Don't know how much you know about this trial but my firm belief is that if I were on the Jury I woud find both Amanda Knox and her Boyfriend NOT GUILTY. The evidence, or so called evidence, is patchy at least and from what I have read it seems perfectly clear that the man already convicted of her murder is guilty. He had sex with her that night in what looks, from the forensics, like it was forced. He fled the country straight after the murder and then when he was caught he had injuries to his hand, probably caused by the weapon he used to slit her throat.
this site seems to be dedicated to proving that Amanda Knox is guilty, yet when you read through the evidence and the witness statements they seem so unconvincing. From what I have read it seems clear that Rudy Guede raped and killed Meredith Kercher before fleeing and then trying to implicate Amanda Knox, and Raffaele Sollecito once he was caught an after he found out they were being held as suspects. His (Guede's) DNA is all over the flat, particularly in the room where the crime took place. It seems utterly ridiculous to me that they are ever going to be found guilty, but stranger things have happened.
I would love to know how these things can mean anything in this trial:
"From the very start, investigators suspected a woman had been involved in the murder. Meredith Kercher, naked save for a sweater pulled up above her chest, was almost completely covered by a quilt. A forensic expert confided that covering a corpse was a gesture of pity, more typical of a woman than a man. "
This is just stupid In my opinion: So women are more likely to cover a corpse as a gesture of pity? Maybe the killer just wanted to hide the body to give him time. The door was locked too. Is that something a female killer would be more likely to do? Or perhaps just another attempt to keep the crime hidden as long as possible?
"That day, Knox’s face betrayed no sign of anguish or sorrow when police took her to the cottage to help them search it. Inside the cottage, when investigators asked her about the way Kercher may have died, Knox made the same gesture again and again: “She’d press her hands to her temples and shake her head, as if she was trying to empty her brain of something she’d been through,” a judicial source said, adding that she may well have succeeded in erasing “the most dramatic parts” of the night’s events" source
or perhaps she was actually quite distressed by the events. Maybe asking her how the victim died was just such a stupid question to be asking and maybe Amanda Knox wasn't exactly in the right frame of mind to be discussing how her flatmate might have died.
"by the evening of November 3, Knox was apparently calm enough to buy two thongs at a lingerie shop with Sollecito. A shopkeeper overheard Sollecito say to Knox as they paid for the purchases: “You can put these on at home and we’ll have wild sex.” "
Ok - maybe a little odd after discovering a flatmate has been murdered but not exactly firm evidence that either person was the killer. From what I have read they were in a new relationship, presumably sex was pretty high on the agenda. So they bought underwear, so what? And anyway - so what if it was thongs? Presumably her house was out of bounds and so she had no clothes. Underwear is probably the most basic thing you would need and her choice of underwear shouldn't be a big deal.
There's also stuff about how the Victim didn't really click with Amanda Knox and commented to that effect in letters and emails home to her parents. Blimey! Does this mean that every time I say something not exactly complimentary about someone I work with or know then it might be used to build a case against me if they are killed or die?
... and this is interesting. Guede is arrested 2 whole weeks after the murder, with loads of DNA evidence putting him at the crime scene and no DNA evidence to suggest that he had been a close enough friend to any of the other accused to have visited their acommodation. presumably by the time he was arrested both Knox and Sollecito have been implicated in the murder giving Guede a perfect 'out' whereby he proceeds to create a story which involves the two other suspects and paints him as someone trying to help. To me it's obvious that he for some reason is hoping to turn attention away from himself and onto two innocent people.
"Police admit Rudy never called or emailed Meredith, Amanda or Raffaele. Police found no trace of them in his apartment, nor did they discover his DNA in Raffaele's flat. Yet he is supposed to have participated in a sex game with the three college students that ended in Meredith's refusal and death. A theory for which the prosecution has presented little evidence, other than numerous attempts to portray Amanda as sluttish and manipulative. A black widow. Judge Paolo Michelli, during the pretrial, took the conspiracy for granted. He boasted that he began his reasoning with all three suspects in the murder room. So much for innocent until proven guilty."
Which is weird as I have read today (in a Telegraph article I think) that Knox sent text messages to Guede. Totally false yet another example of how the press can run away with false information while tryig to sensationalise a murder case.
"One thing is certain: Rudy didn't belong in the upstairs flat in the cottage. He had never been a lodger, boyfriend, guest or anything else. Yet police found his DNA on the victim, inside her body, on her purse and in other locations. His conviction was no surprise."
this which is about her myspace is also an interesting look at how facebook/myspace etc can be used against a person.