<p>There is other circumstantial evidence, lerkin, although nothing that could be said to be a slam dunk, and some of which might be based on inaccuracies.</p>
<p>Knox and Sollecito both turned their cell phones off at around the same time at about twenty minutes to nine, not long before the estimated time of the murder. Even before intense questioning had started, they were inconsistent about what they had been doing that night and whether or not they had both been together. They claimed to have been on the computer at one point, but it turned out the computer hadn’t been touched. </p>
<p>Supposedly, Amanda told police called in before the body was found that Meredith always kept her door locked, even if she was just going to the shower. The other roommates said that Meredith never locked her door, which then led the police to knock it down and find the body. According to reports, everyone else gathered around the door, while Knox and Sollecito hung back.</p>
<p>There was some talk of Amanda having bought a mop or bleach, but I think that has become less clear; no receipt was found from the store that claimed she had purchased these items. Part of Knox’s story, in an attempt to deal with this issue, claimed that she had spilled something at Sollecito’s and was going to get a mop. Similarly, while the evidence on the knife turned out to be pretty inconclusive, Sollecito didn’t help matters by coming up with a story about the three of them cooking together and Meredith possibly bleeding on a knife. I tend not to weight these kinds of unconvincing explanations very heavily, though. If an investigator trying to prompt a confession falsely told me that they had found my blood on the clothing of murdered acquaintance, I’d also probably resort to things like “maybe I got a paper-cut when we were working on that project together.”</p>
<p>There is some evidence that the break-in was staged, as the glass had been broken from the inside. I’ve heard some people contest this. There is also evidence that Meredith was almost certainly killed by more than one person, given the lack of defensive wounds and location of the injuries, but if so, it is odd that no other DNA was found, and if the other people were Knox and Sollecito, that they wouldn’t have left conclusive DNA traces or had their own bruises from a confrontation. Amanda had a mark on her chin that she claimed was a hickey, and some people said didn’t look like a hickey.</p>
<p>Honestly, I’m pretty baffled. On one hand, it seems like a violation of Occam’s Razor when you have a case in which abundant DNA evidence points to one man, who had also recently been involved in other break-ins and robberies, to concoct a scenario in which the motiveless Knox and Sollecito had anything to do with it. On the other, it is almost as fanciful to assume that the Italian police just had it in for them from the get-go and decided to pin the crime on an attractive twenty year old exchange student and her boyfriend, both without any criminal history. This suggests to me that their statements weren’t adding up and their behavior was off even before they were pegged as suspects. There are also, evidently, some experts who haven’t been as dismissive of the physical evidence as the defense is, and, as cptofthehouse said, if there had been anything totally exculpatory in the results, we would have heard about it. Apparently, multiple judges have found it convincing enough to convict, and they were hearing the defense’s side of things as well.</p>
<p>I hope she never has to serve a sentence because I’m not confident of her guilt and can’t stand the thought of someone who might well be innocent - or guilty of something much less than murder - serving 25 years in jail. But I’m also not convinced of her innocence. </p>