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

[Tugela]

Why would Guede take part in this. He already had enough troubles with the police. Why would Raffaele do this? If there was some argument between the girls, neither of the Italians would understand what is being said.

I don't know. It seems so far fetched, completely contrived. Just like Crini's poo story.

I still like my own theory more.

You would be surprised. English is a common second language among educated Europeans. It is how they all communicate with each other.

 

[aa9511]

Well if you start with the assumption of guilt you can for sure arrive back at guilt

What is interesting that if you assume all 3 people did this, suddenly very improbable things absolutely need to be also inferred. One person happens to have undiagnosed mental problems, I can understand. Three such people meet by chance and murder someone, well I'm starting to look around for something more plausible.
No traces of 2 people of that 3 at all? No problem, we just postulate a super ultra clean up. Etc. etc.

No, actually I made it very clear that after looking at the evidence as a whole, if someone arrives at the conclusion that they are guilty, then that means that all 3 were involved - Rudy, Amanda, and RS. I made that very clear.

I did not say, "assume all 3 people did this," as you suggest that I did. I said the above, that if after looking at the evidence and determining, from the evidence, that they are guilty........

I see you always assume that only you have a logical mind that has taken into account all the evidence. And the rest, or rather, ahem, the "guilty" side, just goes based on assumption for everything.

 

[aa9511]

I don't think they did.

That's a problem.



But I know this things. I know Meredith wasn't home, I know he was on the toilet, I know he went to the bathroom after the stabbing. It is visible in the evidence. The evidence tells the story.


Why not just choose one version of the above that common sense tells you is the best and tell it properly and believably?

Why is there need for maybes when you are in full control of the story (in the sense that it doesn't overlap with any data points from the physical evidence).

And that's another problem. I'd love to see the picture you and others draw to actually include the evidence, the points of data, those contested and those agreed on, the times, the traces, everything or at least something.

Ummm...excuse me, knock knock, how do you know he was on the toilet when Meredith came home?

I suppose the knowing he was already there is from that grainy video where you cannot tell for sure whether it's Rudy or not Rudy.

You don't know that he went to the bathroom after the stabbing.

Boy, talk about assumptions! Yes, if I know a lot of things like you know them, I can also come up with second-by-second account as if I was actually there in the house with them.

 

[MichaelSmith]

So what did the innocence side think before Hendry came out? What did they think before lone-wolf, I mean?

Yes, anything and anyone can seem convincing without any side to debate it. I would love for someone to break this Hendry thing down piece-by-piece, point-by-point, pointing out the logic or illogic of it....and then let's see how his theory actually stands up. After that book comes out, then I will read Hendry and right afterwards this other book. One right after the other.

Do you think people only started to believe Rudy did it on his own because of Hendry and the so called "lone wolf theory" is something he came up with? Candace Dempsey had a popular blog about the case within weeks of the murder and realized something was very wrong with the prosecutions case and the students were probably innocent. So did it a lot of others. Hendry is responsible for giving a detailed expert crime scene reconstruction which no one else had done, but that's got nothing to do with people believing Guede is the sole killer.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Yes Michael says he arrived the first time at 7:51. So does that mean he left and came back without the camera catching him?

The camera caught him returning the second time 20-30minutes later. That video was on youtube for years but not the first arrival at 7.51pm which is the one he writes about in his diary saying when he crossed the street there was a parked car outside the cottage....like in the video. That's why I think can we can say it's definitely him because only he could have known about that parked car with lights off.

 

[aa9511]

Do you think people only started to believe Rudy did it on his own because of Hendry and the so called "lone wolf theory" is something he came up with? Candace Dempsey had a popular blog about the case within weeks of the murder and realized something was very wrong with the prosecutions case and the students were probably innocent. So did it a lot of others. Hendry is responsible for giving a detailed expert crime scene reconstruction which no one else had done, but that's got nothing to do with people believing Guede is the sole killer.

Where is the critique of Hendry's so-called "expert" crime scene reconstruction? Give me the critique of each of his points, give me the other side to his reasonings, and then I'll see. Anyone can make anything seem convincing with nothing to counter it.

 

[MichaelSmith]

Where is the critique of Hendry's so-called "expert" crime scene reconstruction? Give me the critique of each of his points, give me the other side to his reasonings, and then I'll see. Anyone can make anything seem convincing with nothing to counter it.

I haven't seen or read anyone critique his reconstruction point by point. Do you think he is the reason people believe in the "lone wolf theory" and he's the one who came up with it?

 

[redheadedgal]

gosh-- 10+ pages? i'll never catch up. STOP POSTING PEOPLE!! lease: lol

thank you SO much for the very kind words. much appreciated! :loveyou:

 

[redheadedgal]

"sack of ****"....that was when Raffaele changed his story during interrogations, do you mean where on the forum where we discussed it?

Yes, I admit that makes little sense.....however, I DO think many things gets "lost in translation." I have seen this for myself, even when everything is in English. For example, the last trial I watched there was no live feed, everything was coming through tweets. Naturally, many things were not understoody fully, or even misunderstood, because the tweets cannot fully represent what is being said and the context of it. I would often times be confused by the tweets coming out, and then sometimes there would be some video (very rarely) to back up, so then I could go back and watch the video, and the defendant's whole testimony was live-streamed, thank goodness.

Now, I know that was not regarding a tweet, that was a tranlation, but I do think that given it's being translated into a different languages, there are going to be some things "lost in translation." Certain phrases and things which we don't get. Also the context.

good point about the translation issue. but amanda is fluent in italian. wouldn't she have tried to make it make sense (what the meaning is) if possible?

yeah, i was looking for where someone mentioned the fact that raff said that about his earlier statement... i thought it was in THIS thread but i searched this one and the last one... nada.

the reason i was looking is b/c i'm re-reading dempsey... she (p. 199) claims raff never said that, but instead police had said to him, "don't give us ****", and somehow the phrase was attributed to raff. but i also thought raff mentioned in his book, so i'm confused... is there a transcript of this exchange available anywhere? or does anyone have raff's book for comparison? thanks.

 

[Tugela]

Oh, so did he murder someone else in between the time that he murdered Meredith and the time when he was caught.

Oh wow, some authorities definately need to be made aware of this....wow.

It is only possible to cut yourself when murdering someone? I did not know this. All those shaving nicks must mean a long stream of bodies in my wake!

 

[SMK]

SMK, you are very deep today

:blushing:
:giggle:

 

[SMK]

I haven't seen or read anyone critique his reconstruction point by point. Do you think he is the reason people believe in the "lone wolf theory" and he's the one who came up with it?

No, I just believe that Hendry was very brilliant in his analysis: It certainly made the theory "come alive" for me, and I did note that after he published it (and I was so impressed with it that I did press releases for him) that many, many people became convinced of it. It was a major turning-point in the narrative, for certain......

 

[Amber29]

good point about the translation issue. but amanda is fluent in italian. wouldn't she have tried to make it make sense (what the meaning is) if possible?

yeah, i was looking for where someone mentioned the fact that raff said that about his earlier statement... i thought it was in THIS thread but i searched this one and the last one... nada.

the reason i was looking is b/c i'm re-reading dempsey... she (p. 199) claims raff never said that, but instead police had said to him, "don't give us ****", and somehow the phrase was attributed to raff. but i also thought raff mentioned in his book, so i'm confused... is there a transcript of this exchange available anywhere? or does anyone have raff's book for comparison? thanks.

Are we talking about the "load of rubbish" ? IIRC RS mentions this in his prison diary and explains why he said it.

 

[Harmony 2]

Ummm...excuse me, knock knock, how do you know he was on the toilet when Meredith came home?

I suppose the knowing he was already there is from that grainy video where you cannot tell for sure whether it's Rudy or not Rudy.

You don't know that he went to the bathroom after the stabbing.

Boy, talk about assumptions! Yes, if I know a lot of things like you know them, I can also come up with second-by-second account as if I was actually there in the house with them.

The bloody footprints, from his shoes, went from Meredith's room to the front door so that negates going to Laura's and Filomena's bathroom on the other side of the house after the killing unless he took his shoes off and walked there in his socks.

 

[aa9511]

good point about the translation issue. but amanda is fluent in italian. wouldn't she have tried to make it make sense (what the meaning is) if possible?

yeah, i was looking for where someone mentioned the fact that raff said that about his earlier statement... i thought it was in THIS thread but i searched this one and the last one... nada.

the reason i was looking is b/c i'm re-reading dempsey... she (p. 199) claims raff never said that, but instead police had said to him, "don't give us ****", and somehow the phrase was attributed to raff. but i also thought raff mentioned in his book, so i'm confused... is there a transcript of this exchange available anywhere? or does anyone have raff's book for comparison? thanks.

Hope you're doing ok RedHead....tough time for you

I haven't read Raff's book and don't have it, either. I also can't remember where we talked about it, I can't even keep our conversations on here straight from day to day so.......

sorry, not much help, I'm sure someone else has a better answer.....

 

[aa9511]

It is only possible to cut yourself when murdering someone? I did not know this. All those shaving nicks must mean a long stream of bodies in my wake!

Yes, I assumed exactly this....that someone would try to make me believe that a huge gash on the finger days after murdering someone by stabbing them with a knife is................of course, just from shaving or cutting meat Why, what a complete fool I am for trying to connect the two!

I still do not understand why are the supporters of her innocence denying Rudy's cut finger?

Is the theory now that some other guy besides Rudy murdered Meredith?

 

[aa9511]

The bloody footprints, from his shoes, went from Meredith's room to the front door so that negates going to Laura's and Filomena's bathroom on the other side of the house after the killing unless he took his shoes off and walked there in his socks.

Ok. But Katody said she knew he went to the bathroom after the murder. That's why I'm assuming she meant the small bathroom, Meredith and Amanda's bathroom. To deposit the few blood drops that were found in there. That was what Amber and Katody were debating for a while the past few days - Rudy going to the small bathroom after the murder, and how the evidence in the small bathroom got there.

Yes, the bloody footprints do go out the front door from Meredith's room. There are no Rudy bloody footprints going to the small bathroom, then back to Meredith's room and then out the front door. Or going to the small bathroom first, and then out the front door.

 

[Harmony 2]

Ummm...excuse me, knock knock, how do you know he was on the toilet when Meredith came home?

I suppose the knowing he was already there is from that grainy video where you cannot tell for sure whether it's Rudy or not Rudy.

You don't know that he went to the bathroom after the stabbing.

Boy, talk about assumptions! Yes, if I know a lot of things like you know them, I can also come up with second-by-second account as if I was actually there in the house with them.

Ok. But Katody said she knew he went to the bathroom after the murder. That's why I'm assuming she meant the small bathroom, Meredith and Amanda's bathroom. To deposit the few blood drops that were found in there. That was what Amber and Katody were debating for a while the past few days - Rudy going to the small bathroom after the murder, and how the evidence in the small bathroom got there.

Yes, the bloody footprints do go out the front door from Meredith's room. There are no Rudy bloody footprints going to the small bathroom, then back to Meredith's room and then out the front door. Or going to the small bathroom first, and then out the front door.

Sorry aa I was confused by the post... mea culpa :scared:

 

[Amber29]

Ok. But Katody said she knew he went to the bathroom after the murder. That's why I'm assuming she meant the small bathroom, Meredith and Amanda's bathroom. To deposit the few blood drops that were found in there. That was what Amber and Katody were debating for a while the past few days - Rudy going to the small bathroom after the murder, and how the evidence in the small bathroom got there.

Yes, the bloody footprints do go out the front door from Meredith's room. There are no Rudy bloody footprints going to the small bathroom, then back to Meredith's room and then out the front door. Or going to the small bathroom first, and then out the front door.

Or facing Meredith's door while locking it. For some reason he would've gone back (leaving no evidence)to lock her door.

 

[quesarita]

Does anyone know if Meredith (or Amanda) habitually kept their towels in their bedroom or in the bathroom?

There was a largish smear of Meredith's blood on the door jamb and on the light switch (larger than the drops on the fixtures), as if someone (Rudy) walked in with blood on his hand, maybe took of his shoe to rinse his pant leg as someone said, leaving a footprint on the bathmat, then grabbed the towels and went back into Meredith's room.

It was after he was in the small bathroom that he took the phones, money and key, and stepped in blood with his left shoe leaving the prints on the pillowcase, and then left the room leaving the bloody shoeprints int he hall.

The part I couldn't reconcile was locking the door, as has been pointed out many times, but I just tried it and it's not only easy, it's almost natural:
I stand in the bedroom with the door open to my right, insert the key, then step with my left foot over the threshhold into the hallway, pull the door shut behind me withdrawing the key, and keep walking. It's much more fluid than pulling the door shut first, facing it and then locking it, especially if you're not sure which key to use - you put the key in while the door is still open.