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

[aa9511]

Ok, the post has already been corrected - thanks.

 

[SMK]

Ok, the post has already been corrected - thanks.

:loveyou:

 

[SMK]

Oh, yeah. I better go take the quote down. Oops.

Was this brought up anywhere in the trial?

I am just curious because many of the innocent side claim that if there was anything whatsoever to use "against" Amanda, the prosecution would have found it and used it, and so the fact that they didn't have much (from her past) means that there is actually nothing.

This was part of the conversation on here yesterday. To which I pointed out that there are probably things that we don't know about, that are only known to the family (some of her maybe-issues).

And yet here is something which if the prosecution wanted and was allowed to, they could have brought this into trial. Since it has similar elements to the staging aspect of the crime.

How many more things like this are there that we do not know about?

Not only where she had other witnesses to her behavior, but at home behind closed doors, we do not know what her personality is really like, what issues she might have, etc..

I am not saying it is a "bad" thing, this April fool's prank. That is NOT what I'm saying. It was just a joke. My thing with this is, that is has parallels to the staging aspect of the serious crime. Parallels. As I said in my last post, there are countless other pranks which could have happened, yet it was one which coincidentally lines up with the staging aspect of the crime. That is quite a coincidence to say the least, IMO.

I believe that, when someone is stressed and panicked and in a position where they need to do something fast, they are going to go back to their past experiences. IMO. So in the guilty scenario, she would have needed an "answer" fast. She would have drawn on past things in her life - whether it was something she did, or read, or saw on tv, etc., it would have been from her past somewhere.

Yes, it is odd that I never heard of the prosecution using this in any of the trials.

And yet I do recall reading about it as a rumor, way back in 2009, but in the rumor they said Amanda and her friends pretended to be robbers by putting ski masks on (which is obviously why she comments now on her blog, that "no costumes or masks were used" and that no one got hurt). It is true as well that people fall back on characteristic habits, behavior, etc........

 

[aa9511]

It seems the prank was successful in convincing the friends there was theft.

OTOH we are to believe the supposed stagers were dumb enough to not even take the 4 laptops. :no:

Amanda straightforwardly answers questions like that on her blog. I think it speaks of her good character and truthfulness.

bbm

I think she just wants to be able to address it herself. Maybe she wants to get this same exact response that you did - that because she answers it, she must be innocent.

Just like for the murder - because she stayed, she must be innocent. Becauase she answered investigator's quesitons, she must be innocent. Because she called Filomena re; break-in signs, she must be innocent. Because she didn't flee Perugia, she must be innocent. Because she wrote a book and 'answered' things, she must be innocent. Etc..

 

[Myvice]

What an excellent find SMK. I agree that it is something from her past that she may have mentally referred to in her panic. It also plays straight into RS's comment to the police operator.

I recall reading somewhere that AS made the comment that in coming to Italy she was hoping to turn over a new leaf. I believe it was from her journal.

Good to see Otto again and I'm so sorry for your loss Redhead. Losing my Dad was extremely painful. Thoughts & prayers to your family.

 

[aa9511]

It seems the prank was successful in convincing the friends there was theft.

OTOH we are to believe the supposed stagers were dumb enough to not even take the 4 laptops. :no:

Amanda straightforwardly answers questions like that on her blog. I think it speaks of her good character and truthfulness.[/QUOTE]

bbm

I would also like to add that she herself "stirs up" conversation about her case by doing things like: writing a book, doing publicity tour/interviews, maintaining a blog and website devoted to the case.

So then we are supposed to turn that around and say, "oh yeah, because she is answering questions from curious people who get even more curious from the comments and from the blog and from the book and from what she says"... then she MUST be innocent!

 

[aa9511]

Two things. Where is Guede's blood in the crime scene if he bled?

Nobody who saw him at the disco noticed anything wrong with his hand.

I don't know, maybe you can tell me - where is his blood from the crime scene if he bled?

Well maybe they just didn't notice, you know, with the darkness of most nightclubs and all. Maybe they were all too drunk/high/whatever to notice.

 

[Katody]

[/B]

bbm

I think she just wants to be able to address it herself. Maybe she wants to get this same exact response that you did - that because she answers it, she must be innocent.

Just like for the murder - because she stayed, she must be innocent. Becauase she answered investigator's quesitons, she must be innocent. Because she called Filomena re; break-in signs, she must be innocent. Because she didn't flee Perugia, she must be innocent. Because she wrote a book and 'answered' things, she must be innocent. Etc..

I think she must be innocent because it's impossible to put together a scenario involving her in any way. The timing and evidence doesn't allow for it.

The evidence shows Rudy Guede broke in and murdered Meredith.

What went wrong with the investigation in which the Perugian finest announced case closed before they had any evidence was perfectly explained in court today. I think the jury will listen. They have no reason to care about Perugian heros' reputations.

 

[Katody]

It seems the prank was successful in convincing the friends there was theft.

OTOH we are to believe the supposed stagers were dumb enough to not even take the 4 laptops. :no:

Amanda straightforwardly answers questions like that on her blog. I think it speaks of her good character and truthfulness.

bbm

I would also like to add that she herself "stirs up" conversation about her case by doing things like: writing a book, doing publicity tour/interviews, maintaining a blog and website devoted to the case.

So then we are supposed to turn that around and say, "oh yeah, because she is answering questions from curious people who get even more curious from the comments and from the blog and from the book and from what she says"... then she MUST be innocent!

You're not supposed to do anything and I understand everything she does you will interpret to her detriment. I'm just saying how I see it.

I'm not basing my opinion of innocence on it. They are innocent because the evidence shows Guede did it alone.

 

[Katody]

I don't know, maybe you can tell me - where is his blood from the crime scene if he bled?.

I thought you were convinced he bled. You are not?

 

[Myvice]

I think she must be innocent because it's impossible to put together a scenario involving her in any way. The timing and evidence doesn't allow for it.

The evidence shows Rudy Guede broke in and murdered Meredith.

What went wrong with the investigation in which the Perugian finest announced case closed before they had any evidence was perfectly explained in court today. I think the jury will listen. They have no reason to care about Perugian heros' reputations.

BBM: Hopefully that means you will be fine with whatever the outcome may be then. It's tiring to imagine that everyone in Italy is corrupt somehow.

 

[Katody]

[/B]


BBM: Hopefully that means you will be fine with whatever the outcome may be then. It's tiring to imagine that everyone in Italy is corrupt somehow.

Miscarriages of justice do happen in USA regularly. Does it mean everyone in USA is corrupt?

 

[aa9511]

Two things. Where is Guede's blood in the crime scene if he bled?

Nobody who saw him at the disco noticed anything wrong with his hand.

I'm just curious - why would you want to debate that Rudy cut his finger? Or I guess in other words, why would you want us (general posters) to believe he didn't cut his finger?

I really don't understand. Rudy is undisputed to be there, by both sides.

 

[aa9511]

You're not supposed to do anything and I understand everything she does you will interpret to her detriment. I'm just saying how I see it.

I'm not basing my opinion of innocence on it. They are innocent because the evidence shows Guede did it alone.

Yes, but these little bits here and there, you have claimed, support your view of her innocence. Such as staying in Perugia, such as answering the investigators' questions, such as responding to some of her blog commenters.

 

[aa9511]

I thought you were convinced he bled. You are not?

Yes, I am convinced he did.

Please, see my post above. I do not undertand, what is the benefit to you to deny that he had a cut finger from the murder?

In your belief, Rudy is the only killer. In the other side's belief, he is one of the killers. So either way, Rudy is a killer. Why deny the cut finger?

 

[Katody]

I'm just curious - why would you want to debate that Rudy cut his finger? Or I guess in other words, why would you want us (general posters) to believe he didn't cut his finger?

I really don't understand. Rudy is undisputed to be there, by both sides.

If you don't want to debate it no one can make you.
You said "I'm sure it must have bled at the murder scene."
It's interesting that he left no blood of his in the room or anywhere at the villa.

 

[Katody]

Yes, but these little bits here and there, you have claimed, support your view of her innocence. Such as staying in Perugia, such as answering the investigators' questions, such as responding to some of her blog commenters.

Correct. The behavior is consistent with innocence in my view.

 

[aa9511]

If you don't want to debate it no one can make you.
You said "I'm sure it must have bled at the murder scene."
It's interesting that he left no blood of his in the room or anywhere at the villa.

Ok, it's just that it makes me think that you are only wanting to believe that he didn't cut it because otherwise it would complicate things a bit in the lone-wolf scenario, such as closing and locking doors (which was the discussion from last night), etc..

So that would make me think that your main goal is to prove Amanda and RS innocence.

Because for this point, you are going against even evidence that Rudy is the killer, just to make the scenario of Amanda and RS innocent stronger.

That is what my point was, I just found it odd that you would want to debate that Rudy cut his finger during the murder.

 

[Katody]

Yes, I am convinced he did.

Please, see my post above. I do not undertand, what is the benefit to you to deny that he had a cut finger from the murder?

In your belief, Rudy is the only killer. In the other side's belief, he is one of the killers. So either way, Rudy is a killer. Why deny the cut finger?

For example, I've seen an argument (from you among others if I'm not mistaken) that Guede couldn't have gone to the bathroom because there is too little blood evidence of him walking there. There was talk about dripping blood everywhere, marking everything with smears and drops, also of his blood.

Somehow in a scenario in which not just Guede but three people drenched in blood leave in a hurry there is just a faint trail of right shoe prints and suddenly it's ok. No drops on furniture, floor, walls.

Another thing is, if he was dripping blood from his hand, where's that blood in the murder room?

I'm not convinced one way or the other. Maybe it's possible he wrapped himself so quick he left no blood of his own. Maybe he went to the bathroom and rinsed his hand under cold water. If he left none of his blood in the room, he surely could leave nothing in the bathroom...

 

[Katody]

Ok, it's just that it makes me think that you are only wanting to believe that he didn't cut it because otherwise it would complicate things a bit in the lone-wolf scenario, such as closing and locking doors (which was the discussion from last night), etc..

Other evidence convince me he murdered alone. It's a curious fact that is not fully proven but it is not a problem for my scenario.

So that would make me think that your main goal is to prove Amanda and RS innocence.

I believe they are innocent and the evidence supports it. Is this a problem?

Because for this point, you are going against even evidence that Rudy is the killer, just to make the scenario of Amanda and RS innocent stronger.

The evidence that Guede murdered is aplenty. The wounded hand is an element for which there is no absolute proof and on it's own it proves nothing. If there was Guede's blood on the sheets or the handbag for example, that would make this element much stronger.