Did Amanda Knox Murder Meredith Kercher? Father's Book Reviewed

Of course John Kercher knows Amanda Knox murdered his daughter. He's not an idiot.

The most amazing thing is that the only reason Amanda apparently took the focus off poor Meredith was due to Kerchers tabloid mates. So John needs to look at things with fresh eyes and realise the whole sordid, gross and foul reporting that left Meredith in the dust was created solely because newspapers need to be sold to the hordes and especially those who lack brain cells of any kind. Galati will fail badly and it will be no surprise to those with a modicum of commonsense and the ability to sort the BS from the truth. Will be sad day at PMF and TJMK when that happens. I wonder if the lemmings will follow each other on that occasion. I for one hope so.

Are you the Italian translator who helped Nina Burleigh and the CBS crew on the case? TJMK seems to think you are.

I have no problems with private individuals posting their opinions, but not, paid individuals working for PR agencies and the media coming on and spamming social media for their own vested interests, like promoting Amanda Knox's innocence for the benefit of her future book.

Naseer

Let's say you and your friends are right, Julia is who you say she is. Does that make her observations any less valid than say.....yours? Tell me what's the difference? Because if I'm not mistaken, you're using this forum to sell your own vested interests in this case as well. Even going so far as to mention an article that was written and published on TJMK by you. I see no such mention of an article or ANY affiliation to any body of work by Julia......do you?

You have heard the term glass houses, have you not?

I do not have a vested interest in this case, since I
a) have never accepted any money from the media or a PR firm
b) am not related to or met the Kerchers.

So, since my question was addressed to Julia, you might want to let her answer it, instead of deflecting on her behalf?

Naseer

While you may not be getting paid for your services on Quennell's well traveled site, you are most certainly benefitting. Insinuating you have no vested interest in publishing your body of work or viewpoints and supplying a direct link to your practice is disingenous at best.

You brought the accusation that Julia is some how involved with the PR firm to the table here. And you did so with what sounds like gossip from your friends at TJMK. What proof do you have? And furthermore, where has she in anyway promoted anything except her viewpoint?

Oh, so Bruce Fischer, Candace Dempsey and Steve Moore are disinterested parties somehow exempt from your elevated standards of what should be written and by whom? I'm not writing a book or selling my services, but is Julia? Which question she needs to reply to, and not, some white knight on a charger with one of those prop swords.

"Oh, so Bruce Fischer, Candace Dempsey and Steve Moore are disinterested parties somehow exempt from your elevated standards of what should be written and by whom?"

What does that have to do with what we are talking about? You see....this is the kind of circular rebuttals that give your camp a bad rap. I'm responding to you about you and you deflect with evoking the authors of opposing sites?

The difference Naseer is you're here making innuendos about another poster (who, by the way is obviously not here) and acting all high and mighty, like you've got some secret that relegates Julia's comments as irrelevant because she's part of some "PR campaign". What do you suppose we would peg your motive in this debate as being? You certainly are not the typical commenter being you have written numerous editorials summarizing your beliefs about this case up for consumption on a fairly dubious forum. What do you suppose that would lead one to surmise your motive as?

Yeah, they "aren't here". Just posting under various pseudonyms, or that the FOA regulars haven't posted thousands of comments to support THEIR point of view?

You're flailing.

AGAIN.....what does this have to do with my point?

You're flailing? Coming from the guy who puts up paranoid meanderings to deflect from my pointed and concise comments?

Look.....it's obvious you're grasping. Come back when you can think straight.

I missed your comment about my possibly being an Italian who translated for Nina Burleigh. I am not and did not.
Surprised your crystal ball didn't point that out Ergon. ;) Polish it a little harder next time.

Anyone who has taken the trouble to read the detailed information concerning this case knows that Knox and Sollecito, at the very least, know much much more than they have revealed. But Knox's PR machine has distorted the truth alarmingly. However, one awaits the result of Galati's technically detailed appeal to the Court of Cassation. This case is certainly not finished.

I noticed the choir started singing right away. And of course they are the same old off key members whose tune is not only tiresome, it’s hard on the ears.

What’s new? Nothing, But of course they are spreading more lies..and more disinformation.

And yes Galati prepared an appeal that makes War and Peace look like a short story, but I'm sure it’s as full of holes as the entire Amanda Knox prosecution.

Everything from the bullshit witnesses, to the non-existent DNA to the Luminol footprints that demonstrated nothing. To the bloody footprint that matched Rudy and not Raffaele, to the knife that didn't match. All their greatest hits.

But don’t worry sports fans because the Italian Supreme Court will look at the massive tome that Galati wrote and he and his novel will be sent packing. The Supreme Court will take one look at this incredibly lengthy and I’m sure boring novel and say, NO way in hell are we reading all of this. We've got better things to do with our time.

Sadly, Galati is attempting the old tactic, of “If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit

Chelsea wrote “ If Amanda doesn't at least know what happened the night Meredith was murdered, perhaps it would do her some good to at least give this poor woman some of the publicity that she so hungrily appears to be grasping.”

Not that I have a clue what that paragraph means. Who’s the poor woman you’re referring to Chelsea? Sorry I’m on dangling participle patrol tonight.

You can’t mean Meredith can you? I mean she’s no longer with us ..and of course you can’t mean Amanda, because Amanda hasn’t said a single word publicly since the day she came home. So whos hungrily grasping for publicity?

I'm confused.

Here's what I wish Chelsea would do. Write a piece dissecting the trial. Nothing from the interrogation that was ruled inadmissable for the murder trial. Not the twisted innuendos and out and out lies fabricated by the guilters like the mixed blood or the bath mat meme about scooching and a partial footprint. The facts that were exclusively presented at trial and proven.

I would contend that if the first trial's evidence and prosecutorial endeavors were enough to convict, then it shouldn't be so hard to debate with only that information. If it won them their victory the first go around, why do they need the rest?

I completely agree, Calli! Chelsea???

Extraordinary how the musings of the FOAkers are marked by hysterical put downs. And a refusal to look calmly at the evidence. They provide the only comedy in an otherwise terrible and tragic event.

Oh please Daithi, I've looked at this case inside and out.

Your lies and distortion that Knox and Sollecito at the very least knew much much more than they are revealing is a liar calling someone else a liar. You're attacking both of them with subtle innuendo that the two of them "must be lying" because look at all this fabricated evidence.

You’re trying to tell the public...desperately I might add to listen to your phoney, baloney, so called evidence.

You’re crying out for people to listen and pay attention to your disproven theories and trumped up charges. I can hear you whining..it’s grating on the ears.

“Please, please, please people, listen to the heroin addict who didn't know the difference between Halloween and the night after or the Grocery Store owner who came forward a year later with another bullshit story.

“Please, please ,people notice these footprints that reacted to luminol. We are telling you that those footprints must be reacting from blood even though when we performed the next test that is more a definitive test for blood, it came up negative.”

You’re crying out “Please, please, please ignore that there is a massive amount of DNA from a total stranger at the scene of the crime and nothing except this electron microscopic level (less that 200 billionths off a gram of DNA ..yes that’s Billionth with a B) of someone that lived there.
And never mind people that even the court appointed independent experts won’t confirm our result!

Please, please, please ignore that there are no ties of any kind between that stranger Rudy Guede who we know did this crime, not one e-mail, not one text, not one phone call to or from Raffaele, Amanda or Meredith.

Please, please please ignore there was not motive for this crime for either Amanda or Raffaele.
Please, please, please ignore that there is no history of violence from either Amanda or Raffaele.
Please, please, please ignore that the prosecution has this very confusing statement that was given under duress, even though we have no video or audio evidence of that interrogation.

Yes, The prosecution had nothing.. NOTHING on Amanda or Raffaele. And neither do you.

And Yes, I'm putting you down.

Just as the Defense did to the prosecution.

You're goin down, down, down in a burning ring of fire.

I'm putting YOU down. PR barking dog woof woof woof. Paid to write lies.

True justice for Meredith.

wow kate, that hurt... NOT

True Justice for Meredith has happened. Her killer is behind bars.

What you want is anything but justice.

Oh Kate, I'm not paid a thing.

Would be nice though. You think I could get paid for this? Am I selling my limited wit too cheaply? Where does one get paid for something like this?

Sign me up!

Kate has a huge problem and assumes ANYONE for pro innocence is being paid by the huge PR machine. She is in for one big reality check and very soon. Kate, you do Meredith a dreadful disservice not examining every piece of the Hellmann report and leaving Massei behind. You are to be pitied. Do Meredith a big favour and go READ ALL ABOUT THE NON EVIDENCE at http://www.injusticeinperugia.com and find more truths at facebook page Free Meredith Kercher. You owe her that.

kate may be unstable, but she's pro-guilt, and that's what matters to our dwindling group of misfits. Hey, we can't be too choosy!

Oh, you're proof of that, aren't you? :)

Peter Quennell sends kisses, kate:

AC Tesla wrote about Galati's challenge
> but I'm sure it’s as full of holes as the entire Amanda Knox prosecution.< and again

>and I'm sure boring novel'.

Thus you evidently have not read this or know nothing about it. This is what distinguishes the FOAkers from those who look for justice. They have a purely emotional response based on God knows what mysterious motives. But intelligent and rational people will actually do their homework before posting.

Are you threatening my country? We are not America's puppet, we are our own country and don't you think we are afraid to stand up to you country of bullies, one were the people pat themselves on the back for the largest human rights violations in this century.

0_o

lol.

*shakes head in disbelief*

You're kidding Verp? Right? Please, please point out where you "think" I threatened your country?

I think Italy is a beautiful and an Independent country and nobody's puppet. I think the majority of it's people are good.

But Verpasquale, If you don't think there are political ramifications to this case, you are very, very naive.

You're right Daithi, I haven't read Galati's bs appeal. I've read just about everything else though. I most likely won't read his appeal because I'm betting dollars to donuts neither will the Italian Supreme Court.

They'll read a few pages and go..."the hell with this"

They'll toss the appeal and not just because they might think Amanda is innocent, (which she is) they'll do it because this case is a nightmare for the Italian Justice System as well as the International relationship between the US and Italy.

Because whether it serves justice or not. this is a massive political football and nobody, if they are smart will want to "touch" it.

I'm betting they'll reject Amanda's appeal on Calumny even though it too is a trumped up charge.

Remember the proverb.. "Best to let sleeping dogs lie." The

"I haven't read the Appeal" but I'm betting the country's highest court won't read the appeal either and pass judgement on a document they haven't read?

Strange.

Strange only to one who knows nothing of human nature.

I'm sure that clerks at the Supreme Court maybe will read it. They will prepare a short summary for the justices themselves and the Italian Supreme Court will reject it without comment.

You'll never know why the appeal will simply be denied

But frankly Naseer, it's biggest problem other than it can only contain more wild and outrageous theories, is it's length.

Unlike the previous appeal which can be based on the evidence. The Supreme Court will only concern itself with procedure and "glaring errors" in the conduct of the Hellman court.

Instead of the Prosecution focusing on maybe something specific that "may" have gone wrong in the appeals trial, Galati made a huge error in that he has, excuse the expression taken a shotgun approach and thrown everything including the kitchen sink at the Supreme Court.

Galati clearly has no confidence in his appeal so he his hoping the sheer volume of his appeal will be persuasive.

The length of this appeal "smacks" of pure desperation.

You have your facts wrong. The Galati appeal is 111 pages long, not 500 as you keep claiming. And don't project your American perceptions on to another country. Yes, it's known that SCOTUS judges (the lazier ones, that is) often just go by their clerk's summaries, but it takes a certain kind of arrogance that Italian judges won't read the document.

I'm really hoping they do and that a retrial is requested so that Guede can get the sentence he should've received 4 years ago. He sexually assaulted, brutally murdered and burglarized Meredith, and he will be eligible for release in TWO YEARS.

I guess we are dumb Daithi, I mean come on, innocent people are always found at the scene of the crime, never have alibi's, coincidentally have their own genetic material mixed with the victim, show no remorse, finger an innocent man, have inconsistencies in their story, and hire a million dollar pr campaign. We are all dumb to doubt the idea that a 5'11 slightly built kid would be able to scale a 12 foot wall without leaving a trace of himself inside or outside of the room broken into, steal nothing, murder someone, someone how make it appear that it was done by multiple people, then take a dump, then come back and move the body, run outside but then decided to float inside and leave a footprint in the bathroom. There is no reason we should ever ever ever ever question these points.

Yes, you are dumb Verp, innocent people almost always are found at the scene of the crime. I mean somebody innocent has to find the body..don't they? Especially when that person lives there!

Genetic material mixes all the time in homes where people live. Why don't you point out that I'm sure they found Amanda's fingerprint there too. Must be significant.. This is your dumb kind of logic. Wipe a floor where 4 people live..see how many DNA matches you come up with.

Yes you are dumb to think a 5'11" man couldn't scale a 12 foot wall without leaving a trace. A 5'2" woman scaled "El Capitan" without any aid. How do you know he didn't steal anything and given that he killed the woman that was there..he had to get out of there.

And the only people who believe that multiple people committed this crime are morons who desperately want it to be so they can "prove there theory.

But guess what Verpasquale, don't feel bad, Mignini was wrong too.

Political ramifications, you can't be serious. Number one, Amanda's strongest supporter in Italian Politics would have been Silvio Berlusconi. He is no longer in power, hence I have a feeling that we won't see anymore cases where an experience criminal judge is all of a sudden replaced by a civil judge with no forensic or murder trial experience. And if you have not noticed with Frances election yesterday, Europe is moving away from US backed puppets and we are not afraid of your country. Lets be honest, do you think Obama will invade Italy for following its own legal procedures. BY the way speaking of political ramifications, the USA can not talk, your country has hundreds of innocent people locked up in your war on terror.

Just because Berlusconi is gone doesn't mean a thing and neither do the elections in France.

I'm thrilled about both those developments. Obama is not going to "invade" Italy, but I guarantee you that nobody on either side of the pond wants to deal with "extraditing this young woman"

Watch and see Verpasquale, the US isn't going to "threaten" Italy over this..no way in hell. They won't need to, It's a matter of a phone call..if that and frankly I doubt it will be that.

This is "embarrassing" for Italy..nothing else. They'll want to get out of the spotlight. The higher-ups in Italy will want to put this episode in the rear view mirror.

Watch and see.... but here's the good news for you Verp, You'll be able to always think that America put pressure and that's why Gallati's appeal will be rejected.

verpasquale, veramente tu sei imbranato.

Do you live in an alternate world, you do realize the case was followed from the start by the US embassy who did not politically intervene and said they saw no issues with the trial. That is unless you are implying corruption, sounds to me like your saying the mighty us will bully Italy and ally into breaking its own laws for their own citizen. If that is the case Americans, maybe its time to write your lawmakers and tell them how disgusted you would be if they wasted taxpayer time and resources on manipulating a foreign countries judicial process as Mr. Tesla is implying. Thanks though, at least now we know the FOAkers are a bunch of corrupt hacks who have no problem breaking the law. If I were Obama I would actually be angry at the FOAkers for the xenophobic that makes American's look like a bunch of racist hillbillies, not to mention the PR campaign using black stereotypes to frame minorities.

Julia, I am proud you use Goodle Translate, look up this one Julia=Putana

verp.....you have a problem. I love how you throw around insults and think your kind of rhetoric is effective. Word to the wise......it's not. It makes you and your friends look like a bunch of raving lunatics.

xenophobes? What a bunch of BS. Saving face to protect a judicial systems shortcomings is hardly honorable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And CHELSEA PAY ATTENTION!!!! verp just called julia a whore! You can not be selective, be called on the carpet for it, pretend you're going to be more diligent and continue to censure just the opposition! Your integrity is on the line.

verp should be banned!!!! He is no different than Randy!

Verp, you are one cray Italian. But we like you....don't we gang?

I mean seriously, you are just full of paranoid thoughts aren't you.

I'm not implying "corruption" I'm implying expediency. I'm implying human nature. I'm implying that bureaucrats who have little vested won't want to put themselves in the middle of a mess.

Simple... my little simpleton friend.

AC.....verp may be fun to swat around, but I can't help but think he is a perfect example of why it came to be that the Italians wanted Knox to be guilty.

Don't get me wrong, I love Italy. Been a couple of times and am getting geared up to go again soon. But it does not escape me that being an American in Italy I need to be conscious of keeping a low profile when I visit. verp is a perfect example of why.....and I do not believe his demeanor is at all exclusive to the guilters.

Calli, I know exactly what you are talking about. I'm an American..(obviously) I'm proud to be an American, but that doesn't mean I'm always proud of my country's actions. I can separate the two.

But saying you're an American overseas is like putting a target on your chest. I travel wearing t-shirts with the Canadian flag on it. The Canadian flag on my luggage, etc. It helps a lot. When some people in Italy, Spain, Greece, France etc know that you're an American they tend to get riled up and act like Verp.

Sorry Verp, Don't mean to stereotype anyone but this has been my experience abroad.

Your Curt Knox aren't you?

Calli, nah I am just your typical young Italian who stands up for my countries justice system against a country that thinks the rest of the world should revolve around them and one where their citizens don't respect the laws of my country, and stop with the xenophobia, I have cousins in NYC and Miami and they are think Amanda is guilty as hell and are sick and tired of the obvious anti Italianism projected in the Amanda Knox PR campaign.

Pasquale I dont need google translate but you do. Puttana has 2 'd's. And you are American Italian, a different breed of person altogether so get over your ' Italianess'. Cretino!!

You're funny Verp, There is nothing anti-Italian going on. There are rogue prosecutors who get carried away all over the world including the United States.

See Michael Nifong a North Carolina prosecutor whose prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse team eventually got him disbarred. There are many others in the US.

Frankly, there is much I admire about the Italian Legal system, but like a lot of things there is much that l don't.

If Amanda had been wrongfully convicted in the US, I seriously doubt our system would have been able to write this wrong within 4 years.

But the Italian legal system does has it's flaws such as the trial being limited to 2 days a week? The Italian system puts far too many innocent people behind bars only to reverse their decisions within a couple of years. There is this piling on and adding the ridiculous charge of Calumny. Italy must stop using this tactic to bully those that might be critical.

Could Italy's system be better. Yes. But so could the US system. It is not the country of Italy I have a problem with it's specific individuals.

I love my country Verpasquale, but I cannot defend the words and actions of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. They are not one and the same.

Your loyalty to Italy seems blind, as if to say there is no corruption or flaws.
You should love your country Verp and being critical of it is often the best way for one to show one's patriotism.

Wrong again, I am Brazilian Italian who has been living in Italy since 2003.

Prostitute, eh?

Mr/ms Tesla... More hysteria. Go on screaming. As I say, the intelligent will look at the evidence and reach a more balanced conclusion. Just read all that is in the public domain. There are translations if you do not read Italian.

Severino

I'm not screaming, I do not need to scream, I only need to point out the salient details of this case.

An intelligent look at the evidence and one would come to one conclusion and one conclusion only. That Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are completely innocent of this crime

And by the way, I have read..almost everything in the public domain including the Massei and the Hellman Report.

So how come you reached the conclusion that the luminol prints lacked any genetic profile and that Stefanoni was a man?

Was that the bit you missed out on?

Excuse me Paul, What the hell are you talking about?

If you read the Hellman report they address Luminol prints with "no genetic profile and luminol footprints with a genetic profile.

Bet you don't make that mistake again!

Sorry meant to say, as we say in Germany, Severino, GENAU.

let us all keep the name calling to a minimum please.. for the TOS.

Chelsea,
You really think that Amanda stole the spotlight from the MK murder? She spent 4 years in prison for a crime she didn't commit. She has never seeked attention; it was brought upon her by Mignini and the dirty media repeating disgusting lies about her (that the gullible still believe to this day despite all evidence to the contrary).
And Kercher who complains endlessly about the attention paids to AK, he then writes a memoir about his daughter but even he keeps talking about AK, not Meredith. What is wrong with these people - the guilters keep complaining that Amanda is getting all the attention yet they keep writing about her and writing awful things. You think Amanda enjoys this? She is trying to live her life peacefully and out of the spotlight!

yeah four years in prison for murder is a lot more tragic than being stabbed to death...by more than one person..

Very good point Dani,

Sadly, whenever there is a murder, the suspects tend to get more attention than the victims.

But this hardly Amanda's fault. If all of those very salacious tabloid articles weren't written about this case at it's onset, well frankly I sincerely doubt hardly anybody would remember Amanda Knox or Meredith Kercher.

But they were,

Ahh, there you go again, Chelsea.. It was One Person Only.

That doesn't make Meredith Kercher's death any less of a tragedy. But for one to say that it is not a tragedy that an innocent young woman and a innocent young man were forced to spend 4 years in prison. Well that's insensitive.

Tell you what Chelsea, How about you spend even a week in Prison...then come back and say that 4 years in one isn't tragic.

By the way Chelsea, you still didn't answer my post about your last graph in the article. Who exactly is the "this poor woman some of the publicity that she so hungrily appears to be grasping."

I sincerely doubt that Meredith is "hungrily grasping for publicity and since Amanda hasn't said a single word publicly since the day she arrived home....who exactly are you referring to?

The One Person Only theory is interesting as even Knox's lawyers called witnesses to offer suggestions as to who might have been involved other than Knox and Sollecito. Which implies they accepted the more than one theory. Which Ruede's Cassation ruling also endorsed...

Just ponder on that...

As John Kercher says - who are these others? Knox's lawyers tried to come up with an answer, to risible effect. But the Knox supporters cling to the lone wolf theory. They throw up arguments that even Knox's defence team did not attempt. They are desperate and they know that all that is left to them is hysteric denial.
The ugliest and most lamentable actions of the Knox supporters is to trash the reactions and behaviour of the Kercher family. The Kerchers have behaved with the utmost dignity throughout this terrible tragedy for them. Their actions and reactions have been impeccable.

Daithi, So?

Knox lawyers addressed the possibility because the Prosecutors insisted it had to be more than one. And in the Hellman report, The judge said there "may" have been more than one person..that's all. the key word may.

I'm very sorry for Mr. Kercher and his loss. It must be tragic to lose one's child. But the lone wolf theory is far more plausible than the multiple killer theory.

I think it is also ugly and lamentable that the for anyone including the Kercher's to accuse Amanda Knox or Raffaele.

And the actions of John Kercher have been far from impeccable. I have also never once read or heard the Knoxs say anything derogatory about any of the Kerchers. Their actions and reactions have been impeccable.

Woof woof woof

Paid to smear John Kercher. He has done nothing wrong.

It's Knox' parents facing a defamation trial.

Damn your PR souls to hell.

Woof woof woof. Not paid a thing..not a penny...

And I'm not "smearing" John Kercher. Not at all, the only thing he's done wrong in my book is accuse two innocents of murdering his lovely daughter.

And I've given him a pass on that because of his tragic loss.

@The Machine -- you have been reported for repeated spamming. Get lost.

Give me a break, I'm a child of divorce.

How do you explain Amanda Knox's numerous lies?

numerous - meaning ONE?

"yeah four years in prison for murder is a lot more tragic than being stabbed to death...by more than one person.. "

Chelsea......why are you trying to equate the two? That is clearly a guilter ploy. Do you write for TJMK?

There is no proof that this murder was committed by more than one person. All of the experts, including the Prosecution's, testified that the wounds were compatible with the work of one person. Only Massei CONCLUDED differently - against the experts. This is just another mistruth that the guilters continue to push with help from people like "the machine" and "chelsea hoffman."

Defense's expert - "In any case there is nothing there which could lead me to think that there was more than one attacker." [Massei, page 145]

Prosecution's expert - "He was unable to provide an explanation for such a disproportion, which he held to be compatible with the presence of more than one person, but also with the action of a sole person who acts in a progressive manner" [Massei, page 153] - very convincing..

Massei himself - "there are no scientific elements arising directly from forensic science which could rule out the injuries having been caused by the action of a single person" [Massei, page 368] - That one was right before he goes on to conclude, without the forensic expertise required, "diverse morphology of the injuries and their number and distribution lead one to consider that those participating in this criminal action were more than one." [Massei, page 371]

>And the actions of John Kercher have been far from impeccable. I have also never once read or heard the Knoxs say anything derogatory about any of the Kerchers. Their actions and reactions have been impeccable.<<br>
It is clear we have vastly different notions of what constitutes class.

But surely a proper reaction to the prosecutors raising the possibility of more than one perpetrators is to argue CONVINCINGLY that it could be only one? Instead they summoned the child murderer et al.

I think it is interesting the way the arguments of the defence lawyers and the Friends diverge.

I also find it interesting, Mr/Ms Tesla, that your arguments tend to veer to a 'this is political' slant. 'No extradition ever', 'Italian embarrassment' etc

I am not vindictive. I really don't care if Cassation goes against Knox and USA refuses to extradite. I only care for the truth and a sense of finish for the Kercher family. I wish for the culprits only what Medieval writers called 'the agenbite of inwit' - the again bite of self knowledge, that is REMORSE.

Sorry Daithi, I disagree, that is not the proper reaction. The defense's job is to address every possibility..not just one....Notice for example the over 500 page appeal that Gallati submitted. Even without reading it (because of it's massive length) I'm very confident that he threw everything at the Supreme Court including the kitchen sink.

The prosecution attempted "every thing they could during this trial. Why else would they have put Curatolo on the stand? Why else would they say that the luminol prints were blood despite the negative TMB test?

Your argument that the Defense shouldn't address every possibility is exactly opposite of the Prosecution's approach.

No my arguments don't tend to "veer toward the political slant" We are discussing all aspects of the case, this is of course one. You and I could "argue every point" one by one infinitum. The political ramification is just one aspect of an appeal involving two countries and a great deal of limelight.

I too am interested in justice. And you know, justice has been served. Meredith Kercher's killer is behind bars where he belongs and the innocents Raffaele and Amanda Knox have been allowed to continue down' life's path.

Welcome Home Amanda and Raffaele.

Another day, another ID. Woof woof woof. It's too late. Your game is exposed.

Same ID that I've always posted. But Woof is right. GO HUSKIES!!!

That's the problem with so many names and huskies - they end up getting themselves all mixed up and pulling in different directions.

GO HUSKIES as in football gallagher.

kate....do you really think posting the same line over and over again makes even your side think you've got your shit together?

Tesla

Calm down, it's OK, we'll take your word for it. It all makes perfect sense. You know, people might have though you were trying to draw some parallels between Scott and Amundsen in a murder case. Just glad you clarified things.

Mr/Ms Tesla wrote

>Even without reading it (because of it's massive length) I'm very confident that he threw everything at the Supreme Court including the kitchen sink.<<br>
I am afraid, this really is the problem. People like you shoot from the hip without being bothered with the minutiae. You simply have not read it - but it is worthless in your eyes. Your attitude defines prejudice - pre-judging. Not having read it, you know it is rubbish. There is not a single Knox supporter who is otherwise. You dismiss it, unread.

I think it is fear and bluster.

But in the detail and the complexity lies the truth. Of course it is much easier to embrace a blanket THEY ARE INNOCENT theory but it really does not match with the evidence. Please do take the trouble to acquaint yourself with all the papers which are in the public domain. I swear to you that, with someone who really has no axe to grind, no personal involvement, no emotional involvement, everything clearly points to a greater involvement of Knox and Sollecito than they have admitted to. Seriously, I can only believe that you have been swayed by the PR campaign. You protest and blow but simply never address the fundamental questions.

THAT is the book that needs to be written - how a PR campaign can distort truth and evidence and persuade people to abandon all logical and rational thinking.

On a flippant note I might paraphrase Lady Bracknell, 'To contradict one alibi might be regarded as a misfortune, to contradict NINE looks like carelessness - or evidence of concealment'.

Brannigan you are a fool. You are another that thinks 10,000 or whatever pages from Massei equates to an absolute condemnation of the accused yet you conveniently forget that a higher Court threw out all of that report!! Cassazione will confirm that . Do you know that most pro innocence people I have ever spoken to read PMF and TJMK every day? I do also. Do you read IIP and the JREF forums every day to see the other side of the story? The truth? I guarantee you do not possess the courage to do that lest it ruin your comfort zone of believing 2 people guilty whilst putting the actual murderer on a pedestal. The truth hurts. Prepare to be hurt and to know the truth. For Meredith. She already knows the truth and it is NOT what you espouse. God help you.

Julia,

That's the thing that seems inescapable about this debate. The guilter's seem almost frightened to extract any information from the opposing sites. I almost wonder if they have jointly agreed it to be sacrilege to challenge their devoutness of belief and stray from the flock.

It's bizarre.

Daithi, Please... with all due respect. I do not feel the need to read another 500 pages of minutiae that was already in the previous 1000 pages of minutiae.

I do not know you Daithi and I'm sure you originally meant well. I appreciate that. I really do.

But I seriously doubt that there is something that is in Gallati's appeal that couldn't be found in the previous Massaei and Hellman report or the trial transcripts that I've already reviewed.

What I see in this appeal..(yes without looking at it) is desperation. Of lawyers trying to resurrect their shattered case and their own diminished stature. Gallati, Comodi, Stefanoni and Mignini are feeling the sting of public humiliation and they do not want to eat the crow that they so richly deserve. In fact, that has been the problem since day one.

The prosecutors "were sold"..not sure why..but they were sold on AK's guilt and they saw this case as a way to make their careers. A public trial of "an American" so they announced to the world that they had solved this case. This was the case they thought. The one that will make them famous, get them promoted, get themselves noticed...maybe get themselves rich!!! It was the golden ring.

So the prosecution held press conferences, they dialed up the tabloids and Voila!!! Foxy Knox the Satanic She Devil from Seattle was born!! The whole world suddenly knew about this murder case and they were watching. Time to cash in their chips thought.

But then the evidence started pouring in and nothing..absolutely nothing fit. So their theories became more elaborate, more convoluted and unfortunately for the prosecution more ridiculous.

So today they are far from heroes, they are goats. The are humiliated and they are choking on that crow.

A little advice from the cheap seats Daithi if I may. Take a breath, go outside, enjoy the sunshine, have a glass of wine, laugh with friends, get laid. Then allow yourself to admit that you were sold a bill of goods on this one.

Remember the song Daithi? Every body plays the fool...Sometimes.. There is no exception to the rule. Nothing to be ashamed about.

So, if you haven't read Galati's appeal, can we expect you avoid commenting on it or whether it will or will not be successful? As the FOA keep reminding us, the final appeal is about the law and not the evidence contained in the previous trail reports.

Yet here they are, arguing the evidence again.

Again Naseer, what could possibly be in Galati's appeal that wasn't' in the not one, but two trials that have already happened?

You think the Prosecution "conjured" up some damning new piece of evidence now after 4 years?

Or do you think that somehow Galati can now eloquently explain a new theory given that the prosecution hasn't already attempted to "sell us" on Satanic Rituals, Sex Orgies, jealousy, dirty housekeeping, etc.

I'm sorry Naseer, but there comes a point when one says no, nine, nada, no mas, enough. I've heard enough merde.

That's ok if you don't want to read it, but, to use a similar analogy, would you say that in order to understand Citizens United, you don't need to read the appeals documents? Just read all the lower courts decisions? Or, first, verdict, then trial?

Justice Thomas would love that argument! So, too, would the 'Queen of Hearts', lol.

Aahh Citizens United...I like the reference Naseer. But I fail to see how that analogy applies.

There were NO questions of fact in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission The only question before the court was the interpretation of the how the US Constitution applies in respect to campaign finance laws.

Would you now Naseer like to discuss Marbury v. Madison, Dred Scott, Brown v. Board of Education. Roe v. Wade?

We could..lol

We could indeed, though perhaps not in this post :) I could argue that political considerations played a part in those decisions, as they did also in the appointment and subsequent decision of judge Hellmann.

Would you say that is a good thing, or is only good when it comes out according to your own preconceptions of The Way Things Ought To Be?

You may argue correctly Naseer that "political considerations played in a part of those decisions. I would agree 100% on that assessment. (at least about Supreme Court Decisions involving "case law").

You seem to keep saying that my stubbornness in not reading Galati’s final appeal demonstrates an unwillingness to fully understand the "facts" in this case.

And I of course, am rejecting that reasoning as well as the analogy you are using about the Citizens United v. FEC.

The Supreme Court became involved in Citizens United and almost all other cases to enforce the Supreme law of the land, the United States Constitution or at least their interpretation of it. (I am of course saying just the supreme law of the US..not the world..please tell your friend Verp) The court “rejects a full ” 98% of pretty much all appeals made to them., which are in the tens of thousands. ps this estimate may not be statistically correct, but I’m fairly confident that both estimates are close.

The court does not make “any determinations of “fact” none at all in reviewing appeals. Only in how the law applies to the handling of a particular case.

So again Naseer, I fail to see how reading Galati’s appeal will inform anyone including yourself of any new facts pertaining to this case.

Reading Galati's appeal might better qualify one to pontificate on whether it will be successful or not.

Till then, don't.

I've read Galati's appeal. He is grasping at straws, trying to undo things that have been done using reasoning that follows little logic and perfectly sets the stage for rebuttal. It must be frustrating. It won't be successful, but can't blame the guy for trying. Oh wait, yes we can! :)

I should have asked , have you aquainted yourself with Pratillo Hellmanns report intimately? I dont mean a casual glance either. Dont give me/us the usual bs about his being a lowly judge not familiar with dna or not familiar with a criminal proceeding. He is much higher than Massei and it showed. Glaringly. I feel rather sorry for you actually as I am wondering just what you will do with yourself when the SC upholds Hellmans verdict. And it shall. Will you accept that? For Meredith? You all carry on about how great the Italian court system is so no doubt you will accept that judgement right? And if so, why could you not accept Hellmanns knowing he devastated the prosecution in his report. Totally devastated them. Prepare to be devastated and for many to smile at your despair. Meredith knows the truth and she will make sure everybody knows it mark my words.

Have you acquainted yourself with Umbrian Prosecutor General Galati's motion for appeal 'intimately'? Enough for you to confidently say "when the SC upholds Hellmans verdict"?

Mr Fortuneteller, I have read the points that Galati is appealing yes. The whole document, no. Galati will lose. Now what is your prediction? You dont seem to have done very well with them in the past. ;)

My interest isn't in prediction, it's in the psychology. Specifically, Amanda Knox's :)

And you base your psychological analysis of Amanda on what? You have sat her in a chair for a few days? You have at LEAST spoken with her? Nope. You have read the tabloid BS plus the rantings of the madman Quennell and his sidekick Ganong and contributed to the sick and sad state of affairs at their sites. You are a phoney sir. You hide out at a hate site and then pronounce judgement on an innocent girl whilst deifying Rudy Guede, the sole murderer of Meredith Kercher. Get thee to an analyst pronto. You are lost.

You have sat her in a chair for a few days? You have at LEAST spoken with her?

have you?

No, I haven't spoken with her, nor have I made a formal diagnosis. You might want to direct your ire at Time Magazine, where a psychologist speculated she might have some form of Autism.

On the other hand, I did write an article on TJMK "An Overview of Modern Thinking on the Criminal Mind" where I posted various specialist viewpoints on psychopathy. You can always argue she doesn't fit the profile, not having sat down with her either :)

Stick to psychology. Whatever you do, don't talk about the evidence. Despite the lack of evidence, Amanda's eyes appear to be "evil" - right??? :) Those eyes prove that she must have levitated into the room and instructed Guede to murder, sexually assault and rob her roommate.

I've 'talked' about the 'evidence', but don't agree with your conclusions.

As to her eyes, yeah, some people look creepy through no fault of their own. Where have I ever said that proved guilt or innocence?

The only evidence you have left is purely cirumstantial and does not, in any way shape or form, prove guilt.

"If Amanda doesn't at least know what happened the night Meredith was murdered, perhaps it would do her some good to at least give this poor woman some of the publicity that she so hungrily appears to be grasping."

You've outdone yourself, Chelsea. Please elaborate on how Amanda is so hungrily grasping publicity? How is this not the fault of the journalists who report on this case? How often does Amanda pose and smile for paparazzi?? How many interviews has she done since she left prison? Even when she was IN prison, the tabloids focused on her. Was she "so hungrily grasping for publicity" when she was behind bars too?

Good one Candice,

I have asked Chelsea exactly that twice already and she hasn't replied. The reason I think, is Chelsea wrote that without any reasoning. It just rolled off her fingertips and she was freewheeling. "Dangerous" for any writer.

And not wanting to explain herself, she is passing over that.

Amanda Knox was released from prison when her conviction for the assault/murder of Meredith Kercher was overturned on appeal, thereby revealing the absurdity of the first conviction. The TRUTH as determined by acquitting Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann states that there was/is no believable motive; there are no witnesses; there was no evidence of Knox’s presence in the bloody bedroom; TMB testing proved that there were no bloody footprints in the hallway; there was no suspicious evidence of Knox’s presence anywhere in the flat (i.e., she lived there); there were no ‘lies’ unless one feels compelled to label an illegally coerced statement a ‘lie’.

There was evidence of only one person in the bloody bedroom—Rudy Guede! The only DNA, finger prints, shoe prints found in the bloody bedroom belong to Rudy Guede. There was one, and only one attacker/murderer and that person is Rudy Guede. One more time, “there was evidence of only one person in the bloody bedroom—Rudy Guede!

Excellent Bob...well said.

Do you think Amanda Knox murdered, or helped in the murder, of Meredith Kercher? Yes. I think anyone who looks beyond the PR hype can easily see she played a large role in Meredith's murder.

How does one participate in a horrific murder such as this and leave nothing of themselves in the process? Explain this to me Anna. It's always puzzled me how they did it.

Now calli, if every murderer left traces of themselves I don't think there would be much need for homicide squads.

Try not to let this puzzle you too much.

Sure, Calli don't worry your pretty little head about this tiny little contradiction. It's not important.

Watch my right hand...don't worry about my left hand.

Amanda levitated.

So did Rudy Guede through the window, and left NOT A TRACE BEHIND IN FILOMENA'S ROOM!

You were saying?

What about Rep. 199 on the sill? It was positive for blood by TMB.

Did that match Guede's profile?

No profile was found; therefore, the item of evidence cannot definitively be linked to Guede. However, its existence is suggestive that a burglary did take place. Why would you expect DNA to be deposited from a person wearing clothing and possibly gloves in Filomena's room?

How are you positive there was no trace of Guede in that room when there were only 5 samples of evidence tested in the room???? The room was not properly investigated. No sign of Filomena in her own room.

Candice Roque, Thank you for that timely reminder. It would have been nice if the investigators had checked more items in Filomena's room, things like drawer handles, for example.

How long does DNA last? The presence of unidentified DNA is suggestive that a burglary did take place, but the presence of Raffale Sollecito's DNA on the clasp is what, proof that he wasn't involved in the murder?

It's proof he was in the cottage. He was DATING Knox.....of course it wouldn't be a stretch to surmise how his DNA was found in the cottage.

He was 'dating' Knox on Filomena's window sill? Please follow what was said.

WTF????

Follow your own advice.

I think Mignini should ask for a refund with this one. Did you just implode, Naseer?

Anna Medici and Daithi Branagan,

Both of you have implied that there is a PR campaign that distorts rational thinking. Your implicit assumption is that the two of you are smart enough to see through it but others are not. Do you know how condescending that sounds? Do you have any evidence of the influence of this putative PR campaign beyond the fact that the Mellas family did what others in the same position have done (which is to hire someone to help them deal with a high profile case)? Why don't you lay out your reasons why the murder cannot be the work of one person? Or if not you then maybe Chelsea can do that in her next post.

Chris

To claim PR campaigns do not influence media and public perception is nonsensical and risible. Drawing inference to forms of condescension is trite and irrelevant. The issue is one of murder, guilt or innocence.

Paul,

You did not answer my questions, and you misstated my position, which is that PR can help shape a message but it cannot mask the absence of a message. Good PR could have helped Lindy Chamberlain: she was innocent, but did not know how to present herself to the public in a favorable light. PR cannot control the media, which is vast, and it cannot shut down opposing voices. I am still hoping someone can address why some are able to see through the PR smokescreen and others cannot.

However, if you want to talk about guilt or innocence, I am more than happy to do so. For example, it is not simply that murderers always leave "traces of themselves," it is that Guede left multiple traces, yet Knox and Sollecito left none. Alternatively, if you prefer do discuss why the trial of first instance was or was not fair, that is fine, too.

Yep Paul,

PR campaigns do influence media and public perception. But Chris knocked your fat pitch out of the park. Chris is right, it is condescending for you to think that you are the only one capable of rational thought.

PR campaigns can only take you so far. As evident in this case. It was the prosecution that launched the PR campaign in the first place. Their problem and yours is that PR cannot change the facts. You might be able to get people to buy a candy bar that tastes horrible.....once. But all the PR in the world is not going to be able to get repeat customers.

The public perception of this case has dramatically changed not because of some choreagraphed Knox PR campaign. It simply is the result of the facts coming to light and Amanda's acquittal.

Many many many people who soberly have reviewed this case and come to an entirely different conclusion than you have.

You are saying that we all must be stupid, naive, etc and frankly we are saying the same about you.

Welcome Home Amanda and Raffaele.

The extent of collusion between network media and the PR campaign is unprecedented in this case. Over and over the Melloxes and their supporters have done interviews in which they are set up to recite their pre-prepared talking points and literally no adversarial questions are asked. The public by and large trusts the media and will be swayed by such one-sided interviews.

As for the why the murder could not have been committed by one person, it's important to remember, first of all,that the standard is beyond a reasonable doubt (by a preponderance of the evidence for the civil claims). The re-enactment showing how Meredith could have been killed by one person is unconvincing. It's assumes the victim is going is not going to fight like hell. If you have ever tried to pick up a wild animal you can imagine what a 56kg young woman could do. Then there is the obvious partial clean-up in the bedroom, which the single attacker would have no reason to carry out. You know about the bathmat, the bra clasp, and the luminol evidence. The Real Truth(tm) there is plain to see for anybody who is not determined to explain each separate bit away. As Vincent Bugliosi said, innocent people don't find themselves in situations where dozens of pieces of evidence have to be explained away in order to exonerate them.

b mull posted: ". . . innocent people don't find themselves in situations where dozens of pieces of evidence have to be explained away in order to exonerate them."

-------------------------------------

Innocent people do have to explain away pieces of evidence when the prosecution has lied, misled, and withheld information. Innocent people do have to explain away pieces of evidence when they have been framed!

b mull, Which reenactment do you mean? I found Torre's view reasonable. A woman versus a larger man with a knife might choose not to fight, or the fight may be very quick. On the other hand, the timeline put forward by Fulcanelli included Meredith's being restrained for 20 minutes or so. Where is the DNA from her restrainers on Meredith's body? Partial clean-up? How could anyone remove traces of himself or herself while not also removing traces of Guede? My position on the bathmat is that it cannot be definitively linked to anyone. The clasp has the DNA of several people on it. Unless one is willing to say that all of the individuals who donated DNA participated in the attack, one has no basis for saying that Sollecito's putative profile was donated during the attack. Conti and Vecchiotti dismissed the clasp, and I cannot see a good reason to do otherwise.

The luminol evidence was collected on December 18, long after a great deal of foot traffic and tossing about of the flat had taken place. With negative TMB tests, with many of the luminol-positive areas showing no DNA, and without confirmatory testing, there is no reason to conclude that blood was present. Moreover, all three feet in the hallway are right feet. Finally, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down when one seriously considers Rep. 180.

You make us laugh Mr. Mull, You are so desperate, it's a collusion of network media and a PR campaign?

As for your claims of multiple attackers, OJ Simpson was able to murder both Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman alone.

Women are murdered all the time by single attackers. But here's the problem with the prosecution theory of multiple attackers and it is just that. A theory that is possible (as it is possible that there are little green men on the moon)

Even if the prosecution is correct that Rudy Guede had help in committing this heinous crime and that is a major if, there is nothing in that bedroom that implicates any specific individual except for Rudy Guede.

No one can confirm that the bra clasp had DNA of Raffaele or Amanda's on it.
No one can confirm that the kitchen knife had Meredith's DNA on it.
The Kitchen knife could not be matched to any of the wounds on Meredith's body.
The Luminol footprints tested negative for blood. The bloody footprint on the bath mat did not match Raffaele or Amanda and was in fact a closer match to Rudy..(but not definitive).

You keep saying dozens of pieces of evidence but in fact there is only dozens of pieces of data. Obscure items that don't offer any conclusions only questions.

In fact it is the absence of evidence in this case that is so compelling.

It is the absence of any motive or rational
It is the absence of violent pasts or criminal history
It is the absence of any connection between the known killer Rudy and AK, RS or MK.
It is the absence of a video recording of Amanda's interrogation.

I could go on and and on and on.

As for your claims of multiple attackers, OJ Simpson was able to murder both Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman alone.

1. OJ was never convicted. Unlike Amanda Knox, he was found innocent from the beginning.

2. OJ is also far larger, more muscular, stronger, more athletic than Knox and that scrawny pipsqueak Sollecito. He's a gridiron legend for one thing. Common Sense. 6'1" 212 lbs.

3. Evidence already indicated that some of the wounds on Meredith's body were inflicted by someone who was physically weak as well as more brutal wounds. = more than one person.

granted -- I think OJ did it. But I also don't think it's wise to compare that crime to the murder of Kercher. Different elements.

Also, it's believed that OJs oldest son helped him ;)

P.S. -- you might also want to be aware that *many* murderer suspects and convicted killers had no prior criminal history before their crimes.

Examples? There are tons but here are just a few:

1. Willie Horton (wiki it)
2. Holly Grigsby (helped murder 4 ppl in washington)
3. 38% of captured serial killers have NO criminal history. (Via FBI statistics)

Also, just because the public doesn't know the motive -- doesn't mean there is no motive.

OJ surprised his victims. While it's possible Knox and Sollecito surprised Meredith, it's much more likely she was taken off guard because she knew them. The wounds on Nicole and Ron were severe enough to drop them on the spot. Meredith's wounds were not immediately life-threatening and so she would have tried to break free after the initial right-sided wound, and the blood spatter evidence in the room suggests she did just that.

Let's see Chelsea.. OJ...I'll let that pass since we both agree that OJ did it. I’ve also heard the theory that his son was involved...(not sure I believe that..but we’ll let that pass) I also agree that OJ is more powerful than Rudy Guede.

But the argument that there were multiple attackers is not in evidence. Anyone making that argument is simply practicing conjecture.

No one knows for example how Kercher reacted when threatened with a knife. The idea that there would have been more or less signs of a struggle is just conjecture on Mr. Mull's and your part.

And if you can explain how anyone can definitively or even presumptively say that some of the wounds were made by someone weaker, I'd like to know. And frankly I seriously doubt I would believe them regardless of their bona fides.

That is simply conjecture and not science. Might as well use a Ouji board or read tea leaves.

And it isn't just the absence of criminal history it's the lack of any history of violence at all.
It's the lack of any connection between Amanda/Raffaele/Meredith and the one person virtually everyone agrees was absolute there killing Meredith that day
It's the logic that Amanda and Raffaele, smoked pot at his home took a knife from his drawer at home carried it with them to her flat encountered Rudy, someone they didn't know and together the three of them killed Meredith, then Rudy and Amanda said goodbye to their new stranger friend. Then AK and RS began cleaning Meredith Kercher's room eliminating all traces of themselves from that room while at the same time leaving substantial evidence of this total stranger. Then do something even more absurd, by returning that knife to Raffaeles kitchen drawer.

The absurdity of your argument may be plausible..(which I doubt) but it is certainly NOT definitive to convict anyone in my book.

Chelsea, Willie Horton has a history of violence - he killed a gas station attendent after robbing him, and then he attacked and raped a young couple in their home. He had a troubled upbringing and always had anger issues, aggression and violent tendencies. Holly Grigsby had a bad heroin problem, and she also abandoned her young son, her parole officer and her husband before she embarked on a killing spree under the influence of her new white-supremacist, cage fighter boyfriend.

You're comparing Amanda and Raffaele to these people?? lolol

Amanda was popular, did well in school, always worked, maintained healthy relationships with family, friends, bosses and teachers. You can say that's "paid PR BS," but is it lies? You, as well as anyone else in this world, must know how easy it is for the press to dig up dirt on someone when they are determined to. Mignini and crew did all they could to find that dirt, and what's the most incriminating thing they could find in Amanda's past?? A noise violation for the going away party Amanda threw before leaving for Italy. Sounds like the work of a dangerious, potential serial killer, right?

It's obvious that Guede did not intend to kill Meredith from the get-go. It escalated to that point. His intent was robbery, but he was trapped in the house when Meredith arrived home and locked the faulty front door from the inside with a key. Guede had no way of exiting at that point, and he had to confront Meredith. The initial wounds were not life-threatening. There was an obvious struggle, and at some point Guede realized that he would have to kill Meredith.

All experts testified that the wounds were compatible with the actions of one person. All of the evidence suggests that only Meredith and her attacker were in the room. We know that a clean-up did not occur. There is no other conclusion you can come to except that the BURGLAR, whose DNA was found on and inside Meredith and on and inside HER PURSE, murdered her, sexually assaulted her as she lay dying, and then covered her so that he could walk freely around the apartment and rob her of her money and credit cards while she was not looking up at him.

Fantastic summation Candice!!!

Chelsea wrote: "If Amanda doesn't at least know what happened the night Meredith was murdered, perhaps it would do her some good to at least give this poor woman (Meredith) some of the publicity that she (Amanda) so hungrily appears to be grasping."

How so, Chelsea? Amanda hasn't uttered a word for public consumption since Oct. 4, 2011--the day after her release. Is it her book deal? You don't think she is entitled to this after her family accumulated a mountain of debt in support of her defense? You don't think that she is entitled to tell her side of the story after spending four years in prison for something she didn't do?

Just how should Amanda Knox be behaving? Please spell it out.

get back to improving your PR skills bob.

They're very poor.

Aren't you resorting to an ad hominem attack of Bob, simply because you haven't and won't explain your logic where you claim that Amanda is acting like some kind of publicity hound even though she has not said one single word publicly since the day she arrived home in Seattle?

You'll note that I have asked you this twice already, and so has Dani and now Bob.

Explain your logic for us Chelsea.

Nope, it's an obvious observation in response to his frequent presence as a failed PR rep for the amandroids.

I've yet to see him produce any logic from him. My comment was deserving.

Not one single word?
exaggeration doesn't win an argument ;)

What did I exaggerate, Chelsea?

--Please post any words for public consumption that Amanda Knox has uttered since Oct. 4, 2011.

--Are you saying that Amanda's family has not amassed a mountain of debt in their efforts to win her freedom? Are you saying that Amanda isn't entitled to sell her side of the story in an effort to relieve this debt?

--Are you saying that Amanda is not entitled to tell her side of the story after being tortured for four years?

-----------------------------------------

Let me ask you one more time, "how should Amanda Knox be behaving?" Please spell it out.

Not even once, huh Tesla

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/10/04/video-amanda-knox-speaks-out-upon-emotional-return-to-united-states-says-thank-you-for-being-there-for-me/

Pay attention!


@Bob -- she should at least wait to see if she ends up back in prison before she starts publishing her 'stories'

Not even once, huh Tesla

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/10/04/video-amanda-knox-speaks-out-upon-emotional-return-to-united-states-says-thank-you-for-being-there-for-me/

Pay attention!


@Bob -- she should at least wait to see if she ends up back in prison before she starts publishing her 'stories'

Wow! "Amanda Knox speaks out upon emotional return to United States says thank you for being there for me." That's a real grasp for attention.

Chelsea, maybe Amanda's family will tell her to check with you next time she does something so rash as to sign a multimillion dollar book deal. Amanda probably had the mistaken idea that she had the freedom to enter into contracts at her discretion. I guess prison doesn't teach anything these days.

Bob, I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to Tesla which said:

Aren't you resorting to an ad hominem attack of Bob, simply because you haven't and won't explain your logic where you claim that Amanda is acting like some kind of publicity hound even though she has not said one single word publicly since the day she arrived home in Seattle?

Again, exaggeration doesn't win a debate. ;)

And of course Amanda is entitled to write about whatever fiction she wants to concoct... And that's most likely what it will be; fiction.

You made my point for me. Amanda hasn't spoken word one "since she arrived home"

I guess you could take that two ways. I was clearly referring to since her 2 minutes on the airport tarmac.

Hardly a publicity hound. And if you were watching the local Seattle news, not only did Amanda barely speak that day or since but has avoided the press. If Amanda was grasping for publicity, she wouldn't have asked the press to leave her and her family alone.

Yeah Amanda, that spotlight hogging PR hound.

Chris,

Your question concerning " why some people claim they can see through PR whilst others cannot" I would venture depends largely on a person's intuition and what they choose to make of it.

Tesla, for example, has posted that " I think I am the only one capable of rational thought". You get that? I never said any such thing. My comment actually implied the opposite. Is Tesla acting obtuse, silly, or just plain twisted. Hard to say, ain't it?

Now, let's talk about the hard facts. What's your take on Guede's footprints going straight out the front door?

The prints fade out toward the door; they don't actually go out the door. Offhand, I can think of at least two explanations. One, Guede steps in blood on his final time (after rinsing off in the bathroom) in Meredith's bedroom, then walks toward the door and leaves. Two, Guede walks toward the front door (with the steps getting fainter), finds he needs the keys and returns to Meredith's room (but at this point with no more blood on the soles, therefore leaving no more prints).

Daitha wrote, “They have a purely emotional response based on God knows what mysterious motives. But intelligent and rational people will actually do their homework before posting,” and “how a PR campaign can distort truth and evidence and persuade people to abandon all logical and rational thinking.” Anna wrote, “Yes. I think anyone who looks beyond the PR hype can easily see she played a large role in Meredith's murder.” Daitha implied that the pro-innocence commenters are unintelligent. Whether or not the pro-innocence commenters are capable of rational thought is not finally the point; clearly these two commenters believe that only the pro-guilt community is actually thinking clearly and logically.

That not how I read your post Paul. Maybe I'm being obtuse and maybe you're just not being clear in your writing. Whatever.

Chris,

The prints fade towards the front door, but there is no trace of faded prints returning. To imply otherwise requires a lot of conjecture.

The first hypothesis lacks any traces leading from the bedroom to the bath.

The second hypothesis, as I've said, really doesn't stand up..

Paul, In the first scenario, Guede does not have any blood on his shoes when he first leaves the bedroom to go to the bathroom. He rinses off, comes back to the bedroom, and then steps in a pool of blood. In the second scenario, the only assumption I am making is that by the time Guede gets near the door, there is so little blood left that the prints are weak or nonexistent. The problem with documenting the degree to which they faded out is that the prints were scrubbed away by the police during their evidence collection.

Appreciate your input, but it is a scenario. If he went to the bathroom to wash of blood and scrub down, we can assume blood was already on his shoes. So why no prints? The second scenario involves Guede walking towards the front door and leaving progressively fading prints, as we would expect. Why is there not even the slightest fading trace of him turning round? How could the outgoing traces be left, but the returning traces be scrubbed clean?

Chelsea......so you have exclusivity of accusal when it comes to ad hominems?

The use of ad hominem as a defense is usually reserved for those with a weak argument. In otherwords....your favorite back up plan!

AC called you out and rightfully so.

gallagher

Word to the wise.....you're in over your head with Chris.

No one, not even the postal police, noticed the prints at first. I think that this gives some indication of how faint they were. http://knoxarchive.wordpress.com/2009/11/27/manuela-comodi-asks-for-common-sense/

the postal police were led to believe it was a robbery, the focus was on the broken window and the crap in the toilet. They probably thought the blood in the bathroom was from a cut the burglar sustained from the glass. Meredith's locked door was played down by AK so the PP would not have a possible victim on their radar, easy to overlook the bloody prints in that hour.

By his own words, Guede made a trip to the bathroom to get towels. I think that the blood was on his hands and trouser leg at this point. He rinsed (possibly using the bidet) and then returned to the bedroom. Perhaps while he was obtaining Meredith's keys, he stepped into a pool of blood.

Of course he made a trip to the bath, but he didn't leave any connecting prints. If your point is that blood was only on his clothing and he washed off in the bidet, he would have had to remove his shoes - to make the bathmat print - then put them on again. All this while he is urgently looking for towels to stench Meredith's blood!!. So then he returns to the bedroom, steps on the blood again, hence the prints heading towards the door.

Possible but not probable.

If he took the time to go to the bathroom with blood on his pants , surely blood would have dripped off on the floor or watered down drips would have fallen after the pant leg washing. Are we to believe he left wearing pants wet and left to drip dry as he walked out of the bathroom.

He obtained towels from the bathroom, which could have been used to blot his trouser leg dry. It is debatable whether or not he was looking to staunch the bleeding. Maybe you can explain where you are going with this whole line of argument.

I really just jumped in on Paul's argument about the prints leading out the door. I don't think Guede washed in the bathroom at all. I think his pant leg became bloody after he knelt with the towels. I think he left after by the exiting trail of his prints.

This is really sad Dylan, It's not the job of the defense to explain every single detail and data point that leads to nowhere. The guilters are insisting that it's the Defense's job to answer what the Prosecution cannot prove but can only hypothesize?

Because the prosecution can not definitively identify whose bloody footprint that is on that bathmat therefore the guilters are saying that the defense must definitively prove who that print belongs to.

I'm sorry but that seems ENTIRELY BACKWARDS

The line of argument is fairly straightforward, in other words, was Guede responsible for Kercher's murder, and did he act alone.

Are we to accept his own words that he made a trip to the bathroom for towels? Are we to accept in his own words that he was actually in the bathroom when the murder took place?

The only recognizable prints of Guede exit the bedroom and make for the front door, as he himself maintains. The bathmat print cannot really be attributed to anyone in particular. So who made it? Why no connecting prints? Do we go for the scenario of Guede removing his shoes to wash, making the bathmat print with his bare foot, before putting shoes on again to leave?

Just a discussion.

You're a 100% right. Paul,

Nobody, not the defense, not the prosecution, not the investigators, nobody knows who made the footprint on the bathmat. And Rudy has been proven to be unreliable as a witness.

So where does that leave us Paul? Speculating, Guessing in fact. Jumping to conclusions without confirming evidence.

Is this enough to incarcerate Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox? I don't think so.

Also Paul, you keep playing out scenarios..why bother?

There is no evidence to confirm any of them. Is this an exercise, "excuse the expression" of self abuse?

Do you really find that satisfying?

Hellman report

http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/print-on-the-mat/

"It cannot therefore be ruled out that Guede, after leaving the print of photo 104 on the pillow (ruling p. 359) and, perhaps, that of photo 105 (ruling pp. 366-367), experienced the loss of his right shoe in the course of the violent aggressive maneuvers to which he subjected Kercher, thus resulting in the soiling of his foot with blood, which he took it upon himself to wash in the small bathroom situated immediately to the left of the door to Meredith’s bedroom. Otherwise, his right shoe should also have left some kind of bloody trace along the corridor as he exited; he likely went through it, however, with his right food bare, even if cleaned of blood by this point."

Very very Good Calli, Your timing is impeccable.

Since that footprint could not be definitively matched to any specific individiual, everyone is left wondering precisely how it came to be on that mat.

Clearly the Hellman court came up with a hypothesis that is as plausible as any.

I just looked over the photos of the prints, and they do indeed fade toward the door. Therefore, I would not exclude scenarios that have him doubling back, although I favor the scenario in which he steps in blood as he retrieves the keys, but I am not wedded to any one possibility. I think Rudy can only be trusted to tell the truth when he knows that there is evidence that would call him out if he told a lie. With respect to the possibilities that I have presented, we seem to disagree on their likelihood. I am fine with that. My point is that nothing in the prints forces me to believe that anyone else had a hand in the crime.

AC Tesla and calli rasper are correct; it is the prosecution's job to relate evidence to a coherent theory of a crime. Yet in the trial of the first instance, they sometimes were able to reverse the burden of proof.

The prints fade progressively towards the door, we know that, it's logical for the blood to wear off. What is not so logical is to presume he made an about turn just as the prints faded, or the various scenarios of taking off shoes, especially when blood from a third party is deposited in the bathroom at the same time as the murder.

We are going to have to agree to disagree about the two scenarios that I presented, one of which is that the prints faded out during his exit from the cottage. It seems to me that you and Dylan have had to make conjectures in order to rebut them. For example, we don't know the amount or location of blood on Rudy's clothes; therefore, we don't know whether or not dripping was likely.

In some ways this reminds me of discussions I have had about the bra clasp DNA. Pro-guilt commenters have made what amounts to arguments from incredulity toward some of my hypotheses, sidestepping the need to present a coherent explanation themselves. You have yet to present your own scenario. I would be interested in hearing how clear evidence against Guede is somehow evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

GUEDE TESTIFIED IN COURT THAT HE CLEANED HIMSELF OFF - OF MEREDITH'S BLOOD - IN THAT BATHROOM BEFORE HE LEFT THE COTTAGE - hello??!! lol it's in his own words, yet there is still a question about whose footprint it was?