If I remember correctly the knife was not admitted because the material was not enough for a re-test.
The guy in jail was at the scene, he does not dispute that, and certainly played a role in the murder.
(That makes the break-in staged, as she took the guy back with her. No need to break a window).
I have never been interrogated. I can very well envision myself breaking down and crying like a baby. Accusing somebody out of the blue and changing my story from "I was there and I heard XYZ" to "I was a few miles away and have no idea what happened", not a chance.
They did retest the knife that the prosecutor claimed had the victim's DNA on it. Turns it it probably belonged to Knox.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24534110
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/06/amanda-knox-ex-boyfriend-to-address-italian-court/
This is a complete joke.
They did retest the knife that the prosecutor claimed had the victim's DNA on it. Turns it it probably belonged to Knox.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24534110
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/11/06/amanda-knox-ex-boyfriend-to-address-italian-court/
This is a complete joke.
Okay, there's your opinion, and then there's the science that tells us that memories are plastic.
Have you ever had the experience of remembering something that didn't happen? Your brain constructs a narrative of past event to help you deal with new situations, but if circumstances change, and that narrative is no longer useful, your brain just changes it.
You don't think that a person under hours of high pressure interrogation could experience an actual shift in their memory?
I don't contest that. But read the passages from her interview above (there are many more) and form your own opinion about whether or not that's the kind of memory shift induced by being interviewed.
And again, Sollecito completely changed his story a grand total of 4 times.
Recently a couple of guys were found guilty of murder. Their motive was being bored.
I'm saying that it never made any sense for Knox.
Reading that is painful, it tries to boil things down and in the process ignores context. It places way too much importance on witness testimony (i.e. I saw this and how could this happen if he/she said so-and-so).
And no sense for Sollecito either.
What's the deal with Knox knowing the admitted killer? Something about she met him that night?
She didn't meet him that night.
It appears she had probably run into him, briefly, one or two times and these were days or weeks before the murder. He was a character who floated around in the student community there and who had sort of inserted himself into the group of guys who lived in the same building that Knox and her female roommates did. The males had the first floor, the girls had the upstairs.
So Rudy Guede, the rapist/murderer/burglar was someone who was around. He seems to have been a drug dealer and petty criminal who had recently been graduating into more serious stuff, broke into a nursery school and was caught there with a large knife, which he told police he kept to "protect" himself in case anyone else broke in
Amanda running into him a time or two has zero significance, and any "witness" who says she was with him that night is much better explained by something which happened a LOT in this case:
Whenever there's a frenzy attitude of sensationalism like this surrounding a case, there's always a danger of people coming out of the woodwork trying to insert themselves into it. People are drawn to fame and attention and anything high profile. Some sorts of personalities are desperate to get involved in some way, to be part of the big deal.
This is well known by police and good cops know how to recognize and weed these people out, usually.
However, the Italian police in this small town were so desperate to "solve" this murder and to do so quickly, and so desperate for anything to help them solidify their case against Knox and Sollecito, that they were listening to the kind of people who good police would tell to fuck off.
There was a crazy homeless guy who changed his story several times and most of them were completely ridiculous, there was a lady in an apartment who claimed to hear something she couldn't have heard... there was I believe a shopkeeper who claimed to hear something which wasn't said about underwear... etc. These people are bad enough in the best of situations but when the police, prosecutors, and the system itself is being crazy and sensationalist and talking bullshit about Satanic sex rituals, it just encourages these people even more. It encourages them to come out of the woodwork more, and for their stories to be crazier when they do.
There is no credible eye witness who puts Knox or Sollecito anywhere in the sphere of this crime.
Guede was a poor, immoral piece of shit who knew it was about to be the day rent was due for a lot of these students in the town. He broke into a house he was already familiar with, and where he probably knew the guys were out of town, and after he found some of the rent money he decided to use the toilet. While he was sitting on it, it seems Meredith likely came home.
He likely didn't flush due to realizing the sound would alert her to his presence. He probably could have gotten the hell out of there with the money, but either he realized there was one solitary, attractive female in a house where he'd already broken the law and decided to make a move on her, or she discovered him as he tried to leave and he knew she could ID him so he did what he did.
I don't think he went there planning to murder or rape anyone. I think he wanted to get in and out without anyone being there. I think a combination of panic, lust, already being in deep shit, and poorly reacting to her fear and unwillingness to comply with his sexual demands, are what culminated in him graduating to murderer that night.
Are you 'going the opposite way' just for shits and giggles or to provoke discussion? Because the evidence against her (and Sollecito) is NOT in any way compelling, clear or convincing, nor rises to beyond all reasonable doubt. The entire prosecution has been the epitome of trying to hit a moving target and a prosecutor's office that cannot admit it was wrong to begin with (about everything). i.e. as new evidence discredits the original theory of the crime as alleged by the prosecution, then just modify the alleged theory of the crime to be consistent with the new evidence, no matter how unlikely or straining credibility each new theory may become.I'll go the opposite way as waggy. The evidence is pretty convincing, and it seems highly likely that Sollecito and Knox did it while Guede was present.
Are you 'going the opposite way' just for shits and giggles or to provoke discussion? Because the evidence against her (and Sollecito) is NOT in any way compelling, clear or convincing, nor rises to beyond all reasonable doubt.
Betting we have officials in the Admin who believe extradition treaties overrule US law.
Nope. I just went through the process with a speedcam in October.
With civil cases it's up to YOU to prove you're not guilty, and the burden of proof is with the accuser. The city said I was speeding, and I was guilty. I had to obtain documentation showing the camera had not been calibrated recently, was giving a false reading, or some other factor was at play resulting in a wrong detection of my speed or I was going to have to pay the ticket.
I argued that there was no police officer present, taking away my 6th Amendment right to face my accuser, the camera company processes recordings after-the-fact and gives the recording to law enforcement and that equates to here-say, and the camera company is biased because they gather income by processing traffic tickets for the city.
All of these arguments would have gotten then case thrown out in a standard court trial, but it's a civil trial and therefore none of these arguments applied.
why do you think she had something to do with it? Im really confused to how anyone can not see that it was a rape/murder where 2 innocent people got fucked over
She refused translators (possibly to later claim she did not understand, although by law if you refuse them you agree you do not need them).
Also, I can tell you no amount of interrogation would make me forget whether or not I was home with a man I accuse of being a murderer the night my roommate was killed (first version), or instead I was at a completely different location.
Sollecito, who is Italian, was caught in similar contraddictions.
P.s. English is my third language, but fail to see what is wrong with the word incongruences, which is a noun meaning not congruent. If it is not a legitimate use I would be grateful if you'd educate me about my mistake.
You have no idea what interrogators can do, given enough time. You would admit to being Santa Claus by the time a professional was done with you.
You apparently didn't get it the first time we had this discussion. It does mean their story isn't pure truth, or even truth at all. It's completely useless. You need to stop looking at it, and what I mean by that is you need to throw out their stories completely, because through the interrogations what actually transpired is not ever going to come from their mouths.This is just silly. It would mean every interrogation would automatically lead to a confession, and no trials would be necessary. Is it this the reality you observe?
Again, Sollecito changed completely his story 4 times. He was also caught blatantly lying on many factual elements.
This does not mean they should be convicted, but it certainly mean their story (which one anyway?) is not the pure truth. And if you ask anybody in law enforcement what it means when a suspect lies in the face of serious charges the answer is always a) they are guilty or b) they are protecting somebody they know is guilty.
There is literally no other reason for locating yourself on the scene of a murder if you were in fact at home sleeping. That's not the kind of whops-I-don't-remember-exactly that can realistically happen. Think about it: how sure are you last night you were not present on the scene of a murder? I think pretty damned sure.
You apparently didn't get it the first time we had this discussion. It does mean their story isn't pure truth, or even truth at all. It's completely useless. You need to stop looking at it, and what I mean by that is you need to throw out their stories completely, because through the interrogations what actually transpired is not ever going to come from their mouths.
It doesn't mean they're protecting someone or they themselves are guilty, as has been proven to the point of absurdity in other cases. You stated in other posts that you would never, ever state that you were at a crime scene when you were not and people who change their stories must be hiding some shred of guilt. What I and others have been trying to get through to you is that happens ALL THE TIME. Someone posted the story where FOUR INNOCENT PEOPLE were cajoled into confessing a rape they were later PROVEN to have not committed. Think about that. Four people in one case, confessed to a crime they didn't commit, and spent years in prison as a result. So, with this in mind, that brings up two points:
a) People confess to shit they didn't do all the time, and changing stories only mean that Knox and Sollecito were manipulated throughout the interrogation process, no surprise there, and
b)Confessions are worthless, in fact worse than worthless, because they literally mean NOTHING. If they mean nothing, they shouldn't be used as evidence, since they don't point to anything other than the skill of the interrogator. If they mean nothing, you shouldn't use them as a basis for determining guilt. You shouldn't use them as anything other than an interesting anecdote.
In the absence of their testimony (which has been ably demonstrated to be worthless) you need to rely on EVIDENCE. In fact, this is all you should rely on. The evidence in this case points overwhelmingly to Guede as the perpetrator, and exonerating Knox and Sollecito. Seriously. The evidence proves that they not only didn't do it, they were never there. It's actually pretty straightforward.
So base your arguments on evidence, and don't bring up a single word about their testimony ever again, unless you want to be laughed at for having proved your ignorance.
This is just silly. It would mean every interrogation would automatically lead to a confession, and no trials would be necessary. Is it this the reality you observe?