Amanda Knox found guilty for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy #15

[aa9511]

Why would RS have said in his first interview with police that Knox had left?

And normally dirty Knox helped bleach RS's place, why?

I don't see Rudy cleaning up apartment and then leaving his poop. I think Knox cleaned up. Her lamp, and lying about showering and drying hair. Staged break-ins are her past MO.

And I hope RS comes clean when he realizes Knox will not marry him and give him US citizenship which he has requested.

bbm

I hold all 3 equal in this crime - Rudy, Amanda, and RS. Especially when we have not heard the truth of how everything went down that night, and who did what, and how the totality of the crime was distributed amongst the 3. Because that truth only the 3 of them know, and none of us will ever know unless one decides to speak the truth.

However, we have to look at what is happening now. Rudy is serving time in prison. Raffaele has had his passport on lock-down, obviously the police are keeping an eye out that he doesn't flee, and basically, everyone knows where he is. They can find him (hopefully) when the time comes to take him to prison, and prison is where it looks like he will end up.

Contrast with Amanda, out free in US, walking around giving interviews. Still not confirmed that she will actually have to spend one more day in prison.

She has to see how this is making her out to look like the "bad one" of the three, even though I'm sure the other two would have done the same thing in her situation. For example, Rudy was already on the run. Raffaele was trying to escape to Austria and probably beyond. But the difference is, they were caught and now Rudy is in prison and RS most likely will be too.

If Amanda does not serve the time she was sentenced for, she will by default, look like the worst out of the 3. I guess she doesn't care, obviously she is just trying to save her own skin. But, she also has to understand that by doing this, she is creating a divide between even RS and herself, whereas before the two were perceived on equal levels concerning this crime.

 

[SMK]

The real evidence in the case:

"The verdict handed down yesterday at the new appeal trial for Amanda Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, accused of the murder of British citizen Meredith Kercher in Italy in November 2007, may come as a surprise to those whose view of the case has been affected by an international media blitz based on the oft-repeated claim “There is no evidence”. Many believe that Rudy Guede, convicted in October 2008 for participating in the murder, acted alone."

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...gainst-amanda-knox-theres-plenty-9099649.html

Thanks for posting this, Otto. Interesting about the mixed trace, too:

Second – the mixed stain. Although not visible to the naked eye, the chemical Luminol which flashes blue on contact with blood revealed a spot in the room of the flatmate whose window had been smashed and room rifled. Swabbing the spot produced a mixture of Amanda and Meredith’s DNA. This is a clear proof that the murderer entered that bedroom after the murder, as someone must have brought Meredith’s blood into the room, contradicting the defence theory that Rudy Guede broke into the house and then committed the murder. The usual defence explanation for mixed DNA stains in the bathroom and corridor, namely that the house would have been coated in Amanda’s DNA given that she lived there, does not necessarily apply to a flatmate’s bedroom. It is much harder to leave traces of DNA than is commonly conceived, and hardly any of Amanda's DNA was found in her own room - where she surely spent a lot more time than in her flatmate's.

 

[CJae]

My son, at about the same age, poured juice into the VCR and insisted that it was because the VCR was thirsty.

Just had to quote as I am ROFLMAO!

At the very same age my boy fed the VCR screws and nails b/c it was STARVING!

What a noise when we tried to put a tape in. LMAO :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:


As for AK and her ex-just waiting for that same "kicking and screaming" video (IF cameras are allowed when the day does come?). as another poster here mentioned she'd like to see when they do finally go get her to put her where she belongs!! (please remember--I didn't say that to the press--AK did!) JMHO

 

[aa9511]

Thanks for posting this, Otto. Interesting about the mixed trace, too:

As far as her DNA being "everywhere" as her supporters commonly claim, it's helpful to look at the distribution of fingerprints in the cottage:

Meredith - 16
Laura - 14
Filomena - 2
Amanda - 1

Raffaele - 4 (not sure about this number, but I believe 4 is correct, I am just going from memory).

So how can her DNA be "everywhere," when there was only 1 fingerprint of hers found in the entire cottage - her home?

There were no Amanda fingerprints found in the small bathroom. There were no Amanda fingerprints found in Filomena's room. So I have a hard time believing that her DNA was supposedly "everywhere" in those places, and that's why Meredith's blood happened to land on a precise spot on top of Amanda's DNA.

 

[Footwarrior]

The assumption that Amanda knows exactly what happened that night presumes she is guilty. An assumption too many on this forum seem to take for granted.

Rudy Guede is the only person we know for certain was present at the time Meredith died. Rudy's handprint and shoe prints in the victims blood, his DNA on and inside the victim clearly tell us that.

 

[CJae]

The assumption that Amanda knows exactly what happened that night presumes she is guilty. An assumption too many on this forum seem to take for granted.

Rudy Guede is the only person we know for certain was present at the time Meredith died. Rudy's handprint and shoe prints in the victims blood, his DNA on and inside the victim clearly tell us that.

What makes his conviction valid yet not the other two???

Wow.

 

[otto]

Just had to quote as I am ROFLMAO!

At the very same age my boy fed the VCR screws and nails b/c it was STARVING!

What a noise when we tried to put a tape in. LMAO :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:


As for AK and her ex-just waiting for that same "kicking and screaming" video (IF cameras are allowed when the day does come?). as another poster here mentioned she'd like to see when they do finally go get her to put her where she belongs!! (please remember--I didn't say that to the press--AK did!) JMHO

It's a relief to hear that feeding electronics is more common! I suppose there are more that children personify electronics to justify that the electronics were thirsty or starving ... better to accuse than confess, even at the age of four.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Or is it b/c The poster also believes Mr Moore is completely biased? (Sorry if I'm not supposed to use another posters name!!)

I'll go as far as stating I believe him to be a monumental liar. IMO
The statement he made to defend his wife's behavior...actually made me burst out laughing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJae]

She attacks Moore because he's put himself out there with an opinion.

The truth is that no one knows what really went on in that apartment for sure except for Guede and Meredith. One is dead, the other admitted to a friend on Skype that no one else was there at the time (i.e. Amanda wasn't there) and once Guede lawyered up he changed his story so he could take advantage of a sweet deal. Everyone seems to discount that, but it doesn't change that it happened and that the Skype conversation occurred.

Why else would AK say a totally INNOCENT man was there?? So that RG would keep his mouth shut possibly???

Remember she not only ACCUSED the innocent man-she let him linger in prison for WEEKS! That's what a killer does to sidetrack an investigation and buy themselves time to come up with their lying alibis. And that has nothing to do at all with any interrogation. She just let Patrick sit in jail. No "innocent" person does that.

I am glad justice will prevail finally in this case with the reinstated guilty verdicts. jMOO

 

[Footwarrior]

So in reading the Hellman report, it was decided that to many assumptions had been made and to much evidence had been ignored? Yet in the Massei report, the same is true. So how is it that the Massei report is thought to be accurate when it also has many assumptions made and evidence ignored?

The Massei report upheld the honor of the prosecutors. Other factors such as science and logic are secondary to this in Italy.

 

[Madeleine74]

Why else would AK say a totally INNOCENT man was there?? So that RG would keep his mouth shut possibly???

Remember she not only ACCUSED the innocent man-she let him linger in prison for WEEKS! That's what a convicted killer does to sidetrack an investigation and buy themselves time to come up with their lying alibis. And that has nothing to do at all with any interrogation. She just let Parrick sit in jail. No "innocent" person does that.

No the Italian POLICE let Patrick languish in prison. They are responsible for that. Were you in the interrogation room at the time? I wasn't. Where are the transcripts of exactly what was said? I keep waiting.

Arguing one known fact (RG's Skype conversation) with something unrelated and without any documentation or proof that others can see for themselves is disingenuous and a common tactic. Focus on RG's Skype conversation. That was documented, was on video, was witnessed. Guede said what he said to a friend via Skype. He wasn't coerced to say it.

 

[otto]

The Massei report upheld the honor of the prosecutors. Other factors such as science and logic are secondary to this in Italy.

Does that mean that in the Casey Anthony verdict, the court upheld the honor of the defense?

 

[Footwarrior]

Why else would AK say a totally INNOCENT man was there?? So that RG would keep his mouth shut possibly???

Remember she not only ACCUSED the innocent man-she let him linger in prison for WEEKS! That's what a killer does to sidetrack an investigation and buy themselves time to come up with their lying alibis. And that has nothing to do at all with any interrogation. She just let Parrick sit in jail. No "innocent" person does that.

I am glad justice will prevail finally in this case with the reinstated guilty verdicts. jMOO

In other words, you don't believe that anyone would make a false confession during a coercive interrogation.

Are you familiar with the Norfolk 4 case?

 

[CJae]

It's a relief to hear that feeding electronics is more common! I suppose there are more that children personify electronics to justify that the electronics were thirsty or starving ... better to accuse than confess, even at the age of four.

Too true!

Back then we'd spend 400 bucks for those machines. Not so funny at the time! (Boy that's a looong time ago!)

 

[otto]

No the Italian POLICE let Patrick languish in prison. They are responsible for that. Were you in the interrogation room at the time? I wasn't. Where are the transcripts of exactly what was said? I keep waiting.

Arguing one known fact (RG's Skype conversation) with something unrelated and without any documentation or proof that others can see for themselves is disingenuous and a common tactic. Focus on RG's Skype conversation. That was documented, was on video, was witnessed. Guede said what he said to a friend via Skype. He wasn't coerced to say it.

That's what happens when people are arrested for murder. Of course he was arrested and put in jail. It took two weeks for DNA results and a rock solid alibi to be presented so that he could be released from jail.

Knox, and her mother, on the other hand, knew well in advance that Patrick was not guilty, and made no effort to communicate the truth.

The bottom line is that Knox alone is responsible for the arrest of Patrick. Had she not introduced his name to police and accused him of murder, he would not have been arrested. After his arrest, prosecutors had to ensure that they had the correct person in jail, and everywhere they turned, they discovered that it was a mistake. Therefore, they acknowledged their mistake and released him.

 

[otto]

In other words, you don't believe that anyone would make a false confession during a coercive interrogation.

Are you familiar with the Norfolk 4 case?

There it is again ... "accusation" conveniently replaced with "confession".

There is nothing similar between "I accuse" and "I confess". Knox accused Patrick of murder. She did not confess Patrick of murder.

 

[CJae]

No the Italian POLICE let Patrick languish in prison. They are responsible for that. Were you in the interrogation room at the time? I wasn't. Where are the transcripts of exactly what was said? I keep waiting.

Arguing one known fact (RG's Skype conversation) with something unrelated and without any documentation or proof that others can see for themselves is disingenuous and a common tactic. Focus on RG's Skype conversation. That was documented, was on video, was witnessed. Guede said what he said to a friend via Skype. He wasn't coerced to say it.

No. Amanda Knox said he was there. AK said she heard her roommate scream and did nothing. AK put him there then left him languishing.

Some choose not to believe a PROVEN liar. And that doesn't make AK a murderer however, the courts decision does with their guilty verdict.

 

[Madeleine74]

That's what happens when people are arrested for murder. Of course he was arrested and put in jail. It took two weeks for DNA results and a rock solid alibi to be presented so that he could be released from jail.

Knox, and her mother, on the other hand, knew well in advance that Patrick was not guilty, and made no effort to communicate the truth.

The bottom line is that Knox alone is responsible for the arrest of Patrick. Had she not introduced his name to police and accused him of murder, he would not have been arrested. After his arrest, prosecutors had to ensure that they had the correct person in jail, and everywhere they turned, they discovered that it was a mistake. Therefore, they acknowledged their mistake and released him.

Otto, that's incorrect. Knox had zero power to put anyone in jail. Zero. It's well known that police inquired about the message on her phone to Patrick, "see you later." That raised questions and started the police down a rat hole. Again, there was no requirement for police to arrest Patrick without ascertaining information about his alibi. They failed to do that. They are the ones in control, they are the ones with the power to detain and jail people. Why is that fact ignored?

I could run around my neighborhood accusing people of things but if the police arrested them based on that and didn't do any investigation into the allegations, the police would be (properly) blamed. You have to consider who has the power in situations. Who can make an arrest? Who can detain?

 

[CJae]

Otto, that's incorrect. Knox had zero power to put anyone in jail. Zero. It's well known that police inquired about the message on her phone to Patrick, "see you later." That raised questions and started the police down a rat hole. Again, there was no requirement for police to arrest Patrick without ascertaining information about his alibi. They failed to do that. They are the ones in control, they are the ones with the power to detain and jail people. Why is that fact ignored?

I could run around my neighborhood accusing people of things but if the police arrested them based on that and didn't do any investigation into the allegations, the police would be (properly) blamed. You have to consider who has the power in situations. Who can make an arrest? Who can detain?

But like ALL of the evidence in its totality-wouldn't you have to wonder Why? Why would anyone point to an innocent person, say they heard their murdered roommate scream with that person in her room, when it's all just a fabrication?

No one does that for no reason.

Unless you want your partners in crime to keep their traps shut!

 

[Madeleine74]

But like ALL of the evidence in its totality-wouldn't you have to wonder Why? Why would anyone point to an innocent person, say they heard their murdered roommate scream with that person in her room, when it's all just a fabrication?

No one does that for no reason.

Unless you want your partners in crime to keep their traps shut!

Ever hear of false or coerced confessions? Think that never happens? We know it does. Doesn't it make you wonder why AK's interviews/interrogations were not taped or video'd? That sure would have been a simple and handy dandy tool to ascertain exactly what happened, what was said *in context* without any poetic license and armchair quarterback speculation by the masses, wouldn't it?

I wasn't there. Were you there? Where's the transcript and recording?