For the reasons to convict you need to wait for the court closing statement explaining the verdict.
I am merely talking about reasons to be very very very very suspicious of their (non existent and ever changing ) alibi.
Don't be daft. Many confessions include new or revealing details from the confessor that can verified by police. For example, a confession that includes the location of a body, or details the confessor would have no way of knowing ('I broke his finger' or 'I found her car keys on the counter and hid them in the oven so she couldn't get away') is very compelling.
That's why police take detailed confessions. It removes much of the doubt about their veracity.
In all the hours of interrogation, did Amanda Knox ever reveal any details like this that put her at the scene?
I have to change my opinion. This is absurd. There is no plausible motive, the prosecution's narritive is asinine, there are no reliable eyewitnesses, the two accused have no violence in their past, either before or after this incident, and there is no incriminating physical evidence.
Forget reasonable doubt, there is not enough evidence for an eithical prosecutor to even bring charges.
Beyond that, I find it disturbing that there are people in this thread who are convinced that Knox and Sollecito are guilty.
I can't comment on evidence yet, since the court has not released its statement about it.
About the confessions, you cite a case. There are literally millions other cases in the opposite direction, which is precisely the reason why law enforcement does very much take cues from what people say during interviews, how they behave, etc. It is not a case to cite. It is the norm. That a case of the opposite exists only shows it is indeed possible. Not necessary.
That's why this does not mean it is by itself reason to convict somebody or not (since a false positive is possible), but I stated this multiple times. As I said, I in fact expect them to be found not guilty in the last trial.
I.e. Guede is guilty. Nobody disputes this.
You strike me as incredibly naiive. I'll say that I've twice had conversations with police/prosecutors which were belligerant to me and accused me of lying to them even though I didn't and never had any intention of concealing anything. In a trial situation I'm sure both of these repugnant assholes could have gotten up in front of jury all doe-eyed and wondered why I was **gasp** "deceiving them!... acting suspicious!"
I can tell the stories if want to hear them, but they are drawn out and not that interesting. Any experience with the criminal justice system will show you that interregators can tease inconsistencies out of anyone's story.
You strike me as incredibly naiive. I'll say that I've twice had conversations with police/prosecutors which were belligerant to me and accused me of lying to them even though I didn't and never had any intention of concealing anything. In a trial situation I'm sure both of these repugnant assholes could have gotten up in front of jury all doe-eyed and wondered why I was **gasp** "deceiving them!... acting suspicious!"
I can tell the stories if want to hear them, but they are drawn out and not that interesting. Any experience with the criminal justice system will show you that interregators can tease inconsistencies out of anyone's story.
The problem is, interrogators are extremely good at what they do. They can also leverage your emotions against you, causing you to change your story or inadvertently lie, only to use it against you. Just a minor detail you changed under stress (even if not relevant to the crime you're accused) can allow them to get under your skin. Them saying "You're accused of <explicit details of some crime and them describing how much you enjoyed it> in New York." You're immediate response might be "I'm innocent; I've never been to New York in my life." "Oh? Never... we have evidence you were in NYC 3 years ago. You're lying to use, perhaps you're hiding something?"
Always, under all circumstances, ask for a lawyer, people. No good will come out of trying to defend yourself. You're not smarter than the police. You're not better at interrogations. They do this for a living and they almost certainly have an idea of what happened before they start questioning you.
Guys, I agree... But here we are talking about complete, 100% u-turn, multiple times about something that had happened 24-72 hours before.
How do you get confused between having actually heard a murder in the next room, or instead having having been somewhere else (miles away, and with a different person) altogether? Don't you see it as a *little* extreme?
I mean, do you guys really think you could get confused about whether or not yesterday you were or not at a murder scene?
Ok, you need to re-read my post, again, because you still don't fucking get it.Guys, I agree... But here we are talking about complete, 100% u-turn, multiple times about something that had happened 24-72 hours before.
How do you get confused between having actually heard a murder in the next room, or instead having having been somewhere else (miles away, and with a different person) altogether? Don't you see it as a *little* extreme?
I mean, do you guys really think you could get confused about whether or not yesterday you were or not at a murder scene?
Guys, I agree... But here we are talking about complete, 100% u-turn, multiple times about something that had happened 24-72 hours before.
How do you get confused between having actually heard a murder in the next room, or instead having having been somewhere else (miles away, and with a different person) altogether? Don't you see it as a *little* extreme?
I mean, do you guys really think you could get confused about whether or not yesterday you were or not at a murder scene?