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

[Katody]

Please stop twisting my words. I have said I think some of RGs prints are missing as well, I also said I think some prints were left in the cleaning process. I have also said I believe there were prints leading to the bathmat. You force me to respond by trying to change what I have said.

I see, so you do believe they cleaned up the trail of Rafaele's prints leading through the bedroom door, carefully avoiding most of Guede's prints and the invisible luminol print that were in the way. It was not a simple mopping but a selective clean up, so meticulous it left nothing detectable at all (apart from the bathmat print of Raffaele's that they left on purpose, anticipating it will be needed to raise alarm).

I know nothing about RG making himself at home in other places.

It's interesting to read the testimony of other people who suffered his break-ins.

Ok it happened right after she arrived at 9pm and only lasted seconds, according to you. So at 9:58 and 10pm the phone was still at the cottage and someone was messing with it

Nothing of that kind. 9:58 and 10pm the phones were already with Guede away from the villa.

 

[Katody]

Why did he not commit rape/murder in those other cases? DIdn't a female worker walk in on him at the nursery/day-care? Why did he not take that as a sick opportunity to rape her as well? Then he would clearly had to stab her with his knife as well, to prevent her from reporting him.

She was not alone but with some men. A lot of misconceptions about this case seem to follow from lack of familiarity with basic evidence.

 

[aa9511]

He was on the toilet, he broke in before she returned.


I don't think so. :facepalm:

There was no way to remove the evidence of break-in. Locking Meredith's door OTOH delayed the discovery of the murder. Maybe he also tried to prevent her from getting help, seeing signs of life (there was a long agony). He took her phones, after all.


I wrote about it in previous thread. The print is not from stepping in blood but from rinsing his pants. It's diluted blood, that got on his foot in the bathroom when he cleaned up.

Maybe I wasn't precise. Meredith walked home and he attacked her in her room. I don't think she saw him until he got to her room.



I don't know what evidence there is one way or the other about checking the rooms. I have no idea where are you getting this from. I think Meredith got home soon after he broke-in. The rest I explained before. Ask if anything is unclear.

What kind of question is this? He stabbed her in the throat few times, finally making a large wound with sawing motion. How does it look to you?

Ok, so it was dark. First he had to climb the wall and get in the window in the window in the dark. Then what did he do? Did he rummage through Filomena's room first, or did he walk straight to the bathroom to do his poo? Did he find his way through the dark? He would have needed to turn the light on in bathroom - since he was comfortable enough to do a poo, I imagine he would have no qualms about turning a light on in the bathroom. Not like he seemed very afraid of anyone walking in on him. If he rummaged through Filomena's room first, that would mean the light would be on in her room. So we have two lights on - the bathroom and Filomena's room. Meredith walks in....first we are to believe she did not notice the light on in the large bathroom, even though the flat is clearly very small. Then we are also, on top of that, to believe that she would walk right past Filomena's lighted room, and not notice that the light was on. She did not expect Filomena to be home. Would not Filomena's lighted room have prompted her to see if Filomena was in the room, as in she had come back early? To talk and say hi to Filomena, ask her why she came back early? By looking in Filomena's room, she would have seen the broken window. Also, we are expected to believe that she did not notice cold draft air coming from the broken window. Or notice anything at all about Filomena's room, even though she would have walked straight towards it, and then straight in front of it. We would have to expect her to ignore/miss all of that, for her to get to the point where she is in her bedroom when Rudy comes in.

I don't understand why facepalm? The footprints at that time would have been made from him stepping in Meredith's wet blood. Are you saying that walking back around, he purposefully avoided his previous footprints? If he had not avoided them, he would have walked back the other way and stepped on some of those wet footprints and disturbed them.

IMO the phones were not taken to prevent her from calling for help. Wouldn't putting the duvet over her have signalled that he thought she was already dead or to the point where she would not be able to move/come back to life? What about the poo in the toilet? Ok, he couldn't repair the broken window obviously. What about the poo in the toilet? He coudn't take one second to flush that down and discard at least one sign that something was amiss in the cottage?

I see, diluted blood from washing his pants leg. How did this water manage to stick only to the bottom of his shoe like a magnet? How come there are not little drips of the diluted bloody water around that footprint, and around wherever he washed off his pants leg? How come there are not splashes of diluted blood from the spray when he was washing off his pants leg, or did he then clean up that whole area, the area where he washed it off??

I have hard time believing she did not see anything and walked straight to her room, I have stated some reasons above. Did Rudy walk into her room and immediately start assault, knife in hand? Or did he first walk in and see if he could "talk her into something" since she already knew him?

"What evidence there is one way or another about checking the rooms" ? Does Amanda or Laura's room look trashed like Filomena's room does? Has anyone said that there are signs that the burglar went into Amanda and Laura's room looking for stuff to steal? Has there been any evidence in this case talking about what the "burglar" did in Amanda or Laura's room? Or is the evidence in this case regarding Filomena's room and Meredith's room, and not Amanda nor Laura's?

Yes, it looks to me like someone wanted to make Meredith suffer. What was Rudy's motive - to make Meredith suffer, or to kill her off so she coudln't report him for the rape?

 

[aa9511]

She was not alone but with some men. A lot of misconceptions about this case seem to follow from lack of familiarity with basic evidence.

<modsnip>

Also, the nursery incident has nothing to do with this case, strictly speaking. He was not convicted of anything. If it was a U.S. court, I believe it would not even be allowed into evidence at the trial regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher.

So technically, it is not "basic evidence" for this case.

 

[Katody]

Ok, so it was dark. First he had to climb the wall and get in the window in the window in the dark. Then what did he do? Did he rummage through Filomena's room first, or did he walk straight to the bathroom to do his poo? Did he find his way through the dark? He would have needed to turn the light on in bathroom - since he was comfortable enough to do a poo, I imagine he would have no qualms about turning a light on in the bathroom. Not like he seemed very afraid of anyone walking in on him. If he rummaged through Filomena's room first, that would mean the light would be on in her room. So we have two lights on - the bathroom and Filomena's room. Meredith walks in....first we are to believe she did not notice the light on in the large bathroom, even though the flat is clearly very small. Then we are also, on top of that, to believe that she would walk right past Filomena's lighted room, and not notice that the light was on. She did not expect Filomena to be home. Would not Filomena's lighted room have prompted her to see if Filomena was in the room, as in she had come back early? To talk and say hi to Filomena, ask her why she came back early? By looking in Filomena's room, she would have seen the broken window. Also, we are expected to believe that she did not notice cold draft air coming from the broken window. Or notice anything at all about Filomena's room, even though she would have walked straight towards it, and then straight in front of it. We would have to expect her to ignore/miss all of that, for her to get to the point where she is in her bedroom when Rudy comes in.

I don't think you're arguing with anything I said. I don't think he rummaged through Filomena's room at all or switched the light on in it. He pulled the shutters in to cover the broken window. Meredith entered, probably called if anyone's home and went straight to her room to change.

I don't understand why facepalm? The footprints at that time would have been made from him stepping in Meredith's wet blood. Are you saying that walking back around, he purposefully avoided his previous footprints? If he had not avoided them, he would have walked back the other way and stepped on some of those wet footprints and disturbed them.

No, I don't think so. :facepalm:

IMO the phones were not taken to prevent her from calling for help. Wouldn't putting the duvet over her have signalled that he thought she was already dead or to the point where she would not be able to move/come back to life? What about the poo in the toilet? Ok, he couldn't repair the broken window obviously. What about the poo in the toilet? He coudn't take one second to flush that down and discard at least one sign that something was amiss in the cottage?

You're arguing with the facts now, not with me.

I see, diluted blood from washing his pants leg. How did this water manage to stick only to the bottom of his shoe like a magnet? How come there are not little drips of the diluted bloody water around that footprint, and around wherever he washed off his pants leg? How come there are not splashes of diluted blood from the spray when he was washing off his pants leg, or did he then clean up that whole area, the area where he washed it off??

You really need to look at the pictures of the blood evidence in the bathroom. That would clarify a lot.

I have hard time believing she did not see anything and walked straight to her room, I have stated some reasons above. Did Rudy walk into her room and immediately start assault, knife in hand? Or did he first walk in and see if he could "talk to into something" since she already knew him?

Both is possible.

What evidence is there either way about checking the other rooms? Does Amanda or Laura's room look trashed like Filomena's room does? Has anyone said that there are signs that the burglar went into Amanda and Laura's room looking for stuff to steal? Has there been any evidence in this case talking about what the "burglar" did in Amanda or Laura's room? Or is the evidence in this case regarding Filomena's room and Meredith's room, and not Amanda nor Laura's?

Filomena's room does't look trashed. There's a broken window and some clothes fell of the shelf. Everything else is in order.

Yes, it looks to me like someone wanted to make Meredith suffer. What was Rudy's motive - to make Meredith suffer, or to kill her off so she coudln't report him for the rape?

He raped her and killed her with a knife. The rape is a motive. Cutting throat with a knife is horrible but not especially unusual. By my understanding it's a way to kill, not to torture.

 

[Katody]

<modsnip>

Also, the nursery incident has nothing to do with this case, strictly speaking. He was not convicted of anything. If it was a U.S. court, I believe it would not even be allowed into evidence at the trial regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher.

So technically, it is not "basic evidence" for this case.

Phone activity, blood traces and number of stab wounds is.

 

[Amber29]

Phone activity, blood traces and number of stab wounds is.

I'm very aware of the basic evidence, I disagree with you on the phone activity and the blood traces. You aren't any more an expert than the rest of us. You just happen to believe all the defense experts and claim every prosecution expert is wrong. Period.

 

[quesarita]

<modsnip>

Also, the nursery incident has nothing to do with this case, strictly speaking. He was not convicted of anything. If it was a U.S. court, I believe it would not even be allowed into evidence at the trial regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher.

So technically, it is not "basic evidence" for this case.

Please do not take offense here, but you want to exclude from consideration an actual event that involved Rudy breaking in and stealing a knife that was reported by witnesses; and yet you include in your view of the crime any number of made-up scenarios for activities that Amanda and Raffaele COULD have done but for which there is not one shred of reporting or even hearsay testimony:
sex orgies, violent arguments, shoplifting, collaboration with Rudy, disposal of bloody clothing and cleaning rags, etc. MOO

 

[Amber29]

I see, so you do believe they cleaned up the trail of Rafaele's prints leading through the bedroom door, carefully avoiding most of Guede's prints and the invisible luminol print that were in the way. It was not a simple mopping but a selective clean up, so meticulous it left nothing detectable at all (apart from the bathmat print of Raffaele's that they left on purpose, anticipating it will be needed to raise alarm).

It's interesting to read the testimony of other people who suffered his break-ins.


Nothing of that kind. 9:58 and 10pm the phones were already with Guede away from the villa.

Again this is getting old. If you want to claim this is your belief that is fine, but please avoid trying to make it mine. This is not what I said.

I did not say carefully avoiding RGs prints, I said I think some of his prints are missing as well. You disagree that's ok.

I did not say avoiding the luminol revealed print, I said it may have been made while cleaning with traces on the foot. You disagree that's ok

I said I belief the bathroom has been cleaned because not only was there nothing on the tile near the bathmat print, there's no bloody water splashes on the tile at all or on the rims of the sink or bidet. It all looks fairly clean to me considering someone washed large amounts of blood off in there. You disagree and that's ok

I disagree with the 9:58 and 10 phone activity.

 

[SMK]

<modsnip>

Also, the nursery incident has nothing to do with this case, strictly speaking. He was not convicted of anything. If it was a U.S. court, I believe it would not even be allowed into evidence at the trial regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher.

So technically, it is not "basic evidence" for this case.

True, these incidents were not technically admissable in this case. Although there is a basic relevance.

I think one can allow for Guede's "lone wolf" activity - he was known to have broken in with a rock, brandished a knife, stolen a knife, stolen items, etc. - and the fact that he had a proclivity to do the crime (I would agree that robbing/raping/knifing are horrible, but pretty standard criminal activity when confronted with a young female alone in the house ).

There is no reason to deny this and nothing will be gained from doing so.

I think if one wants to see Knox and Sollecito as tied into this crime as the prosecution does - and there are indicators - then the best route is to admit Guede had the proclivity to be the lone wolf, but had these accomplices involved with his actions.

 

[Katody]

I'm very aware of the basic evidence, I disagree with you on the phone activity and the blood traces. You aren't any more an expert than the rest of us. You just happen to believe all the defense experts and claim every prosecution expert is wrong. Period.

There was a claim here that Meredith suffered "tens of stab wounds" (very wrong) That there was Guede's palm print on the wall (wrong) That the 21.58 and 22:00 phone events place the phone at the cottage (wrong, no cell tower data exist on that events).

 

[SMK]

Please do not take offense here, but you want to exclude from consideration an actual event that involved Rudy breaking in and stealing a knife that was reported by witnesses; and yet you include in your view of the crime any number of made-up scenarios for activities that Amanda and Raffaele COULD have done but for which there is not one shred of reporting or even hearsay testimony:
sex orgies, violent arguments, shoplifting, collaboration with Rudy, disposal of bloody clothing and cleaning rags, etc. MOO

As I said in my prior post, I agree that there is no point in denying that Guede had incidents of break-and -entry; brandishing a kinfe; stealing items; stealing a knife (Milan); tossing a rock into a window to gain entry. These are real traits of Guede, and do mark him as a petty criminal.

 

[Katody]

I did not sat carefully avoiding RGs prints, I said I think some of his prints are missing as well. You disagree that's ok.

You said they were actively trying to leave Guede prints intact, hence no mopping of surfaces but some other (unspecified by you) way of selective clean up. BTW how do you envision it? The footprints must have been very bloody. Hard not smear the blood around while cleaning. Mopping repeatedly the whole floor would do, but that's not what they did, right? I wonder how did they manage to remove blood so well leaving multiple Guede's prints intact in that area?

I did not say avoiding the luminol revealed print, I said it may have been made while cleaning with traces on the foot. You disagree that's ok

I don't disagree. There are several Guede's traces in Meredith's bedroom doorway, and a single luminol print directly outside of her door. I understand in that small area they cleaned selectively all very bloody Raffaele's prints, leaving multiple Guede's. Then they selectively removed all prints they made while cleaning (barefoot, interesting), leaving just one by the door. It was again a selective clean up, avoiding Guede's prints. This is how I understand the scenario you're building.

Do you think they were barefoot during the attack or they took of their shoes later, during clean up? It's peculiar that Raffaele took of his shoes and stepped in blood in Meredith's room.

 

[Katody]

I said I belief the bathroom has been cleaned because not only was there nothing on the tile near the bathmat print, there's no bloody water splashes on the tile at all or on the rims of the sink or bidet. It all looks fairly clean to me considering someone washed large amounts of blood off in there.

There are splashes on the rims of the sink and the bidet. There's also a splash on the side of the toilet. (3 November 2007 video of forensic activities shows it all around 16:27 timestamp)

I understand you think there were more but they cleaned up.

Do you think they cleaned up all the other copious splashes from the bidet, toilet and sink and left just a few?

BTW In your opinion, Amanda's blood on the faucet, it's related to the murder?

 

[quesarita]

As I said in my prior post, I agree that there is no point in denying that Guede had incidents of break-and -entry; brandishing a kinfe; stealing items; stealing a knife (Milan); tossing a rock into a window to gain entry. These are real traits of Guede, and do mark him as a petty criminal.

Do you also agree that there is a total lack of corroboration for the sex orgies, shoplifting, violent arguments, collaboration with Rudy, disposal of bloody clothing etc. in terms of witness reporting and/or previous behavior of Amanda and Raffaele?

 

[SMK]

Do you also agree that there is a total lack of corroboration for the sex orgies, violent arguments, collaboration with Rudy, disposal of bloody clothing etc. in terms of witness reporting and/or previous behavior of Amanda and Raffaele?

Yes, I would agree. I think Mignini and Napoleoni began with believing that Knox's behavior and body language gave her away as having knowledge/culpability. Their intuition was psychological: This does not necessarily mean it was wrong:

Recall, Guede had never murdered before, never sexually assaulted: But we can believe on that night, he did. Jodi Arias had never killed before, never used a knife. But we can believe, on one day, she did. For me, drug use is the most damning aspect re Knox and Sollecito. If they were Mormon tee-totalers, I would be unable to believe that such a crime could escalate or issue from them.

 

[SMK]

BTW In your opinion, Amanda's blood on the faucet, it's related to the murder?

Crini still believes so. :coffeews:

 

[Katody]

For me, drug use is the most damning aspect re Knox and Sollecito. If they were Mormon tee-totalers, I would be unable to believe that such a crime could escalate or issue from them.

You mean cannabis use?

 

[SMK]

You mean cannabis use?

Yes. If nothing else, it made them appear foggy and suspect. Thus, if innocent, this drug allowed them to fall into the snare of Mignini. If that isn't a "don't use cannabis" story, I don't know what is.

 

[Amber29]

There are splashes on the rims of the sink and the bidet. There's also a splash on the side of the toilet. (3 November 2007 video of forensic activities shows it all around 16:27 timestamp)

I understand you think there were more but they cleaned up.

Do you think they cleaned up all the other copious splashes from the bidet, toilet and sink and left just a few?

BTW In your opinion, Amanda's blood on the faucet, it's related to the murder?

Like 1 little splash, evidence IMO there should've been more. Unless we assume RG was very meticulous and careful while washing up in the bathroom. Much more careful then he was in the murder room and while leaving.

You won't change my mind that the bidet,sink,toilet, and over all bathroom are fairly clean. I do not think its reasonable that RG used every fixture in the bathroom.

Yes