Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#12

[SMK]

I don't think it was Hendry. Mushroom was Mignini's idea IIRC.

I know it was Hendry. It is even coming up on Bing searches (I can't use Google right now) but I cannot get into the forums to read the comments.

 

[Katody]

I know it was Hendry. It is even coming up on Bing searches (I can't use Google right now) but I cannot get into the forums to read the comments.

I don't think so. I have the e-book of Hendry here ("Single Attacker Theory") and the search for "mushroom" returns nothing.

 

[SMK]

Did Guede carry a flashlight?

He did not carry a flashlight, but wore one of these:

 

[quesarita]

Did Guede carry a flashlight?

Since he wasn't arrested at the scene, the only one who knows that is Rudy. It's not as if it would have been permanently attached to his person.

 

[SMK]

I don't think so. I have the e-book of Hendry here ("Single Attacker Theory") and the search for "mushroom" returns nothing.

Please do a Google search with "Ron Hendry Meredith grabs a mushroom from the fridge" ---pleaselease:

 

[Katody]

Please do a Google search with "Ron Hendry Meredith grabs a mushroom from the fridge" ---pleaselease:

None of Hendry's IIP articles are in the results.

 

[quesarita]

Please do a Google search with "Ron Hendry Meredith grabs a mushroom from the fridge" ---pleaselease:

"An item of food found in the 3rd distal esophagus was kept in a container but never tested to determine what is was, which likely was an apple from the apple pie desert she ate after dinner and not a mushroom from her home. The defense requests that this sample be tested to confirm what it is. If the sample is apple as the defense believes, the time of death would be closer to the range that the defense suggests, 9:30pm to 10:00pm." -IIP

"Mignini asks about mushrooms in the gastric contents per Dr. Lalli finding mushrooms but Ronchi does not remember any mushrooms." themurderofmeredithkercher.com

 

[SMK]

I am not allowed to link to forums, but just found one where it was said that "we know she ate a mushroom or had one forced into her mouth". I know Hendry said she ate a mushroom. :tears:

from Bing search, my google is locked :tears: accident reconstruction expert like Ron Hendry is remarkable considering all they had ... scenario of Meredith taking a mushroom from the fridge after she ..

 

[SMK]

@Otto, I was teasing you about the physician's forehead light--- just trying for some comic relief :giggle: :giggle:

 

[otto]

He did not carry a flashlight, but wore one of these:

That's was I was expecting. First we have him throwing a rock that turns 90 degrees mid-air after it hits a window, but the glass continues on the same trajectory as the original trajectory of the rock. Then, we have glass that is placed on the window ledge and no glass is displaced while he climbs threw the window; no glass on the ground beneath the window. Next, he turns on the light to ransack the bedroom, steals nothing, and kindly turns off the light and closes the door. He heads to the bathroom, where he either doesn't turn on the light in the laundry room, or he does turn on the light in the laundry room. I would assume that he turned on the light to locate the bathroom. When he hears Meredith at the door, he jumps off the toilet in the middle of doing his business (which we know is not a tidy business), runs to turn off the laundry room light, runs back to the toilet, and continues in the dark. Meredith comes home. Suddenly, Guede has a flashlight, although I've never read anything about a flashlight before ... perhaps I missed it.

Meredith goes to her bedroom, takes her textbook and notebook out of her bag. She doesn't hear Guede, and doesn't see his flashlight.

This just doesn't work for me. There are too many conditions that have to be added before it even begins to sound plausible. As soon as numerous unverified variables have to be added to make a scenario work, we should realize we're probably working with fiction.

 

[quesarita]

I am not allowed to link to forums, but just found one where it was said that "we know she ate a mushroom or had one forced into her mouth". I know Hendry said she ate a mushroom. :tears:

from Bing search, my google is locked :tears: accident reconstruction expert like Ron Hendry is remarkable considering all they had ... scenario of Meredith taking a mushroom from the fridge after she ..

When you can use google again, check out Honor Bound (Sollecito) page 105 "The Great Mushroom Conspiracy".

 

[SMK]

That's was I was expecting. First we have him throwing a rock that turns 90 degrees mid-air after it hits a window, but the glass continues on the same trajectory as the original trajectory of the rock. Then, we have glass that is placed on the window ledge and no glass is displaced while he climbs threw the window; no glass on the ground beneath the window. Next, he turns on the light to ransack the bedroom, steals nothing, and kindly turns off the light and closes the door. He heads to the bathroom, where he either doesn't turn on the light in the laundry room, or he does turn on the light in the laundry room. I would assume that he turned on the light to locate the bathroom. When he hears Meredith at the door, he jumps off the toilet in the middle of doing his business (which we know is not a tidy business), runs to turn off the laundry room light, runs back to the toilet, and continues in the dark. Meredith comes home. Suddenly, Guede has a flashlight, although I've never read anything about a flashlight before ... perhaps I missed it.

Meredith goes to her bedroom, takes her textbook and notebook out of her bag. She doesn't hear Guede, and doesn't see his flashlight.

This just doesn't work for me. There are too many conditions that have to be added before it even begins to sound plausible. As soon as numerous unverified variables have to be added to make a scenario work, we should realize we're probably working with fiction.

:clap: I hear you, brother :clap: This is why the simulation theory still stands.

 

[SMK]

When you can use google again, check out Honor Bound (Sollecito) page 105 "The Great Mushroom Conspiracy".

 

[quesarita]

That's was I was expecting. First we have him throwing a rock that turns 90 degrees mid-air after it hits a window, but the glass continues on the same trajectory as the original trajectory of the rock. Then, we have glass that is placed on the window ledge and no glass is displaced while he climbs threw the window; no glass on the ground beneath the window. Next, he turns on the light to ransack the bedroom, steals nothing, and kindly turns off the light and closes the door. He heads to the bathroom, where he either doesn't turn on the light in the laundry room, or he does turn on the light in the laundry room. I would assume that he turned on the light to locate the bathroom. When he hears Meredith at the door, he jumps off the toilet in the middle of doing his business (which we know is not a tidy business), runs to turn off the laundry room light, runs back to the toilet, and continues in the dark. Meredith comes home. Suddenly, Guede has a flashlight, although I've never read anything about a flashlight before ... perhaps I missed it.

Meredith goes to her bedroom, takes her textbook and notebook out of her bag. She doesn't hear Guede, and doesn't see his flashlight.

This just doesn't work for me. There are too many conditions that have to be added before it even begins to sound plausible. As soon as numerous unverified variables have to be added to make a scenario work, we should realize we're probably working with fiction.

No, you're just creating problems to make it sound implausible. It would not be surprising to find an intruder remembered to bring a flashlight; it would not be surprising that someone could find the bathroom without turning on the laundry light; also, if the bathroom door opens the way it shows in the police generated floor plan, he wouldn't even have to leave his seat to turn off the bathroom light and close the door, wouldn't even have to close the door all the way.

 

[aa9511]

OK - I see where you're coming from: You rob a liquor store, and the police are after you and arrest you. Only you find that they also believe 2 men were in on it with you, and in fact did most of it - you were just an accomplice. You can't believe your good luck, and say, "yeah, I was just going along with them."

So why didn't Guede do this?

If the 2 are innocent, he would still have been likely to have used them. If guilty, why not? The only thing I can think of is, he maintains he had a date and did nothing wrong at all.(just like you might say you were only in the liquor store to shop---you had NOTHING to do with it.)

Yes SMK, exactly!!

Ok I understand where you are coming from in the second paragraph, and that also makes a lot of sense. I think the thing is, that they had evidence that he was doing more than just "shopping." For example, during the robbery, the store owner got shot and killed. And they have video of you holding a bag and putting liquor bottles in your bag, on the other side of the store from the register and shopowner (this is where you were in the start). However, they have no video of you close to the cash register, or close to the cashier/shop-owner. The video got cut off, and so there is no video of the actual shooting of the shop owner. But in reality, you proceeded towards the register area, you stole money, and in the process shot the shopowner, who was reaching for the phone to call the police.

Then suddenly you have the good fortune of these 2 guys named as accomplices, even though you actually did everything yourself, including steal money and shoot the shop owner.

So of course, the natural thing to say would be to say, "I was only putting bottles in the bag, they were dealing with the cash and in the process they shot the homeowner. See - I was on the other side of the store, and they were by the register. They shot the owner, not me." Because they already have video of you putting the bottles in your bag, so you can't really go any more "innocent." But you can avoid going "more guilty."

This is the way I view it. Not view it, but you know what I mean - this is the way I think Rudy would have seen his situation and tried to pass off the blame of the murder.

 

[Katody]

Guede breaks in, breaking the window like in Pasquali's reconstruction and climbing in like in the TV reconstruction.
He pulls the shutters in, goes to the bathroom, Meredith comes home and heads for her room, he then sneaks on her and attacks.

Works for me.

Otto makes a lot of unsubstantiated and unreasonable assumptions that are not grounded in any evidence or common experience, IMO.

 

[otto]

No, you're just creating problems to make it sound implausible. It would not be surprising to find an intruder remembered to bring a flashlight; it would not be surprising that someone could find the bathroom without turning on the laundry light; also, if the bathroom door opens the way it shows in the police generated floor plan, he wouldn't even have to leave his seat to turn off the bathroom light and close the door, wouldn't even have to close the door all the way.

Who would expect a bathroom to be at the end of the laundry room? If Guede looked up when he entered the cottage, he would have seen the small bathroom at the end of the hall. He would have had to look to find the second bathroom.

Did Guede use a flashlight in a burglary prior to the murder? It is often stated that Guede broke a window during a burglary, therefore he broke the window. In the same line of reasoning, if he never brought a flashlight to a burglary, why would he suddenly have one with him on the night of the murder?

He would have to get off the toilet to turn off the laundry room light.

 

[SMK]

Yes SMK, exactly!!

Ok I understand where you are coming from in the second paragraph, and that also makes a lot of sense. I think the thing is, that they had evidence that he was doing more than just "shopping." For example, during the robbery, the store owner got shot and killed. And they have video of you holding a bag and putting liquor bottles in your bag, on the other side of the store from the register and shopowner (this is where you were in the start). However, they have no video of you close to the cash register, or close to the cashier/shop-owner. The video got cut off, and so there is no video of the actual shooting of the shop owner. But in reality, you proceeded towards the register area, you stole money, and in the process shot the shopowner, who was reaching for the phone to call the police.

Then suddenly you have the good fortune of these 2 guys named as accomplices, even though you actually did everything yourself, including steal money and shoot the shop owner.

So of course, the natural thing to say would be to say, "I was only putting bottles in the bag, they were dealing with the cash and in the process they shot the homeowner. See - I was on the other side of the store, and they were by the register. They shot the owner, not me." Because they already have video of you putting the bottles in your bag, so you can't really go any more "innocent." But you can avoid going "more guilty."

This is the way I view it. Not view it, but you know what I mean - this is the way I think Rudy would have seen his situation and tried to pass off the blame of the murder.

Exactly. So why did he not avail himself of this "out"

 

[Katody]

One thing I'd like to add,

There is evidence of single person attacking and murdering Meredith in her room. Evidence of Guede.

Taken as a whole the evidence shows a most usual crime of burglary gone murder.

It's hard to accept that some nebulous three way sex game, group rape prank assault, mortal group-fight over unflushed poo or whatever other scenario it is now happened somehow leaving no evidence but the evidence of simple burglary by one guy.

It would be easier to accept something so unusual if someone was able to very specifically and precisely point out what happened and which elements of evidence support it, explaining the reasoning and scenario step by step. Nothing like this happened so far, especially not in the courtroom. The prosecution's explanation is everchanging and foggy.

 

[quesarita]

Who would expect a bathroom to be at the end of the laundry room? If Guede looked up when he entered the cottage, he would have seen the small bathroom at the end of the hall. He would have had to look to find the second bathroom.

Did Guede use a flashlight in a burglary prior to the murder? It is often stated that Guede broke a window during a burglary, therefore he broke the window. In the same line of reasoning, if he never brought a flashlight to a burglary, why would he suddenly have one with him on the night of the murder?

He would have to get off the toilet to turn off the laundry room light.

Seriously, you'll have to call Italy and ask Rudy what he did with his flashlight. You cannot prove to me he couldn't have found one, purchased one, stolen one, owned one. After looking at the floor plan, you also will not be able to convince me that he would NEED to turn on the laundry room light to find the bathroom even if he did not have said flashlight.