Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

[sherlockh]

I think it's not easy to reconstruct every detail when we don't even know what was the position of the bathmat at that moment.

IMO it's possible that the bathmat was in other position or that Guede used the bidet to clean his pant leg.

ETA: Of course you're wrong about the print being complete. I'm referring you to the photos Otto posted in previous thread.

He put his foot in the bidet? Gross!

 

[Katody]

So now he didn't wash up in the shower?

Yes I said its incomplete because his heal is missing altogether, no spot on the floor where his heal touched. I find that odd.

Also large part of the instep is missing, and the toes. It wasn't a complete print. It's also quite diluted at the bottom.

Given that the mat is absorbent and the hard floor is not, I don't think there was ever any visible heel print to begin with.




BTW Why does it matter were he did wash?

Image source is Injustice in Perugia archive, linked at the top of this thread.

 

[Katody]

He put his foot in the bidet? Gross!

Wrong discussion if you're easily grossed out. I guess. What Guede did was really gruesome.

 

[SMK]

I think the totality of evidence cannot be put together into any scenario involving three attackers.
That's why Italian prosecutors' and court's scenarios are so ridiculous and bizarre.
That's why we haven't seen a successful attempt here, either.

I am somewhere between you and sherlock. (which shows I am often all over the place at this juncture).

I think that the evidence of Rudy in the room does tend toward overwhelming the 3 on 1 attack theory. There should be more of Knox and Sollecito in there. Or so it seems to me. (I also believe Hendry's analysis was able to reveal some of MK's martial arts training as it would unfold with one attacker).

On the other hand, I find I cannot simply rest at this conclusion. I find holes and questions and witnesses and unexplained things (little oddities when taken alone, but the devil is in the details, in many cases) and some expert testimony - when all taken together - do amount to indicating an involvement/foreknowledge/feeling of culpability of Knox and Sollecito in some way. I just find it very hard to determine what that was.

ETA:
Even more problematic is that I cannot find answers to certain "facts" such as if the body was moved immediately or quite some time after death. Hendry I guess made short work of that prosecution fact and they seemed to have dropped it (although Mignini did not) but it became so much a part of the original lore that it keeps returning to memory.

 

[Myvice]

He put his foot in the bidet? Gross!

For me, it's more gross to think of scooching around on a bathmat that I thought was covered in menstrual blood. I would want a shower AFTER doing that. YUCK!!

 

[sherlockh]

Wrong discussion if you're easily grossed out. I guess. What Guede did was really gruesome.

Two different things. Being a murderer doesn't mean you also put your foot in someone else's toilet. Especially not when there is a shower available. Knox pretends she sometimes used the bidet but I seriously doubt it.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

Just another little lie to coverup that the bidet was not used for what it is made for, and that it was used to clean is an indication that it was not a stranger who was using it. IMO.

She never once used the bidet, everyone else did.

http://www.sharonfeinstein.co.uk/main/interviews/Amanda_Knox.php

 

[otto]

this is English?

http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/PDF-Files.html

Thanks for posting the Italian version. The English version was posted on this forum about a year ago.

English statement is here ... Knox, "who although sufficiently understands and speaks Italian is assisted by ... Engish speaking interpreter" ...

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Confession#Amanda_Knox.27s_1:45_am_Statement

 

[otto]

Given his behaviour in the investigation it is hard to believe that those things didn't happen. If he was running around like a loose cannon with everything else, why do you think he was objective and sober when it came to his treatment of witnesses he considered advantageous to his theory? IMO he would have been just as out of control with them as the rest of the case, which makes whatever they say suspect, particularly the witnesses that appeared out of nowhere.

Why is the prosecutor being attacked? This isn't about the prosecutor. Is impossible to prop Knox up without slandering an officer of the court?

 

[Katody]

I am somewhere between you and sherlock. (which shows I am often all over the place at this juncture).

I think that the evidence of Rudy in the room does tend toward overwhelming the 3 on 1 attack theory. There should be more of Knox and Sollecito in there. Or so it seems to me. (I also believe Hendry's analysis was able to reveal some of MK's martial arts training as it would unfold with one attacker).

On the other hand, I find I cannot simply rest at this conclusion. I find holes and questions and witnesses and unexplained things (little oddities when taken alone, but the devil is in the details, in many cases) and some expert testimony - when all taken together - do amount to indicating an involvement/foreknowledge/feeling of culpability of Knox and Sollecito in some way. I just find it very hard to determine what that was.

You need to consider that the aura of uncertainty was purposefully created, both in the courtroom and outside (through the media) exactly for the reason that no solid evidence supports the guilt and no coherent scenario exists.

 

[Katody]

Thanks for posting the Italian version. The English version was posted on this forum about a year ago.

No it wasn't.


For the simple reason that there was never was any "English version".

 

[otto]

Two different things. Being a murderer doesn't mean you also put your foot in someone else's toilet. Especially not when there is a shower available. Knox pretends she sometimes used the bidet but I seriously doubt it.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Amanda_Knox's_Testimony

Just another little lie to coverup that the bidet was not used for what it is made for, and that it was used to clean is an indication that it was not a stranger who was using it. IMO.

http://www.sharonfeinstein.co.uk/main/interviews/Amanda_Knox.php

Thanks for the link ... on the same transcript, we see what Knox has to say about her towel:

"Okay. I can't remember if I brushed my teeth before or after taking a shower. I think...before...I don't remember. I did brush my teeth, but I don't know if it was before or after the shower. Anyway, I got into the shower, took the shower, and then, getting out of the shower, I used the bathmat to kind of hop over to my room, because I had forgotten my towel. Then I took my towel, returned to the bathroom, dried myself and put my earrings back in. Then I went into my room, got some clothes and dressed."

She forgot her towel, meaning that she did not expect her towel to be in the bathroom ... meaning that she kept her towel in her bedroom. Back to Guede's self-serving remark about getting Meredith's towels from the bathroom ... I don't believe that Meredith kept her towels in the bathroom either.

 

[sherlockh]

I still prefer the theory that Guede used the shower. The bidet looks more like a diluted drop fell onto it at some moment.

Was there any testimony in the courtroom that Amanda didn't use the bidet? That would be a bombshell. Too bad no one contacted the prosecution in time with these important news :floorlaugh:

Knox said that 'this time' she did not use the bidet. That implies she sometimes used it, but from the linked interview we learn that Knox never uses a bidet like most American college girls. She just lies because her DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood inside the bidet. JMO.

 

[SMK]

You need to consider that the aura of uncertainty was purposefully created, both in the courtroom and outside (through the media) exactly for the reason that no solid evidence supports the guilt and no coherent scenario exists.

Yes, I realize that this is always a possibility. Conversely the opposing side will tell one to bear well in mind the "PR" spin with it's whitewashing and sanitizing effect. I am amazed at anyone who thinks this case is straightforward: I find it massively complex and confusing in its details and in its generalities , both.

 

[otto]

Yes, I realize that this is always a possibility. Conversely the opposing side will tell one to bear well in mind the "PR" spin with it's whitewashing and sanitizing effect. I am amazed at anyone who thinks this case is straightforward: I find it massively complex and confusing in its details and in its generalities , both.

I actually think that the case is very straight forward. However, if one becomes bogged down in conjecture from foreigners implying that the Italian justice system is corrupt, stupid, incompetent, and so forth, it may appear confusing.

 

[aa9511]

I think he just took his shoe off and rinsed his pant leg while wearing them. Bloody water dripped down to his foot. He then stepped onto the bathmat leaving the many diluted traces and the footprint there.

No, no, no......there would have been (diluted) bloody spatter and "diluted traces" in many more places. Also drip, drip, drip some diluted bloody stains from his pants leg.

Also let's not forget bloody shoeprints and some blood drippings from his hands and as he was going to the bathroom.

Crikey, you all must be very neat and clean in your bathrooms. I can barely get some mud off without leaving a mess anywhere.

 

[Katody]

Knox said that 'this time' she did not use the bidet. That implies she sometimes used it, but from the linked interview we learn that Knox never uses a bidet like most American college girls. She just lies because her DNA was found mixed with Meredith's blood inside the bidet. JMO.

I see. I think she did use the bidet in the villa, even if she didn't want to share a bidet in jail with the inmates.

I notice that none of the people interviewed ever testified the same under oath.

 

[otto]

No, no, no......there would have been (diluted) bloody spatter and "diluted traces" in many more places. Also drip, drip, drip some diluted bloody stains from his pants leg.

Also let's not forget bloody shoeprints and some blood drippings from his hands and as he was going to the bathroom.

Crikey, you all must be very neat and clean in your bathrooms. I can barely get some mud off without leaving a mess anywhere.

It's probably true that Guede's pants were wet from blood. If he was able to cover the wet spot with his sweat shirt, the wet spot was not at the bottom of his leg. However, it seems that some prefer to believe that the wet spot, covered by the sweat shirt, was at the bottom of his leg. He must have looked like a maniac running down the street with his sweat shirt pulled down around his ankle.

I'm very curious how 'wet spot covered by sweat shirt' has morphed into 'washed pants in the small bathroom'. That bloody footprint attributed to Sollecito sure does seem to be difficult to shrink and put on Guede.

 

[miley]

The homeless man is a liar because he took drugs. Even though he gives a detailed account of what they were doing there, and there isn't any law that says drug users can't be witnesses.

I don't see what else is there to discuss if witnesses who give a detailed account are considered to be liars for the only reason that they give incriminating information about Knox and Sollecito. Now suddenly a witness is believed for no other reason then that he has something bad to say about a police officer. Somehow Knox attracts supporters that become emotionally involved which destroys all objectivity IMO.

Curatolo is a witness in THREE murders.. shouldn't that be enough said? Do you find this a little bizarre?
He was flustered, confused and his testimony inadvertently provided AK & RS w/ an alibi. So they change the TOD closer to midnight to correct the discrepancy.. Curatolo over science, right. I think this was a huge embarrassment for them, their only eye witness was thrown in jail and left to die. Was anyone surprised to hear the news? I wasn't.

There are 2 different issues when it comes to raining or being wet IIRC. One is Curatolo's testimony. The one that prosecutor Crini points out. Raining on October 31st and not on November 1st. So Curatolo was not mistaken about it being the night of the murder.

The other argument is it being wet (not raining) outside when it comes to the fake burglary. No signs of mud on the wall or grass or whatever.

I don't necessarily think mud/grass would have been left on the outside wall ... after he climbed the grate, stepped on that lip, then the nail , the only thing that would touch the wall as he hoisted himself to the sill would be the tips of his toes dragging behind him.

 

[Katody]

No, no, no......there would have been (diluted) bloody spatter and "diluted traces" in many more places. Also drip, drip, drip some diluted bloody stains from his pants leg.

Also let's not forget bloody shoeprints and some blood drippings from his hands and as he was going to the bathroom.

I don't think his shoes were bloody when he walked to the bathroom. It's not obvious his hands would drip blood either.

 

[SMK]

I don't think his shoes were bloody when he walked to the bathroom. It's not obvious his hands would drip blood either.

Maybe the blood-soaked towels were so that he would not drip much outside the bedroom.