The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
11 Points

GUILTY: AMANDA KNOX, at The Very least, Was Involved in 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2014 Category: News
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,889 times Debate No: 45262
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)




1. Meredith had many (at least 47?) cuts and bruises from the sadistically drawn out attack. She was attacked both from the right and from the left. She had bruising on her elbows indicating her arms were restrained from behind. Her hyboid bone was broken, probably from an attempt to strangle her etc. She had only three wounds that might be considered defensive wounds. This is highly abnormal and strongly indicates that she was restrained during the attack. It has been largely agreed, beyond all reasonable doubt, that AT LEAST two people were involved in her murder. There is no evidence of any person UNKNOWN to Meredith being present at the time of the murder, which leaves the cloud of suspicion justifiably hanging over Knox and Sollecito.

2. Guede DID NOT break into the house, instead he was invited in, but not by Meredith. On the night in question the only other persons who had access to the house were Knox and Sollecito.

3. Guede was known to Knox and Sollecito, as their drug dealer.

4. It is largely agreed, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Knox alone STAGED the break-in the morning after Meredith's murder with the deliberate and malicious intention to pervert the course of justice.

5. It is largely agreed, beyond all reasonable doubt, that both Knox and Sollecito moved Meredith's corpse away from the closet the next morning.

6. Knox stated in the police station that Meredith had died by the closet in her room. This was BEFORE anyone else (except Sollecito) knew. Knox, at trial, DID NOT DENY saying it; she stated that Sollecito had told her, which begs the question of HOW HE KNEW? Sollecito refused to testify.

7. It has been PROVED that Guede DID NOT lock Meredith's bedroom door. It is largely agreed, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Knox locked the door the next morning (and possibly flushed the key down the toilet), in a deliberate attempt to delay the finding of Meredith's corpse and to pervert the course of justice.

8. The two defence 'experts' who testified they saw no evidence that more than one attacker was involved also DECLINED to examine the victim's body, instead preferring to establish this from photographs. This method of conclusion is known in the field as a strategy that defence experts use to give them more room to interpret evidence in a FAVOURABLE light to the defence without actually lying. Dr. Torre was questioned
about the lack of defensive wounds and while he agreed that normally in an attack like this you would expect considerably more defensive wounds, the lack of such was not something he felt needed addressing (it's obvious why he 'believed' that!)

9. Knox has been PROVED to be a liar. She changed her statements several times. She also told the postal police that Meredith always locked her door, which has been confirmed by the other roommates to be totally false and Knox KNEW it to be false. Based on Knox's deceitful assurance, the postal police did not question the matter, until Filomena arrived and, panic-stricken, demanded the door to be forced open.

10. Knox's bizarre, disgusting behaviour in light of the tragic discovery indicates a SADISTIC, EVIL personality.

11. Neither Knox nor Sollecito had alibis for their whereabouts on the night of the murder after 8.42pm approx.

12. It is largely agreed, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Knox (and maybe Sollecito) carried out the next morning CLEAN UP in a deliberate attempt to SELECTIVELY remove evidence; some bloody footprints were cleaned while others were not, and the bathroom was cleaned fairly thoroughly (especially considering there was a known conflict between Meredith and Knox regarding the latter's repeated shirking of her cleaning duties).

13. Other known conflicts between Knox and Meredith were Knox's sexual permissiveness and her frequent drug taking. It has also been stated by roommates that Knox was JEALOUS of Meredith and Meredith had become aloof towards Knox, whom she disliked.

14. Knox had a wound on her neck, which, according to her roommates was not present on the morning or early afternoon of the day of the murder, but was present the next day. The injury was photographed and bears no resemblance to a 'hickey', as Knox claimed it to be.

15. Knox already has a conviction for slander in her testimony that Lumumba had killed Meredith, which also proves the MALICE and DECEIT within her.
Guede should speak out concisely about Knox (and Sollecito's) largely believed presence that fateful night, even though he cannot be considered a reliable witness; he should still speak out about what he knows of those two.

Sollecito obviously would not betray Knox at present, because she would obviously reciprocate the same, hence they would implicate each other. However, if it comes to the situation that Sollecito is again incarcerated whilst Knox remains at large, then that would be the time when he would have nothing to lose in doing so.

The Kercher family should sue Knox for complicity to murder; on the balance of probabilities Knox has NO CHANCE.
Knox should be thrown back in jail on a life sentence, regardless of any twisted defensive view of 'insufficient evidence'. The facts above are enough to satisfy any right-thinking person's conscience about Knox, AT THE VERY LEAST, 'PIVOTALLY PARTAKING' in the murder of Meredith Kercher, R.I.P.


I will start by thanking pro for hosting this debate.

Amanda Knox was a political pawn,

In 2011 appellate judge Claudio Hellman acquitted Amanda Knox and Sollecito. After the acquittal judge Hellman declared "the evidence was nonsense". The Italian party known as the PDL influenced it's Supreme Court to reverse the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito. The PDL has a lot of influence in the judicial branch of government. They are trying to make a political statement by prosecuting Amanda Knox. They badly want to see he in prison because she is an American.

Amanda Knox faced character assassination by the Italian media,

The PDL and people of Italy had want to basically burn Amanda Knox at the stake as a result of the media's attack. The Italian media painted Knox as a drug crazed, sex crazed, American she devil who did cart wheels during questioning of the murder. They began referring to her as foxy Knoxy to further play on the American she devil image. Amanda Knox was convicted based on public opinion and the influence of the PDL, not because any actual evidence existed that could link her to the crime. Because of the incredible coverage and media bias Amanda had no chance at a fair trial in Italy.

Amanda Knox was mistreated by police,

Amanda Knox was slapped around, denied food, denied water and denied an interpreter. When Amanda's parents exposed the abuse by Italian police they were threatened with a charge that could land them in prison for 6 years in the crooked Italian judicial system.

An example of how crooked the Italian judicial system is,

When Amanda Knox was put in prison she was given a blood test. She was told she was HIV positive so that a list of her previous sexual partners could be obtained and leaked to the media. She was also sexually harassed by several prison officials.

Evidence was mishandled,

The Evidence in the Amanda Knox case was mishandled and one of the prosecutors had pending charges of misconduct.

DNA evidence exonerates Amanda Knox,

Everything that had to do with the murder had Ruby Guede's DNA on it. DNA evidence showed Knox was innocent. How in the world the Italian prosecutors could live with themselves knowing they were prosecuting an innocent person I'll never know.

Prominent members of the Italian government admit the prosecution of the case was mishandled and that Amanda Knox should have never seen the inside of a prison cell. 11 members of the Italian parliament led by Rocco Girlanda and all members of the people's freedom party issued a document as an act of parliament . This document heavily criticized the evidence used to prosecute Amanda Knox.


Pro cites no sources and The reliability of any of his statements are unknown and a mystery to me. I will try to address his points though.

1. Pro asserts it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt that 2 attackers killed Meredith, but according to the other unsourced statements pro made at least 2 experts in the trial said the murder was committed by one person. Certainly if 2 of the experts in the trial believe one person committed the murder. This is certainly enough for reasonable doubt as to the number of people involved in the murder. I also think it's quite silly that the evidence which at most points to 2 murderers is used to convict 3 people.

2. How could you possibly know that Meredith didn't invite Guede in. It's a ridiculous statement. My neighbor just moved in the other day if I knocked on the door she would probably open it up without even thinking. Also, if Guede was Amanda Knox and Sollecito's drug dealer like you allege without showing evidence for, then Meredith has likely seen him around before and wouldn't think twice about opening the door for him.

3. You've shown no evidence Guede was their drug dealer. And how him being their drug dealer makes them guilty of murder.

4. You assert Knox staged a break in. Where is your evidence to support this? It just seems like a wild assertion you made with no basis in reality.

5. Again you allege Knox and Sollecito moved the corpse without providing evidence.

6. I can't verify this statement you made without evidence either. This can't be accepted as true unless you provide some sort of evidence.

7. Again you assert Guede did not lock Meredith's bedroom door. Common sense dictates that you can't possibly prove Guede didn't lock the door.

8. You attack the defense experts unwillingness to examine a body that has been decaying for 4 years as opposed to photos. The photos are going to be easier to examine and provide a more accurate picture of what happened then a body that has been decaying for over 4 years.

9. Amanda Knox hasn't been proves to be a liar because of changing statements. First off the police never provided her with an interpreter so they could barely understand what she was saying at all and being proven to be a liar is not proof you murdered someone.

10. Knox's behavior painted as bizarre by a biased media in no way indicates guilt. The ridiculous statements about her doing cartwheels while being questioned by police should be laughed at but instead the Italian public buys these ridiculous statements by police hook, line and sinker.

11. This statement of Knox not having an alibi makes your other unsourced statements highly questionable. Amanda Knox did have an alibi. She stated she was at Sollecito's house smoking weed watching a movie and making love and then went to sleep there.

12. A clean up of the crime scene merely means the killer was trying to cover their tracks not that Amanda Knox was involved. It's just like when you asserted the body was staged. These things are indicators the killer was trying to throw the police off his trail these facts indicate nothing else.

13. 2 people living in close quarters with each other and have grievances about each other doesn't indicate a motive for murder. Hell it doesn't even indicate they disliked each other. To suggest that Amanda had certain dislikes about her room mate in no way indicates she murdered her.

14. The photo you claimed was a defensive mark and not a hickey I got a hold of. I invite everyone to take a look at the photo in the below link. There is no way to tell what that is on Amanda's neck. It would be a long shot to assume it's a defensive mark. Personally I think it's a hickey, but in all honesty nobody can know for sure.

15. Amanda Knox only slandered Lumumba to escape the hits and prolonged thirst and starvation she was put through. Anybody would have said whatever it takes under that type of treatment especially a wealthy little girl like in a scary foreign land.

Pro has not provided sufficient evidence of Amanda's guilt. What he has done is use ad Hominem attacks on her and resort to cheap tricks like referring to the victim by her first name but the accused by their last name to dehumanize them.
Debate Round No. 1


1. Lack of DNA evidence in the murder room did not show Knox was innocent to being party to the murder. Meredith's blood was mixed with Knox's DNA in the bathroom and in Filomena's room. Also, there was a clean up the next day, during which DNA evidence was selectively removed. This could not have been done by Guede, because it has been proved he did not return to the premises after that night.

2. How in the world you are so certain prosecutors knew they were prosecuting an innocent person I sure will never know! If you read and understood my statement, most of the reasons they prosecuted Knox are there to be seen! And, how in the world corrupt defence lawyers can live with themselves after getting obviously guilty rich murderers off, raising their kids on blood money I will never know!

3. I do not cite sources because I have not kept the sources, however, I gathered the information off the internet, where it y can be searched for yourself.

4.I did not state that at least two experts said the murder was committed by one person. I have read that the two defence 'experts' believed the murder to have been committed by one person, but I and most do not agree with them, because there was physical proof on Meredith's elbows and arms that she was restrained. It has been shown that one person alone could not have inflicted all the wounds on Meredith's body. She was stood up with her arms held behind her, then attacked from the left and the right from person(s) in front of her. The knife wounds on her neck were shown to have varying degrees of severity; some were very light. These indicate beyond doubt that Meredith was taunted in a long drawn
out act of sadism.

5. It has been given much doubt that Meredith, if alone in the house, would have opened the door to Guede. She had a boyfriend and Guede was not her type. Meredith was known to have been quite prudish, which doesn't fit with inviting Guede in.

6. It has been proved that the break in was staged, and this was done the next morning. The rock was thrown from inside Filomena's room and the outside wood shutters were closed at the time. There was no glass found outside the window or on the ground below it. The room was ransacked prior to the rock being thrown, proved by the fact that the majority of the broken glass was ontop of Filomena's possessions. Knox had been present at the premises the next morning.

7. Knox and Sollecito were at the premises when the Postal Police unexpectedly showed up. Meredith's door at this time was locked. Knox stated to Filomena that Meredith died by her closet, which she did not deny saying in court. It has been proved that the corpse was moved hours after it landed. This indicates that the the two had been in Filomena's room the next morn and moved it, as it would have taken two to do so (probably wearing leather gloves, which were then flushed down the toilet, as with the key to the door they locked afterwards.)

8.Guede would have had no interest in locking the door; his DNA was all over Meredith's room and his skin cells were found inside her. It cannot be proved that he didn't lock the door and likewise it cannot be proved that Knox did lock the door, but it certainly fits in that she did.

9.Defence experts refused to examine the body prior to the initial trial, which was not four years later.

10. ......being proven to be a liar is not proof you murdered someone.
Certainly not, but in this case, it certainly helps!

11. Her abnormal behaviour certainly did indicate a sadistic persona; laughing and smooching with Sollecito at a time like that whilst others, naturally, were distressed and tearful. When you put together sadistic personality and access to the house, there's plenty of indication. I read that she also did the splits in the police station before she was questioned. Also, there are several pictures on the internet of her smirking face inside the court.

12. This statement of Knox not having an alibi makes your other unsourced statements highly questionable. Amanda Knox did have an alibi. She stated she was at Sollecito's house smoking weed watching a movie......

'...and using the internet'; there were no webpage requests after 8.42pm approx. Also, Knox told police they had dinner at approx. 11pm (wonder why she chose that time...?!), however, Sollecito's father phoned at around 7.30pm when he told his father they had already had dinner. Further, unless an alibi is proved to be true, you have no alibi; there is no proof that anyone was at Sollecito's home after 8.42pm approx. on the night in question.

13. A clean up of the crime scene merely means the killer was trying to cover their tracks .......
She certainly did try to cover her tracks. If Guede had done the clean up, he wouldn't have left his DNA all over Meredith's room. No other perpetrator, who did not live there would have risked returning to the house the next day to be found by other roommates - nonsense!

14. People living in close quarters with each other and have grievances about each other doesn't indicate a motive for murder.
It certainly does in this case, especially since it is combined with drug-taking and the cold behaviour Knox displayed after the murder.

15. The photo you claimed was a defensive mark and not a hickey I got a hold of.....
I don't see any photo there. The one I saw would not have been 'a hickey' anyway in my view, because it is at the front of the neck. Also, I read that it was medically examined and reported to have not resembled the type of wound 'a hickey' would leave.

16. Amanda Knox only slandered Lumumba to escape .... Anybody would have said whatever it takes under that type of treatment especially a wealthy little girl like in a scary foreign land.

Knox slandered Lumumba because she is a liar - end of! And, this 'little girl' who was sexually permissive and frequently took illicit drugs has been shown to have been extremely self-satisfied and confident, which is evident in photos of her; scared of zilch - including murder! Trust me, if had been a roommate and it had nothing to do with me, turning up at the house the next day to find that scene, I would have fled like wildfire out of there! Since my partner lived nearby I would have run there in a panic. I would have told what I had seen and immediately tried to phone Meredith, before promptly phoning the police; which Knox did not do!

The points provided are more than enough evidence, especially on the balance of probabilities, of Knox's involvement in the murder. Sources are there to be seen on the internet, I have no reason to make them up. People I dislike are usually not referred to by their first name, which I do to express my contempt for them.


I'm going to summarize my opponents arguments that Amanda was somehow involved in meridith's murder and then address her/his points one by one.

The case against Amanda Knox,

1. She is a cold hearted liar therefore she was involved in the murder of Meredith.

2. There was a break in staged therefore Amanda Knox did it.

3. There is no evidence Amanda Knox wasn't involved so she was.

This is clearly a very weak case against Knox. Even without taking into account the unwarranted attack on her character and the fact that a Judge overturned the conviction because of lack of evidence and the political motives involved in seeing her " burned at the stake".

My case for Knox,

I made arguments showing the Italian judicial system being biased and corrupt in this specific situation. They were corrupted and biased by inherently being corrupt, political motives and jurors being biased by the media's character assassination on Amanda Knox. My opponent has simply ignored my arguments.


I want to address every point my opponent makes so I will be numbering my responses to correspond with his/her arguments at the beginning of this round.


A. Lack of evidence Amanda didn't commit murder isn't evidence that supports that she did commit or was involved with murder.

B. Mixed DNA in the bathroom and other shared rooms is evidence of cohabitation not of murder. When the murder weapon and Merideth's room was tested for DNA only Guede's and Merideth's were found.

C. DNA evidence is microscopic it is ridiculous to claim that evidence was selectively removed that would implicate Knox and Sollecito by the accused. You can't pinpoint your own DNA in a crime scene and remove it. Where would anyone get the ideal that this is a feasible scenario?

2. This statement is just an attack and a smear on people doing their job to make sure all sides of a story get told. It's an honorable thing to attempt to ensure a fair trial is to be had by someone already convicted in the court of public opinion.

3. I've tried to verify the statements you've made where possible. I went into this debate not knowing much about the Knox trial. I was excited to take on this debate so I've probably read over a 100 articles on this subject since we've started. However coverage outside of Italy doesn't go into the same details as Italian coverage does. Even if you cite sources that are entirely written in Italian, it would be extremely useful in helping me verify your statements so I can do my own analysis on the subject instead of depending on your interpretation.

4. Yes, like I said the defense experts testified that one attacker commuted the crime. These 2 experts disagreeing is plenty of reasonable doubt to the 2 attacker theory.

5. I don't understand this statement. If there is some sort of cultural differences that can be discussed that will explain it that would be helpful. Where I'm located I can walk into some of the worst neighborhoods and knock on doors and people will generally open the door without thinking. I you need verification of this I can leave the numbers of some Jehovah witness churches in my area in the next round to verify it.

6. This is where sources would come in handy. How would the conclusion be made that a break in was staged the next day? I understand that your saying a break in was staged but how do you conclude that it was the next day instead of the night of ?

7. All of this is speculation. Some of the speculation is silly such as the ability to flush rubber gloves down the toilet. There must be some extremely powerful toilets in Italy. Knox's supposed statement to Filomena can't be verified and Knox's refusing to deny it is not and admittance to saying it.

8. Guede has plenty of reason to lock the door. It delays the body being found and gives him time to seperate himself from the crime.

9. Regardless, the statement still stands. They had no reason to inspect a rotting corpse as opposed to pictures taken shortly after death. The pictures would likely still paint a superior picture of what happened.

10. It doesn't help or hurt it is besides the point. When Knox pointed the finger at the wrong guy it was clear she was speculating and the speculation only came after being slapped around, denied food and water by cops, and denied a translator.

11. These behaviors don't indicate guilt. She is clearly being affectionate with her boyfriend to seek comfort in a time of great distress. The splits and cartwheels are clearly exxagerated from an incident that happened when she was left alone in the interrogation room. She has been sitting in the same chair for hours And her stretching out was oddly somehow used to make her into some sort of villain. The smirks in the courtroom don't indicate a cold heart either. Even in the face of tragedy and intense political persecution people still ussually seek a sense of normalcy.

12. Alibis are typically a little inconsistent. People don't realize that they are going to be thrown in the middle of a police investigation and therefore don't keep track of everything they are doing. Murderers typically are consistent with their alibi though the alibi can't ussually be supported.

13. I already covered this. We don't know for a fact the break in was staged and we don't know it was staged the next day because as opposed to the same night. No evidence has been provided to me or the readers.

14. I've covered most of these points. Disputes with room mates is the norm it's not a motive for murder. Her behavior has been unfairly interpreted as cold. Her drug use is greatly exxagerated I've only seen evidence of some recreational pot smoking.

15. I provided a link to a photo. I just rechecked the link it still works fine.

16. What a 43 year old experienced person would do in a situation is going to be completely different then what a teenage girl would do. You're comparing apples to oranges her behavior in situation won't match anyone else's behavior in that situation guilty or not.

I await my opponents response.
Debate Round No. 2


1. That is not the only evidence she was involved in the murder.

2. There was a break in staged and it is believed very likely Amanda Knox did it.

3. There's plenty of circumstancial evidence Amanda Knox was involved so she probably was.

This is clearly a very strong case against Knox. Taking into account the warranted description of her character. It is a fact that a Judge should not have overturned the conviction because of lack of forensic evidence.

A. Plenty of evidence supports that she did commit or was involved with the murder.

B. Mixed DNA in the bathroom and other shared rooms is evidence of cohabitation and possibly involvement in the murder. No one knows if that was the actual murder weapon; it is likely more than one knife was used.

C. It has been proven there was a clean up the next day. It is largely believed, beyond reasonable doubt, that Knox carried this out. Why suddenly? She was never in the habit of cleaning before! You can pinpoint your own DNA if you know where you have been and what you have handled. Doors, floors, items etc. can be disinfected/washed thoroughly and items can be disposed of.

2. Corrupt defence lawyers deserve it; Money, Money, Money! They're already middle class by definition of their job; but that isn't enough. Their GREED is what overtakes their conscience about getting murderers off and raising their kids on BLOOD MONEY!

3. If you've probably read over a 100 articles on this subject you must now know from where I have sourced the information I provided. I haven't cited sources that were written in Italian; I don't speak Italian. If you haven't found all the evidence I have stated, try using some keywords in Google.

4. Yes, well it certainly helps the defence if they disagree that more than one person commuted the crime. Regardless of the defence experts' opinion, it is impossible that the restraint and attacks on Meredith could have all been carried out by one person!

Repeat: Her arms were held behind her back, whilst she was stabbed repeatedly by person(s) infront of her. She could NOT defend herself, which explains why she had so few (possible) defensive wounds.

5. By all accounts, Meredith had no interest in Guede. A vulnerable woman on her own, especially at night, wouldn't likely have invited him in; on the balance of probabilities.

6. I, personally, have not concluded the next day break-in; it is in my argument by memory. Repeat; you need to source where I found this conclusion for yourself. Try using keywords.

7. Gloves, keys etc. will flush down the toilet, try it for yourself. Nothing silly about it; one definite way evidence can be lost forever! Defendants refusing to deny/speak in court is very often taken as an admission of guilt.

8. I read that it was disproved Guede could have locked the door, because his bloody footprints did not face the door, instead they faced in the direction of leaving the room only.

9. Whether the corpse was rotten or not, their refusal is likely for obvious known reasons in the legal field.

10. I read that she speaks perfect Italian!

11. These behaviours indicated a bizarre personality and indifference, which caused others to become suspicious. Whether you have been sitting in the same chair for hours or not, there are some things you just DO NOT do in certain circumstances. The smirks in the courtroom DO indicate a cold heart; this was a cold blooded murder trial befitting of a cold heart.

12. Knox and Sollecito have NO alibi.

13. You need to look up where it was concluded (not by me) that it was staged the next day.

14. Knox and Meredith were known to have disliked one another, in this situation it contributes to a possible motive. Obviously, if Knox secretly more than disliked Meredith, rather she hated her, then that would be a glaringly obvious motive. If they had been best of friends, the likelihood of Knox killing Meredith would have been implausible. Knox's behaviour definitely was NOT unfairly interpreted as cold, and how do you know her drug use is greatly exagerated?

15. Love bites are not done on the front of the neck, except by vampires!

16. Regardless of age; unless you habitually see murdered corpses covered in blood, such a sight would distress an innocent person of any age. Since Meredith was known to Knox, the shock should have been even more distressing. No doubt about it, Knox's reaction was COLD. Knox was not a teenage girl, rather, she was quite an advanced 20 year old woman.

Lastly, I do not intend to go around in circles in this matter. As far as I'm concerned, if the overwhelming circumstancial evidence against Knox that I have read is true; she remains culpable as least an accomplice, until there is sufficient evidence that exonerates her.


I would like to thank my opponent for allowing me the privilege of debating this interesting topic.

Summary of debate,

My opponent has provided weak circumstantial evidence. My opponent has asserted that if someone can't be proven innocent then they are in fact guilty. This is a dangerous assumption that could potentially make anyone a criminal. My opponent has simply not proven her case.

I will now number my rebuttals to coincide with my opponents statements earlier this round.

1. It's the only evidence you've provided anything that exists outside of what you mentioned is irrelevant.

2. It doesn't matter what is widely believed. What matters is evidence. Popularity doesn't equal truth.

3. My opponent admits a lack of physical evidence. The circumstantial evidence needs to be strong to convict and it's extremely weak and based on things such as Amanda's personality.

(My opponent goes from numbers to letters so I'm changing my system here to correspond exactly.)

A. No it doesn't if it did you would have provided it.

B. This statement doesn't change the fact that a lack of evidence exists. It's a mystery why this statement was even included.

C. This is just ridiculous. You can't pinpoint your DNA and your boyfriends DNA to clean up and ignore the rest. It is an absurd statement.

(Now my opponent switches back to numbering her arguments and goes back down to the number 2. I'm confused but will play along.)

2. This is an incredibly mean statement. In order to ensure everyone gets a fair trial it is important that they get competent representation. There is nothing wrong with defending a person's innocence.

3. Not my job to provide citation for you. Your responsible for your own citation.

4. It's not impossible otherwise 2 experts wouldn't have came to that conclusion. If the crime for reporting corrupt officers without evidence is a 6 year sentence (whether your accusations are true or not), then I can only conclude perjury charges are something the defense experts would greatly fear.

The lack of defensive wounds could be because she was attacked on her sleep and killed before she had a chance to defend herself. All types of scenarios are possible.

5. That's silly It is pretty common to open a knocking door without any second thoughts. It isn't uncommon to forget to lock your door. It's pretty easy to gain access to a pretty and naive girls place of residence. It's a scary thing but it's true.

6. Once again you can source your own stuff. I have neither the time nor inclination to do your job for you.

7. Refusal to speak isn't admittance of guilt. It is silly and if you look at the fact that Amanda is from America and it's very uncommon for a murder defendant to speak in his/her own defense and take that into account, then you can clearly see silence isn't indicative of anything.

8. It depends on the type of lock and a number of other factors that I have no way of finding out about without proper citation.

9. It's not obvious. I explained the reasons why.

10. I would hope after 4 years in prison she would speak perfect Italian. What about when she was first questioned and under extreme duress?

11. This is one of those things where she can't win. If she stretches because of the long hours of sitting it indicates guilt for some reason. If she smiles in court it means she is guilty if she cries it is because she feels guilt for murdering. This over analysis of a young girls behavior is silly. Even if she showed no emotion in court it would still be interpreted as proof of cold heartedness.

12. They have an alibi I cited my source for the alibi. You're just not satisfied with the alibi.

13. No I don't need to look it up. I personally think you just made it up. Without sources I don't know.

14. Everything you stated here is purely speculation, and I've only seen evidence Amanda smoked a little weed.

15. What are you talking about ? Hickeys are generally on the front or side of the neck. Who gives a girl a hickey on the back of the neck?

16. This statement of trying to paint the picture of Knox as a mature woman just doesn't make sense when you take into account the pot smoking and her behavior in this situation.

Your final statement also is an attempt to switch the burden of proof. Amanda doesn't need to be proved innocent she needs to be proved guilty.

My opponent has failed to bring compelling proof of Amanda's guilt. Please vote con.
Debate Round No. 3
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
February Bluesteel has been wanting to debate this topic. If you feel this way the please challenge him. I really want to see this debated again.
Posted by FEBRUARY 3 years ago
7. Evidence of Antonio Curatolo: Amanda and Raffaele seen in Piazza Grimana sometime around 11:00 to 11:30pm; they came into the square from the direction of Via Pinturicchio Curatolo is certain it was the night before the Piazza filled up with policemen asking if anyone had seen Meredith.
8. Evidence of Nara Capazzali: Heard someone run up the steps in the direction of that street at that time.
9. Evidence of Hekuran Kokomani who was in the vicinity of the cottage on both 31st Oct. and 1st Nov. He places Sollecito, Knox and Guede together outside the cottage on 1st Nov, at the same time as the other witnesses. His evidence also places all three outside the cottage the previous night.

Claims of contamination and poor matches of DNA samples ; DNA expert Dr. Stefanoni admits RFU readings are low (M's blood on knife blade), but her experience is that many cases of unquestionable matches exist showing readings even lower.

Contamination in the lab also excluded by Dr S; samples were processed with max. care to avoid any contamination during lab procedures. Contamination during collection phase is excluded by Judge Micheli, as samples were collected by different officers at different times in different places.

Sollecito"s DNA on M's bra clasp is unquestionable, according to lab reports.
Judge Michelli concluded that DNA evidence against Sollecito and Knox is sound and, considered along with all the non-biological proof, he decided there was MORE THAN ENOUGH evidence to order Knox and Sollecito to stand trial. GUILTY!
Posted by FEBRUARY 3 years ago
See: TrueJusticeForMeredithKercher Rudy Guede posts.

CLEAN UP after the crime: Meredith"s blood was in the bathroom, however, no visible blood between M"s bedroom and the bathroom. The only visible blood in the hall UNDER CLOSE EXAMINATION, were faint partial shoe prints by RG as he left the apartment.
Only RG stated there was blood in the hall; in his diary: "... asking myself how is it possible that Amanda could have slept in all that mess, and took a shower with all that blood in the bathroom AND CORRIDOR? (Guede, Germany Diary, P21)
18th DEC: Investigators applied Luminol (detects cleaned away blood), in hall and rooms, which revealed several footprints in hall between rooms of K and M. Also, prints in F"s room, which contained M"s DNA and Knox"s DNA, plus a footprint in Knox"s room. Only one person had the motivation to hide this evidence: Amanda Knox.
Neither Judges Micheli, Massei nor Supreme Court believe R.G. acted alone or had any part in the VERY OBVIOUS CLEAN UP.
M. was virtually motionless throughout the attack; defensive wounds almost non-existent, because she was strongly restrained.
There MUST have been two knives involved in the attack.
Dr Galati"s appeal argued it was ILLEGAL for H&Z NOT to have taken the Supreme Court"s ruling on 3 perps fully into account.
2 NOV. 12.35pm Postal Police arrived at cottage to find Kand S outside. S said he had already phoned police; he phoned police at 12.51 and 12.54.
Judge Micheli's major reasons to indict K and S:
1. S's LIE about time he phoned police.
2. M"s and A"s DNA on knife.
3. R"s and A's DNA on M"s bra clasp and inch of fabric: Who came back, cut off M"s bra and moved her body?
5. Bloody bare footprints, shown up with luminol fit K"s and S"s feet suggest they entered F"s room and created the scene AFTER.
6. STAGED SEX ASSAULT SCENE by someone who knew about prior sex attack and to leave blame solely with RG.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Thanks, Wylted!
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago

You're clearly one of the best if not the best voter on this site. You have inspired me to take more Time in analyzing the debates I vote in. Thank you for taking the time to read and vote on this debate as well.
Posted by bladerunner060 3 years ago
Pro had the BoP and, frankly, simply did not support her resolution.

She bandied about unsupported assertions and circumstantial evidence. Con addressed it all sufficiently, and pointed out it wasn't his job to do Pro's citations for her.

Even taken the best they can, Pro's provided unsupported assertions that led to, at best, circumstantial conclusions. They came nowhere near her burden to show that at "the very least [Amanda Knox] was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher"

Con pointed out the dishonest dehumanization Pro engaged in.

Con gave sources, while Pro demanded Con find sources for her.

Pro, if you want to assert something, it's up to you to defend it. You did not do so.

Had you given sources and justification beyond mere assertion for your assertions, I'm fairly certain you still would not have fulfilled your BoP, but you did not, which makes this even easier to judge.

Arguments to Con. Sourcing to Con. Conduct to Con, as I found Pro's behavior to be inappropriate. You initiated this debate, and then proceeded to complain when someone asked you to actually back up your claims. if you don't want to have to support your position, there's a whole place for that: The Opinions section.

S&G was equal enough.

To Pro, btw: your off the cuff comment about vampires falls apart. Gorefest, throat-ripped-out movies notwithstanding, in general vampires don't bite the front of the neck--in theory they would go for where the veins are, not where your windpipe is, since they want the blood. It's nowhere near your worst mistake in this debate, but it's very indicative of the way you made your case: unsupported assertions intended to make a point that immediately falls apart upon inspection. Con didn't address the "vampire" point in that context, and so it technically doesn't affect my voting, but it was amusing to see something that so perfectly encapsulated your approach.

As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by bluesteel 3 years ago
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro doesn't source any of his claims, while Con did, and Con effectively refuted all of Pro's assertions. Pro doesn't really prove the necessities of proving someone committed a crime, such as motive, but relies instead on unconvincing character evidence.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.