Seeing that a witness placed all 4 together, I would even go further and say that I can easily see that perhaps MK and Guede were on a double date with AK and RS a day or two before the murder. Guede was attracted to MK, MK not to Guede (this is why she begged off when AK tried to get her to hang out with them the night of the murder). AK became incensed by MK's refusal and decided to "teach her a lesson." MK comes home from her friend's. AK/RS restrain MK and hold a knife to her throat while RG has his way with her. RG uses the restroom at some point, leaving AK and RS alone with MK. He hears the screams and bolts without flushing. Meanwhile, AK and RS had the knife to MK's throat - maybe she began struggling harder with RG gone, whatever it was, this is the point where it went terribly wrong. AK might not have intended to slit MK's throat - but once it had happened, that was all she wrote. At that point, AK and RS panicked and attempted to cover up their tracks - hence multiple stab wounds from an as-of-yet unfound knife, the extreme cleanup, etc.
Do I think it was planned? No. But given the testimonies, timeline, and evidence I find this to be an incredibly plausible theory on what happened in the apartment that night.
I honestly think it is a mistake to speculate in this way: we can make up all sorts of scenarios, but unless they fit all the facts they are really not helpful. For example, Knox did not try to get the victim to hang with them the night of the murder: she tried to get the victim to hang with her the night before the murder ( Halloween). I do not know where the rest of them were that night.
Newton Trino says the three did not know each other: we know that Knox did know both Guede and Sollecito. We know that she was apt to become intimate with young men on very short acquaintance, and I think Newton may not be giving this sufficient weight. We know that all three used cannabis and it is reported that Guede drank: I believe I have read that Knox also drank too much, on occasion. Not so sure about that. But we do not know if they had been drinking that night (or at least I do not) nor if they might have taken some harder drug than cannabis: easy to imagine but we have no evidence for it.
I do not agree with Stilicho about who might have been manipulating whom. I think it is pretty much impossible to judge character from a media circus especially when there is so much investment in portraying each of the players in particular ways.
Guede does not have the same forces behind him, but even with him I have read that he was a drug dealer: yet he has no convictions. I have read that he was a "drifter"; but he lived in Perugia from the age of 5 and did not leave it for extended periods. I have read that he was caught sleeping in a nursery in Milan and that despite having stolen goods and a knife he was not arrested; but I have also read that he was arrested and charged on that occasion. And we know that the police had his fingerprints, whether from that incident or another I cannot say.
I cannot honestly say I have a picture of this young man. And it seems to me that that is because the press has not chosen/been encouraged to give me one
And perhaps that is the main point of the thread when it comes down to it. At the outset there were some who had followed this case quite closely. Sceptics all. They had very strong views about the the guilt or innocence of Knox (and maybe Guerde and Sollecito, I don't know). Others became interested because they felt they were being played by the press, or as Stilicho has said, because they had fully expected an acquittal on the basis of the reports and were shocked when that did not happen
For me this is quite a telling thing and it bothers me in many other contexts though this one is a great illustration of it. It shows that for many things we rely very heavily on the press: to quite a shocking extent in fact, given that sources to help us to check what we are told are just a click away. We are privileged in our access to sources of information, compared to previous generations. This is often mentioned. But what good is it if we do not use it?
At the start of the thread it was claimed that there are ways of reading the media to sift truth from inaccuracy. I think it is quite chilling that intelligent sceptical people can believe that in the face of the evidence, not least in this thread.
I think it is evident that once someone else presented an alternative view some have become less confident in their "knowledge". It is to Newton Trino's credit that he did consider what has been presented from the other side and he did shift his view somewhat. Yet it is also my impression that he resists that and that he is more easily swayed by things which support his original position than things which challenge it (I am open to correction on that NT but it honestly is how I perceive the course of this thread: and I do not think you are alone). I started with no view at all and became interested because it seemed to me that whatever had happened I could not accept "anti-americanism" as a reason for anything. But having read what I have (and pace Matthew Best and others I came to this with less "knowledge" than anyone else because I have no television and I seldom read the papers etc so there is nothing at all to have prevented others from looking into it) I came to a conclusion that on the evidence I would probably have convicted had I been on the jury.
From my participation I seem to have been pushed into the position of defending all aspects of the evidence and it is not much to my credit that I have allowed this to happen a little bit. It is much easier to reduce complexity to two opposing sides, is it not? I colluded a little and that is not very helpful. So I regret that.
But the power of the media has been shown here: and it is a scary thing. I cannot think we can change that but I think if we are honest we need to be more aware of it and more sceptical yet.
Sorry if that seems to be changing the subject: I sort of feel it is getting back to it in a way
