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

[quesarita]

Hm, haven't found a good site for what I read (that he had to throw away both his pants and shoes when he got to Germany) but this was most interesting:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Rudy_Guede's_Skype_Conversation

He tried to pin it on Amanda by saying she must have put Meredith's clothes in the washing machine, and Meredith was dressed when he left! After he'd heard mention of the washing machine being "on" in early news reports.

Which to me, says there was no damage control collaboration going on between Rudy and Amanda; and that if he had any other evidence against her, he'd have used it. I also note his strange detail of Amanda ringing the doorbell instead of just walking in to her own house (or already being there with him).

 

[quesarita]

Where are the footprints going to the bathroom to reach the towels?

Why woudl he go through all the trouble doing that, but then step in blood and then walk out of the house leaving his shoeprints?

He never went to the bathroom, is what I think. The supporters of her innocence are always telling us we're inventing evidence out of thin air, but the case of Rudy and the small bathroom, they do "same" thing.

They are always telling us, we're inventing stories to place Amanda and RS at the crime scene.

But in the case of small bathroom, they invent evidence/stories to place Rudy in the bathroom.

So I see it as double standard. JMO.

I don't see it as a double standard if you say what you think, and I say what I think. It's a difference of opinion. It's not factual evidence from either of us - we weren't there. I am always looking for more factual evidence, and trying to avoid getting caught up in making up scenarios. i acknowledge I'm doing that with the bathroom scene which makes sense to me.

But I actually tried locking the door without leaving a footprint facing the door from outside and it's natural. It's also unnecessary to grasp the handle on the outside if you're holding onto the key and take the key with you.

 

[otto]

There's no way that I can catch up on even the last 10 pages of comments, but I did find the discussion about Knox's pranking ways very interesting. Although Knox's past pranks could not be verified by the prosecutors when they needed motive, it certainly looks like Knox herself has provided the most logical explanation of how things could have gone so drastically wrong between three stoned, drunk pranksters and a roommate that was lacking sleep and had work to do.

I think the court has a lot of sympathy for Sollecito, not so much for Knox since they don't know her. Unfortunately, what Sollecito's lawyer had to say seemed more like rehashing old arguments rather than shining new light on why the evidence should be viewed differently. I also think that Sollecito's lawyer made some effort to separate her client from Knox by repeating that in each and every letter where she implicated Patrick, she did not mention Sollecito.

I'm looking forward to final arguments, which I understand are now scheduled for Jan 20 and Jan 30.

 

[otto]

Which to me, says there was no damage control collaboration going on between Rudy and Amanda; and that if he had any other evidence against her, he'd have used it. I also note his strange detail of Amanda ringing the doorbell instead of just walking in to her own house (or already being there with him).

When did Knox claim that she rang the door bell at the cottage, or do you mean Sollecito's apartment?

 

[SMK]

There's no way that I can catch up on even the last 10 pages of comments, but I did find the discussion about Knox's pranking ways very interesting. Although Knox's past pranks could not be verified by the prosecutors when they needed motive, it certainly looks like Knox herself has provided the most logical explanation of how things could have gone so drastically wrong between three stoned, drunk pranksters and a roommate that was lacking sleep and had work to do.

I think the court has a lot of sympathy for Sollecito, not so much for Knox since they don't know her. Unfortunately, what Sollecito's lawyer had to say seemed more like rehashing old arguments rather than shining new light on why the evidence should be viewed differently. I also think that Sollecito's lawyer made some effort to separate her client from Knox by repeating that in each and every letter where she implicated Patrick, she did not mention Sollecito.

I'm looking forward to final arguments, which I understand are now scheduled for Jan 20 and Jan 30.

OTTO :great: !!!! I agree that the whole prank story is quite interesting. When I first heard about it, it didn't really strike me as anything that pertinent. But as I began to ponder it, I thought, of all kinds of pranks, why the staging of a burglary? :waitasec: Then I stumbled upon some of Burleigh's book, where she speaks about how many pranks Amanda used to play on her father, to win his attention. It began to illuminate many of the puzzling aspects of Nov 1-2 for me. I see now that a UK newsite has picked up the story and is running it, so it will be interesting to see what becomes of it....

Yes, Bongiorno did indeed seem to be separating Knox and Sollecito in much of her summation. Great to see you posting once more!

 

[otto]

Could someone point me to where it shows that RG had blood on his pant leg, please? Since it's been brought up so much I'm sure there must be a reason for it.

I'm wondering why he would have so much blood on his pant leg. His upper body I could understand, but why his pant leg? And if his pant leg had that much blood on it than wouldn't his shoe been bloody as well to where he would have rinsed that off as well?

I don't think there is anything suggesting that Guede had blood on the bottom of his pants. IIRC, Guede wrote in his diary that he had blood on his pants and that he pulled his sweatshirt down to cover that blood. This statement was then morphed into he had blood on the bottom of his pants, he washed those pants in the small bathroom, blood dripped down his leg and formed the shape of a perfect footprint on the bathmat. The only fact is that he had blood on his pants, blood that could be hidden by his sweatshirt.

 

[SMK]

When did Knox claim that she rang the door bell at the cottage, or do you mean Sollecito's apartment?

I think she is taking that from Guede's Skype call, where he says he was on the toilet and heard the doorbell ringing....ETA: I was sorry to see the verdict delayed from Jan 15 to Jan 20, to now Jan 30 :furious:

 

[otto]

OTTO :great: !!!! I agree that the whole prank story is quite interesting. When I first heard about it, it didn't really strike me as anything that pertinent. But as I began to ponder it, I thought, of all kinds of pranks, why the staging of a burglary? :waitasec: Then I stumbled upon some of Burleigh's book, where she speaks about how many pranks Amanda used to play on her father, to win his attention. It began to illuminate many of the puzzling aspects of Nov 1-2 for me. I see now that a UK newsite has picked up the story and is running it, so it will be interesting to see what becomes of it....

Yes, Bongiorno did indeed seem to be separating Knox and Sollecito in much of her summation. Great to see you posting once more!

When this first happened, IIRC, a friend of one of Knox's former roommates posted a comment somewhere stating that Knox had played a prank on a former roommate in Seattle and that it did not end well. That comment was tossed around, but there was no way to really be sure that it was true. Given that Knox has now admitted that it is true, although she omits the part about masks and the roommate being upset, I think many people are going back to the original theory that Knox got Guede and Sollecito involved in a prank to scare Meredith, a Halloween prank. Mignini was close, but he didn't have all the information. If we replace "sex game gone wrong" with "prank gone wrong", it all seems to fall into place. In fact, the prank may have been an attempted sexual assault.

Thanks. I suspect that a complete separation of Knox and Sollecito is no longer possible at this time, but it seemed to me that each time his lawyer could point out that there was no mention or involvement from Sollecito, she did.

 

[otto]

I think she is taking that from Guede's Skype call, where he says he was on the toilet and heard the doorbell ringing....ETA: I was sorry to see the verdict delayed from Jan 15 to Jan 20, to now Jan 30 :furious:

Thanks. That does leave the question of the door bell up in the air, but maybe that was part of the prank ... Knox stepping out and ringing the doorbell. One of the witnesses said that Knox and Sollecito were wearing masks, so perhaps while Guede was on the toilet, Knox and Sollecito rang the door bell, Meredith fled to her room, perhaps she already had noticed the money was missing ... not sure, but that could explain why Knox would ring her own door bell.

 

[aa9511]

Understood. SOMEONE left smears of blood on the door jamb and light switch, and watery blood on the bathmat.

There is a lack of blood elsewhere and lack of luminol indicators of blood being wiped or washed which leads me to believe that the person who left the blood on the door jamb and switch used towels from the bathroom to avoid leaving additional smears which might have shown fingerprints and then took the towels into the bedroom, rather than cleaning the smears after creating them.

Ok, I understand.

But I just don't see Rudy as being suddenly soooooo careful. And there are still no footprints going to the bathroom, that would be before he got the towels.

Another thing is, I know Katody also brings up this issue of "no luminol indicators of wiping." Well, how do we know what kind of wiping leaves what kind of evidence? For example, the issue of the bathroom, most of the blood on the faucets and sink and bidet would have, I presume, just been rinsed off with water. Rinsing off with water is not going to leave any luminol evidence of rinsing. Only way there would be luminol is if some of the blood wasn't rinsed off.

As far as wiping, the evidence of the luminol "swirls" from wiping would be from a little blood that is either left on the floor, or blood left on the rag, which is then swirled back and forth. IMO. For example, let's say in a murder they use one rag and one bucket of water - well obviously, the rag is going to have blood on it because the water in the bucket which is used for "rinsing" will get bloody.

Now, let's say instead, they use a fresh paper towel for each spot, such as each footprint. They wet each paper towel, or stack of paper towels added lift, with fresh water from the sink. They then wipe up each footprint in ONE swiping motion from let's say, right to left. Throw that paper towel away. If some footprint is still showing, they get another FRESH paper towel with fresh water, do another swipe right to left. Throw that paper towel away too. Now, if all the blood is lifted off, what blood would there be left to show up in luminol as "swirls" from wiping?

I find the above scenario to have much less risk of leaving residue for luminol to catch, then let's say taking one wet rag and just moving it around in circles. And then rinsing in a bucket of water. Then taking the rag again, moving it around in circles, then rinsing it in the water which is no longer fresh, but instead now bloody.

 

[SMK]

Thanks. That does leave the question of the door bell up in the air, but maybe that was part of the prank ... Knox stepping out and ringing the doorbell. One of the witnesses said that Knox and Sollecito were wearing masks, so perhaps while Guede was on the toilet, Knox and Sollecito rang the door bell, Meredith fled to her room, perhaps she already had noticed the money was missing ... not sure, but that could explain why Knox would ring her own door bell.

That is most interesting, Otto......it accounts for the doorbell ringing (I had always felt Guede was weaving his story from true facts) and as you said in your other post, the prank theory serves as a template for bringing together all the facts into a complete picture, and rounds out Mignini's intuition, which he had to work with having only partial information (as you stated).

 

[quesarita]

Thanks. That does leave the question of the door bell up in the air, but maybe that was part of the prank ... Knox stepping out and ringing the doorbell. One of the witnesses said that Knox and Sollecito were wearing masks, so perhaps while Guede was on the toilet, Knox and Sollecito rang the door bell, Meredith fled to her room, perhaps she already had noticed the money was missing ... not sure, but that could explain why Knox would ring her own door bell.

What? A witness said Knox and Sollecito were wearing masks? Where does it say this and where were they seen wearing masks?

 

[quesarita]

"In the case of Curatolo, the Appeal Court decided that his testimony was unreliable because he well have gotten his dates mixed up. He testified about seeing Knox and Sollecito, but also about seeing people "wearing masks" and buses going to and from the square where he was sitting. The reference to the masks and buses would seem to indicate that he was remembering the evening of October 31st (Halloween), and not November 1st."
Do you mean this witness?

 

[otto]

Is it too late for the prosecutor to amend his motive?

"Amanda Knox, 26, who has refused to attend her appeal trial, currently on-going in Florence, Italy, admitted on her personal blog site that she was previously responsible for a distressing fake burglary against her own housemates in circumstances eerily foreshadowing an important part of the wider case against her for sexually aggravated murder. "

http://www.tekjournalismuk.com/45/post/2014/01/exclusive-amanda-knox-admits-staging-burgulary.html
http://www.tekjournalismuk.com/45/post/2014/01/exclusive-amanda-knox-admits-staging-burgulary.html

 

[SMK]

When this first happened, IIRC, a friend of one of Knox's former roommates posted a comment somewhere stating that Knox had played a prank on a former roommate in Seattle and that it did not end well. That comment was tossed around, but there was no way to really be sure that it was true. Given that Knox has now admitted that it is true, although she omits the part about masks and the roommate being upset, I think many people are going back to the original theory that Knox got Guede and Sollecito involved in a prank to scare Meredith, a Halloween prank. Mignini was close, but he didn't have all the information. If we replace "sex game gone wrong" with "prank gone wrong", it all seems to fall into place. In fact, the prank may have been an attempted sexual assault.

Thanks. I suspect that a complete separation of Knox and Sollecito is no longer possible at this time, but it seemed to me that each time his lawyer could point out that there was no mention or involvement from Sollecito, she did.

Yes, I found it interesting that Knox used words such as "initial shock" and "apologized for the distress caused" - which leads one to believe that this kind of prank was really not so nice. Couple this with her childhood coping mechanism of "pranking" what probably was a neglectful or distant father, and you can grasp the idea that Knox may have used pranks as a way to both punish people who rejected her, and to win them over in a joking way.

As Rudy had expressed interest in Meredith, and Amanda was by all accounts (from various books I have read, including her own and Nina Burleigh's account) a girl who identified markedly with males rather than females, one could see both Rudy and Amanda having a kind of fixation on getting Meredith's attention, especially if she had been cool or distant to them ....

 

[otto]

What? A witness said Knox and Sollecito were wearing masks? Where does it say this and where were they seen wearing masks?

Wasn't that what the Albanian said? Not sure of his name, but was it Kokomani? His testimony is somewhere in the archives.

 

[otto]

"Amanda Knox has admitted on her personal blog for the first time that she had previously been involved in a ‘staged robbery’ during her time at the University of Washington. She admitted that the hazing prank, played on her flat-mates at the University of Washington, involved messing up the flat and hiding things to make it appear as if items had been stolen. Knox used "mutual friends" of her other housemates to help fake the burglary in her own premises. She acknowledges that it caused "distress" to her housemates and she and her accomplices had to apologise for the act. She does not disclose, however, what exactly happened or the full role of the "mutual friends". "

http://www.tekjournalismuk.com/45/post/2014/01/exclusive-amanda-knox-admits-staging-burgulary.html

 

[SMK]

Is it too late for the prosecutor to amend his motive?

"Amanda Knox, 26, who has refused to attend her appeal trial, currently on-going in Florence, Italy, admitted on her personal blog site that she was previously responsible for a distressing fake burglary against her own housemates in circumstances eerily foreshadowing an important part of the wider case against her for sexually aggravated murder. "

http://www.tekjournalismuk.com/45/post/2014/01/exclusive-amanda-knox-admits-staging-burgulary.html
http://www.tekjournalismuk.com/45/post/2014/01/exclusive-amanda-knox-admits-staging-burgulary.html

Yes, when one sees just how many of the surface aspects as well as the psychological motivations (reaching back even into childhood, we can see thanks to Nina Burleigh's book) come together within this scenario , and then compares it to the unflushed-toilet-as-spark -for-murderous-rage that Crini is trying to fly before the court, it is troubling to think that this will be missed by him.

As it is now press, and before the public domain, and with the court delays, what is your opinion, Otto? :waitasec:

*Otto: Take note that it is also on the site's World News Page : http://www.tekjournalismuk.com/

 

[quesarita]

Ok, I understand.

But I just don't see Rudy as being suddenly soooooo careful. And there are still no footprints going to the bathroom, that would be before he got the towels.

Another thing is, I know Katody also brings up this issue of "no luminol indicators of wiping." Well, how do we know what kind of wiping leaves what kind of evidence? For example, the issue of the bathroom, most of the blood on the faucets and sink and bidet would have, I presume, just been rinsed off with water. Rinsing off with water is not going to leave any luminol evidence of rinsing. Only way there would be luminol is if some of the blood wasn't rinsed off.

As far as wiping, the evidence of the luminol "swirls" from wiping would be from a little blood that is either left on the floor, or blood left on the rag, which is then swirled back and forth. IMO. For example, let's say in a murder they use one rag and one bucket of water - well obviously, the rag is going to have blood on it because the water in the bucket which is used for "rinsing" will get bloody.

Now, let's say instead, they use a fresh paper towel for each spot, such as each footprint. They wet each paper towel, or stack of paper towels added lift, with fresh water from the sink. They then wipe up each footprint in ONE swiping motion from let's say, right to left. Throw that paper towel away. If some footprint is still showing, they get another FRESH paper towel with fresh water, do another swipe right to left. Throw that paper towel away too. Now, if all the blood is lifted off, what blood would there be left to show up in luminol as "swirls" from wiping?

I find the above scenario to have much less risk of leaving residue for luminol to catch, then let's say taking one wet rag and just moving it around in circles. And then rinsing in a bucket of water. Then taking the rag again, moving it around in circles, then rinsing it in the water which is no longer fresh, but instead now bloody.

Someone should try the experiment. All I know is that in the murder case near me, the kitchen appeared spotless (no blood, no footprints etc) but with the application of luminol showed smears, smudges, wiping stains from multiple locations, everywhere blood had been, and had been washed away. The residue was not visible without the luminol.

 

[aa9511]

Which to me, says there was no damage control collaboration going on between Rudy and Amanda; and that if he had any other evidence against her, he'd have used it. I also note his strange detail of Amanda ringing the doorbell instead of just walking in to her own house (or already being there with him).

Can someone tell me when was the relative time of this Skype chat, relative to Amanda and RS's situation, and relative to what was out in the newspapers at that time? TIA.