Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#5

[SMK]

It suggests to me that Meredith was not on the bed when she was attacked.

The building is a very solid, old, stone building, so I really doubt that there would be any footsteps shaking the floor.

Ah, thanks for pointing that out: I live in a condo with flimsy floors, and when you walk across the room, everything shakes. I see your point, and yes, she was most likely not near the bed or table at the time of the altercation.

 

[otto]

What if...ak and rs were actually at the house in her room when the whole thing went down...and they hid like little chickens..?

What if after the went all over the apartment freaking out and touching stuff?

What if they were tripping on LSD? Or mushrooms and went back and forth from rs house to the crime scene? Waiting to come down and unable to make any decisions....


Just imagining...

There has been a lot of speculation about the type of drugs that were used on the night of the murder. Knox and Sollecito have insisted that it was hashish, or pot, and alcohol. Sollecito had a history of hard drugs, although he was a regular user only of hashish.

 

[TorisMom003]

Are you thinking that the crime scene is Meredith's bedroom, or the cottage? If it's the cottage, then there is ample evidence of all three culprits. If it is the bedroom, then we can exclude the broken window, the bloody bathmat, the unflushed toilet, all the luminol and DNA evidence and ask the critical question: how is it possible that Knox's lamp - the only light source for her bedroom - was placed on the floor in Meredith's bedroom and there is no evidence of Knox's DNA on her lamp?

I am referring to Meredith's bedroom, where the crime actually occurred. There is plenty of evidence in that room that points to one person, RG. Where is the evidence of AK and RS being in that room and being a part of the crime? How is it possible that two people "stoned out of their minds" enough to kill someone spur of the moment and in cahoots with someone that AK barely knew and RS didn't know, yet in the right frame of mind enough to clean up ONLY their own DNA, fingerprints, footprints, etc?

The lamp is a non factor for me. Was it used as part of the crime? Do we know who put it in the room or even when?

 

[aa9511]

So maybe his shoes were off during (or came off in the struggle) and after using the bathroom he put his shoes on and walked out, leaving shoeprints? There was blood on the faucet (and the sink too?), whose dna was in that?

Just theorizing.

If his shoes came off during the struggle, he would have had blood on his feet. So there would still have been bloody footprints going to the bathroom, which are missing. Why would he take his shoes off after the murder just to use the bathroom? Because there are footrpints down the hallway, meaning he put his shoes "back on" before he went down the hallway. Not to mention the fact that with a dead body, I doubt he would have taken the time to take his shoes off!

The feces is in a separate bathroom, the blood on faucet, bathmat, and bidet (I think) are in the other bathroom.

 

[aa9511]

Why couldn't RG have knocked on the door, MK opens it and the attack begins, and the broken window comes last as cover? Maybe he followed her home?

Did anyone hear the window break?

I saw a comment from AK that she knew of RG and said he was called 'shaky' or something like that? And she did not like him? I'm still trying to figure out why the police believe they knew each other to such a degree to get stoned together and have a sex party with an unwilling participant, when his MO is knife wielding burglar.

Why would he break the window to implicate himself, if he was known as the "knife-wielding, window-breaking burglar?"

Also, take "sex party" talk out of it, IMO. It doesn't have to have been a sex-party, sex-orgy, or whatever people want to call it. It could have been Amanda and RS saw Rudy at the piazza or basketball courts or somewhere, they started talking, they went to the cottage to "chill," some argument started with Meredith. Maybe b/w Amanda and Meredith, and then RS and Rudy got into it. Maybe b/w Rudy and Meredith. We don't know.

 

[otto]

I am referring to Meredith's bedroom, where the crime actually occurred. There is plenty of evidence in that room that points to one person, RG. Where is the evidence of AK and RS being in that room and being a part of the crime? How is it possible that two people "stoned out of their minds" enough to kill someone spur of the moment and in cahoots with someone that AK barely knew and RS didn't know, yet in the right frame of mind enough to clean up ONLY their own DNA, fingerprints, footprints, etc?

The lamp is a non factor for me. Was it used as part of the crime? Do we know who put it in the room or even when?

The crime occurred at the cottage and evidence throughout the cottage tells the story of what happened. Why would we want to exclude so much evidence when trying to understand the murder of Meredith Kercher? I realize that Knox has emphasized that her DNA is not in Meredith's bedroom. Those statements give the impression that everyone should ignore the evidence outside the bedroom. If Knox was truly innocent and if she truly wanted justice for Meredith, why would she want anyone to exclude relevant evidence? Rather than explain why her DNA and Meredith's blood are mixed in Filomina's bedroom, Knox suggests that we simply exclude that evidence.

In Meredith's bedroom, which is a small part of the crime scene, there is a footprint on the pillow that corresponds to Knox's shoe size. Knox's lamp is on the bedroom floor, but there is absolutely no DNA belonging to Knox on her lamp. Instead, her DNA is caught between the handle and blade of a knife at Sollecito's apartment. Either she's dropping DNA all over the place, or she's not, but it's very suspicious that her DNA is not on her lamp in Meredith's bedroom. It's also suspicious that her lamp is on the floor of Meredith's locked bedroom.

Is the theory that Guede took Knox's lamp to Meredith's bedroom before the murder ... placed it on the floor, plugged it in and then murdered Meredith? If not, why are there no bloody shoe prints leading from Meredith's bedroom to Knox's bedroom to get the lamp?

 

[aa9511]

Rudy breaks in when no one is home. Filomena's room is dark. He makes himself at home then later uses the bathroom. While he is in the bathroom Meredith arrives home and does not note the break in, walks directly to her room, sits on her bed to remove her shoes, or look for messages on cell phone, or remove her jacket. Rudy becomes aware someone is home and does not flush to alert them of his presence. He quietly walks down the hall then the attack occurs...

I don't mind agreeing to disagree Otto... :seeya:

That still doesn't explain how he stabbed her and restrained her at the same time. Yes, he could have restrained her in the beginning, but what about the point when he starts stabbing her, and the evidence then shows that she was restrained while being stabbed? He would have had to restrain both her arms, legs, and mouth at the same time as stabbing her.

 

[TorisMom003]

So instead we make things up, imagine ways that the crime occurred instead of looking at the evidence? I still have yet to get an answer as to how in the world two people "stoned out of their minds" could engage in a murder with a third person and not leave any evidence of themselves in the room where Meredith was found, where she was killed, and have no evidence of themselves on Meredith when it is being argued that those two people were not only in the room at the time the killing took place but also participated in the killing. How is it possible that the only evidence is of a lone killer?

If that is possible then I'd like to hire those two to come clean my house because they must be damn good at getting rid of messes.

 

[otto]

So instead we make things up, imagine ways that the crime occurred instead of looking at the evidence? I still have yet to get an answer as to how in the world two people "stoned out of their minds" could engage in a murder with a third person and not leave any evidence of themselves in the room where Meredith was found, where she was killed, and have no evidence of themselves on Meredith when it is being argued that those two people were not only in the room at the time the killing took place but also participated in the killing. How is it possible that the only evidence is of a lone killer?

If that is possible then I'd like to hire those two to come clean my house because they must be damn good at getting rid of messes.

Any thoughts on how Knox's lamp ended up on Meredith's bedroom floor with no evidence of Guede in Knox's bedroom? Why is there no DNA on the lamp? Shouldn't Guede's DNA be on the lamp?

 

[aa9511]

In all cases I have followed, I begin with the firm notion the person is not guilty, then I let the evidence on both sides convince me one way or the other. Not because that is our system of 'justice' or any high-minded ideals, but an accusation can be as deadly as a death sentence, once lodged against someone, they are seen as guilty by the public and must prove their innocence.

Not too long ago I even saw someone post similar thoughts here at WS on another thread, that only guilty people are accused because cops know who is and who isn't guilty. Reading that was a little stunning but I suppose probably shouldn't have been, I see on message boards how folks can be so quick to judge another just because someone else says they've done something wrong. I'd be terrified if any such would be on a jury where I was being judged.

Actually (and you've probably noticed it by now lol) I don't even read the backstories of cases except for what the jury will get, I don't want to be swayed by opinions over the evidence, or give myself preconceived notions about the case before hearing and seeing the evidence, I try to look at each case like a juror, not a prosecutor or defense attny.

Yes, geevee, those are excellent points. But the open possibilites have to be within what the evidence shows, was my point. For example, if there is no evidence of a window break-in, and rather there is evidence of a staged window break, then one has to look at the evidence. Now, one can say maybe the investigators got it wrong, maybe they didn't see the evidence or non-evidence. Those would be valid points. But if there is pictures, documentation, evidence, testimony and all points to no window-entry, and rather a staged window, then that evidence has to be taken into account,

My point was, it is rather easy to leave all possibilities whatsoever open when it is chosen to, for whatever reason, ignore all the evidence in a case. Basically give the case a clean slate. I thought that was the job of investigators and detectives. At this point, to where we are in the appeal of a conviction, the evidence has already been collected and presented.

 

[TorisMom003]

Any thoughts on how Knox's lamp ended up on Meredith's bedroom floor with no evidence of Guede in Knox's bedroom?

How about he didn't put it there? Again we have no idea how or when the lamp was placed in Meredith's room. It could have been hours before Meredith was killed or even days or weeks before. We simply don't know. Again, the lamp is a non factor for me because we don't know who put it there or when. It is speculation and is being used as something against Amanda. If the lamp is the thing that folks are setting their sights on as to Amanda's guilt then there is something seriously wrong with the rest of the evidence "against" her.

MOO

 

[Myvice]

BBM

Hiya aa.

I do agree, nothing makes a great deal of sense about the scene, while I have a bit of trouble with RG acting alone (bloody shoeprints as well as bare footprints) I have more trouble trying to fit 4 people into the room and 3 committing the crime.

I appreciate you (and everyone else) being patient while I work through it and ask some lamebrained questions, I've of course heard all about it over the years, but haven't looked through the evidence or theories until just lately so never really formed an opinion.

I don't wonder at all why it's gone on so long or there are definite lines drawn between believers of AK/RS' guilt or innocence, I haven't arrived at a belief yet, not even sure I ever will. But I'll try to come to some 'personal verdict' if possible, I don't like hanging chads. lol

Hi geevee,

If you look at the crime scene photos of Merideth's room you will see three people as well as their equipment in the room. This helps give a little perspective IMO.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=21&image_id=3394&sk=t&sd=d&st=0

 

[otto]

How about he didn't put it there? Again we have no idea how or when the lamp was placed in Meredith's room. It could have been hours before Meredith was killed or even days or weeks before. We simply don't know. Again, the lamp is a non factor for me because we don't know who put it there or when. It is speculation and is being used as something against Amanda. If the lamp is the thing that folks are setting their sights on as to Amanda's guilt then there is something seriously wrong with the rest of the evidence "against" her.

MOO

No one is setting sights on a lamp as evidence of guilt. I'm running with the theory that Guede acted alone, that he sneaked up on Meredith in her bedroom. He murdered her. At some point during the murder, Knox's lamp was taken from her bedroom, placed on the floor in Meredith's bedroom and plugged in. If Guede acted alone, he either put the lamp in the bedroom before the murder, or after the murder. Either way, there is no evidence of Guede in Knox's bedroom after the murder, and it doesn't make sense that part of sneaking up on Meredith included getting a lamp from Knox's bedroom.

It is a fact that we can exclude that Knox's only light source for her bedroom was on Meredith's floor weeks before the murder. It was in Knox's bedroom on the day of the murder.

Or ... should we also exclude evidence inside Meredith's bedroom if it cannot be explained in the "Guede did it" theory?

 

[whoanellie]

My interpretation of osmotic reasoning is that it means that there are a bunch of things that are weak in themselves but that it is unlikely that they all have an innocent explanation. The problem with the osmotic reasoning of the supreme court and of Crini is this: It circumvents the need to put together a noncontradictory narrative. For example, Crini is apparently saying that the TOD could be either early (prior to about 10:15, I suppose) or late (11:30, I suppose). If one goes with the early TOD, then Curatolo becomes an alibi witness. These sorts of problems become more obvious if one tries to put together a narrative of the crime with a timeline. This is a far more serious problem with the prosecution's conjectures than something we discussed yesterday, namely that Amanda and Raffaele have to be brilliant one minute and stupid the next minute.

The other problem with osmotic reasoning is that it can ignore inconvenient facts. Several lines of evidence independently point to an early TOD, but those don't even get discussed if the prosecution argues post-murder behavior (or something equivalent), instead of making a comprehensive story.

Great post. While those who believe Amanda is guilty cite a mountain of supposedly suspicious behavior, they don't seem to realize that their interpretations of Amanda's behavior are often self-contradictory.

For me it's just like the story of Goldilocks, Amanda was either stupid or brilliant, panicked or too calm, too knowledgeable or too curious, she was never just right. One possibility is that Amanda's behaviour really was that bizarre. Of course, it's also possible that the hypothesis of guilt is wrong but that is never considered.

Is it unreasonable to expect a coherent, credible, consistent theory of the crime? After 6 years has it come down to Rudy's feces in the toilet?

 

[whiterum]

Yes, all of that makes sense, thanks. And yes, I see that Meredith might have suggested or demanded that someone come and flush after themselves.

MK would have come back to the cottage expecting a quiet environment where she could do some very important studying. In an argument scenario, if it were myself I would be livid to find a noisy drugged up roommate and two male pals had taken over the kitchen area. In addition there may have been irritating guitar strumming, the cottage smelt of weed filled smoke and a toilet full of stinking poo, believe me, I would have ordered they clean up after themselves and get the hell out!

 

[aa9511]

So instead we make things up, imagine ways that the crime occurred instead of looking at the evidence? I still have yet to get an answer as to how in the world two people "stoned out of their minds" could engage in a murder with a third person and not leave any evidence of themselves in the room where Meredith was found, where she was killed, and have no evidence of themselves on Meredith when it is being argued that those two people were not only in the room at the time the killing took place but also participated in the killing. How is it possible that the only evidence is of a lone killer?

If that is possible then I'd like to hire those two to come clean my house because they must be damn good at getting rid of messes.

bbm

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

One explanation could be that the investigators/evidence-collectors, missed evidence. In other words, there was probably more evidence of Amanda and RS in that room, but they didn't collect those samples.

I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying it could be one possibility. Kind of like the possibility that we're supposed to believe that Amanda and RS DNA was contaminated, etc..

 

[otto]

MK would have come back to the cottage expecting a quiet environment where she could do some very important studying. In an argument scenario, if it were myself I would be livid to find a noisy drugged up roommate and two male pals had taken over the kitchen area. In addition there may have been irritating guitar strumming, the cottage smelt of weed filled smoke and a toilet full of stinking poo, believe me, I would have ordered they clean up after themselves and get the hell out!

Exactly. Knox hadn't slept at the cottage since she met Sollecito. She was dropping in at the cottage to eat, get stoned, repeatedly strum one chord on the guitar and as a place to bring men she hardly knew. There is no doubt that Meredith had to study because the text book she borrowed for an exam had to be returned the following day.

 

[Amber29]

So maybe his shoes were off during (or came off in the struggle) and after using the bathroom he put his shoes on and walked out, leaving shoeprints? There was blood on the faucet (and the sink too?), whose dna was in that?

Just theorizing.

The only problem is that the bathmat print is all alone and there was nothing on the floor in the bathroom, even where the heel should've been. How did he walk to the bathroom and leave no prints? Not to mention he chose to wash up say all over the bathroom and all Meredith's blood landed on AKs DNA and none was mixed with RGs DNA even though he was supposed to be scrubbing blood off.

 

[aa9511]

No one is setting sights on a lamp as evidence of guilt. I'm running with the theory that Guede acted alone, that he sneaked up on Meredith in her bedroom. He murdered her. At some point during the murder, Knox's lamp was taken from her bedroom, placed on the floor in Meredith's bedroom and plugged in. If Guede acted alone, he either put the lamp in the bedroom before the murder, or after the murder. Either way, there is no evidence of Guede in Knox's bedroom after the murder, and it doesn't make sense that part of sneaking up on Meredith included getting a lamp from Knox's bedroom.

It is a fact that we can exclude that Knox's only light source for her bedroom was on Meredith's floor weeks before the murder. It was in Knox's bedroom on the day of the murder.

Or ... should we also exclude evidence inside Meredith's bedroom if it cannot be explained in the "Guede did it" theory?

This is a very logical analysis.

What about the light situtation in Meredith's room? Was her own light working? What kind of lighting did she have for her own use?

 

[whiterum]

If his shoes came off during the struggle, he would have had blood on his feet. So there would still have been bloody footprints going to the bathroom, which are missing. Why would he take his shoes off after the murder just to use the bathroom? Because there are footrpints down the hallway, meaning he put his shoes "back on" before he went down the hallway. Not to mention the fact that with a dead body, I doubt he would have taken the time to take his shoes off!

The feces is in a separate bathroom, the blood on faucet, bathmat, and bidet (I think) are in the other bathroom.

Exactly, RG's footprints in blood appear to be positioned straight towards the main door from MK 's bedroom door without deviation. When he finally left MK's room with blood on his shoes there is no indication (that you would expect to see reflected in his footprints ) that he turned to face the door to pull the door closed to lock it with MK's key as he left. IMO it appears that he walked straight out of MK's room without locking the door. So who locked that door if not him ?