The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 28

[AnimalFriendly]

He's independently minded.

And much more wrongheaded.

 

[Bill Williams]

He's independently minded.

You just said that "it ain't gonna happen" that barristers in Italy would ever rebel against the Italian Supreme Court. In fact you said they swear "an oath of allegiance to the quasi-military police force".

According to you, Stefano Maffei just committed treason. Wow. It's been a wild day of reversals.

 

[Bill Williams]

They didn't set out to verify "everything". There were a few things they intentionally didn't verify. Like whether a stain, that very well could have been semen, found under Kercher's body was or was not semen. That is why they were, and are, unprofessional. Like the very few remaining guilters who neither are professionals nor are capable of recognizing professionalism.

They also ignored Quintavalle, Curatolo, and the "I heard a scream" lady. An enterprising junior reporter dragged them into the case....

So much for the crack investigators, who conducted an "amnesiac" investigation.

According to you, it is treason to say otherwise, because that what the Italian Supreme Court said about it.

 

[Methos]

Methos, look up the police tap files.

Been there, done that.

Bear in mind this trial is about Knox and Sollecito and not the dozens of other people who came under police radar, so none of those files will be in the court files as they turned out to be eliminated from the enquiry. Only evidence relevant to the case is going to be amongst the court documents.

Really? If that is true, why is this document part of the case file, or this one? Isn't it interesting that despite your claim that "only evidence relevant to the case is going to be amongst the court documents.", the Capruzzi one is documented question by question and answer by answer? (hmm, so this - by your statement - irrelevant witness statement has obviously been recorded, makes me wonder why the "relevant" statements of Knox and Sollecito haven't been...

However, truth is, Sophie having been the last to see Mez alive, apart from the killer/s, did come under great scrutiny by the police, not least because Knox and Sollicito pointed the police towards Shaky with their theatrical stage whispers in the Questura which they guessed was being bugged (which we can tell by their childish gratuitous swearing for fun) claiming they had their suspicions about him. Shaky was another who was definitely given a hrad time by the police, especially as he had returned to the area at midnight to pick up his car and Mez had once complained about his coming on to her. Add to that he became Sophie's boyfriend, we can surmise the police were VERY suspicious of Sophie and Shaky.

Please point me to the documents from wich you got "Shaky was [...] definitely given a hrad time by the police"," Shaky[...] became Sophie's boyfriend" and the reason why

we can surmise the police were VERY suspicious of Sophie and Shaky.

...

Likewise Filomena, not all that far away from the murder scene as of the time of the crime. To the police mind, she would say she was with her boyfriend all night, just like Knox did but unlike Knox they eventually verified her story by thorough investigation.

I guess that "thorough investigation" is also documented here, isn't it?

Giacomo Silenzi was another one who aroused suspicion thanks to his being Mez' boyfriend.

Was he? You surely can point me to where in the 10.000 pages Silenzi "arousing suspicion" is documented...

There are no end of police suspects in any crime. How that is a surprise to Friends of Amanda is astonishing.

The above makes sense... how?

 

[bagels]

Filomena might be 'quickly eliminated' by the likes of you. Detectives set out to verify everything. This is why they are professional and you are not.

I could eliminate Filomena and every other woman instantly since the raped victim lying on a semen stained pillow was obviously killed by a man.

 

[Stacyhs]

Methos, look up the police tap files.

Bear in mind this trial is about Knox and Sollecito and not the dozens of other people who came under police radar, so none of those files will be in the court files as they turned out to be eliminated from the enquiry. Only evidence relevant to the case is going to be amongst the court documents.

In other words, you can't provide any evidence that there was a "vigorous investigation of Filomena, Sophie and 'Shaky'."

However, truth is, Sophie having been the last to see Mez alive, apart from the killer/s, did come under great scrutiny by the police,

She would certainly have been questioned and was. But to call it 'great scrutiny' is, once again, based on nothing but your musings.

not least because Knox and Sollicito pointed the police towards Shaky with their theatrical stage whispers in the

Speaking of 'theatrical'...!
Wait. Why would they point the police towards Shaky when the plan was to set up Guede by selectively leaving all the evidence of him behind for the police to find? Oh, wait, they were protecting Guede so Amanda accused Lumumba.

...which they guessed was being bugged (which we can tell by their childish gratuitous swearing for fun) claiming they had their suspicions about him.

Please, stop telling us what Knox and Sollecito 'guessed, knew, thought, felt' etc.
The pair do NOT say they had 'suspicions' about Shaky. This is the entire conversation regarding Shaky:

At a certain point, Raffaele asks the young woman what she is thinking.
Amanda: “I’m sick of being here, I wish it was all over”.
(..... incomprehensible .....)
Amanda: “He was kind to find me a job, but I don’t like him anymore ... I don’t like how he
treats woman ... he gets angry ...”
Raffaele: “Are you talking about the “Le Chic” guy?”
A: “No ... (... it is hard to understand ...)
Raffaele: “Are you talking about Spiros?
A: “(..... incomprehensible answer .....), then she adds in Italian “He came on to me”.
R: (..... incomprehensible .....)

Shaky was another who was definitely given a hrad time by the police, especially as he had returned to the area at midnight to pick up his car and Mez had once complained about his coming on to her.

There's no doubt that Shaky was questioned but evidence
that Shaky was given a 'hard time by the police'? What? You have none?

Add to that he became Sophie's boyfriend, we can surmise the police were VERY suspicious of Sophie and Shaky.

Shaky was never Sophie's boyfriend. No, 'we' cannot surmise that. It's nothing but an effort to bolster your unsupported claims.

Likewise Filomena, not all that far away from the murder scene as of the time of the crime. To the police mind, she would say she was with her boyfriend all night, just like Knox did but unlike Knox they eventually verified her story by thorough investigation.

Eventually? And yet...and yet...we only have Mignini telling us that he suspected KNOX beginning on Nov. 2 when she was behaving 'inappropriately" by kissing Sollecito and that her falling apart at the cottage on Nov. 3 further aroused his suspicions about her.

We have Giobbi claiming he became suspicious of Knox on Nov. 2 because:

1. Giobbi told Knox that he was going to the house next door to talk with people there and ask if anyone witnessed anything unusual the night of the murder. Immediately after hearing that, Amanda Knox broke down, sobbing uncontrollably. Giobbi thought Knox's reaction was troubling because there are no houses next door to the crime scene. So why was she so emotional? Giobbi believes it was because Knox had a guilty conscious.

2. Both Giobbi and Knox had to put protective covers over their shoes before entering. Knox got hers on first, and then showed off that fact by performing a hula-hoop motion with her hands on her hips and bragging about how she quick she'd been. To Giobbi, Knox's inappropriate, girlish behavior wasn't a sign of immaturity, but rather a peek inside the craven heart of a killer.

3. The third incident, according to Giobbi, was the most disturbing. It occurred when the police picked up Rafaele Sollecito for questioning, three days after Kercher's body was discovered. Police located Sollecito at a cafe. It was three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. But Sollecito wasn't alone. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza. This so-called "meeting" helped convince Giobbi the couple had acted together in the murder.

Thanks to Bill Williams
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256373&page=242

Giacomo Silenzi was another one who aroused suspicion thanks to his being Mez' boyfriend.

Who was miles away with his family which was confirmed very quickly.

There are no end of police suspects in any crime. How that is a surprise to Friends of Amanda is astonishing.

Just stop. That was never the point. The point IS that the police quickly focused on Knox and Sollecito as they and Mignini have publicly admitted. That you continue to deny that is beyond logic.

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh my my my. Yet more stultifyingly ill-informed, illogical, evidence-free attempts at "argument" from our favourite pro-guilt commentor.

How strange it is that we also know a man in Perugia who shares just such an approach to this case, complete with the same dogged determination to defend the prosecution thesis at all costs and to misdirect/mislead/ignore when it comes to clear evidence of malpractice and unlawful acts by police and prosecutors during the investigation. A man who somehow remains (for now) a PM.........

 

[Bill Williams]

Thanks to Bill Williams
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256373&page=242

Wow. From 6 years ago. I have to get a life!!!!

However, it was telling to read through the page. Best post goes to someone from Londond, England, named Anthony. He was responding to a certain "Sherlock Holmes" who had clung to a belief in guilt simply because of Knox's supposed "suspicious behaviour". Sherlock had said that Knox's behaviour had been suspicious.....

No it isn't. There is nothing strange or suspicious about anything that Amanda or Raff did, at any time.

If you want "strange and suspicious", try looking at the actions and statements of the police and prosecution:

• choosing to interview Amanda and Raff late at night and interrogating Amanda until 5:45am;
• suppressing the recordings of the critical interviews of their 3 main suspects, then claiming they were not made;
• describing Amanda's false confession as "facts we knew to be correct";
• wrecking at least 3 computers so thoroughly that information cannot be retrieved;
• staging conjuring tricks to produce 2 crucial pieces of evidence;
• intimidating witnesses, defendants and the defendants' families with unjustified police and court actions;

The above is just a taster. The list goes on and on, to repeat a phrase you used earlier.

Why is it that you and others paw over Amanda's reactions to the tragedy for signs of guilt, yet swallow all of the above as supposedly the work of an honest police force and prosecutor?​

You could add to this, refusal to take temperature of the victim to ascertain time-of-death, and refusal to test a presumed semen stain under the hips of a murder victim who'd been sexually assaulted.

That's strange investigative behaviour. But no matter, Vixen has assured us they were thorough.

 

[Stacyhs]

Don't forget failing to compare the footprints in the hallway to any of the other three women in the apartment, Stefanoni 'forgetting' about the TMB negative tests on them, failing to have someone even attempt to climb the wall into FR's bedroom, and failing to have a glass shatter test to identify direction of breakage.

 

[TruthCalls]

Nonsense. You can't possibly know what undercover work police did on all sorts of individuals.

It's not unusual in a murder case to suspect the entire local male population and go door to door questioning them all.

So your best answer is the "General Investigative Activity" reports, published by the investigation team, show all the activity of the investigation except for the activity they didn't include in the report? Come'on man.. you can do better than that.

So how did they manage to exclude the entire local male population in less than two days??? You go read the reports and you tell me where, after 4 Nov, there is any focused activity against anyone other than Amanda and Raffaele.

Deny, deny, deny... try being honest for a change.

 

[TomG]

​

You could add to this, refusal to take temperature of the victim to ascertain time-of-death, and refusal to test a presumed semen stain under the hips of a murder victim who'd been sexually assaulted.

These good points add to my argument that the cops DID know Rudy was the killer by November 2nd. That's why they had to minimise the case against him and maximise the case against K&S. C'mon Numbers!

Hoots

 

[Stacyhs]

Nonsense. You can't possibly know what undercover work police did on all sorts of individuals.

But you know the police "vigorously investigated" Filomena, Sophie and 'Shaky'. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....

It's not unusual in a murder case to suspect the entire local male population and go door to door questioning them all.

Well...now we know why they couldn't afford to record the interrogations: they'd spent all the money going door to door questioning the entire male population of Perugia.

 

[Bill Williams]

Wow. From 6 years ago. I have to get a life!!!!

However, it was telling to read through the page.

Things have changed a bit. Gone are all the guilters who believed Knox was guilty, "because of all the lies she told". Gone are the guilters who believe that Knox was guilty, "because of her strange and suspicious behaviour".

This was from August 2013, just before the start of the Nencini (Florence) trial which re-convicted them. For me, I tried to find out, exactly, what all those claimed lies were. No one seemed to be able to provide a list - save for Harry Rag who had listed them on another internet service.

The strange thing about that list, was that of the 13 of them, only one, really, had anything to do with Knox. The rest were lies which Sollecito was supposed to have told. And that's before considering that they had not been lies at all - just statements he'd made when the police controled Sollecito's access to information.

But I had pressed both "Sherlock Holmes" as well as "CoulsdonUK" to say what it was about Knox's behaviour that was:

1. Strange
2. why and of them listed in #1 would indicate suspicion of murder?​

If you read through the threads, Sherlock Holmes posted a gobsmacking post, by asking, in essence, why would anyone claim that Knox's behaviour had anything to do with the arrest. (Long-time followers of this case will be smacking their foreheads right now!)

One of the cops bragged that he'd solved this case by close examination of Knox's behaviour, which had included putting on forensic booties before reentering the cottage (under escort) and saying, "Oppp-la" while swiveling her hips. Another described behaviour was eating pizza. Or kissing Raffaele and making faces at him in the Questura, or buying underwear in the middle of a murder investigation. You know, murderously-suspicious acts like those.

Sherlock Holmes was content to discuss the weird behaviour, and remained unphased by - "If you think it has nothing to do with the murder, then why discuss it at all!?" He'd come to the thread just to discuss random weird behaviour by a practically-teenaged Seattleite caught up in bizarre stuff in a foreign country.

Anyway, to tie off the "she's guilty because of her behaviour" meme, there was this from Aug 2013:

How did Italian police target Knox and Sollecito so quickly? One answer came three months after the arrests. In February 2008, 48 Hours met with Fabio Giobbi, a department head at the Via Tuscolana offices of the forensic police.

Giobbi told 48 Hours he was proud that Knox and Sollecito were arrested before fingerprints, blood, footprints, or DNA were analyzed by his office. Instead, Giobbi explained, the case was solved simply by observing Amanda Knox's behavior.

And what was suspicious about Knox's behavior? What gave her guilt away? Giobbi pointed to three incidents.​

1. Giobbi told Knox that he was going to the house next door to talk with people there and ask if anyone witnessed anything unusual the night of the murder. Immediately after hearing that, Amanda Knox broke down, sobbing uncontrollably. Giobbi thought Knox's reaction was troubling because there are no houses next door to the crime scene. So why was she so emotional? Giobbi believes it was because Knox had a guilty conscious.

2. Both Giobbi and Knox had to put protective covers over their shoes before entering. Knox got hers on first, and then showed off that fact by performing a hula-hoop motion with her hands on her hips and bragging about how she quick she'd been. To Giobbi, Knox's inappropriate, girlish behavior wasn't a sign of immaturity, but rather a peek inside the craven heart of a killer.

3. The third incident, according to Giobbi, was the most disturbing. It occurred when the police picked up Rafaele Sollecito for questioning, three days after Kercher's body was discovered. Police located Sollecito at a cafe. It was three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. But Sollecito wasn't alone. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza. This so-called "meeting" helped convince Giobbi the couple had acted together in the murder.
​

As for Coulsdon, he'd said that it was understandable that after Nov 2, Sollecito's and Knox's non-attendance at the makeshift memorial for the victim would have been more suspicious, than say Filomena's non-attendance. S and K had been students, Filomena was working. "As I indicated I can understand why the difference in their reaction (note: when compared to Filomena and others) would have been noticed by the police." "The point I am making is the difference in their reaction would have been noticed by any experienced homicide detective."

I pressed Coulsdon on what it was about all that behaviour which was indicative of murder, and why would an "experienced homicide detective" naturally home in on that?

No follow up.

I then build a similar case against Filomena, using pre-conceived notions about the "whys" of her bevaiour to make her seem suspicious, framing it as a fictional note from Napoleoni to Mignini:

Memo from Napoleoni to PM Mignini:

We need to assemble an all night interrogation beginning tonight. I think I can close this case, based on what Giobbi says is keen observation of behaviour.

We need to summon Ms. Romanelli and her boyfriend to the Questura.

I strongly suspect that Filomena Romanelli is involved in this. Why? Well, Italian TV recorded Filomena's boyfriend rubbing her buttocks outside the cottage on the very afternoon that Ms. Kercher was found. Is this the behaviour of someone who is grieving the lass of a roommate?

Also, Ms. Romanelli gained access to the cottage twice. Quite suspiciously, she was the one who confided in the postal police that the burglar must be a stupid burglar. Why was Ms. Romanelli so intent on calling attention to her room? Could she be trying to control our interpretation of how the room got to be the way it did?

Further, Ms. Romanelli is a front-door key holder. So is the other flatmate, Ms. Knox, but Ms. Knox has a solid alibi - she was with her boyfriend all night, Mr Sollecito. Sollecito, rather than acting suspicious, was actually quite helpful in pointing out the pooh in the toilet to us. We have not, as yet, matched the pooh to anyone with DNA.

But Ms. Romanelli continued to display suspicious behaviour. First, she retained the services of a lawyer. When asked, she said she did that because she was concerned that she'd be on the hook for the damage to her room, as well as rent at the cottage while it was behind a police line.

Is this the act of a sympathetic roommate, or the cold calculation of a killer? Where's her sympathy to the victim? She also quickly returned to work. Why was she not home in bed crying?

Add to this two more things. One is that she actually did return to the cottage after the police tape was up. She retrieved her laptop, which we believe she thought would be damaging to her. Unfortunately our technician damaged part of her computer in trying to find information linking her to the crime.

Second - she did not go to the memorial for Meredith. True, Ms. Knox also did not go, but at least she was eating a pizza at the time so we can fully appreciate how these basic needs, plus the stresses of the week, might cause someone like Ms. Knox who is also so young to want to avoid the questions that others might have had if she'd attended.

Ms. Romanelli is older so should have been able to handle herself at such affairs, which makes it all the more suspicious that she did not attend. She very well could have appealed to her employer that she needed to attend after such a horrible event in her life, but our information is that she didn't even ask. That's a further clue to her unsympathetic attitude towards the murder.

I am recommending that we call in her boyfriend for questioning on the assumption that she will not want to be alone and she has nowhere else to go, really. If we can get Filomena's boyfriend to withdraw his alibi, maybe with a bit of pressure, we can get Ms. Romanelli to tell us what she is withholding about what she knows about Ms. Kercher's murder.​

Sincerely,
Monica​

At the end of this, the question that remained unanswered by guilters was this: what crime would you charge Knox with based on her behaviour?

Callousness? Immaturity? Murder? Sex game gone wrong? Satanic Rite?

For me, it was the very definition of confirmation bias to suspect Knox of something based on things like non-attendence at the makeshift memorial, when Filomena also did not take an hour off of work to attend either.

So - guilter themes are "all the lies" and the "strange behaviour", not to mention "all the other evidence". None of those three things pass much scrutiny.

 

[Stacyhs]

I agree with you. Almost any behavior can be inferred in a negative or suspicious way if that is what you are looking for. I think an egregious example is the idea that K and S turning off their cell phones that evening must have had some nefarious reason when another non inculpatory and logical explanation exists. What is unusual/unbelievable about a newly infatuated couple not wanting to be disturbed or to be called back into work when getting an unexpected last minute night off? Another example is claiming Knox would not have gone into the cottage upon finding the front door ajar. I've left my garage door open unknowingly only to come home and find it wide open. Did I call 911 or think something awful had happened? No. I went in, looked around, and finding nothing wrong, surmised I'd simply forgotten to push the control button to close it. For some odd reason, I didn't just jump to the idea that I'd been burgled and/or someone was lying dead upstairs.

 

[Bill Williams]

At the end of this, the question that remained unanswered by guilters was this: what crime would you charge Knox with based on her behaviour?

Callousness? Immaturity? Murder? Sex game gone wrong? Satanic Rite?

I've just been informed that I have inadequately framed the question. This comes from a surprising source, given my overall bias in this case, as well as if you knew the source of this criticism.

I am forced to somewhat agree with the criticism. Don't fall over.

The inadequacy of the framing comes from the fact that the "behaviour" was not in a vacuum. As much as all the instances of behaviour that Giobbi specifically links to making him suspect Knox of murder, and subsequently Sollecito on the basis that they'd eaten a pizza together, are all themselves completely inadequate for causing suspicion within the murder investigation.....

...... it's not as if the "investigation of the behaviour" led to the cops uncovering some formerly unknown crime. Think about it.

So, whereas I concede that within the framework of a live-investigation, everyone's behaviour is legitimate fodder for investigators, I have to also reframe my conclusion somewhat.

It was precisely because the cops had very, very thin investigative clues for the first two weeks, that led to cops out on the investigative wild-goose chase that Giobbi eventually admits to, and in fact brags about.

So I'll concede that it is inadequate to simply ask: "what crime would you charge Knox with based on her behaviour?" But it is at this point I'll bring in what the 2015 Supreme Court said about that kind of investigation when the ISC exonerated the pair..... namely that the investigation had been "amnesiac", especially in the context of a real-live murder investigation.

But also add, that all this only applies to that brief period where no one knew about Rudy Guede. The real mystery is this - once he came on the scene and he was a match for the forensics, and even admits to having been in the cottage that night - why weren't Raffaele and Amanda just let go?

 

[Stacyhs]

"once he came on the scene and he was a match for the forensics, and even admits to having been in the cottage that night - why weren't Raffaele and Amanda just let go?

Not only was his DNA identified, but the police clearly heard him tell his friend in the recorded Skype call that Amanda was not there and had nothing to do with it. But then again, the police had identified the bloody shoe prints as belonging to Raff. Oh, wait...

 

[bagels]

The real mystery is this - once he came on the scene and he was a match for the forensics, and even admits to having been in the cottage that night - why weren't Raffaele and Amanda just let go?

And let go in the eyes of the people. Something I like to point out was asked on page 1 of thread 1 of this 100,000+ post topic 10 years ago:

I still want to know what her motive was supposed to have been, and how Rudy Guede fits into a coherent narrative that has Knox also participating in the killing.

Nobody answered the poor guy on page 1, nor the next 4,000 pages and 28 continuations. It remains unanswered to this day, while Vixen goes on about the mafia and the precise definition of a suspect and whatnot.

 

[Stacyhs]

And let go in the eyes of the people. Something I like to point out was asked on page 1 of thread 1 of this 100,000+ post topic 10 years ago:

maxpower1227 View Post
I still want to know what her motive was supposed to have been, and how Rudy Guede fits into a coherent narrative that has Knox also participating in the killing.

Nobody answered the poor guy on page 1, nor the next 4,000 pages and 28 continuations. It remains unanswered to this day, while Vixen goes on about the mafia and the precise definition of a suspect and whatnot.

Take your pick: A Halloween "sexual and sacrificial rite", a sex orgy gone wrong, jealousy because Meredith was 'prettier and more popular', anger for being criticized for not cleaning the toilet properly and bringing 'strange' men back to the house...

The fact that each trial proposed a different motive and were each abandoned by the next court is evidence that each had...well...no evidence to support it. Gotta love it.

 

[Bill Williams]

And let go in the eyes of the people. Something I like to point out was asked on page 1 of thread 1 of this 100,000+ post topic 10 years ago:

I still want to know what her motive was supposed to have been, and how Rudy Guede fits into a coherent narrative that has Knox also participating in the killing.

Nobody answered the poor guy on page 1, nor the next 4,000 pages and 28 continuations. It remains unanswered to this day, while Vixen goes on about the mafia and the precise definition of a suspect and whatnot.

Take your pick: A Halloween "sexual and sacrificial rite", a sex orgy gone wrong, jealousy because Meredith was 'prettier and more popular', anger for being criticized for not cleaning the toilet properly and bringing 'strange' men back to the house...

The fact that each trial proposed a different motive and were each abandoned by the next court is evidence that each had...well...no evidence to support it. Gotta love it.

From memory:

Evolution of alleged motives as put forward by various prosecutors and courts:

• pre-2009: Mignini wanted to go to trial with the somewhat euphemistically-called, SATANIC RITE. Acc. to Mignini, it was a ritualized killing associated with Hallowe'en. Acc. to author Barbie Nadeau, co-prosecutor Maneula Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini went to trial with that as the motive.
  
• Dec 2009: at the close of the Massei trial, Mignini's summation to the judge-panel cited the motive as Knox's alleged PSYCHOLOGICAL PATHOLOGY, which manifested itself as jealousy towards the victim.
  
• April 2010: in his motivations report released following the first conviction, Massei ignored Mignini and constructed his own motive, writing that the motive to molest and kill the victim belonged solely to Rudy Guede, which Knox and Sollecito inexplicably joined in on AS A CHOICE FOR EVIL.
  
• Oct-Dec 2011: acquitting Hellmann appeals court said they had no motive.
  
• March 2013: The 1st Chamber of the Italian Supreme Court overturned the acquittal, remanded it back to a Florence appeals court, mandating that court to re-examine the SEX GAME GONE WRONG motive.
  
• Fall 2013: the new prosecutor, Crini, ignored the 2013 ISC, alleging that the motive for the killing was CLEANLINESS IN THE COTTAGE. This made no sense, because it was also alleged that it had been Knox who'd been a messy roommate, and no one wanted to kill her. It also didn't explain why either Guede or Sollecito could be persuaded to join in with the crime.
  
• Spring 2014: in convicting judge Nencini's motivations report, he ignored bother the 2013 ISC as well as the prosecutor at the trial, citing a DISPUTE OVER RENT MONEY as the reason for the killing. This theory had never been presented at any trial to do with K and S. That theory came only from Rudy Guede, who also had claimed that the victim had consensually invited him in, consensually had had petting-sex with her, and had overheard the victim arguing with Knox.

Mercifully, the 2015 exonerating Supreme Court decision also said that there had been no motive.

In years' past, when all this had been pointed out to guilters, they'd inevitably respond by saying that, "establishing motive is not required for conviction."

This begged a whole mess of questions; one of which was, why then did prosecutors/courts offer so many of them, and couldn't agree on one?

 

[Stacyhs]

In years' past, when all this had been pointed out to guilters, they'd inevitably respond by saying that, "establishing motive is not required for conviction."

This begged a whole mess of questions; one of which was, why then did prosecutors/courts offer so many of them, and couldn't agree on one?

This "no motive needed for a conviction" response was always a stupid and desperate response. Establishing a motive may not be legally required, but it is very important to a jury which is why the prosecution always presents motive. People don't do things for no reason unless they are so mentally incapacitated due to illness or drugs that they literally do not know what the are doing.