point of origin of the event, the less accurate your observations will be.
I’m saying that Kercher had $200 in cash and it was missing. Guede’s DNA was in her purse, and he needed money to flee the country. Thus, there is strong evidence of a robbery. Saying nothing was taken is simply ignoring the facts. Interpretation of staging is exactly that… interpretation. If you say it was staged, that helps support the prosecution’s version of the crime, but it does not support the totality of the physical evidence.
You can infer whatever you wish from the mop and bucket, but without substantiating evidence it means nothing.
How is the mop and bucket evidence of a crime??? That’s an emotional response, not a rational one. You must prove 1) the mop and bucket was used to clean up a crime scene, and 2) that Knox and Sollecito were the one that did it. No proof of 1 exists, so how can you prove 2?
1) I’m saying that if you follow the evidence, Knox and Sollecito never enter the picture as suspects. I do not assign behavior as evidence of a crime without strong physical evidence to cooberate it. All we have initially are the behaviors.
2) The evidence in totality can’t connect them to the crime or Guede. Guede is completely connected by the evidence. So how can you prove guilt?
I’m saying this: If you START with the cold hard evidence, and proceed from there, Knox and Sollecito are NOT suspects. Since they are not suspect, their behavior isn’t probative, and everything that follows: “Foxy Knoxy”, Vibrators in the bathroom, sex on a train, cartwheels at the police station have 0 value as evidence of a crime. Get it?
I’m time warping. Starting with the evidence to find the people, not starting with the people and then trying to find evidence to implicate them. Its a thought exorcise.
1) Actually, Kercher’s rent money was missing and Guede’s DNA was found in her purse. After her murder he went clubbing and then hopped a train Milan. Where did he get the money to do that? To state there was no robbery doesn’t jibe with the evidence. Knox had $2000 in her bank account, and Sollecito’s parents are well off. Guede was a known drifter known for his money problems.
2) No, evidence was NOT that window was broke from the inside. The glass was inside the room, and a rock was found. The dispute arises because some glass was below clothing in Filomena’s room. However, Filomena was allowed into her room to retrieve personal effects, so the exact placement of clothing is suspect. Furthermore, the building itself is fairly isolated and traffic along the road is minimal.
3) There is a truss next to the window making access relatively easy. An investigator for the defense, dressed in a suite and tie easily scaled it. Rude Guede was an accomplished athlete and basketball player.
4) That’s an evaluation of the judge who accepted the prosecutor’s contention of the muti person scenario. Scientific testimony at trial contradicts this assertion. In either case, this is evidence open to interpretation. Even if that were true, there is still no evidence that Knox or Sollecito were involved in moving the body! Putting them in the room a SECOND time hours later further creates a logic problem because no evidence of their presence is in the room! What are they, ghosts?? Even if you prove there was more then one assailant, you still have to prove those additional assailants were Knox and Sollecito… which you can’t You must UNLEARN what you have learned my friend. ;)
5) No such evidence was presented at trial, and even if it was so, its completely meaningless. How do you get from “a mop and bucket” to “a three way sex crime”? You must have something stronger in addition to the observation for it to have probative value of a crime! If they cleaned the crime scene how did they leave behind Guede’s fingerprints and DNA? Either is all there, or its all gone. You can’t selectively clean up microscopic evidence… much less with a mop and bucket. Its laughable.
As komponisto stated, it is difficult to be cold in your rational evaluation. You are assigning the mop and bucket a value almost equal to DNA inside the victim when in real comparison they are light years apart in real value.
Here’s a thought exercise, that for me clears the confusion in this case. Pretend that you don’t already know who the suspects are in this case, and are looking at the evidence to try and find one for the first time. You have no preconceived notion as to who killed Kercher.
Your evidence comes in two weeks after the killing and you have a bloody hand print on a pillow, fingerprints elsewhere in the room, saliva DNA outside the victim and skin or saliva DNA inside the victim as well. All of this is of one person, Rudy Guede.
You look up Rudy Guede and you find that in the weeks prior to the murder he was involved in three separate break-ins involving a knife, but was not arrested. When you try to locate him, you find he has fled the country to Germany.
At this point, do Knox and Sollecito even come into this story as anything other than footnotes? There are no interrogations, no cartwheels, no rumors of bleach purchases, no “foxy knoxy”, no stories of sex on a train, none of it. The knife in Sollecito’s flat, with a minuscule amount of DNA on the blade that doesn’t identify Kercher but can’t exclude it never enters the scene. Neither does the bra clasp found 47 days later.
Blood drops of the victim found in a co-habituated bathroom with mixed DNA of roommates doesn’t seem all that sinister.
For me, this clears up who the guilty party in this case quite nicely, and takes my “feelings” out of the equation.
Might I interject here boys. My two options for the scenario were based on what the tangible evidence in the case indicates. There is certainly a 3rd possibly that people other than Sollecito and Knox are involved, BUT no evidence has been presented to indicate this so I didn’t mention it.
Rudy Guede’s involvement is about as certain as one can get without direct observation. His bloody handprind, his feces in the toilet and his DNA inside the victim All tangible, all verifiable by second parties.
No such tangible evidence exists for Sollecito or Knox. If they were there something of their presence MUST be there.
Innuendo, and behavioral analysis without corroborative evidence is not evidence of murder. Rudy Guede can’t even be connected to Sollecito and Knox. No emails, no phone calls.… nothing. Rudy Guede is connected to the flat though through downstairs male roommates who testified at his trial that during one visit he fell asleep on their toilet.
This case, and the fever that surrounded in regards to Knox borders on misogyny. For Knox, the only bright side is they no longer burn witches in Italy.
There is a lot of what I call “noise” in this case. Things that MAY apply, but not all of them carry the same weight, thus it becomes necessary to organize my thought processes. I start with the hard evidence FIRST, not the other way around. I do not look at the people and then find evidence to implicate them, I look at the evidence first and then find the people.
By “hard evidence”, I mean that evidence that can be observed directly or by repeatable scientific methods.
I refine my thought process even further by using these principles which state: 1. The simplest explanation that fits the facts is usually the correct one. 2. the more outlandish a theory is the greater the amount of evidence is required to support it, and 3. The further away you move from a causal event the less accurate your observations will be.
With that as a guide, the DNA of Rudy Guede inside Kercher becomes a white hot beam of guilt, and Knox’s cartwheels with the police has almost no luminescence at all.
Given how much evidence is in the room where Kercher was killed leads you directly to Rudy Guede. The bedroom is the key to this case as that is where the murder took place. As you move further away from the bedroom, you are less likely to find direct connection to the killer or killers, so as I move out of the bedroom other things like mixed DNA in a bathroom of people who co-habituate get less consideration.
Given the preponderance of evidence that there is of Guede, logically then, this must also be true for Knox and Sollecito if the prosecution’s theory of the crime is to hold true. However, no such preponderance of evidence exists for them. Knox’s presence is non existent according the the physical evidence, and Sollecito’s hinges on a bra clasp found 47 days after the crime. The more outlandish a theory is the greater the amount of evidence is required to support it, ergo which version of the crime does the evidence and logic support:
That a known burglar, involved in three separate break-in incidents in the weeks prior to the murder broke in and robbed, assaulted and murdered Kercher.
Or
That new lovers Knox and Sollecito with no criminal history whatsoever, conspired with relative unknown Guede to involve Kercher in some sex game and inadvertently killed her?
This leaves Knox, Sollecito and Lumumba footnotes in this story. Stories about bleach purchases, hip wiggling, knives in a residence not connected to the scene, Myspace pages, emials and raunchy tabloid stories about an attractive American female and her Italian boyfriend are relatively benign compared to fingerprints in blood, feces in the toilet and DNA inside the victim.
Using THIS method, which is the traditional method of deduction leads you to the guilty party. Using disassociated bits of information that you then try to connect to hard evidence found latter only leads to confusion. Bragging about it only leads to a need for obfuscation when the hard evidence contradicts your theory.
komponisto, can I just say that you have very eloquently voiced my very thoughts on this case. In my blog article, “Logic Trumps Innuendo” I wrote the following:
“As I surf the net, reading a variety of comments in regards to this case there is much speculation about evidence in this case. Much of it was not used at trial, but somehow made it into the public consciousness through ongoing press leaks during the investigation, such as:
“Knox was seen with a mop and bucket the morning of the murder.” What does that mean exactly? The innuendo would be that she cleaned the crime scene, but see the logic problems posed by that below.
“Knox purchased bleach the morning of the murder, there are receipts.” No receipts were presented at trial, but even if there were what how is that probative?
“The found the murder weapon in Sollecito’s flat.” They found his knife, in his flat, in his drawer. Logic alone makes it unlikely that this is the murder weapon, and the prosecution’s own analysis reinforces this. See logic question below as to why.
“Meredith’s bra had Sollecito’s DNA on it.” Left on the floor of Knox’s flat for 47 days after the murder, a variety of DNA including Sollecito’s was found on the seperated clasp, not the bra itself.
… and on and on. I offer no explanation in this article for these, but simply pose some logic questions that address conflicting and incompatible ideas with the facts. This approach certainly reveals some troubling problems with the case against Knox and Sollecito. The unspoken question at the end of each of these is simply, “If this is so, how is that possible?”
Logic problem 1: They had the temerity to properly dispose of their bloody clothes and shoes, but then took the murder weapon home, cleaned it thoroughly, and put it back in the drawer?
Logic Problem 2: They cleaned the knife so well that luminal had no reaction, no blood was found on the knife, but the low copy skin DNA of the victim somehow remained on the blade???
Logic Problem 3: With a mop and bucket they somehow managed to selectively clean the murder scene clean of their DNA and fingerprints but leave behind Rudy Guede’s??
Logic Problem 4: The bra clasp collected 47 days after the murder had Sollecito’s DNA on it, but the bra itself did not???
Logic Problem 5: Meredith Kercher’s bedroom door was locked from the inside and had to be broken down to gain entry. How did Knox get in there and remove all of her and Sollecito’s fingerprints and DNA and leave behind Rudy Guede’s?”
I too have felt this case begs for the the application of Occam’s Razor. You simply can’t connect Knox and Sollecito to Guede, much less put them into some three way sexual tryst. My logic circuits implode at the prosecutor’s inane theory, which to prove you would need significantly more evidence than what was presented at trial.
Braz, WHAT initial evidence against them???