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

[aa9511]

Some very good points.

I do think, though, that Rudy - because he knew Giacamo, supplied the guys with drugs, often partied with them, and had flirted with both AK and MK - did feel less than random. He had a close connection with the cottage, and may have been paranoid about being suspected right away (as it is, he left plenty of evidence).

I think if he was planning to rape Meredith, it would make sense to go to her bedroom. If she hadn't fought and tried to escape (and there are indications that she did) he may have been planning to conduct a full rape on the bed.

Just some observations, but you make some excellent points.

What difference did it make to him where he raped her? I don't mean to be crude, that is just the reality. I don't think it would made a difference to hiim that it had to be on Meredith's bed.

 

[sherlockh]

When a window is broken from outside, the glass will fall both ways. Most will fall inside, but there would also be glass falling outside. It is rather unlikely the glass would not fall outside and not even on the outside of the ledge. The glass stopped in a straight line, as if the outside shutters were closed when the window was broken.

IMO the window was broken from the inside, left inside shutter open, as well as the window. Rock thrown or just broken with rock in hand from right to left. Inner shutter kept right behind the window to prevent the glass from going the wrong way, causing a dent from the rock. The rug was used to make the spread of glass look a bit more natural (maybe also to lessen the noise of falling glass). The rug is laying a bit too neatly straight there with all the mess in the room, but one edge of the rug is strangely pulled over the wheel of the nightstand. A big piece of glass broken into little pieces that all remain together, even though the piece supposedly came flying half way through the room. The whole situation does not look as if a huge rock was thrown from the outside through the window. JMO.

 

[aa9511]

I have long believed that Knox, Guede and Sollecito were involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher. I didn't start with that assumption and then attempt to wrap the evidence into that belief, but rather started with the assumption that anything was possible. It was after several months of watching the evidence as it was revealed that I came to that conclusion. Nothing has convinced me to change my mind, however, I am interested in sometimes seeing how the evidence fits if Knox and Sollecito are excluded.

If Guede did throw a rock through the window, scale the wall and enter through the window, and problems with that scenario are set aside, then it is also possible that Guede would cover Meredith's body, lock her bedroom door and leave the front door unlocked. It is equally possible that Knox would throw a duvet over Meredith, lock her door and leave the front door unlocked.

Yes, that is very open-minded of you, Otto. But I also think that, logically, some things are out of place in the scenario of Guede and the keys and the locking of doors. First of all, I have many issues with how the struggle is contained to Meredith's room in that scenario. So he breaks the window, there is a loud CRASH and then someone thud, thud, entering through the window. If Meredith is there, she would have heard something. Yet I don't believe she would have just sat silently in her room while Rudy rummaged through Filomena's room. If Meredith was not there, she would have seen him before reaching her bedroom once she came in, IMO. There would have been light on in Filomena's room (he rummaged through it), also light on in the bathroom if he was in the bathroom at the time she came in. Also maybe light on in kitchen area since he he might have helped himself to some food or drink in there. Many lights on when Meredith walks in. Wouldn't she have checked to see where Filomena might be, since the signs would be pointing to Filomena having come home early (Filomena bedroom light on and her bathroom light on)? How is it that she just walked all the way to her room and ignored all of those signs? If Rudy threated her with knife to walk to her room, the question is....why? Why her room?

Also with the keys and locking the doors, I see no evidence of Rudy searching for keys. How did he, first of all, know the front door was unlocked? How did he know exactly where her keys were located? Amanda and RS would have known more about the keys and the doors, and plus they could have covered their tracks. In lone-wolf, Rudy did not cover his tracks. What I see in the evidence is that he goes straight out the front door after the murder.

 

[aa9511]

Yes i can see your point. IMO she was covered with a duvet, I think it was clear to whoever covered her that she was going no where and they didn't want to look at her.

Yes, ITA. Also that leaves the question of why would they take a chance of letting her live, after what they had done to her?? It doesn't make sense to me. If putting the duvet over her and taking the cell phones was because they thought she had a chance to live, why would they let that chance be after what they had done to her.

Also, in some scenarios, it is suggested that the whole reason Rudy killed her was so she "wouldn't talk." This also goes for some scenarios with the 3 involved. So she doesn't talk.

So here they are, thinking she just might survive, so they take her cell phones, throw a duvet over her, and lock her door.....after they had stabbed her so she wouldn't live to talk about it.

 

[otto]

Yes, that is very open-minded of you, Otto. But I also think that, logically, some things are out of place in the scenario of Guede and the keys and the locking of doors. First of all, I have many issues with how the struggle is contained to Meredith's room in that scenario. So he breaks the window, there is a loud CRASH and then someone thud, thud, entering through the window. If Meredith is there, she would have heard something. Yet I don't believe she would have just sat silently in her room while Rudy rummaged through Filomena's room. If Meredith was not there, she would have seen him before reaching her bedroom once she came in, IMO. There would have been light on in Filomena's room (he rummaged through it), also light on in the bathroom if he was in the bathroom at the time she came in. Also maybe light on in kitchen area since he he might have helped himself to some food or drink in there. Many lights on when Meredith walks in. Wouldn't she have checked to see where Filomena might be, since the signs would be pointing to Filomena having come home early (Filomena bedroom light on and her bathroom light on)? How is it that she just walked all the way to her room and ignored all of those signs? If Rudy threated her with knife to walk to her room, the question is....why? Why her room?

Also with the keys and locking the doors, I see no evidence of Rudy searching for keys. How did he, first of all, know the front door was unlocked? How did he know exactly where her keys were located? Amanda and RS would have known more about the keys and the doors, and plus they could have covered their tracks. In lone-wolf, Rudy did not cover his tracks. What I see in the evidence is that he goes straight out the front door after the murder.

You are quite right. If Meredith arrived to Guede in the cottage with lights on, she would have seen Filomina's broken window, as that faces the entrance to the cottage and parking pad. The sensible thing would be that she would have called Filomina, not entered the cottage. If she was at home, a break in with a rock through a window would have alerted her and she would have had time to contact help before locking herself in her bedroom.

True again that there was no evidence of a search for keys and no prints to and from the door when he realized that the door was key locked.

 

[aa9511]

Re: Guede's Skype conversation

It has been pointed out quite often that Rudy never mentioned Amanda in that convo and of course, that he didn't accuse her.

But IMO there are veiled references to Amanda. For example, the last part where he tells the friend something about the clothes and who would have done something to him, and he is kind of saying, "look at Amanda."

Can anyone tell me please what the relative timing of that Skype call was, relative to what was out in the papers and relative to what position Amanda and RS were in at that time?

If he wanted to put the blame on Amanda b/c of what he read in the papers, in the Amanda/RS-innocent scenario, why didn't he just put the blame on them? Kind of like the Amanda/Patrick situation in the guilty scenario - why woudln't he want to steer everyone in their direction to take the investigation a whole opposite way and away from him? It seems to me, in the Amanda/RS innocent scenario, seems to me that Rudy would have been more than glad to have someone other than him be suspected for the crime - that would be perfect for him, in fact. He has come up with many stories. Why didn't he come up with a story to blame them, in the Amanda/RS-innocent scenario, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing that.

I am confused regarding this.

 

[otto]

Re: Guede's Skype conversation

It has been pointed out quite often that Rudy never mentioned Amanda in that convo and of course, that he didn't accuse her.

But IMO there are veiled references to Amanda. For example, the last part where he tells the friend something about the clothes and who would have done something to him, and he is kind of saying, "look at Amanda."

Can anyone tell me please what the relative timing of that Skype call was, relative to what was out in the papers and relative to what position Amanda and RS were in at that time?

If he wanted to put the blame on Amanda b/c of what he read in the papers, in the Amanda/RS-innocent scenario, why didn't he just put the blame on them? Kind of like the Amanda/Patrick situation in the guilty scenario - why woudln't he want to steer everyone in their direction to take the investigation a whole opposite way and away from him? It seems to me, in the Amanda/RS innocent scenario, seems to me that Rudy would have been more than glad to have someone other than him be suspected for the crime - that would be perfect for him, in fact. He has come up with many stories. Why didn't he come up with a story to blame them, in the Amanda/RS-innocent scenario, he has nothing to lose and everything to gain by doing that.

I am confused regarding this.

I get confused when I see it suggested that when three people are involved in a murder, one should tell the world about the other two. That might make sense in a world where the prosecutor makes a deal with one to convict the other two, but there are no deals in Italy, so there is no upside for any of the three to inform on the others.

 

[aa9511]

I get confused when I see it suggested that when three people are involved in a murder, one should tell the world about the other two. That might make sense in a world where the prosecutor makes a deal with one to convict the other two, but there are no deals in Italy, so there is no upside for any of the three to inform on the others.

Yes, especially when he is already getting a "deal" with the fast-track. I mean, I don't know what kind of better deal there would be then that? His lawyers I'm sure informed him that there is no way they are going to offer a deal for "2 years" or something along those lines, that was completely out of the question.

But let's take the Amanda and RS innocent scenario for a minute. We know that Rudy does not want people to think he had anything to do with the murder itself, up until this day he does not want to be associated with it. You have two innocent people, Amanda and RS, being accused of a crime he and he solely committed. Why not just run with that? The supporters of her innocence are always saying, why didn't he read his statement out loud himself? Why was he so reluctant to talk about Amanda and RS? (Their answer is that he knows it's false). But by this point, why is that a barrier? Meaning, it had gotten already to the point of Amanda and RS being on trial for the murder, the murder that he supposedly solely committed.

So, the question the supporters of her innocence are always asking, I would ask right back - why didn't he accuse them "more"? What did he have to lose? Nothing. He had nothing to lose in the innocent-scenario. He made such outrageous assertions in his attempt to make it seem he had nothing to do with the murder itself, yet he somehow restrains himself in his story-telling with respect to Amanda and Raffaele. Why?

 

[otto]

Yes, especially when he is already getting a "deal" with the fast-track. I mean, I don't know what kind of better deal there would be then that? His lawyers I'm sure informed him that there is no way they are going to offer a deal for "2 years" or something along those lines, that was completely out of the question.

But let's take the Amanda and RS innocent scenario for a minute. We know that Rudy does not want people to think he had anything to do with the murder itself, up until this day he does not want to be associated with it. You have two innocent people, Amanda and RS, being accused of a crime he and he solely committed. Why not just run with that? The supporters of her innocence are always saying, why didn't he read his statement out loud himself? Why was he so reluctant to talk about Amanda and RS? (Their answer is that he knows it's false). But by this point, why is that a barrier? Meaning, it had gotten already to the point of Amanda and RS being on trial for the murder, the murder that he supposedly solely committed.

So, the question the supporters of her innocence are always asking, I would ask right back - why didn't he accuse them "more"? What did he have to lose? Nothing. He had nothing to lose in the innocent-scenario. He made such outrageous assertions in his attempt to make it seem he had nothing to do with the murder itself, yet he somehow restrains himself in his story-telling with respect to Amanda and Raffaele. Why?

I would agree that there is no upside for Guede for him to say another word about the murder. He has been convicted and he is eligible for parole next year. This is almost behind him and hopefully, he will take a different path in life when he is released. If he acted alone, his ambiguity about the participation of others has left open the possibility that he did not actually commit the murder, but that he was present at the time of the murder. That's the best that he can hope for. If he acted with Knox and Sollecito, then his implication that they were involved ensures that they do not get away with murder because of him, but he also does not wear the hat of someone that boldly accused others of murder. It seems to me that he has left it in the hands of the prosecutor to do his job.

Regarding Guede's statement, I paid no attention to it at the time. Did Guede refuse to testify? Was it then left to the prosecutor to read his statement?

 

[aa9511]

I would agree that there is no upside for Guede for him to say another word about the murder. He has been convicted and he is eligible for parole next year. This is almost behind him and hopefully, he will take a different path in life when he is released. If he acted alone, his ambiguity about the participation of others has left open the possibility that he did not actually commit the murder, but that he was present at the time of the murder. That's the best that he can hope for. If he acted with Knox and Sollecito, then his implication that they were involved ensures that they do not get away with murder because of him, but he also does not wear the hat of someone that boldly accused others of murder. It seems to me that he has left it in the hands of the prosecutor to do his job.

Regarding Guede's statement, I paid no attention to it at the time. Did Guede refuse to testify? Was it then left to the prosecutor to read his statement?

But right now I am just thinking about it in terms of the innocent scenario. In that scenario, Amanda and RS being innocent, what was holding him back from making up stories about Amanda and RS? He made up stories about listening to his Ipod or whatever it was, sitting on the toilet, etc.etc.. When he already knew Amanda and RS were suspected as well. So it would have been very easy for him to "fit" Amanda and RS into that story. Make up stories about them, I mean more detailed stories than just some guy with brown hair. He obviously knows how to embellish other things to benefit himself, why did he hold back with Amanda and RS? In the innocent scenario. In the innocent scenario, they have nothing on him, because they do not know what happened that night. If he says something about them, what are they going to say about him? They can't say anything b/c they weren't there and they don't know what happened (innocent scenario).

So he has nothing to lose by talking about them, in the innocent scenario. So why did he not talk about them? I mean real talking, making up stories just like he made up story about him sitting on the toilet listening to music. Make up story and blame Amanda and RS. What did he have to lose?

I don't know if I'm making sense. I understand him not wanting to testify. But in the beginning, when he was making up stories, he already knew Amanda and RS were suspected. Why didn't he make up a story to include them? If they were innocent, what did he have to lose about making up some false story about them? They would not be able to say anything about him, because they weren't there. It would have been to his benefit, in the scenario of their innocence.

 

[otto]

But right now I am just thinking about it in terms of the innocent scenario. In that scenario, Amanda and RS being innocent, what was holding him back from making up stories about Amanda and RS? He made up stories about listening to his Ipod or whatever it was, sitting on the toilet, etc.etc.. When he already knew Amanda and RS were suspected as well. So it would have been very easy for him to "fit" Amanda and RS into that story. Make up stories about them, I mean more detailed stories than just some guy with brown hair. He obviously knows how to embellish other things to benefit himself, why did he hold back with Amanda and RS? In the innocent scenario. In the innocent scenario, they have nothing on him, because they do not know what happened that night. If he says something about them, what are they going to say about him? They can't say anything b/c they weren't there and they don't know what happened (innocent scenario).

So he has nothing to lose by talking about them, in the innocent scenario. So why did he not talk about them? I mean real talking, making up stories just like he made up story about him sitting on the toilet listening to music. Make up story and blame Amanda and RS. What did he have to lose?

I don't know if I'm making sense. I understand him not wanting to testify. But in the beginning, when he was making up stories, he already knew Amanda and RS were suspected. Why didn't he make up a story to include them? If they were innocent, what did he have to lose about making up some false story about them? They would not be able to say anything about him, because they weren't there. It would have been to his benefit, in the scenario of their innocence.

If the other two were innocent, then it makes sense to me that he wouldn't outright accuse them of murder. But at the same time, if they were involved, I can also see that he would not outright implicate them.

For example, if three people stole a cookie and one got caught, chances are that the one that got caught will take the fall. If one person stole a cookie and got caught, again, there's no reason to name others.

If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that: after he knew that he was going to prison for murder, why didn't he use the information he knew about the other two to tell an elaborate story about their involvement. I think he knew that it wouldn't make any difference for him.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I get confused when I see it suggested that when three people are involved in a murder, one should tell the world about the other two. That might make sense in a world where the prosecutor makes a deal with one to convict the other two, but there are no deals in Italy, so there is no upside for any of the three to inform on the others.

There's no need to be confused because it's rather straight forward. In a guilt scenario, his accomplices were already arrested and in custody so he would have feared they'd spill the beans on his involvement and blame him. Even more so, he would have tried to pin it all on them because the diabolical duo framed him removing their traces with all the "cleaning & staging" and made it look like the type of burglary he'd committed just recently. If he was prepared to admit being in the murder room to his best friend, then there's no reason at all to not say Amanda & Raffaele were there as well, let alone clearly say she wasn't involved if she was.

He knew they were innocent and probably expected them to be released like Patrick so he came up with his SODDI story of being there on a date and the mystery Italian guy did it while he sat on the toilet.

 

[aa9511]

If the other two were innocent, then it makes sense to me that he wouldn't outright accuse them of murder. But at the same time, if they were involved, I can also see that he would not outright implicate them.

For example, if three people stole a cookie and one got caught, chances are that the one that got caught will take the fall. If one person stole a cookie and got caught, again, there's no reason to name others.

If I understand correctly, what you're saying is that: after he knew that he was going to prison for murder, why didn't he use the information he knew about the other two to tell an elaborate story about their involvement. I think he knew that it wouldn't make any difference for him.

No, not after he knew that he was going to prison for murder and the whole thing was settled as far as his end of it - I guess I'm talking more in the beginning, when he first got arrested and the time after that, weren't Amanda and RS already arrested?

So there he is with evidence on him. And he also knows that two innocent people (in innocence scenario), Amanda and RS, are suspected along with him, for something only he did. And he wants to make people think that he did not actually participate in the killing itself. So what I don't get is....there are already 2 people built-in to his "story" in that case, and those people being innocent, he can say whatever he wants about them and they cannot say anything back about his involvement because they weren't there. Why would he not fit them into his "story"?

 

[MichaelSmith]

No, not after he knew that he was going to prison for murder and the whole thing was settled as far as his end of it - I guess I'm talking more in the beginning, when he first got arrested and the time after that, weren't Amanda and RS already arrested?

So there he is with evidence on him. And he also knows that two innocent people (in innocence scenario), Amanda and RS, are suspected along with him, for something only he did. And he wants to make people think that he did not actually participate in the killing itself. So what I don't get is....there are already 2 people built-in to his "story" in that case, and those people being innocent, he can say whatever he wants about them and they cannot say anything back about his involvement because they weren't there. Why would he not fit them into his "story"?

He did fit her into his story. He said she stole Meredith's rent money, not him, and if her clothes had been washed it must have been them.

 

[aa9511]

He did fit her into his story. He said she stole Meredith's rent money not him and if her clothes had been washed it must have been them.

You want to make people think you had nothing to do with the murder itself, and there are 2 innocent people suspected of the murder itself along with you, and the only blame you give them is stealing money and washing clothes?

 

[SMK]

No, not after he knew that he was going to prison for murder and the whole thing was settled as far as his end of it - I guess I'm talking more in the beginning, when he first got arrested and the time after that, weren't Amanda and RS already arrested?

So there he is with evidence on him. And he also knows that two innocent people (in innocence scenario), Amanda and RS, are suspected along with him, for something only he did. And he wants to make people think that he did not actually participate in the killing itself. So what I don't get is....there are already 2 people built-in to his "story" in that case, and those people being innocent, he can say whatever he wants about them and they cannot say anything back about his involvement because they weren't there. Why would he not fit them into his "story"?

Guede actually did fit them into his story - said he saw someone who looked like Sollectio, and saw Knox's silouhette, and heard her voice.

 

[MichaelSmith]

You want to make people think you had nothing to do with the murder itself, and there are 2 innocent people suspected of the murder itself along with you, and the only blame you give them is stealing money and washing clothes?

Yes. That's what he did but then as time went on kept adding to his story and their involvement which is what someone looking for a deal or got a deal and reduced sentence does.

 

[SMK]

Sorry for never having gotten my facts straight on this, but was Sollecito's DNA found only on the metal clasp, or on the cloth as well? (of the clasp section, not the whole bra). thanks

 

[Harmony 2]

Sorry for never having gotten my facts straight on this, but was Sollecito's DNA found only on the metal clasp, or on the cloth as well? (of the clasp section, not the whole bra). thanks

IIRC just on one tiny clasp and not on the cloth or the clasp section.

 

[aa9511]

Guede actually did fit them into his story - said he saw someone who looked like Sollectio, and saw Knox's silouhette, and heard her voice.

Yes, but to me those are kind of general remarks, like he wanted to allude to them but not actually name them. At that point, he already knew they - Amanda and Raffaele - were suspected. So why didn't he include them in more specific terms? His whole point then and his whole point now, IMO, is to try to deny responsibility of actually wielding the knife and killing Meredith. What better way to deny responsibility of the wielding of knife and of the killing then shift that burden onto the other two - the other two who he already knew by name, who were suspected and then arrested.