She might be (very) off at times, but what would have been her motive? I couldn't really see or find one while watching the documentary.
I'd be a little 'off' too if I spent 4 years in Italian jail. I definitely don't think she did it either.
Fair enough. I didn't know anything about this case before the documentary, and I just felt like something was strange about her in the movie, but you make a good point... years in jail will certainly change a person.
There's that, but I also think she's just naturally an "oddball"/eccentric type person, I think they even made that a point to bring that up in the beginning of the doc. It honestly came off to me like she is possibly on the autism spectrum a bit. I didn't think her personality did her any favors during the investigation, as the Italian officials probably weren't used to someone like that and didn't know what to make of her. My favorite dumb statement from the doc was when one of the Italian lawyers tried to say she was a "rebellious anarchist" because she's from Seattle lol.
Like I said, I never knew anything about her or the case prior, but my first impression of her from the opening scene of the film was that something was off. Maybe, she was in fact autistic, or just plain eccentric. I'd probably have to watch it again to make a more fair judgement.
[QUOTE="joe727, post: 567606, member: 346] My favorite dumb statement from the doc was when one of the Italian lawyers tried to say she was a "rebellious anarchist" because she's from Seattle lol.[/QUOTE] Mine is when the main prosecutor guy says women cover murdered women but men don't lol
if what they are saying was true, that she was doing cartwheels and shit out in front of the house while the cops and everyone were inside dealing with the body, that's definitely an odd thing to do in a situation like that. however, i think it was someone else that committed the crime.
IF either of them were guilty, then why were ZERO strands of DNA from either of them found in the entire crime scene room? That was an incredibly violent crime that would literally have been impossible to remove the DNA from. That's what I can't get past. I don't know who did it, but I see no way it was Amanda or Sollecito
Maybe I need to watch this again, but I thought they did find her DNA on the knife and in other place around the house, but it was determined that there was contamination at the testing facility.
I think the point was that the investigators tracked DNA all around the apartment causing contamination, so they couldn't rely on the DNA evidence.
Right. So, it wasn't that there wasn't any DNA evidence against Amanda or Sollecito, rather that it was inconclusive.
the DNA wasn't found in the room technically, it was found in the testing facility where contamination was extremely high. Also, the knife was from Sollecito's house, leaving nothing of Amanda's from the room of her roommate, at all
Do they know that the DNA wasn't found in the room though? Wasn't that the basis for the whole debate. They weren't sure if it came from the room or the lab... I mean, obviously it was highly contaminated either way. Sorry if I'm completely misremembering.
From what I understand, they didn't find Amanda's DNA anywhere in the room. They found Sollecito's DNA only on the bra hook, and they found Rudy's DNA everywhere in the room. The only DNA from Amanda was from the handle of the knife that was at Sollecito's apt.
Here's a really intense breakdown of all DNA evidence, not a single piece of DNA from Amanda in Meredith's room. With a crime like this, how would that even be possible at all. Other DNA Evidence - The Murder of Meredith Kercher
Cool. Thanks for the info. You're right. After looking at that, it does seem impossible that she did it.
Yeah, I mean I am obviously not well versed in anything technical, but from an outside look... the fact that there is zero DNA from her in her own roommates room says a lot. And even IF her DNA was there and they cleaned it, how did they clean only their DNA and no one else's? haha