What Makes Supporters Believe Jeremy is Innocent?

[scipio_usmc]

If you discover a murder then you do not go around cleaning blood from anywhere with bleach. Did you read Amanda's diaries entitled "the Nazi inside of me" and did you ever watch Rafaele Sollecito's video dressed in Ku-Klux Klan outfit wielding a meat cleaver? He had a collection of knives. Knox's bloodied footprint was found with luminol in the area. Both had no alibi and turned their mobiles off in unison on the night of the murder.

The murder was not discovered while she was there showering etc.  She failed to find and clean the murder evidence. The body was only discovered later when they broke into her bedroom after it was discovered no one could find her and they were worried.

You are citing an urban legend regarding the footprints:

"Yet investigators had tested the luminol footprints for blood and found them lacking, a truth carefully hidden from December 17, 2007 (when they were collected) until September 2009, when defense expert Sarah Gino outed the negative test during the trial that led to Knox and Sollecito’s conviction. Even now “bloody footprints” are the Knox case’s most persistent urban legend.

“Luminol identified nine prints in the cottage, but none were derived from blood,”

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/08/amanda-knox-bloody-footprints-tested-negative-for-blood/

Luminol reacts with many different things not just blood. It reacts with many cleaning chemicals. If you walk on a wet floor that had an agent that reacts with luminol your print cant be revealed by luminol even though it would not otherwise be visible when the floor dries.  In order to prove it is blood that the luminol is reacting with a test must be done to prove the stain is positive for blood.  The stain was negative for blood.


   

[lookout]

 Me too Alias. He would NOT have functioned properly for a long time,and it would have eventually told on him in all kinds of ways.
In fact,the type of person he was that if he'd done something really out of the ordinary,he'd have turned to JM and said," God,what have I done ?". So to have accused him of murder would have really knocked him sideways,knowing full well he hadn't done it,and this is how he's been able to keep going in order to prove everyone wrong. He'd never have kept the fact that he'd murdered someone,to himself.

[Steve_uk]

The murder was not discovered while she was there showering etc.  She failed to find and clean the murder evidence. The body was only discovered later when they broke into her bedroom after it was discovered no one could find her and they were worried.

You are citing an urban legend regarding the footprints:

"Yet investigators had tested the luminol footprints for blood and found them lacking, a truth carefully hidden from December 17, 2007 (when they were collected) until September 2009, when defense expert Sarah Gino outed the negative test during the trial that led to Knox and Sollecito’s conviction. Even now “bloody footprints” are the Knox case’s most persistent urban legend.

“Luminol identified nine prints in the cottage, but none were derived from blood,”

http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/08/amanda-knox-bloody-footprints-tested-negative-for-blood/

Luminol reacts with many different things not just blood. It reacts with many cleaning chemicals. If you walk on a wet floor that had an agent that reacts with luminol your print cant be revealed by luminol even though it would not otherwise be visible when the floor dries.  In order to prove it is blood that the luminol is reacting with a test must be done to prove the stain is positive for blood.  The stain was negative for blood.


 

The body was behind a locked door,true. But Knox and Sollecito were cleaning up in the bathroom with bleach which they had bought specifically that morning before they even considered calling Police.

[scipio_usmc]

The body was behind a locked door,true. But Knox and Sollecito were cleaning up in the bathroom with bleach which they had bought specifically that morning before they even considered calling Police.

Cleaning a bathroom is not unusual. There was a leak and he volunteered to help her deal with it. If they were going to clean up evidence they would have not left any evidence to be found because they would have no way to distinguish their bloody prints from Guede's and certianly could not remove their own DNA and Semen from her body yet leave his.

There is nothing at all to establish any collusion among them.  No testimony from any party, no evidence that any of them ever phoned, emailed or wrote to eachother ever and nothing to demonstrate Sollecito even knew him.  The only evidence of Knox meeting him is when ALL the girls who lived with Knox met him when they were in the flat below and he visited.

The only evidence was against Guede, the prosecutor was embarrassed that he was wrong about Knox and made up the notion she invited Gued over from wholecloth.  There is nothing at all to suggest such let alone to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court decision which exonerated her was very thorough and well supported.  That shoudl ahve been the end, there was no error in law committed by that court so nothing to reverse on appeal.  The Court of Cassation reversed by finding factual error though the Court of Cassation has no authority to make such findings. It is not a Supreme Court which has the authority to decide the facts for itself it is stuck with the facts determined below. That alone makes the retrial where she was convicted again highly unusual and improper.

The actual findings of the court that reconvicted her are not supported by any evidence. There was nothign at all to establish period let alone beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox decided to kill Kercher for calling her dirty and decided to invite Guede to come help kill and rape her.  Guede says Kercher invited him and they had consensual sex before Knox arrived.  There was thus no testimony to suggest she let him in or invited him.  Nor was there any other evidence to suggest such- no evidence they ever communicated by phone, email etc.

It is blatantly obvious that Guede broke in and raped and killed her on his own.

[Steve_uk]

Cleaning a bathroom is not unusual. There was a leak and he volunteered to help her deal with it. If they were going to clean up evidence they would have not left any evidence to be found because they would have no way to distinguish their bloody prints from Guede's and certianly could not remove their own DNA and Semen from her body yet leave his.

There is nothing at all to establish any collusion among them.  No testimony from any party, no evidence that any of them ever phoned, emailed or wrote to eachother ever and nothing to demonstrate Sollecito even knew him.  The only evidence of Knox meeting him is when ALL the girls who lived with Knox met him when they were in the flat below and he visited.

The only evidence was against Guede, the prosecutor was embarrassed that he was wrong about Knox and made up the notion she invited Gued over from wholecloth.  There is nothing at all to suggest such let alone to establish it beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court decision which exonerated her was very thorough and well supported.  That shoudl ahve been the end, there was no error in law committed by that court so nothing to reverse on appeal.  The Court of Cassation reversed by finding factual error though the Court of Cassation has no authority to make such findings. It is not a Supreme Court which has the authority to decide the facts for itself it is stuck with the facts determined below. That alone makes the retrial where she was convicted again highly unusual and improper.

The actual findings of the court that reconvicted her are not supported by any evidence. There was nothign at all to establish period let alone beyond a reasonable doubt that Knox decided to kill Kercher for calling her dirty and decided to invite Guede to come help kill and rape her.  Guede says Kercher invited him and they had consensual sex before Knox arrived.  There was thus no testimony to suggest she let him in or invited him.  Nor was there any other evidence to suggest such- no evidence they ever communicated by phone, email etc.

It is blatantly obvious that Guede broke in and raped and killed her on his own.

Nobody is denying Guede's culpability. But both Sollecito and Knox lied about their whereabouts and therefore had no concrete alibi. Have it as you wish,but Knox has received $4 million in blood money for tacky memoirs which I have no wish to read.

[Alias]

There is a thread about this case in Other high profile cases. http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,5044.0.html

[Jane]

Me too Alias. He would NOT have functioned properly for a long time,and it would have eventually told on him in all kinds of ways.
In fact,the type of person he was that if he'd done something really out of the ordinary,he'd have turned to JM and said," God,what have I done ?". So to have accused him of murder would have really knocked him sideways,knowing full well he hadn't done it,and this is how he's been able to keep going in order to prove everyone wrong. He'd never have kept the fact that he'd murdered someone,to himself.

A psychopath would have gone about their daily life as if nothing untoward had occurred. They certainly wouldn't have asked of a partner what they'd done because they wouldn't be disturbed by it.

It is said that the best surgeons are psychopaths. I can see more positive than negative reasons for them  being so. It would give them the confidence to take risks -HOPEFULLY necessary ones- and they won't become demented wrecks each time something goes wrong, and the law of averages says that, at some point, it will.

[scipio_usmc]

Nobody is denying Guede's culpability. But both Sollecito and Knox lied about their whereabouts and therefore had no concrete alibi. Have it as you wish,but Knox has received $4 million in blood money for tacky memoirs which I have no wish to read.

I didn't read them either but you have no evidence they stemmed from blood money.  Those memoirs were published only because she was jailed for a crime she didn't commit for so long and the joke of a judicial system that Italy has created the opportunity.

It is not enough to say her only alibi the night of the murders is provided by Sollecito.  You need evidence she actually acted in concert with Guede and was there with him committing the murders or she assisted him in some other way as an accomplice.  You have no such evidence.  You are just suspicious that she was doing cartwheel and that she did some cleaning the next morning. That doens't establish any evidence she was there or in some way colluded with Guede.

Guede only tried to blame her after his conviction.  If his claims were true that Knox did it and he was just there at Kercher's invitation he would have said that from the outset and certainly at his trial.  he didn't he said it after his conviction so his sentence would be reduced.  He is clearly the killer and his sentence was reduced to 15 years while they gave Knox 27 and Sollecito 25 for doing nothing.  I would be quite angry to know the killer of my loved one got a reduction in exchange for lying and fingering someone else.

It would be like police deciding to blame someone else in addition to Jeremy and reducing Jeremy's sentence after conviction for agreeing to say Nevill called him to blame such person as opposed to blaming Sheila.

 



 

[Steve_uk]

I didn't read them either but you have no evidence they stemmed from blood money.  Those memoirs were published only because she was jailed for a crime she didn't commit for so long and the joke of a judicial system that Italy has created the opportunity.

It is not enough to say her only alibi the night of the murders is provided by Sollecito.  You need evidence she actually acted in concert with Guede and was there with him committing the murders or she assisted him in some other way as an accomplice.  You have no such evidence.  You are just suspicious that she was doing cartwheel and that she did some cleaning the next morning. That doens't establish any evidence she was there or in some way colluded with Guede.

Guede only tried to blame her after his conviction.  If his claims were true that Knox did it and he was just there at Kercher's invitation he would have said that from the outset and certainly at his trial.  he didn't he said it after his conviction so his sentence would be reduced.  He is clearly the killer and his sentence was reduced to 15 years while they gave Knox 27 and Sollecito 25 for doing nothing.  I would be quite angry to know the killer of my loved one got a reduction in exchange for lying and fingering someone else.

It would be like police deciding to blame someone else in addition to Jeremy and reducing Jeremy's sentence after conviction for agreeing to say Nevill called him to blame such person as opposed to blaming Sheila.

 

There is evidence that Meredith was held down by more than one person,I must inform you..

[lookout]

A psychopath would have gone about their daily life as if nothing untoward had occurred. They certainly wouldn't have asked of a partner what they'd done because they wouldn't be disturbed by it.

It is said that the best surgeons are psychopaths. I can see more positive than negative reasons for them  being so. It would give them the confidence to take risks -HOPEFULLY necessary ones- and they won't become demented wrecks each time something goes wrong, and the law of averages says that, at some point, it will.

Jeremy comes nowhere near the skill of a surgeon for starters. In fact,he hasn't got a skill,so that doesn't put him in the same bracket as a high-flying managing director of anything,or even a the bright scholar category. He did nothing to tax his brain to any extent at all.
Jeremy was no risk-taker either,unless you class robbing from his own a risk. In fact,didn't he pull his jumper over his head at one time ? I can't see a psychopath doing that somehow.

[Jane]

Jeremy comes nowhere near the skill of a surgeon for starters. In fact,he hasn't got a skill,so that doesn't put him in the same bracket as a high-flying managing director of anything,or even a the bright scholar category. He did nothing to tax his brain to any extent at all.
Jeremy was no risk-taker either,unless you class robbing from his own a risk. In fact,didn't he pull his jumper over his head at one time ? I can't see a psychopath doing that somehow.

Firstly, I was in NO way suggesting that Jeremy could be considered to have the skills of a surgeon but he DID like to imagine himself as a high flyer without having to put in  the background work to achieve it. I would suggest that he liked to be seen as a risk taker........................and a psychopath CAN'T be judged by whether or not they'd pull a jumper over their heads.

[scipio_usmc]

There is evidence that Meredith was held down by more than one person,I really hate to inform you..

Let's go to the thread about this instead of continuing here. You can post there what evidence there is that someone other than Guede held her down.  There is no such evidence it is as made up as your claim Knox's footprint was detected in blood.

You are just doing the same thing you criticize Jeremy supporters of doing except in the opposite direction where you are doing it to suggest her guilt.

Edit: I posted in the Knox thread about this and await your response.

[scipio_usmc]

Lookout, you admit you don't know Jeremy personally.  You don't have any real basis to judge his character.  You simply have invented up in your own might he is a great guy and thus would not have committed the murders and would not have been able to enjoy himself after committing them.

This bias you have makes you ignore all the evidence that actually matters and instead you are deciding his innocence on things that don't matter and that you have no way to even accurately assess.

[Alias]

What does it matter what Lookout or anybody else thinks? Jeremy is where you want him to be, what we think is irrelevant, don´t get your panties in a knot. 

[Steve_uk]

Let's go to the thread about this instead of continuing here. You cna post there what evidence there is that someone held her down.  There is no such evidence it is as made up as your claim Knox's footprint was detected in blood.

You are just doing the same thing you criticize Jeremy supporters of doing except in the opposite direction where you are doing it to suggest her guilt.

I'm only going off what I read as with many things. It has made up for the sheltered life I have led hitherto.http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/93444/Meredith-was-held-down-in-a-horrific-rape