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

[aa9511]

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...

Oh ok, I see.

The "none of his blood in the (murder) room" doesn't sound strange to me, because there was so much blood in there, I mean how could they have possibly tested each and every drop to determine whose blood was where? It's just not possible, given the amount of blood there was, and of course, 99.9% of that relatively is going to be Meredith's anyway.

Yes, the question is what happened after he left the murder room? Did he wrap it? Was it not cut?

 

[SMK]

Just wanting to give this addendum while Amanda's prank is on my mind:

She does say clearly that she "apologized for the distress caused" - to my thinking, an April Fool's prank should be funny , and not aimed at causing any distress. So there is something odd there, just noting it now..... :waitasec:

 

[SMK]

I thought Guede's cut hand was more or less generic fact.

And that he had said something about being cut with the knife of the guy who said "black man found, found guilty" -

guess I am missing the point of the argument.... :waitasec:

 

[Katody]

Oh ok, I see.

The "none of his blood in the (murder) room" doesn't sound strange to me, because there was so much blood in there, I mean how could they have possibly tested each and every drop to determine whose blood was where? It's just not possible, given the amount of blood there was, and of course, 99.9% of that relatively is going to be Meredith's anyway.

I think there would be a distinct set of drops, for example on the bed sheets where he left the purse with his DNA or on the purse itself. There was a mass of blood on the floor, yes, but they tested individually a lot of isolated blood traces on various items. No Guede's blood was found. Also, the blood on the handle and the light switch is Meredith's, not Guede's.

It seems to me he either wasn't bleeding that much (fingertips bleed profusely, the part that he cut, not necessarily so much) or wrapped his hand with something immediately.

If he had gloves, that he took off before, he could have put a glove on, too.

There's also the possibility that the cut is unrelated, happened later and Guede added it into the story.

 

[Katody]

Just wanting to give this addendum while Amanda's prank is on my mind:

She does say clearly that she "apologized for the distress caused" - to my thinking, an April Fool's prank should be funny , and not aimed at causing any distress. So there is something odd there, just noting it now..... :waitasec:

That's not what she "says clearly". :no:
As far as distressful college pranks go, this one is tame and harmless.


There was no harm to property or persons. Like so many things, this event has been exaggerated for the sake of sensationalism.

Very true, Amanda.

 

[SMK]

Wow
Excuse me for making this notation here, but it is extremely surprising to me, because I have been remarking on Amanda's masculine aura, and had thought of her as having a father-complex, and then this thing with the prank about staging a robbery, and now I find this passage.

Just have to note it, as it astonished me in its confirmations of some of my strongest intuitions about her: Uncanny to me.....

From Nina Burleigh, The Fatal Gift of Beauty, p 33:

Amanda tried to be a good daughter. Correction: She tried to be a good son, the son Curt never had. Curt is a guy's guy.. . [....] She was Curt's boy, the one who would put on the mitt and play catch with him. . . She was always pranking him, always doing mischief, trying to get a laugh out of him, and if not that, at least an angry glare. She poured extra salt on his food when his back was turned, sneaked up behind him and tapped him on the shoulder, then hid on the other side of him, only to pop out at his face like a jack-in-the-box. Sometimes she yanked the pillows out from behind him when he was on the couch with a beer in one hand and the remote in the other, just to get a reaction.

 

[Myvice]

Just wanting to give this addendum while Amanda's prank is on my mind:

She does say clearly that she "apologized for the distress caused" - to my thinking, an April Fool's prank should be funny , and not aimed at causing any distress. So there is something odd there, just noting it now..... :waitasec:

Sounds very close to RS apologizing to MK after accidently cutting her with the knife. JMO

 

[SMK]

That's not what she "says clearly". :no:
As far as distressful college pranks go, this one is tame and harmless.


There was no harm to property or persons. Like so many things, this event has been exaggerated for the sake of sensationalism.

Very true, Amanda.

Yes, she said clearly that she apologized for distress caused. Go and read the comment. They are HER words. :furious:

Just because you want to dismiss that part, don't make it sound like I put words in her mouth, please.

Thanks :seeya:

 

[SMK]

Sounds very close to RS apologizing to MK after accidently cutting her with the knife. JMO

Quite true.......

 

[Myvice]

It's possible that some of the people involved in the prank had questioned it so it needed to be addressed. JMO

 

[SMK]

It's possible that some of the people involved in the prank had questioned it so it needed to be addressed. JMO

Right, I would assume either they or the recipients of the prank had first began the "rumor" back in 2008-09.

 

[Katody]

Yes, she said clearly that she apologized for distress caused. Go and read the comment. They are HER words. :furious:

just because you want to dismiss that part, don't make it sound like I put words in her mouth, please. Thanks

We – all of the mutual friends of my housemates who participated in the prank with me – apologized for the distress caused.

Never does she suggest she invented the prank or took full responsibility for it. I think your rewording subtly shifts the meaning.

 

[SMK]

We – all of the mutual friends of my housemates who participated in the prank with me – apologized for the distress caused.

Never does she suggest she invented the prank or took full responsibility for it. I think your rewording subtly shifts the meaning.

OK, I really did not mean anything by the "she", and I apologize for this error. I was focusing on the "apology for distress caused" - I thought you were implying these words were never said ----

I have always despised practical jokes, so it's a touchy subject with me.

I understand she acted "with others" (just as she is accused of acting in concert with others).

 

[Myvice]

We – all of the mutual friends of my housemates who participated in the prank with me – apologized for the distress caused.

Never does she suggest she invented the prank or took full responsibility for it. I think your rewording subtly shifts the meaning.

She was clearly involved in it so it clearly would be a reference point in her mind. JMO

 

[Katody]

Right, I would assume either they or the recipients of the prank had first began the "rumor" back in 2008-09.

You assume wrong.

The rumor started as a second hand anonymous relation on a blog, that had little to do with the facts. It circulated only on the hate sites, "embellished" by the usual suspects.

None of the participants or her flatmates ever felt the need to speak about this publicly.

 

[Myvice]

Interesting that she involved other people in this prank on her housemates. It sounds like it went farther than she had anticipated.

 

[Myvice]

You assume wrong.

The rumor started as a second hand anonymous relation on a blog, that had little to do with the facts. It circulated only on the hate sites, "embellished" by the usual suspects.

None of the participants or her flatmates ever felt the need to speak about this publicly.

Quite interesting that you know who the anonymous person was.

 

[Katody]

Quite interesting that you know who the anonymous person was.

:facepalm: What makes you think so?

 

[Myvice]

:facepalm: What makes you think so?

I guess because you know enough about it to tell SMK she is wrong. You must have proof then, right? :facepalm:

 

[SMK]

You assume wrong.

The rumor started as a second hand anonymous relation on a blog, that had little to do with the facts. It circulated only on the hate sites, "embellished" by the usual suspects.

None of the participants or her flatmates ever felt the need to speak about this publicly.

OK, so they pulled the story out of thin air???