Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#11

[aa9511]

I guess in the end my theory is neither here nor there:

In any case, the prosecution has her in a much worse position than I have placed her, no matter how "diabolical" I have made her: the prosecution has her wielding the knife which killed Kercher, conducting a clean up, and a simulation, stealing. In their scenario, Guede is at her beck and almost a bit player. I would say their's is the diabolical Amanda, and not mine.

As far as the neuro-linguistic analysis being "poppycock": It at least absolved her of murder and clean up. As things stand, she may be convicted of murder, theft, simulation, carrying a knife, sexual assault.

Also, in your theory, she never "planned" for Rudy to kill Meredith. So I don't understand either why it was suggested that your theory made her out to look more "diabolical."

 

[Harmony 2]

That is interesting, but why wouldn't she just use her own lamp? Or why wouldn't she just take the quick photo or two in Amanda's room where the lamp was already plugged in? That way she wouldn't have to unplug it, take it to her room, then plug it back in just to take a couple of pics?

Also, it seems to me like Meredith was not really the type to go around borrowing other people's things. I'm not trying to make it sound like people who do are not doing the right thing - that's not it at all, it's just that my situation gives me more of an understanding of people like that. Because my sister is the type to never borrow someone's thing, no matter how small, without asking them first, and well, I am not that way. I will go around borrowing her everything, and it drives her crazy. Whereas she won't even borrow a hairband of mine without asking me first. Meredith seems to me to be more like my sister. I don't know if she would even go into Amanda's room without her being there or asking her permission.

I also have to add, beautiful girl.

None of us knew Amanda or Meredith, but if we make up suppositions of their character then it seems to me that Amanda would be the carefree type to say "hey feel free to borrow or use my stuff." My daughter is in college and has roommates and they borrow stuff from each other, all the time, if it is not something that has to be purchased when gone like makeup, food, toiletries, etc. or that might get ruined in the process like clothes. Other household items like lamps, microwave, refrigerator, hair dryer, routers, etc. are shared.

 

[SMK]

Also, in your theory, she never "planned" for Rudy to kill Meredith. So I don't understand either why it was suggested that your theory made her out to look more "diabolical."

Thanks, because neither do I

 

[aa9511]

Sorry, Katody - everything I have told you in my theory is a sack of s**t; but I was trying to absolve Amanda, and didn't think of the inconsistencies. :laugh:

No, no, no, SMK! Come on, now. Don't you know, the rules are you have to answer each and every question asked of you. Come on....get it straight! Drink up some of that coffee....don't go breaking all the rules now

 

[aa9511]

None of us knew Amanda or Meredith, but if we make up suppositions of their character then it seems to me that Amanda would be the carefree type to say "hey feel free to borrow or use my stuff." My daughter is in college and has roommates and they borrow stuff from each other, all the time, if it is not something that has to be purchased when gone like makeup, food, toiletries, etc. or that might get ruined in the process like clothes. Other household items like lamps, microwave, refrigerator, hair dryer, routers, etc. are shared.

Yes, I agree, and most people are like that, that's why we assume it's no big deal to go and borrow a lamp. I was just pointing out the minority viewpoint - that there is a certain minority of people who do not do that, even for minor things. Even in shared spaces like dorms, etc.. Where if they have no urgent need for something, they don't want to borrow it and invade another person's private/personal space. People like my sister are in the minority, that's why I thought I would share coming from my viewpoint of knowing someone like that.

Also is the question of why would she go into Amanda's room, unplug her lamp, bring it in her room, plug it back in.....when she could have just taken a picture by her own lamp, or just picked up her own lamp off the table and set it on the floor to take pictures.

 

[Amber29]

Regarding the lamp, I read this theory elsewhere ( can't recall where) but I thought it was plausible. I recall reading that Meredith and her friends were looking at photos that night before she left to the cottage. The night before Meredith had dressed up for Halloween and perhaps she borrowed the lamp to use in photographing herself in costume before leaving to go out on the town. The lighting direction can convey moods in photos and lighting from below would add drama and an eerie feel to a photo. This video shows the effects lighting creates:

http://video.about.com/desktopvideo/Lighting--Effect-of-Direction.htm

Here is a photo of Meredith at a Halloween party:

link

Could be but do we even know if that picture was taken at the cottage or was it taken at a friends house? It would still leave me questioning why she would borrow the lamp being as she had an overhead light and a lamp of her own.

 

[SMK]

Could be but do we even know if that picture was taken at the cottage or was it taken at a friends house? It would still leave me questioning why she would borrow the lamp being as she had an overhead light and a lamp of her own.

Yes, I also wonder if the pic was taken at the cottage. Is that a drinking glass or a candle behind her? And I think if MK had borrowed AK's lamp (even though she had her own) she would have put it right back as soon as she was done. Not left it on the floor of her room.

 

[Amber29]

Yes, I also wonder if the pic was taken at the cottage. Is that a drinking glass or a candle behind her? And I think if MK had borrowed AK's lamp (even though she had her own) she would have put it right back as soon as she was done. Not left in on the floor of her room.

I think the Halloween pics were most likely not taken in Meredith's room, I don't see a place in her room that shows these things in back. It makes sense they were taken by an English friend as the next day they were together at her apartment looking at Halloween pics on the computer.

And again behind the door..that's what is most odd about the lamp IMO
It's just odd placement for any normal use.

 

[SMK]

I don't really feel like even discussing this, since I know I will be just asking for a weeks-long quiz regarding footprints...........................................

I guess so.......:doh:

 

[Katody]

I don't really feel like even discussing this, since I know I will be just asking for a weeks-long quiz regarding footprints...........................................

I agree it is hard to make sense of the footprint and clean up "evidence". :facepalm: I'd say it's impossible to get a straight and sensible story of anyone who wants to believe there was a clean up, the prosecution never attempted providing one. The online commenters that did try soon realize why the prosecution didn't. JMO :seeya:

 

[MichaelSmith]

Funny how Amanda taking it in there is not even on your list of theories about what happened to Amanda's lamp.

You don't want to believe Amanda's lying, yet you are more than willing to believe that a cop is lying, when the prior would have much more incentive to lie in a guilty scenario.

The other person who's in your theory, Meredith, is dead and so we will never have any answer from her.

Guede is not talking, so we will never have any answer from him.

So that is 2/3 that cannot say anything, therefore you're left with the one which I think you want to believe did it, the cop. Funny how that works out in your favor.

Well Michele Battistelli is a liar imo so it's possible he or one of the other first responders took the lamp in there to get a look. I lean towards Meredith borrowing it.

 

[Amber29]

I agree it is hard to make sense of the footprint and clean up "evidence". :facepalm: I'd say it's impossible to get a straight and sensible story of anyone who wants to believe there was a clean up, the prosecution never attempted providing one. The online commenters that did try soon realize why the prosecution didn't. JMO :seeya:

I don't think it's hard to make sense of at all. Not wanting to play 50 questions is the point. Just because questions are asked does not mean our minds have been swayed. Just as questions have been asked of you, I'm still unconvinced RG cleaned up in that bathroom. The answer to the bidet blood being a random drop makes zero sense considering the blood around the drain in diluted with water IMO.

Simple answer SMK yes I believe the "clean up" was done barefoot. Why not?
Why do you suppose AK told the bathmat boogie story, or do you believe she actually did that?

 

[SMK]

I don't think it's hard to make sense of at all. Not wanting to play 50 questions is the point. Just because questions are asked does not mean our minds have been swayed. Just as questions have been asked of you, I'm still unconvinced RG cleaned up in that bathroom. The answer to the bidet blood being a random drop makes zero sense considering the blood around the drain in diluted with water IMO.

Simple answer SMK yes I believe the "clean up" was done barefoot. Why not?
Why do you suppose AK told the bathmat boogie story, or do you believe she actually did that?

OK, I was just trying to picture why in barefeet; the logistics of it. Yes, I understand the logic behind the bathmat story: She was likely trying to cover her bases on that one.

 

[Katody]

-Clothes everywhere, the things on her bed, some kind of blue bags on her bed, papers lying on floor, brown/beige plaid bag in the middle of the room (do you honestly think she would have left that there right in the middle of the room?), bag and stuff underneath the window, slippers strewn about, boots on floor knocked down and thrown about, clothes obviously next to and around the wardrobe, clothes under the window, clothes thrown on bed, I believe there is another purse in their somewhere seemingly thrown somewhere on the floor.....also I think there is a water bottle thrown on the floor somewhere in there....

Clothes and things on the bed are Filomena's deed. Also, she has a habit of storing things on the floor. It's clear in her testimony - she kept her laptop on the floor, and also the branded handbags that can be seen. So yes, it's conceivable to me the bag that is on the floor had been left there by Filomena.

In her testimony she lists and repeats the elements of the 'chaos' in the room:
The pile of stuff under the wardrobe, the computer that was overturned and covered with glass, glass on the floor next to the pile of clothes. She never says there was glass on top of the clothes that fell of the shelf.

I am not sure of the things on the white table, I just don't know....the things on the nightstand definately seem moved around like someone ruffled it up, I do not know about the white table b/c in the photos it doesn't show the entire table.....

I attached a detailed photo of the table and the nightstand. Chaotic, isn't it? Staged? I don't think so. Look, there's even the bottle that you mistakenly remembered as lying on the floor. Tricks of the mind...

The trash can is overflowing in the photo. I guess the stagers wanted to make Filomena look messy...:floorlaugh:

Would you argue the stagers placed all the stuff on the tables to make it look messy? What about the bag full of clothes on the floor? Where does it come from? Where were the shoes initially that the stagers staged on the floor? I simply don't see any place for all this stuff anywhere. I know however that Filomena kept things on the floor.

-No, I was saying why would I ask you about "rummaging" if I didn't believe there was any rummaging in the room other than the "disputable" clothes? Because you said that I "guess we agree that there was no other rummaging besides the disputable clothes" or something along those lines. So I was trying to point out that I thought I had made it very clear in my past posts that I believe the room was made to look like it was rummaged-through.

I don't think there was rummaging. I think Guede while stepping into the room got caught in the hanging freely cable and tripped on some stuff that was filling the space on the floor under the window.

Who knows, maybe that unnerved him enough that he had to go to the loo quickly. Michael gave some very compelling sources about such behavior of burglars.

-I don't think the thud of a one rock would cause even an Ikea wardrobe to shake. It's not like there was particularly heavy one, or like there was a number of rocks like in an earthquake or something. Rudy grasping on it to do what? I would think it would be trying to pull himself in through the window, that is if the door of the wardrobe was even open to begin with, and that would have put force on it forward-moving, so the wardrobe would have fallen down.

I think it's possible that when the rock hit shutter, the shutter hit the open wardrobe door. There was quite a force, enough to embed pieces of glass in the solid wood after all.

Possibly Guede grabbed the open ardrobe door that was just in his hand's reach when he tripped on Filomena's handbags and shoes that were on the floor.

Actually the wardrobe has nothing to do with the window, I believe you are only putting the two together because that conveniently favors your argument.

I believe you're wrong

It would mean someone came in through the window, and also possibly account for why there would be no lights on in Filomena's room (because Rudy never actually looked through anything).

That's about right.

I don't see how it helps your argument re: glass on top of clothes, because the actions you listed which would have resulted in the clothes falling off would have happened after the glass had already fallen onto the floor.

There's no glass on the things that fell from the shelf. Just look at the photos you attached. Filomena, too, says there was glass to the right of that pile and on her computer which was already on the floor when the glass broke.

I believe the only reason you are putting the two together is because they are in relatively close proximity to each other, and it favors your argument.

In other words, the undeniable facts favor my argument. Isn't it a good thing?

Because I do not see how the wardrobe and the window, meaning the activity involved in physically breaking and entering through the window, has anything to do with the wardrobe.

Well, I explained it. I hope others do see

If the wardrobe was on the other side of the room, could you also make the argument that the, I guess, vibrations, from the rock made it tilt forward once to throw the clothes out, and then rock back to set itself back into place?

:facepalm: What can I say, if my aunt had a mustache, she would be my uncle :seeya:

 

[whoanellie]

Thanks, because neither do I

As I understand it, the latest prosecution theory is that there was an argument over poop/cleanliness/partying that led directly to Meredith's murder. A previous prosecution theory involved a "sex game" gone wrong. In my opinion neither of those theories requires that Amanda deliberately planned over an extended period of time to harm Meredith. As I understand it, your theory does require such planning on Amanda's part. In my opinion, your theory suggests a level of cunning and manipulative evil that not even the prosecutor's have dared to propose.
Just my 0.02

 

[SMK]

As I understand it, the latest prosecution theory is that there was an argument over poop/cleanliness/partying that led directly to Meredith's murder. A previous prosecution theory involved a "sex game" gone wrong. In my opinion neither of those theories requires that Amanda deliberately planned over an extended period of time to harm Meredith. As I understand it, your theory does require such planning on Amanda's part. In my opinion, your theory suggests a level of cunning and manipulative evil that not even the prosecutor's have dared to propose.
Just my 0.02

By simply giving access to the cottage to Mr. Guede , and hinting that if MK is home, "come what may" (of course murder or actual rape are not considered to be part of this at all) ?

I don't see this as nearly so diabolical as stabbing someone in the throat because they wouldn't partake in a foursome, or because they complained about an unflushed toilet.

And in my scenario, the planning was not extended: It was an impromptu type of anger thing.

In any case, the defendants are in far more trouble than they would be under my scenario: They are cold blooded executioners.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, I also wonder if the pic was taken at the cottage. Is that a drinking glass or a candle behind her? And I think if MK had borrowed AK's lamp (even though she had her own) she would have put it right back as soon as she was done. Not left it on the floor of her room.

bbm

ITA.

 

[aa9511]

I think the Halloween pics were most likely not taken in Meredith's room, I don't see a place in her room that shows these things in back. It makes sense they were taken by an English friend as the next day they were together at her apartment looking at Halloween pics on the computer.

And again behind the door..that's what is most odd about the lamp IMO
It's just odd placement for any normal use.

Not to mention, if Meredith sometimes borrowed her lamp, wouldn't Amanda have said so?

 

[aa9511]

Well Michele Battistelli is a liar imo so it's possible he or one of the other first responders took the lamp in there to get a look. I lean towards Meredith borrowing it.

Ok, so then safe to say we will never know the true answer behind the Story of the Lamp.

 

[SMK]

Ok, so then safe to say we will never know the true answer behind the Story of the Lamp.

True. But I think the police and prosecution were not being unreasonable to suspect Knox had not intentionally left it in MK's room, and that she had not wanted anyone to know that she had brought it in there, or the reason why. :scared: :wolf: