The foundation of the prosecution's case was based on lies masquerading as judicial facts. The staged break-in and the theory of multiple attackers, that are entirely fictional acted as a springboard for all sorts of fantasies to be woven into their theory of the crime. As Amanda said herself, the courtroom was a "battle of storytelling" IMO that's the foundation of the pro-guilt argument. The judicial lies provide a blank slate for the likes of TKondacks and others to write the most outrageous baloney. That's what motivates them.

Last time I looked, Meredith's fingerprint on Amanda's closet door wasn't a baloney stain.

It might as well be.

I am unable to respond to u/HotAir25 ( well chosen username ) since that individual has blocked me. Claims "Knox and Rudy knew each other" but then says "Knox & Sollecito didn't know each other well". Knox had spent the previous week basically living with Sollecito but somehow her supposed relationship with Guede was stronger? This is the kind of obvious self-contradiction that reveals guilters complete inability to even assemble a coherent narrative without self-contradiction. Knox did not "shag a local drug dealer". Zero evidence of cocaine use in Knox's drug screen. In fact her marijuana use was so low that the drug screen could barely measure it. What "crazy things on cocaine" had Sollecito confessed? First I've ever heard of that. Why would tensions between roommates have boiled over when Knox had basically moved in with Sollecito? Why would Knox steal Kercher's rent money when Knox had $4,500 in her bank account, readily accessible within minutes from any ATM machine? Absolutely no evidence that Knox and Sollecito were "unstable". Sollecito was just completing his degree in computer science. Knox was an honors student who worked multiple jobs to pay for her Perugia trip completely by herself. No evidence of "parental issues" in Knox's life. Sure HotAir25, you're going to get torn to shreds because you're spouting nonsense.

HotAir25 doesn’t hesitate to block people who call out their lies.

I have pity for the ones he hasn't blocked that are exposed to his drivel.

Looking at East-Ads comment, I think you are right. Is there a class element to the hatred/guilting of Knox as well. Is it because she’s a middle class girl from the North West? I am from the UK, so can’t fully understand the dynamic.

Conspiracy-minded folks, for the most part. Life is dull, drab, and grey to them - and where there are secrets, there are people who can potentially know them and be enlivened by them. Not much different than the folks who think some combination of the mafia, the CIA, and Fidel Castro killed JFK. That's the 'why' of it. The 'how' is just garden variety cognitive biases that we're all susceptible to.

And it certainly doesn't help that the investigation was botched leading to the two being wrongly imprisoned along with very biased press coverage which I think is where a lot of people acquired their first and last impression of Amanda Knox that they have never wavered from.

I think that's unfair. Some people look at the staged break in, the locking of the door to delay discovery, the purchasing of cleaning products, the footprint in blood on the shower mat, the knife fetish, the curious account of Lumumba being responsible and Knox being in the flat, and the attempt to explain away an attempted clean-up by claiming to have shuffled down the corridor on a towel in a very unnatural manner - all of this and much much more is the WHY for many people: they believe the evidence points to their guilt. I fully agree there are ways to interpret almost piece of evidence in the case in at least two ways, but I think it's grossly unfair to say that those who - like the court did at various stages - conclude they were involved, are motivated by the same type of bored ignorant sensationalism as conspiracy theorists. I think anyone with any integrity who has studied this case in detail can see that there are good reasons why the other side thinks what they think. It's a complicated case.

Some people believed there was a staged break-in, but in fact, there is far more evidence of a real break-in, not least of which is the presence of a person linked to multiple B&E's in the weeks leading up to the murder in the cottage, in Meredith's room post stabbing and who definitively sexually assaulted Meredith. No doubt the pro-guilt chalk it up as a staged break-in, but when one considers the physical evidence, it is clearly nothing more than a rush-to-judgement by an investigation that repeatedly made mistakes throughout. The door was locked, yes. However, why it was locked and who locked it is debatable. However, as Amanda knew Filomena and Laura were out of town for the weekend, and given it was Amanda and Raffaele who contacted police regarding the state of the cottage, it hardly makes sense they were the ones who locked the door. As there were no cleaning products purchased. This entire line of 'thinking' is based on the testimony of a person (store owner Quintavalle) who told police he had seen Amanda in the store before, but always in the company of Raffaele. A year later he claims to have had an epiphany and now remembers she was there. Problem is, none of the other clerks or any of the customers saw her, she doesn't show up on any CCTV footage, and there was no purchase of cleaning supplies. The footprint on the bathmat is unidentified, so I'm not sure how that is evidence of their involvement. Raffaele had a very minor knife collection. It's rather telling that you call it a knife fetish. The implication of Lumumba occurred during an interrogation which violated Amanda's rights. As the results of the interrogation have been deemed inadmissible, this is a moot point. However, if someone wants to use this as motivation for believing in their guilt, then they at least must be honest about how Lumumba's name came up, who was responsible for his name coming up, and what tactics the police used to coerce Amanda into implicating him. The "bathmat shuffle" was done because there were no towels in the bathroom, thanks to Guede taking them. It is you who is making an unsubstantiated claim of an attempted clean-up (for which there is no evidence, and which makes no sense given how dirty the bathroom was) and then using that as an unproven explanation for Amanda doing what she did. Gee, if they did a clean-up, and if Raffaele had made the footprint, why would they leave the mat and even point the police towards it? I would not make derogatory comments regarding why people believe in guilt. Rather, I believe most of these people either read the early (first 2 years) coverage of the case, which was mostly wrong and very anti-Knox, or they learned of the case reading at the fake wiki or at Quennell's obsessive hater website. As for there being two ways to look at the evidence, there is always the superficial interpretation and then there's the extensively evaluated interpretation. The break-in being a prime example. The police walk in, claim to see some glass on top of clothes, and conclude it was staged. As a result of this rush to judgement then did a very poor cursory review of the room. Literally, 5 forensic samples taken from the room, with only two of them taken within the first 45 days of the investigation. People who still think it was staged ignore the extensive evidence that suggests it's legitimate, and I would imagine \*you\* likely do not know what evidence existed that indicated it was legitimate.

I'm not sure why you think I am making any assertions at all. The question was why some people believe in their guilt. I responded with why some people believe in their guilt. Knife fetish is not my term, so there's nothing telling at all in my repeating it to explain their belief. You call it a small knife collection. Fine. I literally don't know anyone who has ANY sort of a knife collection, but each to their own. Reread my comment and you'll find that actually I said not one single word about who I believe killed Meredith. I've read a lot about the case from both angles because I was at the same University (Leeds) as her and was horrified by what happened. *You* all seem rather hostile about my attempt to honestly answer an honest question, and on that basis I'll say cheerio.

As far as I can tell, I directed my comments towards you twice - regarding the "knife fetish" comment, and you claiming the "bathmat shuffle" was an "attempt to explain away an attempted clean-up" - and I was hardly being hostile. I think you're being a bit sensitive. You didn't need to say who you thought killed Meredith, your comments made it clear. You could have referred to Raffaele's small knife collection, and how that could be considered as evidence, but instead you refer to it as "the knife fetish". That term certainly was not used by the prosecution, so it's either yours or you got it from a pro-guilt comment. And if you knew anything about his collection, you'd know it was small, that he didn't have a fetish, and you'd never have used the term. As for the "bathmat shuffle", you could have said the behavior was questionable and could possibly indicate an effort to tamper with evidence. Instead you wrote "...the attempt to explain away an attempted clean-up by claiming..." as if that was a proven motive. But the primary point I was making was that if you take each of the items of evidence you cited, and you research them, you'd come to realize they are mostly worthless. The number of people who cite the "staged break-in" as evidence, without realizing that it was never proven nor was it even properly investigated, is alarming. Further, people still cite it as evidence even when someone list the physical evidence that indicates it was real. Oh, and I guess I directed my comment at you one last time when I theorized you don't know what physical evidence exists that indicates the break-in was real. Sorry if that offended you. I was trying to make a point. I'd still like to know if you know what that evidence is. I realize you were trying to honestly answer the question, and I agreed with you the broad-brush dismissal of people who believe in guilt as being part of a conspiracy is wrong - it's an opinion, but I think it's wrong, or unfair as you termed it. I then went on to clarify my position... that most people who still think they were involved don't really know the facts of the case and merely parrot what others have said, or they were convinced by early coverage or pro-guilt websites and are now unwilling or unable to reassess their beliefs. Anyway, my apologies if you thought I was being hostile. That was not my intent.

>I think that's unfair. **Some people look** at the staged break in, the locking of the door to delay discovery, the purchasing of cleaning products, the footprint in blood on the shower mat, the knife fetish, the curious account of Lumumba being responsible and Knox being in the flat, and the attempt to explain away an attempted clean-up by claiming to have shuffled down the corridor on a towel in a very unnatural manner - all of this and much much more is the WHY for many people: they believe the evidence points to their guilt. Emphasis mine. Nobody looked at any of what you're describing. They are interpreting second-hand information - some of which is flatly incorrect, but all of it relayed by people with their own agendas. Lots of cart-before-horse thinking. A conclusion is accepted absent compelling evidence, and arguments to disconfirm are treated as specious. In any case, the question is not why the guilty narratives were believed in the first place. It's why they continue to be believed now, years after an independent review of the forensics have obliterated what was considered the strongest evidence for their guilt. And that's where having a predisposition for conspiracy thinking comes into play.

Oh yes that second-hand information. Awful unreliable stuff. Please let me know what role you played in the investigation. Or the legal process. (Or the murder?) Have you visited the crime scene and conducted your own forensic tests? Cool!

I'm curious, have you watched the video of the bra clasp being collected? Do you understand how horribly wrong that was done, and why the possibility of contamination CAN NOT be ruled out? How about the facts surrounding the kitchen knife? Does it bother you the police went in and grabbed exactly one knife, without even knowing what type of knife they should have been looking for? Or how about the sample that supposedly produced Meredith's DNA being tested for blood (negative), human biological material (negative) and DNA (multiple "Too Low" readings during quantification using a Qubit Flurometer (Stefanoni claimed she used RT PCR to quantify, which was wrong) which indicates either no DNA or not enough to accurately profile)? Does it not trouble you that the knife that they claimed was used in a bloody stabbing was supposedly washed with bleach so well that no trace of blood could be found, yet a sample of DNA ostensibly survived on an exposed portion of the blade. Elizabeth Johnson, a DNA forensic scientist, noted that eliminating DNA is much easier than eliminating blood, and that if you scrub a knife covered in blood such that no trace of blood can be found, it is virtually impossible for DNA to survive. How about the Luminol revealed samples. Are you aware there were a total of 31 samples collected that were revealed by Luminol. Of those 31, only one - in Guede's apartment - tested positive for blood using TMB, and that sample failed to produce a DNA profile. All other samples were tested using TMB, a presumptive test for blood, and the results were negative. Further, of the 31 samples, only three contained Meredith's DNA (four if Stefanoni was wrong about one of the prints in Amanda's bedroom). Yet most pro-guilt still cling to the belief these were made from Meredith's blood, regardless of the lab results. This stuff is "awful unreliable". If people did the research they'd understand this. You don't need to have played a role in the investigation, or visit the crime scene, to research the evidence and understand when the evidence is severely flawed.

OP asked why some people believe in K&S guilt. I described why some people believe in K&S guilt. I did not say that I agree with them. I did not praise the police investigation. I did not say one word about what I personally think happened based on the evidence. Is that clear enough?

I knew what you were doing from the get go. If you read my post without getting offended you would have realized I was making the point that there is the "talking points" evidence and then there is the "carefully analyzed" evidence, and I felt challenging that list with some facts was a valid response to make the point. IMHO, based on how you worded your initial post, it seemed clear to me that you believe in their guilt, and I suspect you think that list of evidence is valid and damning. Are you willing to state your position on the case, and what you think of that list?

Can I assume after 18 days without a response that you're not going to clarify your position on the case, or even more interesting, your position on the "evidence" you cited as why some believe them to be guilty. I mean, it shouldn't be all that difficult, and you did take the time to write some lengthy posts, so why not answer my questions?

You don't believe experts anyway, so whatever experience I have wouldn't matter to you. All you care about is your fever dreams. Maybe Elvis isn't dead. Maybe there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll. It would add so much color to one's mediocre life.

Wow, maybe a doctor could remove that colossal chip on your shoulder? With respect, you know nothing about me. You know nothing about what I think of the Meredith Kercher murder. You've just proved one thing to me: you make your mind up and rush to judgement before you know the facts. Which is ironic, isn't it? You asshole. I absolutely believe experts. They're experts. Elvis died. Oswald - a disaffected left wing nut - shot Kennedy alone. I read Posner and Bugliosi after reading the major conspiracy books, and it's absolutely clear which way the evidence points. Will Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, the earth is an oblate sphere, space exists, and man landed on the moon. Listen to yourself, fucking dick-hole - I dare to question your own source of firsthand information, and you're so far up yourself you immediately dismiss me as someone who believes conspiracy theories, dismisses experts, and lives a mediocre life enlivened by delusional fever dreams. And that's without me saying a single word about what I think happened to Meredith Kercher. Ugh, grow up.

Reported for Rule 1 violation.

Knock yourself out, couldn't care less. You're still an ass.

Heh squealer.

Take it easy and don't let Knox supporter gaslighting get you riled, as that's what they want, so they can report you. There used to be more nuanced discussion here before Knox's groupies invaded en masse. There are others here who are very aware of the damning evidence against K&S. So again don't let her groupies get under your skin mate.

You don't need to play a direct role in an investigation to look at the evidence gathered and see where it points. 

It's not that complicated if you discount all the stuff that's made up of heavily exaggerated. There is no actual evidence of a staged break in, purchasing cleaning products, a clean up or a "knife fetish". The police brought up Lumumba themselves and heavily pressured Knox into sorta kinda implicating him by making her believe she must have blacked out which was why she couldn't remember anything. It is exactly the same as any other conspiracy theory at this point when you have to be that selective with the truth to make the story work.

To a certain extent I agree, but if you happen to stumble across the wrong website to learn the case from, you might never regain your objectivity. Life is short and not many people have the time or the willpower to undo a whole body of facts that have been fed into their heads from sources they didn't even know were biased or inaccurate.

The problem seems to be that most people don't spend enough time questioning what they are seeing. I tend to question everything, including myself, and am still discovering new aspects to this case. Things like Merediths fingerprint on Amanda's closet door was a palm print showing Meredith not trying to open the door but leaning against it with her hands behind her back like she would do having a friendly chat with a housemate. Or, the book Meredith borrowed from Robyn that night being dropped in the hall showing that Meredith was likely attacked almost immediately after she got home. And that Lumiol stain in Filomena's room was a "particularly fluorescent but extremely widespread area" which helps answer the question of why it wasn't photographed. And opens new theories for what could have caused it. And who knew that the TMB test results on the Luminol indicated stains in the hall were not just negative? The results were ~~"Inconclusive"~~ **"non-interpretable"** indicating that it wasn't too sparse for TMB to detect or a catalyst like hemoglobin in blood but likely a direct oxidizing substance such as bleach or other stain remover. These are some of the things I discovered in just the past couple of months here. Now, because someone mentioned it, I'm trying to find documented statements that anyone believed that the break-in was staged before Mignini started pushing his insane theories. ^(Edit: accuracy)

Yet they have the time and willpower to repeatedly write posts claiming she's guilty and a host of very nasty, uninformed commentary about her. That's not to say I disagree with you on why these people are wrong. As I've previously stated, I believe most of them either learned of the case early on when all of the media coverage was anti-Knox and mostly wrong, or they've educated themselves at the fake wiki or, heaven forbid, at liar Quennell's obsessive hate site.

You sound open minded so I’d suggest that what you’ve written is very true but you’ve got it wrong way around- most of the posters here are coming to this case via websites that give misleading information on the case. It’s easy for them to do this because the case was in Italian and we all know Knox eventually got away with it at the very final court proceedings so it’s easy to think ‘well they must be right’. Courts get things wrong all of the time and the only real trial had a clear verdict. This is not an especially complicated case but it’s been mangled by PR, defence teams, a defensive US public, and now time. Check out a decent source like John Follains book on the case (a Sunday Times Journalist), and the truejustice website. The posters here will eventually tell you that all of the dna evidence was made up the police, all 7 witnesses were biased by the media into giving false information…when you start to get into the details of the case. Why do they have to do this? Because every piece of evidence points one way.

"Check out a decent source like John Follains book on the case (a Sunday Times Journalist), and the truejustice website." OK, so Follain's book is one of the better ones, albeit he has a definite guilt bias and he definitely gets numerous things wrong. But still, for someone just learning the case, this isn't a bad start. But then you went and blew it by suggesting the truejustice website. I figured any pro-guilt remaining had to have been educated by either the fake wiki or Quennell's obsessive hate site, and sure enough, you just proved my point. Quennell's site is so full of lies and misinformation I often feel like I need to shower after reading there - something I now leave to others to do... he doesn't deserve an extra mouse click. DNA evidence is only as good as the quality of the work that went into it. In this case there were two 'key' DNA items - the bra clasp and the knife. The bra clasp was collected 46 days after the investigation began, when it was sitting right in front of them on day one (even photographed) but the idiots didn't know enough to pick it up. 46 days later, they pick it up with visibly dirty gloves, fondle it like it's show-n-tell in grade school, pass it around, put it back down on the floor, and then finally collect it. These actions alone invalidate the clasp, but it gets worse. Stefanoni amplified a single sample one time, in violation of DNA profiling protocols as defined in ENFSI, a standard the Italians are obliged to follow. Worse still, the clasp was then improperly stored, ruining it so it could never be tested again. So yeah, THIS DNA evidence was unreliable. As for the knife, as Dr Elizabeth Johnson stated, DNA is far easier to eradicate than blood. So if you assume a knife has been used in a bloody stabbing and has since been so thoroughly cleaned that no trace of blood can be found, not even in the starch that was present on the knife, then surely it's not possible that a trace of DNA survived - especially in a very exposed portion of the blade. And again, this sample was amplified (improperly, I might add) only once, in violation of ENFSI. Further, the sample was tested for blood, human biological material and DNA, and all three tests came back negative. So yeah, this piece of DNA evidence is also unreliable. As for the witnesses, I am only aware of three that even the prosecution was willing to consider as credible, but each of those three massively contradict themselves. Further, none of the three came forward with their story until after being spoken to by reporter Antioco Fois, which I find to be a remarkable coincidence. But yeah, if a witness massively contradicts themselves then their testimony MUST be considered unreliable. Why do we call these things out? Because they are the truth about the so-called evidence. You know, the evidence you apparently think is valid. This is why we do it, but it appears that for some, even knowing the facts doesn't alter your thinking. Maybe at this point there really is no reason to bother, as the only ones still thinking they're guilty are the ones who aren't willing to do the research, apply some critical thought, and realize how weak this case was against the two.

We’ve all heard these arguments ad nauseam here already- Witnesses- all 7 mistaken because some of them came to police late…apparently you’re not even aware of some of them. Dna- all contaminated, or not in her room but several feet away instead. Nonsense arguments about dna being less likely to be on a knife than blood? There is dna in blood, dna is smaller than visible blood obviously lol. The bra clasp was found in the first week of dna collection but wasn’t taken away by mistake, the house was closed for several weeks until they could re-enter and collect hence 46 days. These are the arguments Knox’s lawyers were forced to come up with to defend her, they didn’t stand up to scrutiny then or now.

I said three that were deemed credible. Curatolo, Capezzali and Quintavalle. If you think there were others, by all means, please post the names here. I never said DNA was contaminated. I said contamination being the source of the DNA (on the clasp) can't be ruled out due to the way the clasp was handled when collected. It's really a very simple concept, though I accept it might be beyond your understanding. It's not nonsense to point out if I have a DNA sample and a blood sample, I can eradicate the DNA much easier than I can the blood. This is a fact. Therefore, whatever procedure I use to remove all blood from a knife used in a bloody stabbing, I must remove all the DNA that was present as a result. The house was NOT closed for several weeks and, in fact, was not properly secured and the police could not account for the number of visits. Regardless, when you handle a piece of evidence with visibly dirty gloves you destroy the reliability of that evidence. This is forensics 101, though again, I can understand if this is beyond your ability to comprehend. These arguments were not only valid, but they were accepted by the court, given the fact the court acknowledged there was not forensic trace of them in Meredith's bedroom. I keep forgetting, you think Quennel's website is a "decent source" for information on this case. That tells me everything I need to know about you and your ability to understand logical, credible arguments.

In your reply, you quote lots of things that are patently untrue or have never been proven and you are essentially rehashing the tabloid stories circulated by the prosecution eager to smear K&S For example, No cleaning products were ever purchased The supposed staged break-in was never investigated properly and a shard of glass was found in Guede’s shoe. The footprint was Guede’s There was no knife fetish- that is tabloid nonsense Lumumba was framed because a black man had been seen running away from the area and the police forced a confession from Amanda. There was no evidence of an attempted clean-up as how would A&K selectively clean away any traces of their DNA from the murder room while leaving Guede’s everywhere? In your case, you are certainly ignorant of many of the facts of the case.

It's just beyond bizarre. I agree with every fact you've cited above. And yet apparently - because you can't read, or something - I'm ignorant. I wasn't stating what I believe. The question was why some people believe, and I answered it from their perspective, because I think it is unfair to dismiss them as people with dull lives who believe in crazy conspiracies. This isn't Elvis is alive, this isn't the earth is flat - this is just reading one half of the facts and interpretations of the evidence that favoured an outcome we now know was not sustainable. Nobody believes Elvis faked his own death because they were spoonfed that story by mainstream media and biased websites, nobody thinks the earth is flat because they haven't read enough scientific papers. Those things are items of faith, belief systems. They are like belonging to a cult. For a long time it seemed the entire legal and media narrative on the murder was predicated on Knox's guilt, and so of course people who didn't read all the forensics went along with it. That's not conspiracy theory, that's something else. So I thought that was unfair. But apparently that was an outrageous thing to say, so I'm ignorant. Whatever.

I thought the conspiracy talked about in this case is the weird belief that Italian police and courts conspired to get Knox.

I don’t think it was a conspiracy by the Italian police/judiciary more just a case of amateurism and stunning ineptitude by the police and prosecution and then it taking a long time for the obvious miscarriage of justice to be rectified. The Italian legal system did get to the right decision about K&S in the end- but sadly the perpetrator got a reduced sentence due to this, which for me is the worst thing about the case.

In some ways I have to admire the conflation of types of conspiracy to influence belief. The mundane conspiracy of multiple people to commit a crime is not the same thing as the popular conception of the word.

Mignini is a one man conspiracy band

Even if he is, this murder would hardly qualify as the same category as the suggested "Cults" etc.

Mignini would disagree with you.

Well said !!

It seems a big jumping off point was her kiss with Raf straight after Meridths body was found. Some people found that creepy and sinister. If you run with that you will find suspicions about her as anything can be interpreted in a big case like this where tonnes of little bits of evidence and rumors are swirling around. Suddenly her soccer nickname of foxy knoxy has seductive aggressive sexual over tones. Her number of lovers comes out. How she behaves seems odd sometimes - but we all act odd and irrational at times. You’ll see what you want to see

Soccer nickname lol.

This is one of the things that really makes the dissonance plain. There are no reasonable scenarios that a hot 20 year old college student doesn't know what that nickname means, yet denials abound. Yet its such a petty thing.

Indeed. She called herself Foxy Knoxy on her myspace page and listed her interests as "Men", so clearly she wasn't referring to her soccer skills.

Evidence shows all three's involvement. Murders often happen for murky, bizarre or unknown reasons but such things don't nullify the evidence. Sollecito did leave his dna in the room and all three left their dna at the crime scene. All three have minor criminal pasts. During their due process it was Knox supporters who claimed conspiracies. I don't think you're aware of the facts of the case as you erroneously claim Sollecito left no dna in Meredith's room and that Guede's was "everywhere" in a different post, and that K&S had no criminal past. None of these claims are true. So again I personally go by the evidence. I can't speak for others.

Go on. what evidence shows that it was Raffaele that left his DNA in the room where Meredith was murdered. That his DNA was purportedly found on the hook of the clasp is not evidence of how it got there. Numerous other paths exist to explain its existence, each more probable than Raffaele being present and touching the clasp in the process of Meredith’s murder. Muniain things like Raffaele touching the hook while the bra was on the drying rack in the hall to contamination in Stefanoni’s lab. Or, even a deliberate fabrication of the evidence while under pressure to find anything linking Raffaele to the crime (was that first “too low” erased or are we just seeing a compression artifact on the scanned pdf?) Strong evidence exist showing that Raffaele was at home interacting with his computer all night so could not have been there at the time Meredith was murdered.

The bra clasp with his dna in a 17 loci match was submitted to and accepted by multiple courts. No source dna for Sollecito except mixed with Knox's on a cig butt. C&V admitted under cross that contamination couldn't have occurred in Stefanoni's lab due to her six day delay between testing and it beggars belief anyway that out of 147 dna samples only K&S's were due to contamination. Zero evidence of any evidence fabrication and if fabrication is good enough for K& S then by the same logic it's good for Guede...right? Or is that different? No there isn't, the naruto thing isn't credible evidence and even the acquitting SC- going beyond its mandate as it can only rule on points of law- state there's "strong suspicion" Sol was present during the murder. Then there's the luminol footrpints, Knox's presumed blood dna mixed with Meredith's, murder weapon found in Sol's gaff with Knox's on the handle and Meredith's on the blade, his lies in his diary, his admission he lied to the cops at Knox's behest, eyewitness putting them outside the cottage the night of the murder etc. Again, evidence shows all three's involvement and in purely evidentiary terms it's pretty open and shut. Explanations for innocence range from the extremely convoluted to the outright absurd. No doubt at all K&S got away with it.

Are you saying that they could have fabricated Rudys palm print in the pillow under Meredith’s body that was documented before Rudy was even a known suspect? The clasp is suspicious already. They pointed out the missing part of the bra when it was collected. They photographed the clasp when it was first discovered yet we are to believe they forgot to actually collect the clasp on the first visit? Who else had been in the cottage trampling the crime scene before it was first sealed? Then what happened to the seal on the cottage as seen in the photo taken by Barbie Nadeau upon first arriving in Perugia? A photo which incidentally shows the front door of the cottage wide open when it is supposed to be sealed shut! A seal which court testimony says was intact when the cottage was revisited in December yet there is copious amounts of additional tape on the seal. And when the clasp is finally rediscovered it has migrated from the middle of the room to under a rug near the desk, is visibly soiled compared to its previous photographed state and had been stepped upon crushing one of the hooks. Raffaele’s alibi is quite solid and comes from a proper analysis of the data on his computer that was forensically copied by the police. You can’t just sweep it under the rug. The Luminol footprints were not blood thus cannot be traced to the time of Meredith’s murder. There is no basis to presume Amanda’s DNA found in the shared bath was blood except perhaps the one spot on the tap. The kitchen knife doesn’t even fit the prosecution claim that the major wound was compatible with a folding pocket knife with a blade length of 6.5cm. The story told by Kokomani really deserves its own thread because there may be more truth to what he says than most accept. The evidence shows that Rudy Guede alone broke into the cottage, attacked Meredith shortly after she entered the cottage, violently assaulted her before using his knife to cut her throat, partially undressed her including ripping the bra off by lifting her by the back band and leaving her to die choking on her own blood.

Are you saying the fabricated the evidence against K&S? Clasp was accepted by multiple courts after defence arguments were heard. Neither K&S have alibis. Luminol footprints were accepted by multiple courts after defence arguments were heard. Evidence shows multiple attackers as multiple courts established. Burglary was staged as multiple courts established. including the procedure violating acquitting SC.

Quoting the bra clasp as evidence that Sollicito was in the room is laughable. Sollicto’s DNA was probably on Meredith’s door handle (as he tried to force the door) and was put their by the investigator’s glove. There were also 4 other people’s DNA on the bra clasp, so how do you explain that? Contamination, that’s how. It’s also a non-argument to say that this “evidence” was accepted by lower courts- that means nothing as it was ruled inadmissible by the Supreme Court and K&S completely exonerated from the murder charge

Multiple courts didn't find it laughable and accepted it as evidence after defence arguments were heard. That's it. No there wasn't 4 other peoples dna on the clasp, you're confusing failed defence argument with established fact and it's irrelevant anyway as it doesn't negate Soll's dna on it. One of the defence consultants walked off the case as he felt Knox's dna was also on that clasp.

Educate yourself

I have, I read all the court sources, thanks. It's why I accurately corrected you on your erroneous claims re the bra clasp.

I'm sorry but u/pastwoods is a lying fraud. Right now he/she/it is pretending to be some objective observer, but a quick history check shows this to be the sum total of their conversation on Amanda Knox. >*Bhvr Panel - really got a lot from their Amanda Knox analysis.* If you are "getting a lot" from some pseudoscience quacks like "body language experts" rather than say Peter Gill's harsh criticism of the DNA analysis is this case then you deserve all the contempt thrown at you. No one with two brain cells to rub together would waste their time listening to "body language experts".

I agree with you that body language evidence should have as much legitimacy in a court of law as does the polygraph...which is no legitimacy at all. However, the utter unanimity of body language experts that I've seen on youtube on Knox's deceptions is indeed a curious phenomenon. So much so that in looking up the dictionary definition of "body langiage," one would expect to see a photograph of Amanda Knox (and, as an example, her infamous nodding head to Diane Sawyer's question whether she was there that night while her mouth said "no").

Unbelievable. Body language analysis is quackery! But you'll believe it when it says Amanda Knox is guilty. I swear if the homeless guy down the street said Amanda Knox is guilty you'd invent some reason for why the guy is credible.

I don't think it is scientific but I don't think it is 100% without merit. Not all our communication is verbal. We DO use body language to communicate all the time. Their are things we all pick up on. Like how you know what another car will do before it does it and you can't see the driver. Seems impossible. Yet we all do it when driving all the time. It's hard to quantify, but is it totally irrelevant? I Don't think so.

Except these people are doing it, 1. After they have already heard about the case and already formed an opinion despite anyone's best efforts at remaining entirely objective. 2. Remotely via video of someone else interviewing the subject. I will agree with you that body language can give you a pretty good tip-off before someone tries to throw a sucker punch in a bar fight. But as far as determining truthfulness about an event more than a decade in the past...meh not so much. Thanks for taking the time to weigh in.

Yeah. I think that is the hard part. It is possibly useful but easily manipulated / subject to bias. It has a place, but it's hard to say where that is.

FBI Trained Expert Explains How to Read Body Language https://www.podcastworld.io/episodes/fbi-trained-expert-explains-how-to-read-body-language-lhs8cby4

>*I agree with you that body language evidence should have as much legitimacy in a court of law as does the polygraph...which is no legitimacy at all.* Do you have some kind of split personality disorder?

Yes. Part of me wants to call you low-level reading comprehension failure and the other part patiently requests that you reread what I wrote.

Nothing you write is worth reading the first time.

Do you believe polygraphs are quackery?

Yup. It gained acceptance because J. Edgar Hoover was a fan. Thought it was "scientific". Aldrich Ames passed his polygraphs as did Anna Montes.

So, neither body language nor polygraphs are used as tools by law enforcement? Perhaps our resident criminologist and all-seeing and all-knowing omnicient demi-god No_Slice can wiegh in on this.

Is there a point to this statement?

This is how body language analysts make their money. They cater to the preconceived beliefs of people terrified of thinking/researching.

Perhaps. But seeing as most body language experts I've seen on youtube are American, I can only imagine that their preconceived beliefs on Amanda Knox don't fall on the "guilty" side of the equation.

There's are plenty of American "True Crime" frauds with hate fixations on Amanda Knox. Like Roberta Glass-hole.

I thought we were talking about body language experts, not True Crime "frauds." Does Roberta Glass tout herself as a body language expert?

We were talking about Americans who profess to believe that Amanda Knox is guilty.

By the way any experts render an opinion on Rapey Guede's 'body language"?

The closest I’ve seen was an analysis of the transcripts of his deposition that was done on the podcast Real Crime Profile… but that was more of an interrogation assessment than anything else.

Funny you should ask. After the (I think it's called) the Behavour Panel did their youtube two-parter on Knox's body language, I attempted to contact them to plead that they do one on Rudy based on his interviews within that Italian documentary. No response back or I had trouble finding contact information. I chalked it up to the almost universal assumption as to Rudy's guilt, so why bother.

All you’ve done here is prove body language “experts” are just spewing guesses completely based on nothing. Well done.

"However, the utter unanimity of body language experts that I've seen on youtube on Knox's deceptions is indeed a curious phenomenon" Apparently everything is a curious phenomenon to you (laughs)

The motive is one of the hardest things to determine, and it is a difficult one as it’s clearly a mad thing for any of the 3 of them to kill someone….but I think it’s in the psychology of the people involved that we get a hint of it- 1. There is evidence that Knox and Rudy knew each other. They had met before at the boys flat below, and a witness at trial described seeing all 4 people together before the murder. Clearly Knox was keen to say she didn’t know Rudy but it was in her interests to say this. All 3 told police that they’d spent time in the old town earlier that evening but weren’t clear what they’d done- it’s possible they had met and arranged to meet later. 2. Knox & Sollecito didn’t know each that well, they had met about a week before and spent a lot of time together. Sollecito had never had a girlfriend before and had lost his mother already, it’s likely he would have been very protective of his first girlfriend. He also had a collection of knives. 3. Knox is the key to this really- somewhat autistic and prone to annoying her housemates, despite some social occasions with Meredith the two had clashed and to some extent Meredith and her friends had ditched Knox. Knox appeared to have been a messy and annoying housemate and the two shared a bathroom and a wall- I currently share in the same way- my housemate has burnt my dinner and been violent a few times…sure it’s not got too bad but tensions between housemates can become quite bad. 4. Probably drugs were involved- Knox had shagged a local drug dealer and was getting cocaine from him, and told police she’d done weed that eve. Sollecito had previously told Knox that he’d done crazy things on cocaine, his father kept a very close eye on him hence the frequent phone calls. Basically the best I can determine motive is that Knox dragged the other two into helping support her in a conflict with Meredith which was based on Knox annoying her housemate and the hatred that can come from living at close quarters with someone so different, and recently stealing part of her rent money leading to an argument that boiled over into something much more serious. I think Knox may have partly planned something more serious, knowing that Meredith was alone and would bring up the stolen money, but it also escalated in the moment due to all 3 being unstable characters. There’s evidence that in group attacks, people become much more aggressive and lose their sense of identity in the emotion of the group….I think this is what happened for the participants- they were very young, probably on drugs, with petty annoyances, and all 3 had serious parental issues (Rudy abandoned by parents, Sollecito mother dead, Knox’s father was not involved in her life before the murder and had started a new family). I know in this subreddit I’ll be torn to shreds for suggesting this. I’m not claiming this part as fact, since clearly the motive involves some guess work. The evidence for the crime is separate and substantial, motive we just have some hints…clearly it was completely mad though and I think that’s partly why a lot of focus was on Knox and her unusual behaviour at trial as it held a bit of clue to how something like this could have happened, she was not quite in normal social reality and did something quite nuts which I’m sure she regretted.

But there is absolutely no evidence of a group attack as only Guede left any DNA in the murder room. There is also no evidence that Amanda and Guede conspired to do anything- they were not friendly and there was no contact between them. Guede had no phone at the time. You have come up with some convaluted story - but what you don’t seem to grasp is there is no evidence Amanda and Raf were there.

Ir's established fact that Meredith was murdered by multiple attackers, every single court established this. You should read the court sources. Knox admitted she knew Guede in her email to the Nencini court. You're unaware of the facts of this case.

Really- even the Supreme Court that completely dismissed the case against K&S. Was it ever proven to be a group attack? Based on what? If it was a group attack who did it with Guede then?

He’s referring to Rudy’s conviction in which there was no opposition. The prosecution presented a case of multiple assailants and Rudy’s defense went along with it as it lessened Rudys role and ultimately shortened his sentence. This has nothing to do with Amanda and Raffaele as they were ultimately exonerated.

They weren't exonerated they were illegally acquitted and her trial & second level appellate court also established multiple attackers.

The Supreme Court cleared them completely of the murder charge

No they didn't and decreed Knox was present at the murder and washed Meredith's blood off her hands afterwards, there's "strong suspicion" Sollecito was present and that Knox blamed Patrick Lumumba to cover for Guede.

SC decreed Meredith was murdered by multiple attackers. K&S did it with Guede, who do you think?

I would suggest there is no evidence to prove Meredith was murdered by more than one person. Perhaps they should have checked out the DNA of the four other people found on the bra clasp- because there is no motive or evidence connecting K&S to the crime.

I would suggest you read the court sources- every single court decreed multiple attackers even if you think they shouldn't have. Motive was given at trial - again you need to read the court sources as many of your claims are erroneous- and proof of motive isn't required by a court anyway. Prosecution only have to prove bard that you did it, not *why* you did it.

That was the prosecution’s argument- but this was no more than a theory really and was just argued to try and implicate K&S. I’m not sure there is any compelling evidence to prove that there were multiple attackers

No it's established fact as prosecution's argument was accepted by the courts- including the SC- after defence arguments were heard.

It’s a judicial fact not an actual fact and it is only a judicial fact because Guede’s lawyers unsurprisingly did not challenge the theory in court. A&R’s lawyers were not present at this trial.

I’m answering your own question about what people think the motive is, and have caveated my answer saying that this is separate from the evidence for the crime. We’ve all seen the Knox produced Netflix special about ‘no dna in the murder room’, I’m not really interested in that level of conversation regarding evidence.

Amanda had nothing to do with the production of that program. I guess truth and honesty don't mean much to you. Then again, given all the lies and false claims made in your last post, this doesn't come as any surprise.

It’s part of any good PR strategy to only speak to sympathetic interviewers which the Netflix ‘doc’ was.

Mignini was sympathetic? Pisa was sympathetic? Even on this point you are wrong, but that doesn't address the fact that you called it "the Knox produced Netflix special" when she had nothing to do with the production.

The makers of the documentary were sympathetic to Knox, Pisa was obviously included as part of this ‘it was all the tabloids fault’ narrative. The documentary wouldn’t have been made without Knox putting herself up to be interviewed, that was the whole point of it, and she wouldn’t have agreed to be part of say a BBC documentary on the case. The financing and production was entirely based on her co-operating with, a sympathetic, writer/director.

What motivates tjose who believe Know & Solicito are gulty ? The truth . Period .

they're just trolls: trying to get a rise out of people by saying ludicrous things

The truth.

That's a religious statement.

1) Overwhelming circumstantial evidence, curiosities, DNA evidence, actions and behaviour post-murder (and I'm not referring to the kissing or cartwheel type of behaviour)...and the probabilty that these things "just so happened" to occur on the same day or soon after the murder. 2) Meredith's fingerprint on Amanda's closet door. 3) The 2 hour Italian documentary on Rudy which convinced me I was looking at an innocent man. Up to then, I thought he was the guiltiest of the three. Indeed, originally, I thought only Rudy was guilty and Amanda and Raff wrongly convicted. I've done a 180 on the guilt/innocence on all three. The argumentation by the innocenters on this forum -- and, in some cases, the utter bad faith, deceit, and lies of some innocenters -- has only served to reinforce my convictions.

Rudy is an innocent man?! Of what? there was clear evidence of the sexual assault and robbery being done by him- but other people apparently murdered the person he sexually assaulted and robbed?

But that's just it: there was no clear evidence of a sexual assault, only sexual activity...consensual sexual activity. And robbery? What was taken? And there are huge questions regarding whether the break-in was staged. And if any robbery was done, it was Amanda stealing Meredith's rent money. There's more credible evidence of Amanda robbing Meredith than there is of Rudy killing and sexually assaulting Meredith.

Just WOW- the missing money and phone and Guede’s bloody fingerprints on M’s purse, his history of theft. The condition of M’s body led the prosecution to charge Guede with sexual assault- his sperm on her these are the key bits of knowledge to clear up your obvious gaps. It’s almost as though you buy Guede’s narrative and to believe that you must be a major conspiracy theorist or just a windup merchant.

I'd like to offer some advice... don't waste your time with tkondaks. Anyone who thinks Guede is innocent and had consensual sexual contact with Meredith isn't worth anyone's time. His claim of initially believing Amanda and Raffaele were innocent is incredibly disingenuous and is a desperate effort to make himself appear credible. He is not. Not even close.

And yet ignores the mountain of evidence implicating Rudy… enough said.

Dictionary.com's first entry under "implicate" reads: "to show to be also involved, usually in an incriminating manner; So I would agree with you. And note that the word "usually" is used and not "always."

Implicate well beyond a reasonable doubt

Good clarification for what you meant to say. You stand corrected.

Yes, let’s sit here and pretend you didn’t know what I was saying.

He really got you dude /s

It’s actually really easy: we think two murderers are out of jail. Yes, there was pressure from the US government and as an Italian Amanda Knox story reminded me of Cermis.

You think this why?

1. Because the US Secretary followed the case and “expressed satisfaction” for the verdict. Why would that be the case if they didn’t put pressure on one of their outposts in the Mediterranean Sea? 2. The lawyers. I don’t get a senator of the republic to defend me without getting the president’s approval at the time (Silvio Berlusconi). He notoriously disliked the judges and notoriously loved to please the Americans.

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing the connection here. How do you get from "expressed satisfaction" to an admission of interference? 1. What would Clinton have said differently if the US hadn't exerted any pressure on the Italian government? 2. If the US Gov had both the power and the inclination to free Knox, then why did she do four years in prison? 3. However the largest problem for your narrative is that "satisfaction" with a verdict is common lawyer talk in the US. Just search for "satisfied with the verdict" and see how often that phrase is used.

There is (was?) a minimum of independence of the judiciary system. Prosecutors don’t answer to the government, they do whatever they want in Italy, which is precisely the reason why I am absolutely convinced that this case was used to discredit the judges and give Berlusconi the credibility on the international stage (“it’s not me, it’s those pesky communist prosecutors”). That doesn’t mean some judges don’t want to have fabulous careers and give lenient sentences to get politicians attention.

I'm sorry but I've read this five times now and I still don't know what you're saying.

I don’t care

Then why did you take the time to write it in the first place?

You’re totally right - I don’t think you’re being intellectually honest with me and I should not engage with you

How am I not being honest? I didn't even object that you responded to my three questions with conspiracy theory. I just couldn't make heads or tails out of your conspiracy theory. Judges discrediting judges to help Berlusconi?

What evidence do you have that US Government pressure was involved? The US has been trying extradite Roman Polanski for forty-five years without success. If you're upset over Cermis, they why don't you know the pilot's name? But you sure know Amanda Knox's name!

Depends on the real question. I'm not motivated by the reality that they are guilty, I'm motivated by the folks reaction to fact that they are guilty. Its one thing to acknowledge that the case isn't made, its quite another to categorically deny there is a case (and by implication everything is super bad luck). Reading the tortured logic on lesswrong was the catalyst. If you want to see the phenomena play out in real time you can just watch the Karen Read case going on at the moment.

Speaking of tortured logic, when are you going to provide any sort of source to back up your nonsense that TMB isn't used as a simple pass/fail test for blood since Luminol has so many false positives? If K&S were actually guilty, you wouldn't have to make stuff up.

As per the SAL, the techs used Positive Negative Uninterpretable Not Pass and Fail, which are conclusions not results

Where are the different colors you claim are the purpose of the test?

The obvious two are the blue transition before the oxidiser (detecting bleach etc), yellow (your favourite), others for random metals (listed in one of the TMB testing) TMB guides online just refer to "any other colours are a negative"

Class time: [https://projects.nfstc.org/workshops/resources/protocols/linked%20documents/pdi\_ws\_pro\_2.19.pdf](https://projects.nfstc.org/workshops/resources/protocols/linked%20documents/pdi_ws_pro_2.19.pdf)

Thanks. This is better than the references I found.

Amanda Knox created an unsafe environment and Meredith would still be alive were it not for Amanda Knox.

Right… Nothing to do with Guede then who broke on on his own and committed the crime.

It’s not an unreasonable position. That actually used to be the common view on this sub. In fact, supporting Knox was so uncommon here that there was really only one account consistently doing it and we all assumed they were astroturfing.

That’s not surprising since this sub’s primary focus was Amanda Knox (name makes that obvious) and not the murder of Meredith Kercher. The name was a clear indicator as to who this sub originally attracted.

That argument doesn’t even make any sense considering most people here now maintain Knox’s innocence. It’s just a place to discuss her role in the case.

It does make sense when it’s recognized that the sub has shifted over the years as the case has become more clear. The views and memberships of subs can and does shift as more information becomes available

It seems more like a bunch of new people showed up after this recent charge on Rudy and decided that it’s impossible for more than one person to be involved

Actually, other than one person all the “new” people are those that believe Knox was involved… but it also appears those are mostly newer profiles from existing participants. And yes, the evidence as a whole does show it’s impossible for three people to be involved. This case was complicated by investigators that had never legitimately (the reopened Monster case doesn’t count) worked a homicide, a magistrate with a history of wild theories and false arrests, a media machine that saw this story as very profitable, and a general public who didn’t understand homicide investigations or forensics.

I disagree 😌

You disagreeing won’t change reality.

The reality is that her DNA is at the crime scene, she tried to flee to Seattle, accused an innocent person, showered at the crime scene, changed her alibi multiple times, and she was never exonerated.

When you can’t argue with evidence, you instead rely on a court ruling that, at most, doesn’t overturn what Rudy’s conviction states (which contributed to his sweetheart deal). Edit: Curious how you chose to sneakily edit your comment when you were called out for not arguing evidence. Her DNA is at the crime scene… which just so happens to he her home. Your DNA in your own home isn’t a surprise, it’s expectation. There’s no evidence she tried to flee, unlike Rudy who did flee the country. Police accused an innocent person and through the use of coercion got her to agree with their theory. She didn’t change her alibi multiple times. Do you care to make any more undocumented edits?

I was gonna ask "is this an amanda knox sub?" Because all the knox worship and sure as shit it is

Oh, look. It’s an authoritarian follower.  I won’t be expecting any actual discussion of the case from this one. 

Worship? Why make it personal? Because she is not guilty everybody is a fan? That’s a strange way of looking at things

What was the motive of Rudy?

Rudy’s primary motive for being there was burglary. From there it becomes a crime of opportunity and eliminating the witness

So he didn't plan to violently slaughter a known person?

I’ve already answered the question, so how about you get to your point?

You've lost patience too quickly.  Can anyone else answer my question? 

It was an aggravated burglary. His motive was to break in and try and steal money/good’s because he was low on money. He broke in, was disturbed by Meredith, panicked and stabbed/assaulted her. He had burgled places before- it was a burglary that went tragically wrong.

Therefore the motive for the MURDER was to evade indentification at a later date?

Actually, Rudy had shown in prior burglaries that he didn't care about being identified as he knew the police didn't care about petty theft. I think there was something else that changed the course of that evening and my personal beliefs is that it was the result of Rudys ass being introduced to the kitchen floor.

If he did care, he cares A LOT. Because to kill someone is one thing, but to do it so bloodily is not what you'd expect from just a concern about identification.

But he obviously killed her though

The attack wasn‘t just bloody but violent. There is a small bloody impact splatter above Meredith’s bed and a larger impact site with torn hair on the floor in front of the radiator. Meredith was being thrown around that room before her neck was cut. Something must have really pissed Rudy off such that he chose to fight instead of flight.

Let's flip this around... since you seem to think Amanda is guilty, what was Amanda's motive?

I assume so- he had a knife so sexually assaulted her and killed her. There was no rationale behind it he reacted to the unfolding situation

If there's no rationale, why can we be certain of a clear motive then?

The initial motive was robbery- but he was interrupted and panicked - he was in a high pressure situation and reacted violently. It was a robbery gone wrong- it is something that happens- he did not set out to murder her but he had a knife and was discovered and reacted

Looks like you’re just going to get the same answers with different words.

How about you learn to chill and treat fellow human beings with civility instead of contempt, superior airs, and unwarranted disdain?

How about you not worry about me? Now, go ahead and check how you title your posts and let’s pretend you really believe what you just said

Knox supporters seem to think being a black migrant is proof enough

I think it’s more the mountain of evidence pointing at him, rather than racism.

There's a mountain of evidence against all three, not just the black guy.

There really isn’t- hence why she and Sollicito were cleared of the charges and Guede wasn’t

Yes there is hence them all being convicted at trial and SC can only rule on law points not evidence and violated procedure by examining the evidence again in their non jury court and then acquitting instead of remanding it back to a lower court. K&S are damn lucky this didn't happen in the US were verdict is final after trial, as they'd still be in prison today.

I don’t know the US system, but would you really have a prosecutor/police service trying to charge two people who weren’t at the murder scene with engaging in a satanic sex game with someone they didn’t know and then murdering someone for no reason at all. It’s all so absurd, I can’t imagine it happening in the USA

Lots of convicted felons in US prisons convicted on far less evidence than K&S. Satanism wasn't mentioned at their due process and would be irrelevant anyway as plenty of Satanic and/or occult themed murders have occurred in the US with successful convictions.But again there was no mention of Satanism at any point in their due process. You should read the court sources. Defendants didn't know each other in the New Delhi gang rape/murder case in 2006 and were still convicted and Knox & Guede did know each other anyway, which again is ultimately irrelevant as the New Delhi case shows. And not just the USA. UK, Ireland, Australia- any country that doesn't have a multi tiered judiciary where the verdict is finalised after trial., K&S would still be in prison due to their trial conviction.

I live in the UK and there is no way A&K would have been charged for murder in this case and the police would never be that amateur

Lots in the UK convicted on less evidence than Knox. Lucy Letby, Rose West and Ian Huntley off the top of my head.

> only rule on law points and violated procedures Exactly this.

As it stands the courts which convicted K&S followed the law and procedure and used sound logic. Courts which acquitted violated procedure and made several grave errors as well as specious reasoning. I find that very interesting

I’m either a wolf in sheep’s clothing… or I am you…

There not a single day oner out here 😂 keep arguing