The Instigator
randolph7
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
MrWizard
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
randolph7
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/2/2011 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,984 times Debate No: 17741
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

randolph7

Pro

First, let me start out by saying that the murder of Meredith Kercher is truly appalling. My heart goes out to her friends and family. In the spirit of justice for Meredith, I think we would all agree that ensuring that the appropriate parties are held to account for what he/she/they have done.

While none of us truly know what happened that night barring being a physical witness or somehow omniscient, I believe that the evidence presented by the prosecutor is faulty and the atmosphere in which the trial was conducted led to an incorrect outcome. My supposition is that Rudy Guede, alone, acted in the murder and sexual assault of Meredith.

The evidence that places both Amanda (AK) and Rafaele (RS) at the crime scene (specifically Meredith's bedroom) is the so-called double DNA knife and the bra clasp. The Conti-Vecchiotti Report ordered by Judge Hellman introduces reasonable doubt as to the reliability of this evidence which means that RS and AK cannot be definitively placed at the crime scene. If they are not at the crime scene they could NOT have committed murder. Perhaps a conspiracy charge or some other may be appropriate but there is now considerable reasonable doubt and the pair is innocent.

Using a bit of everyday logic – common sense, if you will, Rudy Guede (RG) a man who has broken into homes and been known to carry a knife with him is the most likely sole guilty party. Much has been made of AK's behavior (cartwheels, etc.) but what about RG's behavior? He says that AK and RS killed Meredith while he was on the toilet, so he leaves and spends the night at a nightclub. Then he flees the country on an assumed name? To me, this sounds like the actions of a killer fleeing justice. AK and RS on the other hand had the means and ability to flee but both chose to stay in Italy and assist the police in any way possible. It's a bold contrast between the 3 accused – 2 who stayed in Italy and 1 who fled.

Pro: Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito are innocent (did not commit the murder) if not necessarily in law, but in fact.

Con: Amanda Knox and Rafaele Sollecito are guilty (did commit the murder) if not necessarily in law, but in fact.
MrWizard

Con

Amanda Knox (AK)
Accused a completely innocent man
AK's DNA mixed with MK's in five different places just feet from her body
The inexplicable computer records the morning after the murder starting at 5.32 am and including multiple file creations and interactions thereafter all during a time that Raffaele and Amanda insist they were asleep until 10.30am
The separate witnesses who testified on oath that Amanda and Raffaele were at the square 40 metres from the girls' cottage on the evening of the murder and AK was seen at a convenience store at 7.45am the next morning, again while she said she was in bed
AK rang MK's mobile telephones, ostensibly to check on the "missing" MK, she did so for just three seconds, registering the call but making no effort to allow the phone to be answered in the real world
AK knew details of the body and the wounds despite not being in line of sight of the body when it was discovered
The lies of AK on the witness stand in July 2009 about how their drug intake that night ("one joint") is totally contradicted by RS's own diary
The fact that after a late evening's questioning, AK wrote a 2,900 word email home which painstakingly details what she said happened that evening and the morning after that looks highly like someone committing to memory, at 3.30 in the morning, an extensive alibi
The fact that cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito's flat but had left the flat at a time which is completely coincidental with Guede's corroborated presence near the girl's flat earlier in the evening
The fact that AK's table lamp was found in the locked room with MK in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up
AK's inexplicable reaction to being shown the knife drawer at the girl's cottage where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head.

Raffaele Sollecito (RS)
RS's DNA on MK's bra-clasp in her locked bedroom
His almost-entire naked footprint on a bathmat that in no way fits that of the other male in this case, Rudy Guede
RS's own father blew their alibi that they were together in RS's flat at the time of the killing with indisputable telephone records
The DNA of MK on the knife in RS's flat which RS himself sought to explain as having been from accidentally "pricking" Meredith's hand in his written diary despite the fact MK had never been to his flat (confirmed by AK)
The correlation of where MK's phones were found to the location of Raffaele Sollecito and RG's flats
the computer records which show that no-one was at Raffaele's computer during the time of the murder despite him claiming he was using that computer
The knife-fetish of Raffaele Sollecito and his formal disciplinary punishment for watching animal porn at his university – so far from the wholesome image portrayed
The fact that claimed multi-year kick-boxer Raffaele apparently couldn't break down a flimsy door to Meredith's room when he and Amanda were at the flat the morning after the murder but the first people in the flat with the police who weren't martial artists could
The extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox;
The fact that when Rudy Guede was arrested, Raffaele Sollecito didn't celebrate the "true" perpetrator being arrested (which surely would have seen him released) but worried in his diary that a man whom he said he didn't know would make up strange things about him despite him just being one person in a city of over 160,000 people;

Both
AK and RS said they would give up smoking dope for life in their prison diaries despite having apparently nothing to regret
Unbelievable series of changing stories made up by the defendants after their versions were challenged
Break-in where glass was *on top* of apparently disturbed clothes;
Both suggested each other might have committed the crime and RS TO THIS DATE does not agree AK stayed in his flat all the night in question

Source: http://www.truejustice.org...
Debate Round No. 1
randolph7

Pro

First, I’d like to thank you for accepting the debate. You used TJMK for your sole source[4]? I should have made the limit higher, so I'll rebut the points against AK here and RS in another round. I have abbreviated your points for conciseness. I'll also have to push any of my additional arguments to a later round.

Amanda Knox (AK) Rebuttals:
1. Accused a completely innocent man
After at least 14 hours of non-stop interrogation she imagined a scenario which placed Patrick at the scene. However, she also the day after the interview rescinded this scenario citing her confusion[5]. When coercive interrogations take place in a foreign country, in a foreign language with lack of sleep and food such confusion is rampant. See the central jogger case for an example of false confessions[2].

In fact, this is why both European and Italian law requires electronic recording to prevent police abuses and coercive confessions[3]. This is also why the original confession (not the later handwritten note) was barred from trial.

2. AK/Meredith’s DNA mixed in five different places
This is irrelevant. DNA from AK in common areas is expected especially in high traffic areas like a bathroom.

3. Early morning computer activity shows someone wasn’t asleep until 10:30
Irrelevant. This proves nothing regarding guilt.

4. Multiple witnesses testified that AK and RS were at the square
Mr. Curatolo did testify to that during the original trial [1]. But, during the appeals trial he told the court, "The two youngsters were talking intensely to each other...that night young people in masks were coming and going and buses were leaving for the nightclubs."[6]

However, there were no buses running or clubs open that night and no one was in masks since it was the day after Halloween.

If you are instead referring to Nara Capazelli and Antonella Monacchia, then in all likelihood they also mixed up there dates, as reported in Oggi[7].

5. AK was seen at a convenience store at 7:45 am the next morning
The testimony shows that Quintavelle said someone vaguely similar to AK was at the store and yet oddly when questioned a few days after the murder did not mention this [1]. An employee of the store testified that they did not see AK on that day.

6. AK rang MK's mobile telephones to check on MK
Irrelevant. My guess is she rang to check on her, got VM and hung up. My own phone records show such calls.

7. AK knew details of body and wounds despite not being in line of sight
Evidence? Source?

8. AK lied about drug intake that night and is contradicted by RS's own diary
So? How is that relevant?

9. AK wrote a 2,900 word email home as an alibi.
Speculation and irrelevant.

10. Cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito's flat
Evidence for this? The Massei Report states, “ no other [use] was shown for the day of 1.11.07..."[1]. Even if I accepted that the cellphone records showed this (which they don’t), cellphone records prove nothing.

11. The fact that AK's table lamp was used to examine the murder scene.
A black light wouldn’t be very helpful in a cleanup so I’m not sure why you even brought it up.[1]

12. AK's inexplicable reaction after shown the knife drawer at the girl's cottage.
Irrelevant.

Con has thrown everything against the wall hoping something will stick. All his points have been lifted from a website with an extreme bias. If Con has any original arguments, I’d love to hear them.

[1] http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...

[2] http://www.csmonitor.com...

[3]
http://www.ecba-eaw.org...
[4] http://www.zimbio.com...
[5] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...'s-note.html
[6] http://www.guardian.co.uk...
[7] http://blog.seattlepi.com...
MrWizard

Con

MrWizard forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
randolph7

Pro

Since con forfeited last round, I’ll stick with my original plan of continuing the rebuttal of con’s R1 arguments. Again, I’ll paraphrase con’s claims for brevity sake.

Raffaele Sollecito (RS) Rebuttal:

1. RS's DNA on MK's bra-clasp in her locked bedroom
The bra clasp was left at the crime scene for 45+ days before being collected. During that time, items moved around the room and numerous investigators came and went (according to the police’s own video)[1][5].

Whether there was ever any DNA left there by RS is in doubt. The forensic experts reviewing the evidence for the appeals trial have indicated that the DNA found on the clasp has a high probability of being left there due to cross-contamination and improper evidence handling[4].

2. Footprint on a bathmat left by RS
The experts disagreed at trial on whether this was RS or RG’s foot[1]. I suppose, if truly RS’s footprint [track] that it would indicate he was guilty of cleanup but not necessarily of murder. Without RS or RG’s DNA there or even a true footprint (there is only an outline of a foot [track] in blood) I would say this evidence isn’t particularly compelling.

3. RS's own father blew their alibi that they were together in RS's flat
Please provide a direct cite for this claim.

4. RS claims Meredith could have accidentally pricked herself at his flat.
I agree this was a boneheaded move on RS’s part. His lawyer should have told him not to speculate. But that’s hardly convincing evidence that RS killed her.

5. Computer records show no one was at RS's computer during the murder despite his claims that he was using it.
That’s not exactly true. Depending on when you assume the murder took place -- Prosecution says midnight, Defense says 9:30[5]. He was using the computer at 9:30pm as evidenced in the Massei Report[1]. Also, RG was seen on CCTV arriving at 8:45pm in the same jacket he was arrested in and that verified other parts of RS’s story[2][5].

6. The extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox.
If relevant, could explain his changing stories – drugs do affect memory J

Both Rebuttal:
1. Break-in where glass was *on top* of apparently disturbed clothes.
I don’t think this point is critical in determining guilt or innocence. Filomena’s testimony is that there was glass on top of apparently disturbed clothes. This is not, however, evidenced in any crime scene photo.

2. Both suggested each other might have committed the crime and RS TO THIS DATE does not agree AK stayed in his flat all the night in question.
I don’t dispute this – they have in their respective diaries said the other “might have” done it. But that doesn’t prove guilt anymore than them saying Santa Claus might have done it. Neither one has ever, on their own, declared their guilt.

Back to RS Rebuttal #6. RS couldn’t remember most anything the night of Nov 1st but that still doesn’t prove guilt.

Remaining Rebuttals:
I did not rebut con’s remaining arguments, since even if true would not advance con’s position. For example, RS being punished for watching animal porn at the University fails to connect with his guilt in this murder as do the other skipped contentions.

My Argument:
The evidence that places AK and/or RS at the crime scene (specifically Meredith's bedroom) is on very shaky ground (I’m being generous here). No one disputes that this is where Meredith was killed and yet not shred of reliable evidences shows either AK or RS were in that room.

The only one shown by multiple sources of evidence is RG. RG is the only person with documented injuries after the murder, the only one to flee and the only one with a criminal history.

I look forward to con’s reply.

Sources:
[1] http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...
[2] http://www.injusticeinperugia.org...
[3] http://www.bioforensics.com...
[4] http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...
[5] http://www.injusticeinperugia.org...

MrWizard

Con

MrWizard forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
randolph7

Pro

My opponent forfeited two rounds. I was really hoping to have more of a back and forth and let the judges decide. Be that as it may, I think my arguments are ultimately more convincing than con's. Con's whole case is a house of cards -- it looks like it should be sturdy but blows over in the slightest wind.

Thank you for the debate and look forward to your closing.
MrWizard

Con

MrWizard forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by randolph7 3 years ago
randolph7
2 hours left for R2. Are you continuing the debate MrWizard? (PMs are off)
Posted by randolph7 3 years ago
randolph7
That's not entirely accurate. In Italian law, a person is not entirely convicted until the appeals process has elapsed. I suppose I could re-word the title but I think the intent is clear to debate whether they are guilty/innocent in fact if not necessarily in law.
Posted by waylon.fairbanks 3 years ago
waylon.fairbanks
I could just accept this and post a link showing that the Italian courts found them guilty. They may have not done it, but that doesn't make them innocent.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by mandmandmbaby 2 years ago
mandmandmbaby
randolph7MrWizardTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by FREEDO 3 years ago
FREEDO
randolph7MrWizardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 3 years ago
ApostateAbe
randolph7MrWizardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: forfeit
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
randolph7MrWizardTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Randolph7 earns points for conduct (due to Con's forfeit), argumention (Con's forfeit left him unable to address Pro's rebuttal of his contentions, or his brief summary of his main argument), and sources (Con made many questionable claims that were not backed by sources, one of which was shown to be biased, and not suited to an objective debate).