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

[aa9511]

I guess you have a more astute eye than mine.

Oh, SMK, believe me, I'm no expert, as I've already been reminded of today.

 

[aa9511]

I understand, yes. I think I was part of a group for so long, whose mantra was, "When Guede was arrested, that should have been the end of the 3 on 1 attack. Knox and Sollecito should have been immediately cleared" that I didn't think of the inconsistencies. Thanks.

SMK, you do think of the inconsistencies. You try to put the whole picture together. You provide much great insight and analysis on this thread.

 

[SMK]

Oh, SMK, believe me, I'm no expert, as I've already been reminded of today.

Nor am I, tee hee :laugh:

 

[SMK]

SMK, you do think of the inconsistencies. You try to put the whole picture together. You provide much great insight and analysis on this thread.

gee, thanks :blushing::loveyou:

 

[aa9511]

When one looks at the time that the qoute was made, the fact that more evidence was needed and collected at a later date, and that the evidence collected on that second trip to the cottage is what pointed to AK and RS "being a part of the crime" then no. What it tells me is that the police jumped to a conclusion that didn't pan out. Instead of looking where the evidence led them, they looked for more evidence to prove their claims.

moo

bbm

So if this was all misunderstanding and Quest to get Amanda and RS, then why did this later evidence implicate Amanda and RS? If they are truly innocent, should it not have done the opposite, which was to exonerate them?

Let's say there is Evidence Point A which has some mixed Amanda and Meredith DNA on it, from test results done on it. Let's say that at time 1, the test results show Amanda and Meredith mixed DNA. Let's say there was another test done at time 2, which also shows Amanda and Meredith mixed DNA. Is the result from time 2 somehow void because of the time difference between time 1 and time 2? Shouldn't it just be instead, that it has NO Amanda/Meredith mixed DNA on it when tested, either time?

 

[TorisMom003]

I mean hard evidence such as staged burglary. Also the way her body was found and what her body looked like, etc..

What hard evidence points to a staged burglary? What hard evidence pointed to AK and/or RS in relation to Meredith's body in the way it was found and how it looked?

 

[aa9511]

I understand, yes. I think I was part of a group for so long, whose mantra was, "When Guede was arrested, that should have been the end of the 3 on 1 attack. Knox and Sollecito should have been immediately cleared - the police just wanted to save face, so they clung to their original theory." that I didn't think of the inconsistencies. I would agree that they kept the key elements of their story for a reason: They were convinced of its truthfulness. Thanks.

I would also add that it was not just that they were convinced of its truthfulness, as in maybe they deluded themselves, but there was actually concrete stuff there that they had to work around.

 

[TorisMom003]

bbm

So if this was all misunderstanding and Quest to get Amanda and RS, then why did this later evidence implicate Amanda and RS? If they are truly innocent, should it not have done the opposite, which was to exonerate them?

Let's say there is Evidence Point A which has some mixed Amanda and Meredith DNA on it, from test results done on it. Let's say that at time 1, the test results show Amanda and Meredith mixed DNA. Let's say there was another test done at time 2, which also shows Amanda and Meredith mixed DNA. Is the result from time 2 somehow void because of the time difference between time 1 and time 2? Shouldn't it just be instead, that it has NO Amanda/Meredith mixed DNA on it when tested, either time?

The other evidence that was collected and/or found during the second trip to the cottage includes the bra clasp and the footprints in the hallway that could belong to AK. There has been video showing the way the bra clasp was collected. The video shows that contamination is a real possibility considering the gloved finger of the investigator that touched the metal hook itself was filthy. It is not known what that investigator touched before touching that metal hook. The footprints in the hallway are approximately the same size as AK's however no other female was checked to see if they were also approximately the same size. DNA of Amanda found in some of the footprints is not unusual since she lived in the cottage and walked that hallway everyday that she was at home.

If there was a sign that AK and RS had actually been a part of the crime, why would their DNA, fingerprints, footprints, etc not be found in the first search of the cottage. Why did it take another trip to collect more evidence before their DNA and/or such was found? Why were controls not done to further prove that the evidence collected was true and accurate? Why does the entire case seem to be a lesson in What Not To Do When Investigating A Crime Scene?

MOO

 

[SMK]

What hard evidence points to a staged burglary? What hard evidence pointed to AK and/or RS in relation to Meredith's body in the way it was found and how it looked?

With regard to the body, Micheli had theorized that as the soaked bra strap showed Meredith had lain on her side for quite some time, the body must have been moved some time after death.

As far as the simulation of burglary:
First postal police officer Batisstelli took immediate note of Filomena's room uttering "staged".
Then Mignini himself, when he arrived, noted it looked staged, and theorized that perhaps one of the boys downstairs was an accomplice to murder: Had entered via the front door, and then staged the window to make it look like an unknown. (of course, in an odd way , Rudy was infact "one of the boys downstairs").

 

[TorisMom003]

With regard to the body, Micheli had theorized that as the soaked bra strap showed Meredith had lain on her side for quite some time, the body must have been moved some time after death.

As far as the simulation of burglary:
First postal police officer Batisstelli took immediate note of Filomena's room uttering "staged".
Then Mignini himself, when he arrived, noted it looked staged, and theorized that perhaps one of the boys downstairs was an accomplice to murder: Had entered via the front door, and then staged the window to make it look like an unknown. (of course, in an odd way , Rudy was infact "one of the boys downstairs").

But how is that hard evidence that points to AK and/or RS? Because an investigator, police officer or prosecutor thinks something it still needs to be backed up with evidence.

 

[Katody]

Katody I'm done talking about the footprints, I've said all I can say, I've answered all your questions. You seem to want to go in circles.

Simple yes would suffice. You confused me a bit with your reconstruction and I want to undertstand it. I take it provisionally as a yes. You do believe they cleaned up the trail of Rafaele's prints leading through the bedroom door, carefully avoiding all the Guede's prints and the invisible luminol print that were in the way. That selective clean up was so meticulous it left nothing detectable at all.

You have RG arriving before Meredith around 8:30 per his words.
Then it was said RG attacked Meredith shortly after she arrived which was just about 9pm, lets say 9:05. Maybe 15mins for the attack at the most. So from 9:20 on he's hanging out in the cottage doing who knows what for at least 40-55mins. Considering at 10:13 Meredith's phones were still in the vicinity of the cottage, they certainly had not been disposed of at Lana's yet.

That is a long time

This calculation is based on erroneous assumptions.

The attack lasted seconds, not minutes. Everything happened just after Meredith returned. The 10:13 connection was to a distant tower, not the one usually serving the cottage. At 10:13 Guede was already away from the scene, not in the villa.

Guede ran away because he murdered Meredith.

In his other break-ins he had a habit of making himself at home and spending a lot of time inside. This one was different because of the murder.

 

[aa9511]

What hard evidence points to a staged burglary? What hard evidence pointed to AK and/or RS in relation to Meredith's body in the way it was found and how it looked?

Please don't make me repeat everything! I just went through this staged burglary issue in my post response to Monzoo upthread. I wrote a whole list of evidence points for the staged burglary. I am really getting tired of answering everyone's long list of questions over and over. It is not a quick thing to be able to comprehensively tell your view of this whole, large, vast case, on one posting, which for some reason the supporters of her guilt are expected and asked to do. How many years has this case taken, and we are expected to write comprehensive summary in one posting?

The hard evidence - which we have been discussing on these threads for months and months since I have been here.

Now, suddenly, people are questioning what evidence the "guilt" side is basing their opinons on, when we have both sides been discussing the same evidence points for months for me, years for others, where both sides give their perspectives on the sam evidence points. The evidence in the case!!

I am not saying the evidence pointed from the beginning to Amanda and RS. That is not what I was saying. I'm saying that there was evidence as to how the crime was committed, how it was carried out, that was there and the police could not change or destroy or toss out.

Not everything in the case is about Amanda or RS. If there is no Amanda or RS involvement, does that change the fact that someone killed her? Does that change the fact that there was evidence pointing to a staged burglary? There are evidence points which are independent of Amanda and RS, that is my point.

Not everything is wrapped up in Amanda or RS, and if that falls apart the whole case comes crashing down and Meredith becomes alive again.

 

[TorisMom003]

Please don't make me repeat everything! I just went through this staged burglary issue in my post response to Monzoo upthread. I wrote a whole list of evidence points for the staged burglary. I am really getting tired of answering everyone's long list of questions over and over. It is not a quick thing to be able to comprehensively tell your view of this whole, large, vast case, on one posting, which for some reason the supporters of her guilt are expected and asked to do. How many years has this case taken, and we are expected to write comprehensive summary in one posting?

The hard evidence - which we have been discussing on these threads for months and months since I have been here.

Now, suddenly, people are questioning what evidence the "guilt" side is basing their opinons on, when we have both sides been discussing the same evidence points for months for me, years for others, where both sides give their perspectives on the sam evidence points. The evidence in the case!!

I am not saying the evidence pointed from the beginning to Amanda and RS. That is not what I was saying. I'm saying that there was evidence as to how the crime was committed, how it was carried out, that was there and the police could not change or destroy or toss out.

Not everything in the case is about Amanda or RS. If there is no Amanda or RS involvement, does that change the fact that someone killed her? Does that change the fact that there was evidence pointing to a staged burglary? There are evidence points which are independent of Amanda and RS, that is my point.

Not everything is wrapped up in Amanda or RS, and if that falls apart the whole case comes crashing down and Meredith becomes alive again.

For

I did not mean to offend. However this line of discussion began when I quoted Edgardo Giobbi. In his statement he was talking of AK, RS and PL. The discussion then moved to how the police should have changed their line of thinking when the evidence did not pan out for any of those three "suspects". I fully understand that Meredith was killed and nothing will bring her back. However it serves no one to put innocent people in prison for her murder. The evidence clearly points to RG and he has in fact been found guilty and put in prison for killing Meredith. I am sorry that it seems that Meredith is being forgotten or that not enough concern is placed on her death. That is not the case at all. The truth is what is being searched for. The truth in what happened, who was involved and justice for Meredith is being looked for as well.

 

[aa9511]

The other evidence that was collected and/or found during the second trip to the cottage includes the bra clasp and the footprints in the hallway that could belong to AK. There has been video showing the way the bra clasp was collected. The video shows that contamination is a real possibility considering the gloved finger of the investigator that touched the metal hook itself was filthy. It is not known what that investigator touched before touching that metal hook. The footprints in the hallway are approximately the same size as AK's however no other female was checked to see if they were also approximately the same size. DNA of Amanda found in some of the footprints is not unusual since she lived in the cottage and walked that hallway everyday that she was at home.

If there was a sign that AK and RS had actually been a part of the crime, why would their DNA, fingerprints, footprints, etc not be found in the first search of the cottage. Why did it take another trip to collect more evidence before their DNA and/or such was found? Why were controls not done to further prove that the evidence collected was true and accurate? Why does the entire case seem to be a lesson in What Not To Do When Investigating A Crime Scene?

MOO

I understand. IMO, whether it was found Time A or TIme B or Time XYZ, it was still found. If it was not there, it would have not have found at Time A, not have been found at Time B, and not have been found at Time XYZ, or at any other time in between.

 

[Amber29]

Simple yes would suffice. You confused me a bit with your reconstruction and I want to undertstand it. I take it provisionally as a yes. You do believe they cleaned up the trail of Rafaele's prints leading through the bedroom door, carefully avoiding all the Guede's prints and the invisible luminol print that were in the way. That selective clean up was so meticulous it left nothing detectable at all.




This calculation is based on erroneous assumptions.

The attack lasted seconds, not minutes. Everything happened just after Meredith returned. The 10:13 connection was to a distant tower, not the one usually serving the cottage. At 10:13 Guede was already away from the scene, not in the villa.

Guede ran away because he murdered Meredith.

In his other break-ins he had a habit of making himself at home and spending a lot of time inside. This one was different because of the murder.

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 know nothing about RG making himself at home in other places. 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, yet you have RG fleeing right away and the phones were not yet at Lana's at 10:13pm. Did he come back for the phones or was he in the house an hour after the murder?

 

[aa9511]

I did not mean to offend. However this line of discussion began when I quoted Edgardo Giobbi. In his statement he was talking of AK, RS and PL. The discussion then moved to how the police should have changed their line of thinking when the evidence did not pan out for any of those three "suspects". I fully understand that Meredith was killed and nothing will bring her back. However it serves no one to put innocent people in prison for her murder. The evidence clearly points to RG and he has in fact been found guilty and put in prison for killing Meredith. I am sorry that it seems that Meredith is being forgotten or that not enough concern is placed on her death. That is not the case at all. The truth is what is being searched for. The truth in what happened, who was involved and justice for Meredith is being looked for as well.

Thanks, no you did not offend, I can't expect you to read through all my postings previous to what we were talking about. It's just that, independently, you and Monzoo asked the same question!! I was like, not again!! LOL! Also Katody's questioning went along with that because we were discussing lone-wolf scenario, and so discussion of staged burglary fits in with that discussion, too. And I feel like the "guilty" side was expected to post entire summaries on the case from our persepectives, in one posting.

Ok, back to your post. I was not talking about bringing Meredith back sentimentally-speaking, I was trying to make the point that there is evidence in the case that is independent of RS and Amanda. Such that, even if they (Amanda and RS) were removed from the equation, the evidence would still be there and still stand.

".....how the police should have changed their line of thinking when the evidence did not pan out for any of those three "suspects".....No, IMO, not changed their line of thinking, that would mean they would be changing the evidence it was based upon. They could have eliminated, excused, whatever, RS and Amanda....but IMO, they would still be left with a staged burglary and other things which do not fit into a lone-wolf scenario. They could have, I suppose, said "Rudy acted in concert with others, we do not know who those "others" are." That would have eliminated/excused RS and Amanda, but still not changed their theory.

My point being, the theory itself is not change-able, because it is rooted in evidence which is unchangeable. I'm not talking about RS/Amanda here, I'm talking about the theory of Rudy acting in concert with others.

 

[Katody]

"Guede walked quietly into her room and attacked her by surprise"....how would it have been quiet with the SMASH of a broken window and somebody thudding in from the window?

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

The keys....that could be, I suppose. But then wouldn't his footprints going towards the door have been disturbed when he walked back across them going back towards Meredith's bedroom to get the keys?

I don't think so. :facepalm:

"locking it made little sense", then why did he lock Meredith's bedroom door? "After all, he left break-in evidence behind him," - then why did he need to lock Meredith's door, if he left this other break-in evidence in the open anyway?

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.

"he stepped in blood when he returned from the bathroom" - So if he stepped in blood when he came back from the bathroom and not when he was going to the bathroom, then how did the bloody footprint get onto the bathmat? I still do not understand your answer to this point.

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.

"He broke in, and Meredith walked on him in while he was on the toilet." But this goes against what you said earlier to explain how the struggle didn't begin anywhere else other than her bedroom. You said earlier: "Guede walked quietly into her room and attacked by surprise." So do you think it happened according to your first scnenario, or your second scenario, or some other scenario?

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.

"he took the opportunity to rape her (burglary gone rape, very common) and killed her in the process ( also typical)." So from this, I see that you think it was burglary-gone-rape. In which case, why does it not seem like a burglary, as he did not even check Laura or Amanda's rooms and he only took cash (taking of phones and keys I consider to be murder-related). How did he know where the cash was located? If it was burglary-related, and Meredith was in her room at the time, he would have had to have known immediately that she was in her room and gone there immediately to kill her. Because she would have certainly heard the broken window. However, in that scenario, we are to believe she just stayed in her room without calling anyone or trying to see what was going on, just sat there. So did Rudy go through Filomena's room first, looking for things, or did he go straight to Meredith's room? Why would Meredith just be sitting in her room after she has heard this?

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.

From the wounds that are there, does it not seem like the person wanted Meredith to suffer?

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?

 

[aa9511]

Simple yes would suffice. You confused me a bit with your reconstruction and I want to undertstand it. I take it provisionally as a yes. You do believe they cleaned up the trail of Rafaele's prints leading through the bedroom door, carefully avoiding all the Guede's prints and the invisible luminol print that were in the way. That selective clean up was so meticulous it left nothing detectable at all.




This calculation is based on erroneous assumptions.

The attack lasted seconds, not minutes. Everything happened just after Meredith returned. The 10:13 connection was to a distant tower, not the one usually serving the cottage. At 10:13 Guede was already away from the scene, not in the villa.

Guede ran away because he murdered Meredith.

In his other break-ins he had a habit of making himself at home and spending a lot of time inside. This one was different because of the murder.

bbm

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.

Are there any other rapes or murders he is now suspected of carrying out, since the police know of him, did they go through any unsolved cases from the past and see if he is connected to them in any way?

 

[SMK]

But how is that hard evidence that points to AK and/or RS? Because an investigator, police officer or prosecutor thinks something it still needs to be backed up with evidence.

It began immediately to point to AK and RS - in the minds of Napoleoni and Mignini - due to their strange behavior, conflicting accounts, etc. And Mignini had already told himself, "Look for a woman" when he saw Kercher had been covered with a duvet.

 

[SMK]

bbm

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.

Are there any other rapes or murders he is now suspected of carrying out, since the police know of him, did they go through any unsolved cases from the past and see if he is connected to them in any way?

Well, the female owner of the nursery had two maintenance workers with her. I often thought if she had been alone, she might have been the Meredith Kercher . Guede had taken a kitchen knife from the nursery kitchen.