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

[Amber29]

I think reading Follain one needs to remain critical. This guy lies and makes stuff up easily.

What struck me is that if we were to believe this, Stephanie inexplicably forgot to testify about it. Also the British girls who knew everything about Amanda from Meredith's stories, including the vibrator and who she slept with and when strangely don't mention this at all.

Yes people should probably do the same when reading AK and RS books. They seem to do the same.

 

[Katody]

?? No, that is not enough room to put hands there or feet to try to pull oneself up.
:banghead:
How does the innocent-side actually think he actually came through the window?
If he had both hands on the windowill, he would have needed to pull up his bodyweight, then either swing forward one leg onto the windowill, or,
with his two hands there, pull himself up to chest-area, then lunge his body forward through the window.

The 10 cm of the ledge is enough to do it. The guy in the video has about this width to use because of the freshly installed grate. Also there is completely free of glass part to the right.

Have you watched the video I linked?

 

[aa9511]

I think it takes very few prints to get to the bathroom, i do not think he walked all over and spot cleaning would not be difficult IMO. I do not know what kind of cleaner they used and I don't need to. You keep saying avoiding RGs prints and I've said I think some of his prints are missing.

I don't think it looks like blood drops here and there. I've said many times I think the blood in the bidet is mixed with water and was pooled near the drain and the last little bit dried that way. Otherwise I think they were very tired, its not perfect and the little they didn't get goes with the "someone" was in there. She clearly knew she had bled IMO as she made a point to justify if some of the blood may have been hers. She speculated about her ears, she "scratched" at the drop in the sink, and she speculated any other blood was Meredith having menstrual problems. I don't necessarily think it was left on purpose, she made sure to cover bases of what could've been uncovered. IMO

I simply do not belief the shower, the bathmat boogie, or the whole discovery of the poo.

Yes, the reason she made up the whole morning cottage shower story in the first place, IMO, is to account for any evidence of her they might find. That would include blood evidence, this is where the ears come from. It had to be that she was there after the murder (morning cottage story), to account for any evidence left from the murder.

 

[SMK]

Yes, that is striking information. Did he get this information from an interview with her sister, or does he say how he got it?

No, he simply stated it in the context of Stephanie's last conversation with Meredith. I hope he got it directly from Stephanie, as I would assume, but Katody says she didn't testify to the fact. (see post below for Follain's quote)

 

[SMK]

Follain, 2012;

A Death in Italy, p 49

They were chatting about Giacomo when Meredith suddenly told her sister: 'By the way, I quarrelled with my American flatmate.'

Meredith mentioned it in passing, and Stephanie didn't think of asking what the row had been about.

 

[aa9511]

How many prosecutors were there already? We're like on third or fourth crime theory already. It was a ritual sacrifice, it was a sex game, a choice of evil without reason, now it's a fight to death over unflushed excrement :facepalm:

No, not motive, I'm not speaking of going through every detail of the motive, which is what the innocent side obviously wants because it is of course difficult to tell exactly what words are being said and who says what when, without actually being there. So of course, naturally, this type of re-creation of the argument or whatever it was, it what the innocent-side wants. Anything to trip the guilty side up on, knowing full well we none of us, no online poster, no member of prosecttion, no investigator, no police, no neutral witnesses, no one was in the room with them when everything began to happen. No neutral party there to report back to us each and every detail of that, so naturally that is what you want.

Now, moving on....I'm talking about details of the way the crime itself unfolded, details which you said you were unclear of, such as - how the attack itself physically unfolded, then what Rudy did, what Amanda did, what RS did, in order and in detail. Then the next phase, how the clean-up, cover-up occured, what happened, how and it started and a guess on time frame of when it happened, what happened, what did they do, where did they go, how did they clean-up, etc.. I'm not saying he would have all the answers, but I think he would have been better able to lay it out in clearer form, including small details he (the State) is unsure about exactly how it happened, but he would have given ideas and possibilities of how it could have happened (the details they are unsure of, meaning unsure EXACTLY how that detail occured).

I point out that in the Arias case, we never had any idea of what was said or what was done by Travis to set Jodi off. There was never a single moment in time determined by the investigators as "motive." It was not discussed what even happened in the few moments before the crime itself unfolded, other than we know they had sex becausae of the pictures on her camera. Think about the illogic of that, and yet it happened. So are we supposed to go, oh no way they would have sex and then she would kill him, phuh, pulease. Just let her go - that's ridiculous!!! What a ridiculous motive!!! What a ridiculous theory!!! Just let her free already!

 

[aa9511]

SMK is right that it doesn't make sense in the staging scenario. The glass was broken from the outside. The shutter had to be open to do this.

No, I'm talking about the inside shutter, whatever it's called. The one on the inside.

 

[Amber29]

No, he simply stated it in the context of Stephanie's last conversation with Meredith. I hope he got it directly from Stephanie, as I would assume, but Katody says she didn't testify to the fact. (see post below for Follain's quote)

It's also been stated that Filomena didn't testify about her room being in total disarray and she did. She even said iirc that only a shirt was left on the bed, she described the shutters in detail, and the computer case having been moved before the glass fell because there was glass on it. She is specific about her room in her testimony and has no reason to lie about how she left it, as she is the ONLY person who knows how she kept her room.

 

[SMK]

It's also been stated that Filomena didn't testify about her room being in total disarray and she did. She even said iirc that only a shirt was left on the bed, she described the shutters in detail, and the computer case having been moved before the glass fell because there was glass on it. She is specific about her room in her testimony and has no reason to lie about how she left it, as she is the ONLY person who knows how she kept her room.

thanks for this

 

[aa9511]

I think in many cases there are signs recognizable post factum. I understand we need to assume there are none here. You may think the prosecution is unlucky again.
I think it's because Amanda is a genuinely good person and the people close to her know it. For example father Saulo Scarabattoli who observed her closely for four years in prison and got to know her well strongly believes in her innocence.

I thought I made it clear that some people do not show their issues to others. You don't think Amanda would know to "act good" in front of the Father? It's not even that they're bad - I'm not saying that - I'm saying that some people are just so used to doing something, they don't even necessarily realize it's wrong.

I have said over and over and over and over again, I think it would be something ONLY HER FAMILY knows about.

How many times have I said that by now? Yet it keeps getting back to me in some other form than the way I said it.

 

[quesarita]

No, not motive, I'm not speaking of going through every detail of the motive, which is what the innocent side obviously wants because it is of course difficult to tell exactly what words are being said and who says what when, without actually being there. So of course, naturally, this type of re-creation of the argument or whatever it was, it what the innocent-side wants. Anything to trip the guilty side up on, knowing full well we none of us, no online poster, no member of prosecttion, no investigator, no police, no neutral witnesses, no one was in the room with them when everything began to happen. No neutral party there to report back to us each and every detail of that, so naturally that is what you want.

Now, moving on....I'm talking about details of the way the crime itself unfolded, details which you said you were unclear of, such as - how the attack itself physically unfolded, then what Rudy did, what Amanda did, what RS did, in order and in detail. Then the next phase, how the clean-up, cover-up occured, what happened, how and it started and a guess on time frame of when it happened, what happened, what did they do, where did they go, how did they clean-up, etc.. I'm not saying he would have all the answers, but I think he would have been better able to lay it out in clearer form, including small details he (the State) is unsure about exactly how it happened, but he would have given ideas and possibilities of how it could have happened (the details they are unsure of, meaning unsure EXACTLY how that detail occured).

I point out that in the Arias case, we never had any idea of what was said or what was done by Travis to set Jodi off. There was never a single moment in time determined by the investigators as "motive." It was not discussed what even happened in the few moments before the crime itself unfolded, other than we know they had sex becausae of the pictures on her camera. Think about the illogic of that, and yet it happened. So are we supposed to go, oh no way they would have sex and then she would kill him, phuh, pulease. Just let her go - that's ridiculous!!! What a ridiculous motive!!! What a ridiculous theory!!! Just let her free already!

Since you previously connected Amanda and Jody as both telling little lies here and there to get out of responsibility, let me say here that IMO one difference is that Jody told enormous, flagrantly conflicting lies that IMO convicted her regardless of other testimony: "I wasn't there. Oh you're right, I was there but intruders came in and killed him. Oh, you're right, I killed him but I did it in self defense." Jody's lies remind me more of Rudy than Amanda. MOO

 

[aa9511]

Yes people should probably do the same when reading AK and RS books. They seem to do the same.

Critical-thinking, critical-thinking.

 

[aa9511]

The 10 cm of the ledge is enough to do it. The guy in the video has about this width to use because of the freshly installed grate. Also there is completely free of glass part to the right.

Have you watched the video I linked?

No, it is not enough room. I'm sorry. I disagree with you. Completely free part of glass to the right? You make it sound like it is some lonnngg windowsill. That he could somehow use one side of it while perfectly not disturbing the other side. Not to mention, why would Rudy be so careful not to disturb the glass? Was he in on this staging thing with Amanda and RS? Did he want to climb up there, but make it look like it was staged? Hmmmmm....that would be a brand new theory right there that we should really look into..........

 

[Katody]

I think it takes very few prints to get to the bathroom, i do not think he walked all over and spot cleaning would not be difficult IMO. I do not know what kind of cleaner they used and I don't need to. You keep saying avoiding RGs prints and I've said I think some of his prints are missing.

However you said they were leaving Guede's prints intact on purpose.
Spot cleaning prints that were much bloodier than Guede's in a way that left nothing detectable even by luminol? When you clean you dilute the blood. Wouldn't there be visible with luminol patches of smeared blood? They also managed to clean their own residual prints they made during cleaning ( they had to enter the room to clean there after all, right?) They missed only one in front of the door. Interesting. There are a lot of Guede's prints in the small area between the door and the bed, doesn't look like anything is missing there. They avoided them while cleaning even their own invisible residual prints. Quite a feat.

I don't think it looks like blood drops here and there. I've said many times I think the blood in the bidet is mixed with water and was pooled near the drain and the last little bit dried that way.

It looks like a watered down blood drop fell into a perfectly clean bidet.
You said many times that the bathroom should be much more bloody if anyone washed off blood there. Well, you have two people doing this. So they must have staged the blood in the bidet and the sink after thorough clean up, right?

Otherwise I think they were very tired, its not perfect and the little they didn't get goes with the "someone" was in there.

But you do agree the clean up of the floor in the bathroom and removal of Raffaele's footprints trail was perfect? It's strange as cleaning blood from white ceramic surfaces where it is perfectly visible seems much easier.

She clearly knew she had bled IMO as she made a point to justify if some of the blood may have been hers.

And they decided to leave her blood they noticed instead of cleaning it up? And after this she paraded with an open wound that wasn't there the day before in full view. Is this correct? Seems risky.

I don't necessarily think it was left on purpose

How so, if she called Filomena and told her about the blood? So there was time to clean it but they decided not to.


One last thing. According to Capezzali there were three people running immediately after the scream. Don't you think they should have been prints of three people leading outside? How is it possible they didn't leave blood drops everywhere on the walls and furniture. Just imagine, three people running through cramped corridor and kitchen, without cleaning themselves up, dripping fresh blood. It seems there should be a lot more blood on the way out on all surfaces. Strange.

 

[aa9511]

It's also been stated that Filomena didn't testify about her room being in total disarray and she did. She even said iirc that only a shirt was left on the bed, she described the shutters in detail, and the computer case having been moved before the glass fell because there was glass on it. She is specific about her room in her testimony and has no reason to lie about how she left it, as she is the ONLY person who knows how she kept her room.

bbm

Yes, I remember that (being stated). Also that she never said there was glass on top of things, and that there was actually no glass on top of things (this was stated).

 

[Katody]

Yes, the reason she made up the whole morning cottage shower story in the first place, IMO, is to account for any evidence of her they might find. That would include blood evidence, this is where the ears come from. It had to be that she was there after the murder (morning cottage story), to account for any evidence left from the murder.

I think she really had her ears pierced. You think she did it anticipating the murder?

 

[Katody]

Now, moving on....I'm talking about details of the way the crime itself unfolded, details which you said you were unclear of, such as - how the attack itself physically unfolded, then what Rudy did, what Amanda did, what RS did, in order and in detail. Then the next phase, how the clean-up, cover-up occured, what happened, how and it started and a guess on time frame of when it happened, what happened, what did they do, where did they go, how did they clean-up, etc.. I'm not saying he would have all the answers, but I think he would have been better able to lay it out in clearer form, including small details he (the State) is unsure about exactly how it happened, but he would have given ideas and possibilities of how it could have happened (the details they are unsure of, meaning unsure EXACTLY how that detail occured).

The reason none of the prosecutors did this is that it cannot be done. The utter mess of an evidence the Perugians procured cannot be shoehorned into any credible scenario. We haven't seen it in the courtroom, we won't see it here or any other forum.

 

[aa9511]

Since you previously connected Amanda and Jody as both telling little lies here and there to get out of responsibility, let me say here that IMO one difference is that Jody told enormous, flagrantly conflicting lies that IMO convicted her regardless of other testimony: "I wasn't there. Oh you're right, I was there but intruders came in and killed him. Oh, you're right, I killed him but I did it in self defense." Jody's lies remind me more of Rudy than Amanda. MOO

If, during the interrogations, they had presented her with information like mixed DNA result, luminol prints, things like that - oh you bet there would have been whopper-lies being shopped around by that point. JMO.

Remember, with Jodi they had the pictures on her camera showing she was there, as well as her palmprint and other evidence.

So you bet I think there would have been gigantic, whopper-sized lies as big as Jodi's coming from Amanda had she been presented with damning evidence during interrogations.

By the time trial came around, Amanda already had figured out what story(ies) to tell to explain away the evidence.

 

[Katody]

I thought I made it clear that some people do not show their issues to others. You don't think Amanda would know to "act good" in front of the Father? It's not even that they're bad - I'm not saying that - I'm saying that some people are just so used to doing something, they don't even necessarily realize it's wrong.

I'm sure if there was some disorder it would have been revealed during four years in prison.

 

[Katody]

No, I'm talking about the inside shutter, whatever it's called. The one on the inside.

You think they threw the rock from the outside?