WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #8

[dgfred]

Constantly ignoring the fact that so many others have fallen into the same trap as Amanda gets very boring fast. The "I just can't believe a young, intelligent girl would do that" is not a valid form of argument, especially in the face of ample anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

Yeah- her, RS and RG sure did 'fall into a trap'. :crazy:
All it took for AK was to tell her RS was no longer providing an alibi for her.
All it took for RS to start spouting and lying was telling him they knew AK was at the crime scene. What a trap.

IMO the 'I just can't believe a young, intelligent girl would do that' is EXACTLY what brought the pro-innocent side to the case... that and getting some exposure and monetary gain. Surely it is not looking over the facts in evidence or the several judge reports. Isn't that what PR firms do?

 

[Malkmus]

Uh no... he could have, and would have broken the door open if he wanted to. Their excuses for not doing it and their behavior afterwards while the police were there makes it plausible that they were not being 100% honest.

And you know this how? From all the doors you've broken down? And how does one intentionally break down a door partially? There's no way to know if a couple kicks would just splinter it or knock it completely open.

I'm not trying to rationalize it... and don't think it is indicative of guilt-those are your words and what you 'think' I think. I just know that a healthy experienced karate studying guy could have done it, and don't believe it when they/you say he couldn't. IMO it is not even relevant to the case now... I was just answering some statements by SMK and m.

You don't think it's indicative of guilt, but you think it's dishonest. Okay, Fred...

I've seen no failure by the Italian courts to find them guilty. The failure I've seen is TRYING to explain away the evidence against them and the distorting statements they have made. Not to mention the problem with debating in good faith with those that use these 'tries' over and over. Your 'razor' doesn't apply to every situation and not every case as you well know. It may seem the easiest explanation for their actions and behavior, but that is only because it 'suits' your own points of view.

Fred, what is the scenario you believe happened that night which led to the murder of Meredith Kercher? Is it Mignini's theory of a "rite performed on the eve of All Saint's day?" or is it the one where Amanda and Raf get turned on by seeing someone else try to rape her roommate?

 

[Malkmus]

Yeah- her, RS and RG sure did 'fall into a trap'. :crazy:
All it took for AK was to tell her RS was no longer providing an alibi for her.
All it took for RS to start spouting and lying was telling him they knew AK was at the crime scene. What a trap.

IMO the 'I just can't believe a young, intelligent girl would do that' is EXACTLY what brought the pro-innocent side to the case... that and getting some exposure and monetary gain. Surely it is not looking over the facts in evidence or the several judge reports. Isn't that what PR firms do?

Actually, that's the big difference between the two sides. The only people who have said "I just can't believe a young, intelligent girl would do that" are those on this thread who don't believe she was coerced by police. You can say all you want that those arguing their innocence are the ones making that claim, but it just isn't so.

BTW, I'd be careful with the "pro" this or that labeling. Someone had a small meltdown over that just a couple days ago.

 

[dgfred]

And you know this how? From all the doors you've broken down? And how does one partially break down a door? There's no way to know if a couple kicks would just splinter it or knock it completely open.

You don't think it's indicative of guilt, but you think it's dishonest. Okay, Fred...

Fred, what is the scenario you believe happened that night which led to the murder of Meredith Kercher? Is it Mignini's theory of a "rite performed on the eve of All Saint's day?" or is it the one where Amanda and Raf get turned on by seeing someone else try to rape her roommate?

If it is partially broken, why could they not continue if they were soooo concerned? Why didn't Luca have trouble completing the job? Are you skimming around an honest answer to that?

That one piece of the puzzle is not indicative of guilt, but with all the other evidence against them it is another 'piece'. Being dishonest is not necessarily being guilty... but in this case it turned out to be so.

My scenario is a sort of prank involving scaring and humiliating Meredith. Since any of the proposed 'scenarios' is possible (whatever you think), how will we know for sure unless one of the 3 tell all?

 

[ziggy]

Uh no... he could have, and would have broken the door open if he wanted to. Their excuses for not doing it and their behavior afterwards while the police were there makes it plausible that they were not being 100% honest.

I'm not trying to rationalize it... and don't think it is indicative of guilt-those are your words and what you 'think' I think. I just know that a healthy experienced karate studying guy could have done it, and don't believe it when they/you say he couldn't. IMO it is not even relevant to the case now... I was just answering some statements by SMK and m.

I've seen no failure by the Italian courts to find them guilty. The failure I've seen is TRYING to explain away the evidence against them and the distorting statements they have made. Not to mention the problem with debating in good faith with those that use these 'tries' over and over. Your 'razor' doesn't apply to every situation and not every case as you well know. It may seem the easiest explanation for their actions and behavior, but that is only because it 'suits' your own points of view.

What type of Karate or matrial arts did he study? What was the training like? I've done martial arts and in a studio or school where there were mixed styles. Some would only do forms, light sparring and test technique to issue a belt. It always seemed to me it was more about keeping the student in there to make money than actually making sure they were a black belt. Those black belts got their little white uniformed as..es handed to them by the ju jitsu or kung fu guys in sparring. Others, like mine, did not really have belts, but made sure you could fight - however door and board breaking was never part of the training - weapons yes, doors no. I find it hard to believe that a slight built young man should be expected to break down a door because he took a Karate class that awarded him a black belt. I would definitely need more details on his actual training.

 

[dgfred]

Well, IMO common sense tells me that if one can 'crack' a door and it is partially 'broken'... a couple more kicks would have completed the job. Karate or no karate.

 

[Malkmus]

If it is partially broken, why could they not continue if they were soooo concerned? Why didn't Luca have trouble completing the job? Are you skimming around an honest answer to that?

I guess it hasn't occurred to you that Luca was able to break it down because the job was half done. And how do you know it was "easy" for him? What is the difference in body mass and strength between Luca and Raf? Without knowing these things you can't fairly make blind assumptions on the the door being broken down.

That one piece of the puzzle is not indicative of guilt, but with all the other evidence against them it is another 'piece'. Being dishonest is not necessarily being guilty... but in this case it turned out to be so.

My scenario is a sort of prank involving scaring and humiliating Meredith. Since any of the proposed 'scenarios' is possible (whatever you think), how will we know for sure unless one of the 3 tell all?

So you disagree with the court then. You have something in common with those of us who believe in their innocence then.
Saying it was "a sort of prank" is easier than writing out a detailed scenario of what happened as we have done for the lone wolf theory. Why is that? I have a feeling it's because you know it's too ridiculous to write out and will conflict too much with Massei's version.

 

[Malkmus]

Well, IMO common sense tells me that if one can 'crack' a door and it is partially 'broken'... a couple more kicks would have completed the job. Karate or no karate.

For all you know, Raf was only able to create a crack in the frame of the door, but not unhinge the lock. That Luca was able to unhinge it, speaks nothing of how much effort Raf put into it. And again, Raf would have no way of knowing whether trying to open it himself would just splinter it or completely open it.

 

[dgfred]

Whatever, these post verify my statement about good faith debating and the difficulty in debating with people using these pitiful excuses to explain away evidence and behavior.

 

[Malkmus]

Whatever, these post verify my statement about good faith debating and the difficulty in debating with people using these pitiful excuses to explain away evidence and behavior.

Classic.

 

[Nova]

Guess I haven't been following closely enough as I don't see where the Rudy going back out the window scenario became something to consider. It's my opinion that after he cleaned up he ran for the front door, realized he needed the key to unlock it, rushed back in the room to get it - tracking blood on his shoe - and then unlocked the front door, leaving it open as Amanda saw it the next morning.

You're right. The fact is we don't know for sure when RG realized he couldn't get out without a key. But for those who insist that the break-in must be staged because the computers weren't disturbed (except for Filomena's which was merely knocked over), one possible answer is that RG entered and immediately staked out an exit route (I know I would). If he found the front door locked before he tossed Filomena's room, that would influence his choice of objects to steal.

But I take it you are saying my scenario doesn't explain the bloody footprints as well as a scenario in which RG doesn't discover the locked door until after MK was dead. Point taken.

 

[Nova]

Thanks. I understand your opinion. I do realize many people do not consider the alibi problems, witnesses, bra clasp, knife, luminol footprints, bathmat footprint, mixed DNA findings, staged crime scene (did I forget anything?) as solid evidence. I wonder if it is because they take an imaginary situation in the murder room as a starting point? Personally, I start with the evidence and see where that takes me. I find any murder unbelievable and this is certainly an unbelievable murder no matter who you think did it. The innocent sites try to make RG the obvious murderer but I don't see that. That Hendry guy even turns him into a necrophiliac which is just plain disgusting IMO. Luckily AK's carefree attitude did leave plenty of evidence. She made some huge mistakes. She should have removed the Q-Tip box for example, and even the bathmat (although that is easy to say now we know her bf's bloody footprint is on it).

When I started gathering info on this case I tried all kinds of scenarios to at least 'declare' one of them innocent. I tried RG on the toilet and I tried AK in the kitchen or even RS falling asleep behind his computer. But after making up several excuses I started asking myself why I needed to makeup more and more excuses. I reached a point where it is no use to continue making up excuses. You pretty much resort to declaring all of the police, investigators, scientists, prosecutors, judges, even interpreters corrupt or incompetent. That isn't realistic. All JMO

Two points: I don't think those of us who question the verdicts "start" (as you put it) with imaginary scenarios. But we know from their own remarks that ILE did: they assumed guilt based on AK's post-murder hip wiggle, invented the sex crime gone wrong scenario and pretty much neglected to look at any evidence that might contradict it.

In contrast, I think posters here (both pro- and anti-verdict) are merely trying to explain the leaps that are required to explain the evidence. Those "leaps" appear whether one thinks AK and RS are guilty or innocent.

Secondly, I don't think anyone can with a straight face underestimate the incompetence demonstrated by ILE on this case. But on the whole, I don't think it's a matter of ILE sitting down in a room and discussing how to frame Amanda Knox. I think it's more a case of tunnel vision.

 

[Nova]

I believe this was discussed before and it won't surprise you that my opinion is quite the opposite RG is claiming to be innocent. Accusing his partners in crime would not help him with that. With that he would pressure them and they could very well accuse him instead. That wouldn't help him so he blames the 'Italian stranger'.

Now had AK+RS not been with him it would have been very easy to accuse them. They were already arrested. He could simply change his toilet story a bit and claim that the police already had the right people. What could AK+RS say in defense? They don't even remember what they were doing. They could not say anything that could hurt RG so there is no reason for him not to accuse them if they were indeed not in the cottage with him. All JMO.

That's all very clear now, but I doubt it was so clear to RG when he was first apprehended. Blaming an unknown stranger is always safer than blaming a live person one barely knows, because the latter may turn out to have an alibi. AK can attest to this.

BUT had the three defendants actually committed the murder together, RG could have blamed them without fear, because he would have known they had no alibis for the time of the crime.

 

[SMK]

Whatever, these post verify my statement about good faith debating and the difficulty in debating with people using these pitiful excuses to explain away evidence and behavior.

Not explaining away evidence and behavior; we are saying it is inconclusive, and suspect, along with bizarre sections of Massei Report. One has a right to question... this is not bad faith IMO.

Bad faith would be pretending to be convinced of guilt when one is not. Who is Amanda Knox to me, that I should care what happens to her? I care about justice. I never met Amanda. I am not invested in her. But I am invested in the truth, in matters that I take not of.

 

[Nova]

Garofano told The Sun last night: "The scene was deliberately made to look like a rape after Meredith was killed.

"Her bra was found ripped off, but when the blood spray from her slashed throat was analysed, it showed it sprayed in a very neat V shape across her cleavage.

"It was not on the whole of her breasts, as it would have been if she was naked."http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/3243013/Italian-DNA-expert-gives-his-verdict-on-the-murder-of-Meredith-Kercher.html

Question: Why did Rudy immediately admit to "having consensual sex" with Meredith, as though it really were a crime of rape he was trying to explain away???

That was really generous of RG to leave his skin cells in MK's vagina to help "stage" a rape. I know he isn't the brightest bulb on the string, but that really was strikingly stupid by any measure.

To me, the fact that a glass of water remained undisturbed by MK's bedside only makes it more unlikely that four people were struggling in that small room.

 

[SMK]

That was really generous of RG to leave his skin cells in MK's vagina to help "stage" a rape. I know he isn't the brightest bulb on the string, but that really was strikingly stupid by any measure.

To me, the fact that a glass of water remained undisturbed by MK's bedside only makes it more unlikely that four people were struggling in that small room.

could not agree with you more!---and an envelope, undisturbed......how could 4 people be in a life or death struggle without disturbing these things---Rudy dominating Meredith alone, and her maybe hoping for the best (that he would not be so vile as to kill her), that I can envision...

 

[minazoe]

has anyone actually seen this door? How do we know that this isn't a 300 pound Iitalian mohagany ( is there Italian mahogany?) door with brass fittings and a lock that would keep out the SS?

and again...so what if her bra came off after she was dead? you can't beleive that Rudi would then tinker with her corpse for sexual gratification after?

you know I don't want to be too graphic here, but defacation is also not an uncommon event in a robbery.... which is also an event that we see with Rudi there in the house.

there is no proof to convict these two... guilty or not...ultimatley no case has been made.

even Amanda's blood droplets can be explained...she probably ran from her bathroom to MK's room to steal/borrow a tampon.

she lived there.

how you create bloddy noses where this girl has not a single mark on her face is beyond me.

 

[SMK]

has anyone actually seen this door? How do we know that this isn't a 300 pound Iitalian mohagany ( is there Italian mahogany?) door with brass fittings and a lock that would keep out the SS?

and again...so what if her bra came off after she was dead? you can't beleive that Rudi would then tinker with her corpse for sexual gratification after?

you know I don't want to be too graphic here, but defacation is also not an uncommon event in a robbery.... which is also an event that we see with Rudi there in the house.

there is no proof to convict these two... guilty or not...ultimatley no case has been made.

even Amanda's blood droplets can be explained...she probably ran from her bathroom to MK's room to steal/borrow a tampon.

she lived there.

how you create bloddy noses where this girl has not a single mark on her face is beyond me.

Agreed!!! very good points, and it was the 3 on 1 scenario which came first, and then ALL facts were interpreted in light of this scenario. Should have been the reverse: examine facts, see where they tend...

 

[SMK]

Also , if, as was argued in the Sun piece, Meredith defended herself against Amanda with karate moves (which well she would, if attacked by her), why did Amanda not display any bruising?

 

[Nova]

I think Amanda had been asked to envision something with Patrick, so I see the police as behind this. As for the RS idea he wrote to his family that he "accidentally pricked Meredith"-YES that is very, very bothersome. That kind of talk indicates either some kind of guilt, or the Asperger autism theory of mind...

No, it doesn't. It's precisely the sort of lie one tells when an interrogators says, "We have undeniable scientific proof that Meredith's blood is on your kitchen knife. But if you can just explain that one problem, we can clear you and move on."

This is a common interrogation technique and it produced a common sort of lie.

(Remember that from RS' point of view at that moment, he didn't kill MK so it was only a little white lie.)