DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**byncnombmub** · 08-11-2010, 09:50 PM

Actually, both sides agree that they did not find the exact murder weapon. They found a knife "similar" to the type used to kill the victim which had Knox's DNA and DNA that was "similar" to that of Kerscher.

Sorry, to be correct, they presented a knife as a murder weapon and consistent with Kercher's wounds, but they don't have the critical link to lock it down. The DNA could be Kercher's and does not rule her out, but they don't have enough of a quality sample.

I don't think they found co-mingled blood, but rather Kercher's blood co-mingled with Knox's DNA. If two people live together, both of their DNA is going to be all over the place, so i don't find this surprising at all.

Various news outlets reported that they found both, DNA co-mingled with Kercher's blood and blood co-mingled. I understand that media can get technical matters wrong, but it is the determination of the professionals in the courtroom as to the strength of the evidence, and these instances were treated as quite important.

i'd agree there was a lot of physical evidence, but what that physical evidence proves (or doesn't prove) is highly debateable.

So, possibly we agree. PR firms hired by the Knoxes have put out the meme that there was no phsyical evidence, not that the defense found themselves in the unusual position of disagreeing that the evidence proved their client guilty. And while we speculate about the evidence based on the details that reach us, teams of highly trained forensic specialists, attorneys, and judges saw the evidence in detail and determined that it was sufficient to convict Knox. Trials are not infallible, but that is a big difference from the horror story many tell of a poor exchange student who was railroaded into a conviction improperly and without evidence. There is more than enough reason to believe Knox was involved in this murder.

08-11-2010, 09:50 PM	#7
byncnombmub Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 489 Senior Member	Actually, both sides agree that they did not find the exact murder weapon. They found a knife "similar" to the type used to kill the victim which had Knox's DNA and DNA that was "similar" to that of Kerscher. Sorry, to be correct, they presented a knife as a murder weapon and consistent with Kercher's wounds, but they don't have the critical link to lock it down. The DNA could be Kercher's and does not rule her out, but they don't have enough of a quality sample. I don't think they found co-mingled blood, but rather Kercher's blood co-mingled with Knox's DNA. If two people live together, both of their DNA is going to be all over the place, so i don't find this surprising at all. Various news outlets reported that they found both, DNA co-mingled with Kercher's blood and blood co-mingled. I understand that media can get technical matters wrong, but it is the determination of the professionals in the courtroom as to the strength of the evidence, and these instances were treated as quite important. i'd agree there was a lot of physical evidence, but what that physical evidence proves (or doesn't prove) is highly debateable. So, possibly we agree. PR firms hired by the Knoxes have put out the meme that there was no phsyical evidence, not that the defense found themselves in the unusual position of disagreeing that the evidence proved their client guilty. And while we speculate about the evidence based on the details that reach us, teams of highly trained forensic specialists, attorneys, and judges saw the evidence in detail and determined that it was sufficient to convict Knox. Trials are not infallible, but that is a big difference from the horror story many tell of a poor exchange student who was railroaded into a conviction improperly and without evidence. There is more than enough reason to believe Knox was involved in this murder.
	Quote