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

[aa9511]

It is a speculative idea, based on some questions of circumstantial evidence.

bbm

I don't know if I would call it "circumstantial" - more like looking at the direct evidence but in a whole, encompassing way, tying all the different pieces of hard evidence found together.

 

[aa9511]

If everything happened the way I think it happened, I have to wonder how Rudy, Amanda, and RS felt about the different theories of what happened that night, and how
wrong everybody was. Everybody was wrong, including those who believed they were guilty, as far as what led up to what happened and what all was involved. And how the murder unfolded and for what reasons.

 

[SMK]

If everything happened the way I think it happened, I have to wonder how Rudy, Amanda, and RS felt about the different theories of what happened that night, and how
wrong everybody was. Everybody was wrong, including those who believed they were guilty, as far as what led up to what happened and what all was involved. And how the murder unfolded and for what reasons.

Yes; it is an interesting point.

 

[SMK]

bbm

I don't know if I would call it "circumstantial" - more like looking at the direct evidence but in a whole, encompassing way, tying all the different pieces of hard evidence found together.

The reason I used "circumstantial" is was because I was thinking of the lamp:

(was it plugged in and held upside down, used like a search-light to "sweep" the room, perhaps looking for a lost earring, etc.? A piece of tell-tale evidence left behind? Was MK covered with the duvet as they could not bear to look at her as the swept the room with the lamp?)

The lamp, together with the pre-dawn call to mother, the calls to Filomena, and some other things have to be used to draw inference from:

This is why I say ''circumstantial" and not "direct".....

 

[Katody]

Palmprint....but Katody I distinctly recall you correcting me when I attributed palmprint to him one time? How is it now that you are wiritng the exact same thing you corrected me on? Can you please explain this to me?

Explanation is simple: you remember wrong. There was Guede's palmprint on the pillowcase, why would I deny it?

Perhaps there is "more" evidence of Guede on her b/c the initial prank involved him grabbing hold of her first. Then Amanda and Raffaele come out and scare her with the knives and whatever else they did. She gets accidentally stuck with the knife. Rudy drops her. They panic. They decide they have to make it look like someone murdered her. In this case, Rudy had the most physical contact with her, holding her.

You're sure the large wound is accidental? When does Guede undress and rape her? Before the stabbing? Doesn't look like a good prank to me. What is Guede doing with the pillow and the bra after the stabbing? How come there are only his traces all over?

Amanda's footprints are elsewhree in the house, too, as well as one of Raffaele's.

Excellent if you believe so. There is not a footprint of them in the room. A miracle.

And also Raffaele's DNA is on the bra strap.

Yet somehow none on the surrounding fabric. How did ha manage to plant his DNA there without touching the rest of the clasp, the bra or anything else in the room? Another miracle. And Stefanoni managed to destroy completely the highly contested bra clasp, preventing any independent testing. How convenient.

 

[Katody]

The reason I used "circumstantial" is was because I was thinking of the lamp:

(was it plugged in and held upside down, used like a search-light to "sweep" the room, perhaps looking for a lost earring, etc.? A piece of tell-tale evidence left behind? Was MK covered with the duvet as they could not bear to look at her as the swept the room with the lamp?)

The lamp, together with the pre-dawn call to mother, the calls to Filomena, and some other things have to be used to draw inference from:

This is why I say ''circumstantial" and not "direct".....

All of it is useless because you can draw inferences in any direction you want.

For example. The lamp Meredith borrowed some time before and it happened to be on her desk and fell on the floor during the attack.
Amanda called her mother to tell her about the break-in she discovered. Etc. Etc.

I see some more interesting inferences that are not so ambiguous:

Now, what inference do we draw from the fact that no trace of Amanda is in Meredith's room?

What inference do we draw from the fact that none of the three people arrested before the forensic results came matched the bloody palmprint on the pillowcase?

What inference do we draw from the fact that the person finally matched to it happened to be a known burglar?

 

[SMK]

All of it is useless because you can draw inferences in any direction you want.

For example. The lamp Meredith borrowed some time before and it happened to be on her desk and fell on the floor during the attack.
Amanda called her mother to tell her about the break-in she discovered. Etc. Etc.

I see some more interesting inferences that are not so ambiguous:

Now, what inference do we draw from the fact that no trace of Amanda is in Meredith's room?

What inference do we draw from the fact that none of the three people arrested before the forensic results matched the bloody palmprint on the pillowcase?

What inference do we draw from the fact that the person finally matched to it happened to be a known burglar?

Of course I know that the lone wolf can be inferenced from much of the evidence : However, it still leaves questions, many questions , for some of us. If the court believes that the evidence points to a lone wolf, and acquits them, and explains this, I will accept it. Until then, I do believe some inference can point in the other direction....and it continues to do so for me.....

 

[Katody]

Of course I know that the lone wolf can be inferenced from much of the evidence : However, it still leaves questions, many questions , for some of us. If the court believes that the evidence points to a lone wolf, and acquits them, and explains this, I will accept it. Until then, I do believe some inference can point in the other direction....and it continues to do so for me.....

Inferences can be made from shifty look, kisses, phone calls to mother etc. but the forensic evidence can't be pieced together into anything coherently supporting these inferences.

We've seen it here and in the courtroom:
Most ludicrous theories of selective clean up, broken glass patterns defying physics, "bloody" prints that test negative for blood...

 

[Myvice]

I thought she was supposed to take part in the fight and overpowering.

I guess she teleported herself into the room, stabbed Meredith and teleported herself away, so did Raffaele. That's why there is not a footprint and no fingerprint of theirs inside. I guess you agree Guede is the only one who struggled with Meredith and overpowered her, given that only his evidence is there.

Leaving DNA in boyfriend's flat and in your own bathroom doesn't count as murder evidence.
I guess they were just miraculously lucky to not leave a single footprint, fingerprint or speck of DNA in that room.

Would that be in the same way RG teleported himself into the bathroom to clean himself without leaving any DNA?

Maybe AK and RS were wearing gloves as part of the prank?

 

[Myvice]

As far as all of AK and RS's clothes being accounted for, would that include costumes or something from a thrift shop recently purchased to make a costume?

 

[Katody]

Would that be in the same way RG teleported himself into the bathroom to clean himself without leaving any DNA?

He left his quite distinct bare footprint and a lot of blood traces. You wouldn't expect cleaning to leave DNA - you think Raffaele cleaned himself without leaving DNA after all, right?

OTOH The struggle in the room left a lot of prints and DNA traces , there is no doubt about it.

Maybe AK and RS were wearing gloves as part of the prank?

Maybe they also levitated. How was undressing and raping the stabbed victim part of the prank? Do you have a theory?

 

[quesarita]

bbm

Well, when you put it thatway.....

It was not set out to be a "murderous prank." Or "fight over the poo." It was meant to be a FUN prank, no malice intended, just fun. IMO.

Palmprint....but Katody I distinctly recall you correcting me when I attributed palmprint to him one time? How is it now that you are wiritng the exact same thing you corrected me on? Can you please explain this to me?

Perhaps there is "more" evidence of Guede on her b/c the initial prank involved him grabbing hold of her first. Then Amanda and Raffaele come out and scare her with the knives and whatever else they did. She gets accidentally stuck with the knife. Rudy drops her. They panic. They decide they have to make it look like someone murdered her. In this case, Rudy had the most physical contact with her, holding her.

Amanda's footprints are elsewhree in the house, too, as well as one of Raffaele's. And also Raffaele's DNA is on the bra strap.

No, someone DID murder her.
There's more evidence of Rudy because he not only grabbed her or held her, he also penetrated her vaginally and possibly anally (autopsy report), moved her, tromped around in her blood, used towels to wipe or sop some of her blood, ejaculated (untested for no known reason). Amanda is directing all of this, to preserve her year abroad? Rudy does this at her direction like none of it would ever come back to him? Raffaele is standing around nodding his head?

 

[SMK]

Inferences can be made from shifty look, kisses, phone calls to mother etc. but the forensic evidence can't be pieced together into anything coherently supporting these inferences.

We've seen it here and in the courtroom:
Most ludicrous theories of selective clean up, broken glass patterns defying physics, "bloody" prints that test negative for blood...

I never placed any importance on kisses, cartwheels, words spoken , lingerie, etc.

I questioned only because of possibly suspicious overcalling on Nov 2, possibly wanting Filomena there when the body was discovered, Quintavalle possibly being right, etc.

 

[quesarita]

They did stage some aspects of the sexual assault, we don't know exactly what really happened that night.

Some staging of things was involved. This means that evidence was distorted. Thus, by necessity from those two acts, we do not have a clear picture of the what is real evidence and what is fake evidence.

So therefore how can we base our conclusions about this case from strictly taking the "evidence" we see, since we already know evidence has been changed by the perpetrators?

For example, the broken window - if investigators had not looked "beyond" the outward appeance of the broken window, and just taken it immediately as fact, then they would not have known the window was staged.

It is a very, very strange case indeed.

If nothing was staged, and the police stuck to their first impression because they realized the MO matched that of Rudy who they'd already dealt with on multiple occasions but let go every time, this whole theory falls apart. It is based solely on the the idea that the crime scene was changed or altered or fixed a certain way. If you remove the ideas of staging and cleaning, which are far from proven IMO, what have you got?

 

[Myvice]

He left his quite distinct bare footprint and a lot of blood traces. You wouldn't expect cleaning to leave DNA - you think Raffaele cleaned himself without leaving DNA after all, right?

OTOH The struggle in the room left a lot of prints and DNA traces , there is no doubt about it.



Maybe they also levitated. How was undressing and raping the stabbed victim part of the prank? Do you have a theory?

Why would he need to undress? Wasn't it thought to be digital penetration?

 

[Katody]

Why would he need to undress? Wasn't it thought to be digital penetration?

She had been undressed, with only her shirt pulled under her chin left on.
There was ejaculate on the pillow between her legs that the cops claimed they didn't test.

 

[Katody]

I never placed any importance on kisses, cartwheels, words spoken , lingerie, etc.

I questioned only because of possibly suspicious overcalling on Nov 2, possibly wanting Filomena there when the body was discovered, Quintavalle possibly being right, etc.

Qunitavalle being right the first time or the second time ?

 

[Myvice]

I can't imagine washing blood off my hands without leaving DNA. It is sticky and hard to get off. You need to use friction. Isn't that why AK's DNA was expected to be in the bathroom, Filomena's room etc? Because she lived there? Was AK tusseling with FR when her DNA got in FR's bedroom?

 

[Myvice]

She had been undressed, with only her shirt pulled under her chin left on.
There was ejaculate on the pillow between her legs that the cops claimed they didn't test.

So then it would be your opinion that it was ejaculate?

I wonder how many of the things not tested would have had AK or RS's DNA?

That goes both ways...IMO

 

[SMK]

Just making a note here:

I am open to guilt, which is why I continue to entertain the idea of it.
I am not sure of it, but lean toward it.

The best way I can express it is:

Certain clues, though small in themselves, reveal a cohesive narrative of what may have happened in the cottage involving to some degree, Knox, Sollecito, and to a greater (I believe) degree, Guede.

These are not wholly contradicted by the forensics, or by the presence of Mr. Guede.

Remember that Guede was NOT just a stranger, an anonymous "Burglar X":

He was known to Giacomo and the others downstairs; he supplied them with pot and drugs; he partied with them; he smoked and spoke with Amanda and Meredith downstairs; his apartment was one minute's walking distance and on the same street as Sollecito's; he was a regular at the basketball courts.