<p>Cpt, </p>
<p>you keep talking about evidence, but you so far failed to provide any non-refuted evidence. For example, the foot prints tied to Knox and Sollecito were never proven to be blood foot prints, nor did they contain Meredith’s DNA. </p>
<p>Today’s lying was about the roommate’s family. I have no idea if she killed that girl or not but she has been lying for years about one thing or another. </p>
<p>"Another possibility is that the drug use that evening was understated both by all the defendants and the press. Perhaps they were blasted out of their minds and truly do not remember all of what happened that night. "</p>
<p>“If she just said that I would be less suspicious”</p>
<p>Then maybe you should be less suspicious. Both Amanda and Raphael said they spent the night at his place, smoking pot.</p>
<p>Is marijuana this crazy drug that makes you want to go out and kill people? If so, it seems like a big mistake that we legalized it here.</p>
<p>“she has been lying for years about one thing or another”</p>
<p>Wonder how you know that. Because that’s what the Italian prosecutor and Italian police say?</p>
<p>No. But everything she said cannot be true because much of it is contradictory. And, the story changed a few times. I don’t know what happened. She might.</p>
<p>“Today’s lying was about the roommate’s family.”</p>
<p>Please elaborate.</p>
<p>Actually my thought was that the drug use that night went way beyond marijuana. </p>
<p>“But everything she said cannot be true because much of it is contradictory. And, the story changed a few times.”</p>
<p>You mean, the story changed from what she said after being interrogated for how long was it, five days? It changed to something different after she was rested, fed, and had a lawyer?</p>
<p>That was my recollection, but only because what was being described did not fit someone who had only taken marijuana.
Saying that marijuana drove you to kill seems even more unlikely than a sugar cookie defense.
However if it had been tampered with or soaked in something, then who knows.
But the lack of or contradictory detail about the evidence is unbelievable to someone raised on American television.</p>
<p>“Do read John Kersher’s book.”</p>
<p>Please, cptofthehouse. You’re getting your facts from the father of the victim, who has been determined to pin this on Amanda from the beginning, and has a book to sell? And you’re taking every word he says as truth? Talk about an extremely biased source of information, who wants to believe every single thing the Italian police and prosecutors say, and anything negative about Amanda. You seem to think every single thing he says is absolutely accurate. </p>
<p>emerald, I was being sarcastic about the marijuana driving someone to kill. If they spent the evening smoking pot, they probably spent the entire night lounging on the couch, laughing. And eating ice cream. I doubt they were marijuana crazed killers.</p>
<p>I realize that, my comment was referring to the headlines of " drugs!!"as a factor.
I havent been following it a great deal, but my impression is the case was whipped up in the UK papers as a diversion from political & economic trouble to unite against the spoiled American.
We certainly dont get the same response from local papers here when visiting students kill young women who should have had their life ahead of them.</p>
<p>Oh, okay, I thought you were referring to my comment.</p>
<p>I like your picture.</p>
<p>Lol someone actually said weed drove her to this (not here but in general?)
Here I thought it was the demons or something. Wasn’t the prosecutor convinced she’s possessed or something?
Just bizarre. Everything about this is bizarre. </p>
<p>“Here I thought it was the demons or something. Wasn’t the prosecutor convinced she’s possessed or something?
Just bizarre. Everything about this is bizarre.”</p>
<p>The prosecutor is a conspiracy theorist. He was involved with the “Monster of Florence” murder cases many years ago, convinced that it happened because of ritualistic satanic cults. So of course, it makes complete sense to him that Meredith’s murder wasn’t committed purely by the guy who had his DNA all over the victim, but had to be a sadistic sex game with a group of people. Unfortunately (?) he seems to be the only one who knows how to play it.</p>
<p>I’m still waiting to hear how Knox participated in killing Meredith without leaving ANY transfer in the room. Does the father have a theory to account for that? </p>
<p>Cpt, with all due respect, I’ve read the book that was NOT written by the father of the victim. The “evidence” you are speaking of has been either discredited or shown not to exist.</p>
<p>I feel badly for Meredith Kerchner and her parents, but I do not see enough evidence to show Knox as the murderer, or to supercede double jeapordy. the prosecutor is a complete nut job, and I don’t care what someone says to the police in a murder investigation where they are the suspect. She was in her early 20s in a foreign country,. Smoking pot all night with a guy you are dating is not evidence of murder. In this country, it’s an alibi.</p>
<p>Kercher’s book as well as Knox’s book as well as any of the special interest blogs and websites, all contain a huge amount of “spin”, theories, and opinions. One has to go with the facts, which are difficult to assess. I do have a little inside info in this in that the luminol testing was examined by paid experts here in the US sent by Knox’s supporter to refute and be able to say that the case would not have been brought to trial on that evidence. They could not say so. I know ,because I personally know one of them who would have loved to have been able to say so. That evidence alone would have brought her to the Grand Jury. And most such cases to go to trial even here. A conviction? That I can’t say</p>
<p>One of the crazy things about the case is that Sollecito’s INITIAL statement says specifically that Knox left for the night. He tempered it much later to say, that he simply cannot swear she stayed all night. But I saw the direct translation of the very first statements he made–almost all lies, by the way, as they were contradicted by direct evidence. Which has been the tenor of the entire case. Not any of the three accused have come up with any statements before facts are released that are true. I agree that smoking pot, doing drugs, having sex all night with a guy you are dating is not evidence of murder, but it 's a problem when said guy specifically says you left at a certain time and were not seen until hours later, and yes, that was the initial statement the So made. Things went haywire after that with even more statements, more lies and coercion, but this was before all of that. Why did he lie about that as it would have given him an alibi of sorts too, since his alibi fell apart when the computer he swore he was on all that time showed no activity for about 3 hour period of time before coming up with a 4 second Itune reference. </p>
<p>The evidence I am speaking of has NOT been discredited or shown not to exist by the Italian courst as they were tried and convicted on it. Paid consultants have come out by the defense have discredited the evidence which was a large part why, the first conviction was set aside, but when impartial reviews were done, it held. And believe me, there has been an effort to more widely dispel them here, but they unfortunately hold, by US standards too. </p>
<p>I have a difficult time seeing how three people got together and did such a heinious thing, and would just as soon blame it all on Guene myself, which is the sentiment those close to the case would prefer to do too, but it would be negligence to do so. I’m very much on the side of the defendent most all of the time–to prove someone guilty to me take a lot of evidence with little spin and speculation. So the theories of the Italian authorities to me seem very high blown and too far from the evidence there. But so do Knox and Sollecito’s stories, and there is no satisfactory explanation for a lot of things. Why didn’t Guene just blame K and S until the evidence was laid out to him to come up with a story? Why didn’t K and S point some fingers to G? If G had another accomplice on the scene, why has he come up with the name? The Kerchers, too, really want G to come out with the story. How what was done to Meredith Kercher was done by one person without any defensive moves on her part, makes no sense and there is no way they were done while just one person restrained her. </p>
<p>A theory that makes some sense to me, is that G and Kercher did indulge in some high risk sex and other activities that went to far, and she was killed in the throes of them when G got carried away. Not a theory that the Kerchers are likely to support. Afterwards, G did go the bathroom, and while there, Knox and S came to the house and for whatever reason, wallowed in the mess, and then seeing that they were in trouble having done so, cleaned it up, staged the break in and that was that. Or perhaps they were complicit, all 4 of them, until it got out of hand, in a drugged stupor where K and S could not even remember it was Guene in the mix. Solletino went home, Knox cleaned up the mess, so Solletino knew he could not alibi her for that given time period that she was indeed apart from him. Or K and S were there at the house when or after the killing occurre, did not get what was happening and so conjured up their stories to deny their presence there.</p>
<p>Whatever the story, whatever happened, Knox’s story does not match up with the facts from the first to the last version even as there is an attempt to match them up. By US and italian court standards, they were there when Kersher’s blood was there, someone cleaned it up, maybe G, but the problem there is that his footstep very clearly show what his progress in the house was, and it doesn’t include a major clean up which was done, not just a shower taken either. </p>
<p>It doesn’t make sense, but given my standards for a murder conviction, I seriously doubt I would have found her and/or Sollecito guilty. But I would have found the two of them guilty of lying, bold face lying, supported by facts, numerous counts of that in their statements to authorities. And that’s even after throwing out the ones taken under duress as Knox’s camp claims which the Italian court did except in the case of the direct line accusing Knox’s employer which was a full blown fantasy lie supposedly orchestrated by the police. But those statement made were thrown out for purposes of the murder trials, which did not help Knox much as prior and subsequent statements also did not match facts or were contradicted so that something was off though one cannot establlish who and what. </p>
<p>I feel for the families of all the young people involved… That’s where the hurt I most feel here. I have no idea what role any of them played in this catastrophe, tragedy that ended in such a brutal murder.</p>
<p>So, anyone who is arguing any side of this case from reading books and news reports is going to have some problems. Those things are always biased. That’s their purpose. Still, there is some mystery lingering here that is unexplained nearly 7 years later. Why?. </p>
<p>I don’t know but the whole “satanical ritual” thing does seem far-fetched to me. Not sure where that one is coming from. But perhaps Kersher was tied up rather than being restrained. As far as the DNA is concerned, it is my understanding that both sides agree that there exists DNA of either Knox/Solecito AND Kersher on the knife and bra clasp, but that it is too small to be definitive. Further the evidence was handled so poorly that the defense claims contamination. They also raise the issue that Knox lived there and Solecito was there frequently in the 7 days before the murder. So more questions than answers, which seems to be the ethos of this case. But my instincts tell me that the whole truth has not yet been told. Too many different stories from the very beginning, even before Knox and Solecito were under any sort of duress. </p>
<p>I am not familiar with the Italian justice system. But we still might get some answers if the door is open for Solecito to cut a deal with the prosecutors. I found it odd that he was in the Dominican Republic but chose to come back for the verdict. Perhaps now that the verdict is in, he will negotiate for a lighter sentence in return for the truth, rather than go the appeals route. He comes from a fairly sophisticated family, so it is odd that they would just let him be a “sitting duck” while Knox has refuge in the U.S. Can’t believe they are just going to take their chances with an appeal and risk that he spends the next 25 + years in prison.</p>