What Makes Supporters Believe Jeremy is Innocent?

[scipio_usmc]

I will use arguments from the Kercher murder as an example of articulating a well reasoned case for believing in the innocence of a convicted person.

The physical evidence that actually relates to murder all points to Guede as the killer.  Guede’s had a history of burglary and his MO was to break into places through upper story windows and carry a knife with him.  An upper story window from the flat was broken from the outside and established at his trial as being his method of entry.  Guede was friends with the people who lived in the flat below.  Knox and her roommates only met Guede when they happened to be visiting the flat below the same time Guede visited.

Guede chose an evening to break in when he knew there was a vacation taking place and thus his friends would not be in the flat below.  He either assumed the girls would not be either or he potentially intended to rape not just steal.  There was DNA evidence that proved he had sex with her and his prints were found in her blood.  His claim is that Kercher invited him in and had consensual sex with him then he left and someone else must have broken in and killed her after he left.  Naturally this defense was scoffed at and he was convicted.

The police originally tried to blame Knox.  They decided she acted immaturely and must have been responsible.  She was questioned without an interpreter and harassed to try to get her to confess and told her to imagine how the murders occurred.  They showed her a test where she told her boss see you later and insisted her boss showed up.  She ended up telling them what they wanted to hear that her boss did it.  They prosecutor decided that her boss did it with her help though she never said such.  He made up the notion they were having a 3 some or rape fantasy.  When it was proven her boss had an alibi and the DNA didn’t match him the prosecutor simply swapped out the boss and stuck Knox’s boyfriend in his place though the police had no evidence that he had been there. The DNA didn’t match him either.

The DNA ended up matching Guede.  To try saving face the prosecutor decided to pretend Knox and her boyfriend were still responsible and that Guede helped them even though there was no evidence that such was the case.  Guede claimed Kercher let him in not Knox.  There was no evidence that Knox ever called Guede or even knew where he lived. How she supposedly got in contact with him to arrange to go rape her roommate was never established.  The whole thing was just made up by the prosecutor.   

After Guede’s conviction they told him they would take 10 years off his sentence if he  implicated Knox.  So after his conviction he changed his story slightly.  He still maintained Kercher let him in and that she had consensual sex with him but asserted while he was in the bathroom he heard Knox and her boyfriend come home and they murdered Kercher.  After they left he claimed he went out to try to see if she was ok and that was how he got her blood on his hands and feet.  In exchange for this they cut his sentence by 10 years.

Even though his account featured him visiting Kercher on his own and having consensual sex the prosecution argued Knox let him in to rape her and kill her.  No evidence was offered to support this contention.  The police swabbed the entire bathroom with single swabs instead of using a single swab for a single location.  In this manner they ensured they would pick up DNA from  different locations and mix it together.  They managed to naturally find Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s on the same swab.  All that proved is Knox’s DNA was in the bathroom not when it was deposited and her DNA would be expected in the bathroom since she used it. Thus the only DNA that the prosecution used to suggest Knox was there during the murders had no ability to prove it.

The prosecution had no evidence of any collusion between Guede and anyone else and no evidence anyone except Guede committed the murders.  Guede didn’t admit to any collusion after his conviction he simply changed his story from the murders happening after the left to claiming the murders happened while he was in the bathroom.

Objectively there was no case against Knox, the prosecution was embarrassed by murder being committee din a much different fashion than the prosecutor asserted by someone other than the prosecutor asserted.  Instead of moving on from the error and admitting it the prosecutor decided to punish the real killer but also Knox an h er boyfriend pretending they acted in concert with Guede though there was no evidence of such.

The Italian judicial system being the joke it is convicted Knox in part based on a confession that was ruled inadmissible because it was coerced.  Only in Italy can evidence be ruled inadmissible by the Court of Cassation and yet the evidence still used by the judges anyway.  They don’t have a jury system like the US and UK. They have 2 judges who decide guilt or innocence along with 6 laypeople who can be pushed around by the judges and all it takes is a plurality to convict.  In the US and UK a jury of peers decides guilt or innocence in major crimes.   

In Italy the appellate court essentially retries the case.  The cases below are so bad that the intermediate courts end up not deferring to the factual findings of the trial court and make their own.  An appellate court ripped the crap out of the convictions and exonerated Knox and her boyfriend.

The Court of Cassation is the highest court in Italy.  This court only has authority to rule on legal issues not factual ones.  The Court of Cassation was unable to find any legal errors but exceeded it’s own power and decided the factual findings of the intermediate court were wrong and ordered a new retrial.  The decision laid out what factual findings the court retrying the case should make to convict Knox.  The court retrying the case obeyed and found them guilty again even though the factual findings had no evidentiary basis.  For example even though no evidence was presented to establish collusion among Knox, her boyfriend and Guede or to establish she let Guede in the court decided she let Guede in.  The court found that Knox was mad that Kercher called her dirty so she decided to have Kercher raped and murdered and enlisted Guede and her boyfriend to do it. The court decided all 3 stabbed Kercher and that Knox delivered the fatal knife blow evne though the only evidence in the case related to such was Guede’s prints in Kercher’s blood.  The only blood evidence available to suggest who did the stabbing was Guede’s prints in her blood.

At the end of the day there is evidence that Guede committed the murders and nothing more.

This is how you articulate a belief of innocence and reason for holding such belief. 

[scipio_usmc]

I don't think its possible to prove Jeremy innocent even if he is. The only possibility is proving his conviction is unsafe. Even if he was ever released due to his conviction being unsafe allot of people will still think he done it

Short of proving he is innocent there is no hope of proving his conviction unsafe.  Julie recanting her testimony would not merely be evidence of a MOJ but would be supportive of his innocence.

Evidence being planted would be evidence of innocence even if people try to say otherwise.

[susan]

Hi Dave/Jan I agree if Jeremy is ever released it will not because he has been proven innocent of murdering his family but more to do with unfair trial/contaminated evidence.

[lookout]

Would Jeremy swap freedom for a technicality ? He's already said that he doesn't want to be freed on a technicality. I don't think he'll accept anything other than the spoken truth from the powers that be,by way of a quashed conviction which would hopefully put an end to any backlash that he's bound to get if it's a technicality.


Wouldn't anyone think that someone with the prospect of dying in prison,but had the choice of being released on a technicality,go for the latter ?

[Jane]

Would Jeremy swap freedom for a technicality ? He's already said that he doesn't want to be freed on a technicality. I don't think he'll accept anything other than the spoken truth from the powers that be,by way of a quashed conviction which would hopefully put an end to any backlash that he's bound to get if it's a technicality.


Wouldn't anyone think that someone with the prospect of dying in prison,but had the choice of being released on a technicality,go for the latter ?

As he hasn't yet been made the offer of freedom on a technicality it remains to be seen what would be the result IF such ever occurs. It's easy ENOUGH to say what one would do in a given situation but if said situation has never previously arisen responses to it can be unexpected. Personally I can't see ANYONE clinging to prison bars to stop the authorities from evicting them.

[lookout]

As he hasn't yet been made the offer of freedom on a technicality it remains to be seen what would be the result IF such ever occurs. It's easy ENOUGH to say what one would do in a given situation but if said situation has never previously arisen responses to it can be unexpected. Personally I can't see ANYONE clinging to prison bars to stop the authorities from evicting them.

If this unfortunately cropped up,it would be interesting at this stage to see what Jeremy would do.

[scipio_usmc]

Proof that evidence was faked or someone recanting testimony can hardly be considered a mere technicality.  It has to do with the substance of the case and relates to innocence to at least some degree.

[Caroline]

Those things are debated because people have doubts, was there a moon landing, was it a hoax; was the  CIA behind JFK´s murder or did Lee Harvey Oswald act on his own - but not in this case apparently, it is only a hobby where people enjoy trawling through dusty old statements just for he he!! of it. 

No, people just like to invent conspiracy theories - for some reason.

[Jan]

Proof that evidence was faked or someone recanting testimony can hardly be considered a mere technicality.  It has to do with the substance of the case and relates to innocence to at least some degree.

But say for example someone says they were persuaded to "embellish" evidence in order to convict someone they thought was guilty - there would still always be that doubt.

[scipio_usmc]

But say for example someone says they were persuaded to "embellish" evidence in order to convict someone they thought was guilty - there would still always be that doubt.

To me it is very clear cut. If it could be proven that the rifle had her blood in it and this was concealed and they planted her blood in the moderator then most people will not trust any of the other evidence.  How can you be sure they didn't also add extra bullets to the supply in the kitchen or be sure they relocate the bullet that grazed Nevill to the bedroom along with 4 shell casings?  The argument would be you can't trust any of the evidence and then the case is just Julie's word.  I can't see any chance of a retrial and while there might still be some suspicions that he is guilty those suspicions certainly don't amount to proof.

Testimony like Julie provided would be enough to convict with some juries.  But that is only if such testimony were not undermined by proof that the police did many illicit things.  That taints the whole case to a jury.  The government would not retry that kind of case.





   

[Adam]

To be honest there is no evidence which shows Jeremy is innocent.

As John said, every scrap of evidence shows him to be guilty.

Jeremy's supporters believe him to be innocent by either refusing to notice the incriminating evidence, or by saying the evidence is wrong. Together with believing there is a massive 4x frame. With everyone lying. Supporters have no proof of any of this.

One thing that has never been disputed is the crime scene evidence. With this mountain of evidence, none of Jeremy's supporters could offer a reasonable explanation of how Sheila could have committed the massacre. 

[lookout]

To be honest there is no evidence which shows Jeremy is innocent.

As John said, every scrap of evidence shows him to be guilty.

Jeremy's supporters believe him to be innocent by either refusing to notice the incriminating evidence, or by saying the evidence is wrong. Together with believing there is a massive 4x frame. With everyone lying. Supporters have no proof of any of this.

One thing that has never been disputed is the crime scene evidence. With this mountain of evidence, none of Jeremy's supporters could offer a reasonable explanation of how Sheila could have committed the massacre.

You keep on talking about " evidence ".Where IS this evidence ?

[maggie]

You keep on talking about " evidence ".Where IS this evidence ?

Think you have opened the floodgates. Lookout 
Never ask Adam for evidence, golden rule number one 

[lookout]

Think you have opened the floodgates. Lookout 
Never ask Adam for evidence, golden rule number one 

That's why I asked,Maggie  I got no answer from John either,and he above EVERYONE should have given a list as long as your arm.

[lookout]

All they've created is a war on words. Of which don't interest me in the least. Concrete proof,at least