General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Amanda Knox will again go before an Italian court [View all]DanTex
(20,709 posts)If the burglary was faked, that's a pretty big deal. And this is the kind of thing a jury should decide. The prosecutor needs to convince a jury/judge, he doesn't just get to "decide". The court came to this same conclusion, if I'm not mistaken.
This is another situation where I don't have any personal knowledge to bear. I don't know what a faked burglary looks like, nor a real one. The glass on the clothes seems plausible, but your explanation seems plausible too. I'd think it would take someone with experience in this kind of thing to look at the details that tell one from the other.
Next, no, pot wouldn't make someone a violent murderer. Alcohol might be more likely, but still. And the theory that they killed her because she complained about the feces obviously is dumb. I never heard that one before. The only possible motive I can think of is they were drunk and somehow things escalated. Which still is admittedly pretty strange.
But the problem is the whole thing is strange. The feces in the toilet makes no sense at all. Was that after or before? Who kills someone, then takes a dump? And then doesn't flush? Maybe he panicked, his valves released, and then he panicked again and just ran away. I guess. But truly the most logical explanation for this is that he was in the bathroom before and was surprised by something else happening.
Yes, I am willing to look at both sides. The problem with love/hate sites is that they have their minds made up and state as facts things that are not established facts. I've been browsing, and a lot of sites, for example, state as fact that Knox was beaten and threatened in interrogation, denied food and water, and denied a lawyer. AFAIK, the only evidence for this is that Knox said so. I would like a site that starts out by saying that she claims this, and the police deny it, and here are reasons why we might believe it, and here are reasons why we might not. But I don't really find that.
One example: the knife with the two DNA matches. On one site, you'll read about how the DNA sample was tiny, mishandled, it was an unreliable test, it wasn't duplicated, it could have been contaminated etc. Another site will say that the DNA match was whatever percent likelihood, and contamination was extremely unlikely because of XY and Z. Where does that leave me. I'm no DNA expert. On one hand, even if it's a small amount, DNA is DNA, and if it matches, it matches. On the other hand, who knows how many ways there are for DNA to get from one place to another or to show up on some test. And so on.
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)