The Instigator
randolph7
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points
The Contender
dinokiller
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

Amanda Knox is more likely innocent than guilty

Do you like this debate?NoYes+7
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/28/2011 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 7,399 times Debate No: 18523
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (7)

 

randolph7

Pro

The evidence that places Amanda (AK) at the crime scene (specifically Meredith's bedroom) is the so-called double DNA knife. The Conti-Vecchiotti Report ordered by Judge Hellman introduces reasonable doubt as to the reliability of this evidence which means that AK cannot be definitively placed at the crime scene. If she was not at the crime scene during the murder, she could NOT have committed murder.

Round 1: Acceptance Only
Round 4: Closing/No new arguments
dinokiller

Con

Ok im ready, lets do this!
Debate Round No. 1
randolph7

Pro

The evidence that places Amanda 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 evidence shows Amanda was in that room. Apparently the chief Judge in the joint appeal, Judge Hellman thought the DNA evidence should be reviewed as well. He ordered two independent investigators to look at the evidence and re-test it if possible and to look at the procedures used during the original testing.

The independent investigators found that regarding the supposed murder weapon, the double DNA knife:

1) Tested negative for blood
2) Tested positive for vegetable matter
3) DNA sample on blade could not be positively confirmed to be from Meredith Kercher [1]

This debate is not about whether Amanda is in any way culpable for the Murder of Meredith but rather if she, by her own hand killed Meredith as the prosecution maintains. Either Amanda was in the room and killed Meredith or Amanda was not in the room and didn't kill Meredith. The evidence that isn't in dispute is that Rudy Guede left DNA and prints all over the murder room. With no evidence that Amanda was in the room at the time of the murder (remember that not even the knife, if valid, could prove this) my opponent will have a difficult time proving she killed Meredith.

Amanda was not in the room during the murder; there is NO evidence that Amanda was there. Therefore, Amanda did not kill her flatmate, Meredith Kercher. The prosecution only presented evidence that placed Rudy and Raffaele at the scene [2].

Sources:
[1] http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...
[2] http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...
dinokiller

Con

Hehe, so you think my only way to win is to prove that Amanda Knox indeed killed Meredith Kercher without doubt?
The resolution is that "Amanda Knox is more likely innocent than guilty" and im the con, meaning all i have to do is prove that Amanda Knox is more likely guilty then innocent. (But again, if i manage to prove she killed her, it would be way better)

Im starting by explaining a few things for those who are unfamiliar with it:

Luminol: A chemical reagent that could show iron from the hemogoblins in the blood and gives a slight different reaction on some other things.

DNA: Nucleic acid that contains instructions on the genetic build of all living organisms. Everyone's DNA is unique. DNA can be shown from things you touched, blood, your hair, etc.


Now lets begin by reviewing some points.

1st incriminating evidence: The Double DNA knife
I start with the knife, the so called murder weapon.
Its true, its strange that there was no blood. The officer who found the knife also mentioned that it was extremely clean.[1]
But the counterattack from the defense on this evidence is the DNA, which they claim that it has been contaminated because the evidence was left alone for a few days. Nonetheless, the DNA found on the knife belongs to the victim and our suspect, Amanda Knox. I stop here for now.

Conflicting statement: Raffaele's Testimony
Rafaelle has been questioned about the knife and he mentions that Meredith Kercher, our victim has accidently sliced her finger while cooking. This questioning happened even before the police has told them about the DNA found on the knife. If hes right, then it would support my argument that the blood was wiped and thus suspecting both Amanda and Sollecito, but if he was lying, then it wouldve also incriminate both Amanda and Sollecito as there was no reason to lie about the knife, unless you knew about the DNA on the knife as well. [1]

2nd incriminating evidence: The victim's bra-clasp and the bra
For some reason, Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on the victim's bra-clasp, and this piece of evidence was found under the victim's body. The bra itself has Amanda Knox's DNA on it. Of course the defense team could just bring up that those evidences were contaminated as well, but this time, even the jury didn't buy it. [1]

So, are you saying that the contamination coincidentally caused Amanda's DNA to appear at both the bra and knife? What are the chances of only having the suspects DNA on those evidence if the evidence was contaminated as the defense argued? Moving forward...


3rd incriminating evidence: The bathroom and bloody footprints
With the use of Luminol, several traces of bloodstains can be verified in the bathroom. The blood contains the DNA of both the victim and our suspect, Amanda Knox. There were also bloody footprints found that led to the bathroom, meaning that the person who committed the murder was barefootted and that the murderer walked into the bathroom to wash away all the blood on the said person as cutting the throat will lead to alot of bloodloss. Everyone has dead skin cells on the outer layer of their bodies and by washing yourself, skin cells are also washed with it along with the blood. Blood is a sticky liquid, so it should also have caught some of those dead skin cells. This explain the DNA found in the bathroom.[1]

Even without the use of the knife, Amanda Knox has already been put on the crime scene.

------------------------------------------------------------------
I will be stopping here for now, as i have the 3rd round for the rest.

Good luck


Sources:
http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...





Debate Round No. 2
randolph7

Pro

.-== My case ==-.

The evidence that places Amanda 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 evidence shows Amanda was in that room.

The independent investigators found that regarding the supposed murder weapon, the double DNA knife:

1) Tested negative for blood
2) Tested positive for vegetable matter
3) DNA sample on blade could not be positively confirmed to be from Meredith Kercher [3]

The evidence that isn't in dispute is that Rudy Guede left DNA and prints all over the murder room. There is no evidence that Amanda was ever in Meredith’s room where everyone agrees the murder took place.

John Douglas, a former FBI agent, and one of the first criminal profilers and the basis for the character Jason Gideon in Criminal Minds, stated [9]:

“From the profiles created, none of the behavioral or forensic evidence leads to Amanda and Raffaele. There's no history or experience related to violence or mental illness in their backgrounds. None of the behavioral or forensic evidence leads to them. This is not a case of serial killers, cold blooded murderers. They used marijuana, but that’s not some hard core drug that will change a normal personality. They should’ve walked out of there.” [8]

On the type of behavior one would expect the killer to display he stated:

“Well, fleeing for one, which only Guede did. They would’ve been nervous, may drink heavily, or become rigid in their personalities, behaviors along that line – certainly not buying underwear and kissing. The fact that they were kissing - people looked at this as a sign of guilt, if anything; I look at it as a sign of innocence.” [8]

On Rudy Guede (currently serving 16 years and having exhausted all appeals):

“Behavior reflects personality. And that behavior fits only Rudy Guede. Guede has the history; he was an experienced criminal, he had the motive and all evidence points to him. It was a brutal, bloody homicide, and it’s a reflection of his personality. And that behavior was exhibited at the crime scene. That’s his “canvas”; the result is his “artwork” of the subject (victim).” [8]

As Sherlock Holmes famously said, "When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. [10]" It is impossible that Amanda was in the murder room and left no trace or magically only removed her DNA when Guede’s DNA and prints were everywhere in the room.


.-== Clarifications ==-.

I re-read what I had said and I don’t see where I said that Con had to prove her guilty without doubt. Neither of us could fulfill that burden and not even the prosecution has that burden. However, we should have make a good case of what we believe is more likely so the readers can decide. What I meant by culpable was whether she had anything to do with the murder such as being an accessory, covering for someone else, etc. I meant it as in Amanda herself took an active role in the killing such as making the knife wounds.

For the most part the definition of luminol is correct except that it also reacts to the following things besides blood: iron, iron compounds, copper and its compounds, horseradish, bleach and potassium ferricyanide [1].


.-== Rebuttals ==-.

1st incriminating evidence: The Double DNA knife
I start with the knife, the so called murder weapon.
Its true, its strange that there was no blood. The officer who found the knife also mentioned that it was extremely clean.[1]

In the same Massei Report, Inspector Finzi said the knife was the first one he saw, was extremely clean, was on top of the other tableware so it was the one he grabbed [2]. I don’t know about you but it seems awfully convenient to just grab the knife on top because it looked clean. Nowhere is it ever stated that the police used ANY investigative technique other than a hunch to choose the murder weapon. Furthermore, this knife was shown to have cut rye bread, tested NEGATIVE for blood, and was NOT cleaned with bleach (it’s illogical to think blood was removed but vegetable matter and DNA were left) [2][3].

Of course Amanda’s DNA was on the handle of the knife, she cut bread with it. This was verified in the Conti-Vecchiotti Report [2]. However, due to the extreme low amount of DNA found on the knife blade it is difficult to determine if it came from contamination or definitively from Meredith. Remember, the knife was tested with Tetramethylbenzidine (TMB) and returned a negative result [2].


Conflicting statement: Raffaele's Testimony
I agree this was a boneheaded move on Raffaele’s part. His lawyer should have told him not to speculate. But that’s hardly convincing evidence that Amanda killed Meredith. Even if the DNA had not been returned yet, the police very likely lied to him and he stupidly made an excuse instead of remaining silent. I think the whole reason this case got this far is because of lies by the police and prosecutor.


2nd incriminating evidence: The victim's bra-clasp and the bra
Oh, but the appeals jury did buy it because the DNA evidence during the first trial was rubbish [5]. It’s ironic isn’t when the DNA is reviewed by third party, as requested in the original trial, that the two incriminating items fall apart (knife, bra strap) [2]. 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) [2][4][6]. I don’t buy that Amanda’s DNA was on the bra clasp, source please. However, even if Rafaele’s DNA was on the clasp that would not place Amanda there and you’ve provided no evidence her DNA was claimed to be on the clasp.

So, are you saying that the contamination coincidentally caused Amanda's DNA to appear at both the bra and knife?

Yes, that’s what the experts are saying [3].

What are the chances of only having the suspects DNA on those evidence if the evidence was contaminated as the defense argued?

With the Perugian investigators, probably pretty high. The courtroom broke out in laughter when watching their investigative “technique”. They have been thouroughly discredited [3][7].


3rd incriminating evidence: The bathroom and bloody footprints
You should stop reading so many tabloids. To start Luminol reacts with many things including many common household items and is used by police as a place to start NOT to rule in/rule out blood [1]. A further test is needed to see if the source is from blood, such as TMB. However, Stefanoni testified that the prints were NEGATIVE for blood [2]. The rest of your claims simply don’t fit the investigative findings.



Sources:
[1] http://chemistry.about.com...
[2] http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...
[3] http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...
[4] http://www.metacafe.com...
[5] http://www.seattlepi.com...
[6] http://www.injusticeinperugia.org...
[7] http://news.yahoo.com...
[8] http://www.groundreport.com...
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[10] http://rense.com...


dinokiller

Con

It would be strange if you DIDNT notice any of these things if i had left out the 2nd part, but saying i picked all those stuff from tabloids goes a bit far. At this point, im going all out.

Im gonna put the stuffs here again and explain them in case you arent familiar with it:

Luminol: A chemical reagent that could show iron from the hemogoblins in the blood and gives a slight different reaction on some other things.

DNA: Nucleic acid that contains instructions on the genetic build of all living organisms. Everyone's DNA is unique. DNA can be shown from things you touched, blood, your hair, etc.

Bleach: Name of a group chemicals that can remove color and disinfect things. Can be shown with Luminol.



=== Rebuttals ===

1st incriminating evidence: The Double DNA knife
Now, you keep saying that the DNA knife does nothing to prove Amanda Knox's guilty just because it tested negative for blood and also has signs of bread cut. Now nowhere and i mean nowhere does it state that there was no sign of Bleach found on the knife. With the low amount of DNA found on the knife, the other explanation other the contamination is... Bleaching. This evidence wouldn't be enough to convict Amanda on its own, but it will come up quite incriminating if combined with other evidences.[1][2]


Smells of bleach
Finzi, the chief inspector and a couple of others went into the house and their first reaction was that there was a huge smell of Bleach. Bleach, as we know, are used at disinfecting and removing colours. Bleach can wipe, all/most blood and remove most of the DNA in the area. Not to mention how strange it is that there was no DNA found casually around the house, the very same place where Amanda Knox has lived for a few months now.[1]

2nd incriminating evidence: The victim's bra-clasp and the bra
Amanda Knox's DNA is on the bra itself, not on the clasp, its your own source i used, go look it for yourself if you dont believe it. I never brought up the point with the Bleach at the previous round, but now after i did, it changes a few things. The bra clasp with Raffaele's DNA, like i said was found UNDER the victim's body. It was proven that there was Bleach in usage, so contamination was darn near impossible as the DNA left on it was far too much for a contamination.(Not to mention that it was also under the victim's body.) As for Amanda Knox's DNA on the bra itself, the chances of it being contaminated is even reduced lower. [1]




3rd incriminating evidence: The bathroom and bloody footprints
You should be the one needing to stop reading tabloids, the facts came from the case reports itself, hardly tabloid, eh?
Back on the subject. Indeed, there was a negative result on those so called bloody prints, but like the professionals stated, it doesnt mean that those substance aren't blood. The substance had insufficient material for the indication of blood. There was a positive reaction though from the Luminol so the substance in the bathroom had to have Human DNA on it.[1]
As for the footprints, a few more were on the scene. One of them seems to confirm that its Rudy Guede (the footwear confirmed the owner) while the other one confirms its Amanda's by just following where they lead to. Amanda's DNA was found on the hallway, in Amanda's room and at the door to Romanelli's room. The explanation from the experts were that Amanda went into the bathroom, flicked on the light and washed off the blood on her feets while holding onto something with 1 hand. After that, she walked back to her room dripping DNA all over the hallway. And by chance, all those spots I mentioned were smirked with Meredith's blood.[1]


==Incriminating actions/arguments==
Aside from the evidences that points them towards the crime scene, there are tons of other things that are pointed against them.

1. Perjury and slander
No truly innocent person would constantly lie about themselves and even up to 3 times. Raffaele was lying about the knife, TWICE. Amanda accused his boss at work, Patrick Lumumba who was without doubt, innocent. She also stated that she was at Raffaele's home all the time, until Raffaele himself told them that he wasn't sure where Amanda was when he was sleeping. She changed the story then admitting that she was at his home, taking a shower, ignoring all the blood. Raffaele on the other hand, kept saying that he was on his computer all the time at his home, but the logs proved otherwise as well. Neither of them has a credible alibi, even at this point.[1]

2. Rudy Guede
For some reason, Rudy Guedes's bloody handprint was found on the crime scene. He has confessed and seems to be willing to testify against Amanda as well.[1]

3. Phone Traffic
Isn't it odd especially if both Amanda and Rafaelle's mobile phone turned off nearly simultaneously and right before the murder? Not to to mention that Amanda called Meredith Kercher, ending with her not picking up the phone while all of the girls knows shes home and Amanda not telling Romanelli about the calls.[1]

4. Discovery and suspicious activity
After the door got broken down, Rafaelle was the only one staying behind the group of people, not even looking into the room. Romanelli later testified that she heard Amanda and Rafaelle laughing and talking about something moments after her body was discovered. They were also seen using drugs.[1]



Rafaelle and Guede's guilt will actually heavily imply Amanda's guilt. Guede can provide testimony against Amanda and if Rafaelle was found guilty, Amanda's alibi will fall apart and his involvement at the crime will be undeniable as well.


Sources:
[1]http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...
[2]http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...
Debate Round No. 3
randolph7

Pro

.-== Final Rebuttals ==-.

1st incriminating evidence: The Double DNA knife

Either the knife had bleach on it, or it had DNA on it, not both. A 2-3% dilution of bleach is recommended by Promega for cleaning pipettes in PCR work. They also note that if one does not thoroughly rinse away the bleach, it will affect subsequent experiments [1]. There is also a 1992 article in Biotechniques which shows that a 10% dilution of bleach damages DNA within one minute [3]. Also, bleach is used to decontaminate (i.e. remove DNA where it’s not desired) [2]. It is commonly accepted scientific knowledge that bleach will remove DNA; Con’s argument falls on its face. Bleach is NOT mentioned in the Conti-Vecchiotti report except to say that it removes DNA and is only mentioned with regards to *possible* cleaning in the Massei Report [4][5]. Nowhere does it say that bleach WAS found on the knife, the argument is absurd to believe that Amanda used magic bleach that doesn’t remove DNA or vegetable matter, but removes any sign of blood. Really?

To the argument that Amanda left no DNA in the house isn’t supported by any evidence, the Massei Report actually says the opposite [4]. With no blood on the knife and Meredith’s DNA attributed to contamination by court appointed experts, there is no evidence this is the murder weapon [5]. This “evidence” is really irrelevant since it doesn’t prove Amanda was at the crime scene during the murder.

2nd incriminating evidence: The victim's bra-clasp and the bra
I did look for myself in the Massei Report, besides the bra clasp the DNA found on the bra belonged to Meredith Kercher and Rudy Guede [4]. You should re-read the report, no where does it say that bleach was conclusively used to clean either Raffaele’s or Amanda’s apartment. The police and prosecution’s insistence on bleach being used to clean despite not providing any evidence thereof is a case of confirmation bias. Furthermore, if Amanda’s apartment was cleaned with bleach as you describe, then the so-called “bloody” footprints you claim are Amanda’s wouldn’t exist. Remember, Luminol reacts to bleach as well so if used on the floor there would be no identifiable footprints. TMB was used to confirm there was no blood on those samples, pure and simple – NEGATIVE blood result [4][6]. This “evidence” is irrelevant since it doesn’t prove Amanda was at the crime scene during the murder and there isn’t even a claim of Amanda’s DNA on the bra by the prosecution.

3rd incriminating evidence: The bathroom and bloody footprints
Again, you can’t have it both ways, either the apartment was cleaned with bleach, thus no identifiable footprints/DNA or you have the “bloody” footprints that tested negative for blood. Luminol is NOT specific to blood, even Con seems to agree yet he buys the prosecution’s notions that it is. The mental gymnastics that my opponent has to use to reach these conclusions astounds me. As for the supposed scenario about the footprints, I really don’t care. It’s obvious the prosecution has a wild imagination with satanic orgies dancing in his head. Since, it’s speculation, who cares? The evidence says it tested negative for blood no matter how badly the prosecution wanted to believe otherwise [4][6]. And, where do you get the idea that Luminol detects DNA – it doesn’t. TMB is way more sensitive and specific to blood than Luminol – it can reveal blood at 1 ppm. This “evidence” is irrelevant since it doesn’t prove Amanda was at the crime scene during the murder, it doesn’t even prove when the footprints were made.

1. Perjury and slander
I could go on and on how the alleged confession and slander occurred due questionable interrogation techniques but the fact remains the Supreme Court of Italy ruled it inadmissible due to its illegality. The “confession” that was typed up for her by police was also immediately recanted. Furthermore, the police bear more responsibility in Mr. Lumbaba’s imprisonment than Amanda. Why would they arrest him and hold him without any corroborating evidence? I think even Con knows that truly innocent people do “lie” when deprived of sleep and interviewed in a foreign language for hours on end. The logs that were spoken of in testimony actually confirm Raffaele’s story [4]. Raffaele said he couldn’t confirm Amanda was sleeping next to him all night, so what? Who could confirm someone else when they are presumably sleeping themselves?

Con seems confused. She showered at her house, the morning after the murder. The only blood that might have been obvious was on the bathmat but that I suppose could be overlooked if you weren’t looking for blood or happened to toss clothes on it as you climbed into the shower. This “evidence” is irrelevant since it doesn’t prove Amanda was at the crime scene during the murder only that her confession and alibi weren’t 100% airtight.

2. Rudy Guede
Rudy was the only one to run; he was arrested while on the run. He was the only one to fit the criminal profile of the killer, according to preeminent criminal profiler, John Douglas [7]. Why is Rudy’s changing testimony more compelling than Amanda’s to you? While not conclusive that Rudy acted alone is certainly compelling evidence that he had a big part in the murder but not really that Amanda had a part.

3. Phone Traffic
Yes, it’s extremely odd for two people who spend the night together having sex to turn off their phones (sarcasm). There is a simple innocent explanation – they turned their phones off for privacy. The phone traffic has always been one of the least compelling reasons for guilt to me, because it only proves the approximate location and signals of the phone and really doesn’t tell us anything of value one way or the other.

4. Discovery and suspicious activity

None of this is really suspicious – odd maybe but not particularly compelling.


.-== Closing ==-.

Rudy was found guilty both on original trial and appeal, and Amanda and Rafaelle were acquitted, “for not having committed the act.” [8] The appeals court could have acquitted due to lack of evidence but chose to acquit because the pair did not do it. If the prosecution had a good case to present it failed to do so. There is zero evidence that places Amanda at the crime scene. No one disputes that this is where Meredith was killed and yet not a shred of reliable evidence shows Amanda was in that room.

The independent investigators found that the double DNA knife had only vegetable matter on it and that the DNA sample on blade could not be positively confirmed to be from Meredith Kercher. Furthermore, the independent investigators found the original investigation had been horribly botched and that the traces of DNA on the bra clasp and knife were most likely from contamination [5].

The evidence that isn't in dispute is that Rudy Guede left DNA and prints all over the murder room. Rudy is the only one for whom there is evidence that places him at the scene. There is no evidence that Amanda was ever in Meredith’s room where everyone agrees the murder took place. Rudy is also the only one to match the criminal profile of the murderer perfectly [7].

If Amanda wasn't in Meredith's room during the murder, she couldn't have killed her. She wasn't there. It's that simple.



Sources:
[1] http://www.promega.com...
[2] http://public.wsu.edu...
[3] A.M. Prince, L. Andrus, PCR how to kill unwanted DNA, Biotechniques (1992) 358–360.
[4] http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com...
[5] http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com...
[6] http://blog.seattlepi.com...
[7] http://www.groundreport.com...
[8] http://www.vancouversun.com...
dinokiller

Con

Gah 1 hour to make this, gotta make this count.

==Final Rbuttal==

1st incriminating evidence: The Double DNA knife
I stated that it was all just a possibility, the knife could have been used to kill the victim, we all wont know if this really was the murder weapon or not. There was no other suitable murder weapon found, so it was assumed that this knife was the murder weapon. But even then, i wont be needing the knife to prove Amanda Knox's involvement in the murder. Like i said, its a possibility supported by other evidence.

2nd incriminating evidence: The victim's bra-clasp and the bra
Now as we know, there was a footprint at the crime scene. It reacted to Luminol, plain and simple. You mention it was tested with TMB, but like i just said, if the blood wasnt sufficient enough, it will show a NEGATIVE result. Also, how do you explain why it the Luminol even reacted to it?

But to the point, the bra-clasp had Raffaele's DNA. It was a good amount as well. The only way that Raffaele's DNA could have winded up on her bra was touching it. Unless Meredith casually allows most boys to touch her bra, it certainly is odd. As for Amanda's DNA, i guess thats self explanatory.

For that issue with the Bleach, not everywhere was bleached, only certain parts of the house.
Also, i'm not lying, there were no DNA found casually around the house meaning there was bleach usage. But the Luminol reacted to the footprint, meaning that the bleach was used at an earlier timeframe, plain and simple. This means whatever evidences was found are most likely found after the bleaching. The inspectors came with a group of around 4 people, you claim they all reported the same and thus are all lying?

3rd incriminating evidence: The bathroom and bloody footprints
Believe it or not, DNA reacts to Luminol. It would be a miracle if the blood had a POSITIVE result if they were kept under the constant flow of water. TMB didn't seem to react to it, but Luminol does it seems. The reaction was faint though. Even if Luminol isnt only specific to blood, it doesnt explain why Amanda's DNA are all over it and no reaction from TMB doesnt prove that those substances weren't blood either.

Everything rests upon the story of bleaching, but alot of factors has shown that Bleach usage in the house was very likely.


1. Perjury and slander
The story those 2 told are actually Perjury to the tops. Claiming shes sleeping with her boyfriend at his place and then changing the story all the way to being actually in the crime scene is incredible. Both were lying to create an alibi for themselves and you still think its acceptable?! Also, the police have the right to detain suspects if they need to, Amanda just simply abused it and accused Lumumba. Also, that excuse is the same that Amanda used, and it got beaten down.

2. Rudy Guede
Rudy is guilty, we know that. But everything is also stacked against Amanda and Raffaele, dont forget that. The testimony just adds another bit of dramatic evidences on those 2.

3. Phone Traffic
Proof it that the reason they turned the phones off were because they had sex. Oh wait, you can't. My point stands.

4. Discovery and suspicious activity
Odd behaviour adds to their suspiciousness. Amanda's best friend just died and they celebrate? Now THATS what i call strange.


== Closing ==
Rudy Guede may be guilty, but that doesn't mean that Amanda is instantly innocent as well. The evidences aren't pointing that Amanda COULD have killed her, it mostly proves that she DID kill her. Amanda's DNA everywhere where blood is spilled, Raffaele's DNA ending up on the most incriminating places of all and not somewhere else, both lying for their alibi and both having inconsistent stories after broken. If they both didn't do it, hell how could all these evidences even appear like this then?

PS: I really dont have the time for this.....

Sources:
http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com......
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Arlene 3 years ago
Arlene
Amanda glorifies in the media,she is a good actress and her life is a fantasy.There are a lot of women who can commit a crime and look like its no big deal,as they are hard wired that way. I believe Ms. Knox is guilty,no doubts in my mind.
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
@BlueSteel: Thanks for the comments
It's interesting the Conti and Vecchiotti (the court experts) requested to take the knife apart to see if there was more DNA but was objected to Prosecution. Prosecution also fought hard to keep an independent review from being done during the first trial. It seems any evidence that may have exonerated the duo was suppressed at the original trial. However, what was tested at the appeal was found to be too low to give any accurate DNA profile. It's worse than the finding on the bra clasp of possible contamination. I think the multiple knife theory was the defenses original approach, on appeals it seems they go with one knife albeit a different one than the Prosecution believes is the murder weapon. According to the criminal profiler, changing knifes could very well be in Rudy's MO. As the defense said at trial, the double DNA knife would be too large to make all the wounds and if made the smaller neck wounds would require enough force to go through to the other side of her neck.
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
One last thing: the recanting of the alibi is SOOO silly. This just shows how much pressure the police applied to Solecito. "ARE YOU SURE THAT AMANDA WAS WITH YOU EVERY SINGLE SECOND OF THE NIGHT. ARE YOU???? ARE YOU????" "Uh, no dude, I was asleep."

"OMG, HE RECANTED. HE RECANTED. THEY'RE LYING!! THEY CLEARLY MURDERED MEREDITH."

As if they hadn't murdered her, they would have stayed awake all night staring at each other, to ensure they had a "foolproof" alibi, which isn't even foolproof. Many people accused of murder don't have alibis. Can anyone reading this PROVE where they were for every second last night between 7 pm and 3 am? No? Then you have no alibi. Having even ONE person to confirm your story is somewhat rare, and he was conveniently also charged with murder, and thus not a credible alibi. So it's not that they had no alibi, but that they were each other's alibi and the prosecution shrewdly charged them both.
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
. This is just silly. But pro makes a really good case not to trust the police. Con claimed at one point that Rafaelle (Solecito?) made the claim about the Meredith cutting herself BEFORE the DNA was found; pro claims it was after and police forced him to speculate how it got there. I wish this had been reconciled. But Pro made a really good case that police were throwing all this supposed evidence at Amanda and her boyfriend, and they were scared, so they named names (even though those people were clearly innocent) and made up conjectures. It's common knowledge that if you torture someone (and spending days in solitary and having police breath down your throat and yell at you in a foreign language is pretty bad), that person will give false confessions and false information.

Good debate from both sides: both sides brought up evidence I hadn't heard about before.
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
that this makes no sense. Why clean BEFORE the crime? I presume that the prosecution DID find bleach in Amanda's home; people (like me) use bleach to clean their floors, on a regular basis, not just after they've killed someone. Using bleach doesn't prove her guilt, especially since she clearly used it before the crime, not after.

Maybe this will help Con: if luminol turns purple when it reacts to either bleach or blood, and if bleach was one the entire floor, the whole floor would be purple. You wouldn't be able to see the individual footprints. Anyhoo, pro also wins that a more sensitive test that ONLY tests for blood tested negative (for blood). Pro's knowledge of luminol was impressive.

Guede - lying. Proven by Pro's expert profiler.

Phone traffic - this was something new I hadn't heard before and does look bad. I'd want to hear more about HOW soon before her murder the phones were turned off, where that places them at that time, etc. Not enough info is offered in this debate; I agree, they could have turned their phones off to enjoy some intimate time together, and for all I know, this occurred an hour before the murder (as opposed to a couple minutes?). I didn't understand the other bit about calling Meredith. It was my understanding that Amanda called Meredith when Meredith's phone was found OUTSIDE the house, by a different roommate, the morning after the murder. This seems to imply that Amanda didn't know Meredith was dead and was looking for her. The police report glosses over this fact.

Amanda's confession/laughing with her boyfriend/slander: pro argues compellingly that the police wanted to crucify Amanda from the beginning and blew everything WAY out of proportion, coerced a confession, etc. Because of dino's arguments, I skimmed part of the police report. It spends like a PAGE on how Rafaelle failed to kick in the door, whereas a trained policeman did it in only two tries, so clearly Rafaelle was guilty and didn't want Meredith's body found
Posted by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
Pro successfully refutes most of Con's points.

Double DNA knife: pro proves that you can't use bleach without destroying DNA. Con never mentions that the DNA was found in a nick in the knife, that supposedly preserved the DNA. Con DID mention that the vegetable matter was found stuck in between the knife and the handle, where bleach wouldn't destroy it, but forgets/neglects to push this in the last round. I think Con COULD HAVE made a compelling case for the knife, but doesn't in this debate. Con should have also advanced the defense's theory that there were THREE different sized knives used to stab Meredith, which means three attackers. Guede obviously didn't switch up knives mid-murder, just for fun. Randolph, I'd be interested to know how that particular theory of the prosecution was refuted (or how you would refute it).

Bra-clasp/DNA: randolph asks for evidence that Amanda's DNA was on the bra and this was never provided. However, this is where randolph really fails to offer a good response. I think Con wins that Amanda's boyfriend's DNA was on the clasp, but that isn't enough to conclude that Amanda was there. Either Raffaele could have killed her without Amanda or he was cheating on Amanda with Meredith. It's not quite substantial enough to prove Amanda's guilt. Pro did say that the bra was left in the room for 45 days before being collected and that people laughed when seeing how inept the police were in collecting the evidence, but this refutation wasn't carried through the debate. Con answers by saying that the bra was "protected" from contamination by the victims body. This was never responded to, but it seems doubtful that the victim's body was left there for 45 days.

Bloody footprints: con seems to be purposely dense here. He seemingly argues in the last round that bleach was used to clean the apartment BEFORE Amanda made bloody footprints everywhere (otherwise, the bleach would eliminate the footprints from being seen by luminol). Pro is right
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
Sadly yes, i didnt had the time to review and had to type in everything that i still knew when i readed the case files. When i finished it, the timer was on 2 minutes, so i hastily posted it. Guess time wasnt on my side.
Posted by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Strong debate overall (and very hard to judge!). In particular, this debate stands out for its good use of sources, although spelling and grammer was slightly weak, especially on the con side (probably due to those short time frames lol). Pro had burden of proof (had to prove likelihood of innocence) but it was con who led the way in showing the likelihood of her guilt, which was probably a tactical mistake by pro. Most of the discussion centered on the physical evidence. As the debate wore on, however, con began to make concessions and seemed shaken by pro's objections. I felt, therefore, that there was some reasonable doubt as to the physical evidence. The second part of the discussion was on whether you can trust Amanda and friends. Con bought this up far too late, and pro managed to provide reasonable alternative explainations. Con should have started this part of the discussion much earlier, though the structural issue was a problem for both sides as pro largely mirrored con's structure.

Con set himself an onus- "i have to do is prove that Amanda Knox is more likely guilty then innocent." Con failed at this. Pro did cast doubt on the incriminating evidence, which isn't logically evidence of innocence, but the point wasn't contested by con that this was a valid way for pro to meet their burden. In general - pro should have more material, and con should make sure he doesn't set himself an un-necessary onus and rebuts absolutely everything his opponent says. 4:3 aff win.
Posted by randolph7 5 years ago
randolph7
You do realize your last round was riddled with contradictions right?
Posted by dinokiller 5 years ago
dinokiller
Gah, i really wish the technology improves. Cases like this makes you wonder if you really did the right thing.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by jm_notguilty 5 years ago
jm_notguilty
randolph7dinokillerTied
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: Counter-Votebomb
Vote Placed by Crypto247 5 years ago
Crypto247
randolph7dinokillerTied
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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro is a liberal bias. Knox is guilty!
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 5 years ago
Man-is-good
randolph7dinokillerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Honestly, Con is right that he doesn't have to prove that Amanda Knox is entirely guilty, but his entire argument was, while strong, refuted and based on a weak base....Pro clearly established that bleach can deconstruct DNA and the fact that Con tried to prove that randolph's claims (the lack of phone calls during the debate) was a bit fallacious, since either side are not built on absolutes in evidence....A good debate, but I have to contend that Pro made a far stronger case in the end.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 5 years ago
bluesteel
randolph7dinokillerTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had better grammar and sources. Con mostly drew from "beforeyoutakethatpill.com" Arguments in comments
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
randolph7dinokillerTied
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:43 
Reasons for voting decision: ...will have to be in the comments, I'm afraid.
Vote Placed by Spritle 5 years ago
Spritle
randolph7dinokillerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Both made excellent arguments! Very close debate! I gave spelling to Pro because I noticed a few mess ups on the Con's side. I also gave sources to Pro for his wide variety of sources. The rest of my voting is tied!
Vote Placed by kkjnay 5 years ago
kkjnay
randolph7dinokillerTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Close. Pro wins.