I'm still confused. Please just answer my question:
Are you saying that nobody can ever become a viable suspect on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone?
Also, do you agree that the killer (or a killer) would have had a strong motive to do engage in staging/alteration, as well as the best opportunity and means, if he or she were a flatmate of the victim?
Please just answer my questions. It's just two simple yes or no questions.
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
Sorry Braz, but that's still Interpretative Observation
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that nobody can ever become a viable suspect on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone?
you can't conclusively prove either
Are we talking about conclusive proof or reasonable suspicion?
I'm happy to discuss either one, but please choose one or the other.
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.
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.
Sure, and the facts suggested a staging/alteration. The killer (or a killer) would have had a strong motive to do so, as well as the best opportunity and means, if he or she was a flatmate of the victim. That's plenty of evidence to make Knox (and by extension Sollecito) a viable suspect.
for you have yet to name ONE objective level fact to tie them to the crime.
See above.
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.
Exactly
It's still possible to reach reasonable conclusions based solely on circumstantial evidence. For example, I am reasonably confident that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife based solely on the facts that (1) he is her ex-husband; (2) there is a violent history between them; and (3) he cannot account for his whereabouts around the time of the murder.
Of course here, Knox and Sollecito had no obvious motive to kill Kercher, but the same principle applies, i.e. it's possible to be reasonably confident in a conclusion based solely on circumstantial evidence.
How can that be, if these three people participated in this crime?
Many ways. For example, it is possible that Knox and Sollecito hired Guedo to kill Kircher but did not participate in the actual stabbing. (I'm not saying that this is what happened, I'm just pointing out that it is possible that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder even though there was (apparently) none of their DNA on Kercher's body.)
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.
It sounds to me like you are claiming that the case against Knox and Sollecito is based mainly on circumstantial evidence.
Is that about right?
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.
Your argument keeps changing. First you argued that there was no physical crime scene evidence which would cause one to suspect Knox or Sollecito. Then, when that turned out to be untrue, you argued that the police acted unprofessionally. Then, when I pointed out that was irrelevant you claimed that there was no subsequent evidence against Knox or Sollecito. Then, when I pointed out subsequent evidence you tried to explain it away.
Now you simply accuse me of "inserting interpretive observations" into the discussion. I'm not sure what that means. Maybe it's like the "leap" distinction which other posters tried to draw earlier.
Can you give me two examples of the "interpretive observations" I have been inserting into the discussion?
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:
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):
Ah, but you are under the FALSE assumption that their stories should match or >even be cohesive!
You are shifting arguments yet again here.
Anyway, there is a distinction between the sorts of inconsistencies which result from typical human error and the sorts of evolution, tailoring, incoherency, convenient amnesia, etc. which result from prevarication.
Knox and Sollecito's stories pretty clearly fall into the latter category.
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.
"The problem is there is no "subsequent evidence!!""
Of course there is subsequent evidence. For example the fact that Knox and Sollecito were unable to coherently, consistently, and reasonably account for their activities and whereabouts during the time period in question.
That's evidence. And by the way, by "evidence," I don't necessarily mean the same thing as "proof"
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.
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.
I agree, but so what? The issue of whether the police developed tunnel vision is a different question.
Anyway, please tell me if I misunderstood you. Your point seems to be that the initial physical evidence offered no reason to suspect Knox or Sollecito and therefore subsequent evidence developed against them should be discounted or even disregarded.
Did I get you right? Or did I misunderstand?
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:
View more: Next
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Then I have no idea what your point is. You seemed to be arguing that Knox and Sollecito were not viable suspects because (initial?) evidence against them was circumstantial. And yet you admit that circumstantial evidence can indeed form a reasonable basis to make somebody a viable suspect.
No I am not. Again, there is a distinction between between evidence and proof.
Braz, WHAT initial evidence against them???