Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL* #2

[Amber29]

Don't see how just accidentally nicking someone would get blood where blade/handle join. Think about it. Sounds like it would takes lots, lots of blood to get it there.

I'm big on it's a sign of guilt when one has to change their account of things....

OT - Over the years my take on this case has changed - I am now very much touched by tragic, uncalled for, horrific, senseless death and suffering that Meredith was forced to endure. (sorry for a bit of a rant)
ETA: I'm not saying anyone here does not feel the same way.. regardless which side of guilt/innocence you're on.

Hmmm I'm confused by your post. Raffaele made up the nicking Meredith with the knife to explain her DNA that was found years ago on the blade. It's a flat out lie that IMO an innocent person wouldn't make up.
The new sample that was found near the handle is being tested as we speak. The results haven't been released.

Anyways just to be clear I strongly believe the 2 are guilty and my opinion hasn't changed since I started my own research on this case in early 2008. Although my first thoughts were from watching an American news story about the case that they were being railroaded. I quickly realized that's not the case when I started following it for my self and not relying on American media spin.

 

[otto]

Hmmm I'm confused by your post. Raffaele made up the nicking Meredith with the knife to explain her DNA that was found years ago on the blade. It's a flat out lie that IMO an innocent person wouldn't make up.
The new sample that was found near the handle is being tested as we speak. The results haven't been released.

Anyways just to be clear I strongly believe the 2 are guilty and my opinion hasn't changed since I started my own research on this case in early 2008. Although my first thoughts were from watching an American news story about the case that they were being railroaded. I quickly realized that's not the case when I started following it for my self and not relying on American media spin.

Exactly. When Sollecito heard the news report that Meredith's DNA had been found on the knife in his drawer, he wrote in his prison diary:

"In one entry Sollecito referred to the eight-inch black handled knife, which was found in his apartment, with DNA from Meredith on the tip and Knox's near the handle.

He wrote: "The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem."

However police have spoken to several of Meredith's friends who have all told detectives that Meredith, from Coulsdon, Surrey, had never been to Sollecito's house."


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-prison-diary-DNA-knife-pricked-cooking.html

 

[Nova]

Could burglary gone wrong still not apply here? RG intended to burglarize the cottage, found Meredith in the bedroom and instead RG raped and murdered poor Meredith, leaving quickly afterwards.

The feces in the toilet belonged to RG. The theory is that he stopped to use the bathroom and MK came home, interrupting his burglary.

 

[Nova]

bbm

Song22, love your post! Re: bolded part, I definately agree with this. I also think we tend to over-analyze cases and sometimes miss obvious points because we try so hard to give the accused the benefit of doubt.

But that works both ways: people (posters and prosecutors alike) bend over backwards to pick every incident in a suspect's life that can be used to cast him or her in a bad life. Talk about over-analyzing!

(This isn't a reference to you or your posts.)

 

[otto]

The feces in the toilet belonged to RG. The theory is that he stopped to use the bathroom and MK came home, interrupting his burglary.

If Guede needed to use the bathroom, he could have gone home to his own apartment.

Why would he go to someone else's home, throw a nine pound rock through a window, scale a shear wall, risk getting cut on the broken glass (which didn't happen), ransack a closet and then use the bathroom? The theory seems to contain an awful lot of unnecessary steps in terms of needing to use the bathroom, when it was much easier to simply go home.

 

[otto]

But that works both ways: people (posters and prosecutors alike) bend over backwards to pick every incident in a suspect's life that can be used to cast him or her in a bad life. Talk about over-analyzing!

(This isn't a reference to you or your posts.)

That is certainly what happened regarding one of the two prosecutors trying the case.

 

[Nova]

If Guede needed to use the bathroom, he could have gone home to his own apartment.

Why would he go to someone else's home, throw a nine pound rock through a window, scale a shear wall, risk getting cut on the broken glass (which didn't happen), ransack a closet and then use the bathroom? The theory seems to contain an awful lot of unnecessary steps in terms of needing to use the bathroom, when it was much easier to simply go home.

We don't have to answer "why". We know, thanks to DNA, that RG used the toilet in the cottage. We can assume he did so because he needed to go.

 

[otto]

We don't have to answer "why". We know, thanks to DNA, that RG used the toilet in the cottage. We can assume he did so because he needed to go.

We know he used the toilet, but that doesn't mean that he broke into the cottage to use the toilet. The prosecution theory is that Guede met with Sollecito and Knox in relation to drugs, that they went together to the cottage, that Guede used the toilet, that they chose to harass Meredith and ultimately murdered her. After the murder, they stole her rent money, stole both of her cell phones and fled the scene. Guede returned to his apartment where he changed clothes, and then he went dancing. Knox and Sollecito disposed of the phones and, after believing that no one had reported the screams, returned to the cottage to stage the scene. They returned to Sollecito's apartment at roughly 5:30 AM, where they used the computer to play music. They got up at about 10, and Knox went to the cottage to check the situation. After noon, they contacted Filomina ... and so on.

 

[OldSteve]

We don't have to answer "why". We know, thanks to DNA, that RG used the toilet in the cottage. We can assume he did so because he needed to go.

But could he have used it after the murder instead of before?

 

[otto]

But could he have used it after the murder instead of before?

Not really, since Guede's bloody shoe prints track directly from Meredith's bedroom out the front door.

 

[Kavya01]

Just a random sigh at the wasteful senseless violence in this world.
I so often think of the Meredith that might have been, the mother she might have become, the impact on the world she might have still had....

I do believe that, due to these arrogant youngsters, she is no more. All IMOO.
And even if that arrogance is punished, it is too late, too late.
It breaks my heart.

Kav.

 

[aa9511]

None of that is proof, only mere speculation on your part. I don't intend to jump through hoops because you want to hold me to standards of proof you don't meet yourself.

(Edited because Stephen King is discussed better above.)

The link you are trying to make between AK's alleged rape/murder "obsession" (which wasn't an obsession by any clinical definition) is as absurd as the prosecutor's insistence that he knew AK was guilty because of the way she moved her hips!

Sigh, I guess I'll jump into this whole "writing" debate....:floorlaugh:

Nova, I understand your above points. One thing I would like to mention is, a couple of months ago I watched the Grant Hayes trial (north carolina), I think I started from somewhere around the middle. I hope this is not ruled as off-topic, b/c I am just mentioning it as an example (thank you!). Anyway, he and his wife murdered his ex-wife, then chopped up her body and transported it via coolers all the way to Texas where they dumped her in a creek.

Now this Grant Hayes also considered himself a "creative type," and he was a musician. He wrote songs and sometimes recorded hip-hop songs. And in his actual trial, the prosecutors actually played one of his songs for the jury to hear. This song contained explicit lyrics specifically about killing his ex-wife, as well as general lyrics about killing in general. I can't remember the exact words, but let's just say it was "disturbed." IIRC, he also talked about rape, and rape in regards to both his ex-wife and in general.

The prosecutors were able to use it as one piece of evidence, I'm assuming partly to show he wanted to kill his ex-wife, and partly to show that he had disturbed thinking and was capable of doing what he did.

I believe the Grant Hayes judge allowed this recording in because he talked specifically about his ex-wife, the person he ended up murdering. I do not believe a judge would have allowed it otherwise, but my point is that if Amanda's trial was here in the U.S.., and if a judge allowed them, I would have no trouble believing that any prosecutor would want those writings in as evidence. (Not that a judge would allow it, but if they did for some reason).

So therefore, I do think they have value, whether they in reality should or not.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Not really, since Guede's bloody shoe prints track directly from Meredith's bedroom out the front door.

Then how did the blood get in the bathroom??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

 

[aa9511]

We know he used the toilet, but that doesn't mean that he broke into the cottage to use the toilet. The prosecution theory is that Guede met with Sollecito and Knox in relation to drugs, that they went together to the cottage, that Guede used the toilet, that they chose to harass Meredith and ultimately murdered her. After the murder, they stole her rent money, stole both of her cell phones and fled the scene. Guede returned to his apartment where he changed clothes, and then he went dancing. Knox and Sollecito disposed of the phones and, after believing that no one had reported the screams, returned to the cottage to stage the scene. They returned to Sollecito's apartment at roughly 5:30 AM, where they used the computer to play music. They got up at about 10, and Knox went to the cottage to check the situation. After noon, they contacted Filomina ... and so on.

bbm

I just had one of those aha moments reading what you wrote - "and then he went dancing." Seems to me like he was on some kind of hard drugs to be able to do all of that, and then go dancing till wee hours of the morning. Of course it could just be simply because he's craxy.

 

[aa9511]

The feces in the toilet belonged to RG. The theory is that he stopped to use the bathroom and MK came home, interrupting his burglary.

Yes, I also have a hard time believing that a burglar would risk taking the time to take a dump. It just doesn't seem plausible. Even if no one is home, I would think they would just want to get in and get out.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, I see your point and actually that makes a lot of sense. I keep going back and forth on this detail. But if I did something so heinous, would I rely on the other person to hold their tongue? Especially since she had been behaving so strangely, as even noted by RS? I lean towards her innocence and even I think she was acting oddly. But I have learned over many cases here on WS not to equate odd behavior with being a murderer.

bbm

I studied a little bit of economics. This whole thing about the 3 of them all keeping silent on each other intrigues me. It reminds me of an economics class I took (don't remember the name), anyway.....we would be given different scenarios....gosh darn I can't remember the details now....like for example salesman and customer.....and you have to figure out what the end deal is going to be based on what each of those two would do.

The basic premise was that of course, each person would have their own interest in mind and act according to that. So let's say for this scenario, all 3 (Rudy, AK, and RS are guilty).

Amanda - if she speaks out against either of the other two, they will rat her out and police would find out everything she did and the full extent of her involvement. She decides to stay shut, she doesn't want to risk that. Telling on the other two would be essentially like telling on herself, from her viewpoint.

RS - Same motivation as Amanda. If he says anything, he thinks the others will say about him. SO he decided to stay shut.

RG - in the beginning, says nothing based on same motivation as above for AK and RS. Right now, police had DNA on him, but they did not know the exact story, if he tells on either RS or AK, police would find out the exact story. This might put additional charges on him, considerably increasing his time in prison and perhaps then he couldn't have done fast track (which I don't knwo the exact terms of that, so I'm just hypothesizing.) And plus they had concrete DNA on him, so not like he could just try to get out of everything, he had to get the best deal he could based on information the police had on him. He decides to stay shut for his trial. After trial and conviction, he is still staying shut based on his interest that if he tells on AK and RS, they might divulge the full story, and he might get additional charges that he has to deal with, and more prison time.

If another person ratted them out, each individual would have it in his/her own interest to then divulge information about this other person's involvement.

Also, upon thinking of this some more, I believe that the people with the least amount of involvement in the activity (in this case murder), would have the greatest incentive to reach for some kind of plea deal (rat out/"snitch", but I don't really like to put it in those terms). Because then their lesser-involvement has a chance of being diluted even more as the biggest chunk of the blame (punishment) will be going to the ones who are the most heavily involved, thus reducing their own share of the blame.

So this leads me to conclude that the ones with the heavy involvement would have the least incentive to rat-out fellow participants. (Maybe also explaining why Rudy G didn't "tell" on the others?) If I follow my own conclusions -- it would lead to the conlusion that Rudy, AK and RS are all heavily involved. Perhaps equally involved.

Each person individually comes to the conclusion to keep their mouth shut.

Now whether that's true or not, I don't know.

 

[otto]

Then how did the blood get in the bathroom??

Which blood? In the bathroom, there was blood on the light switch, in the sink, in the bidet and on the bathmat. The bathmat barefoot print in Meredith's blood has a hammer toe and has been attributed to Sollecito in length, width and characteristics. There were no bloody foot prints leading to, or away from, the bathmat print. The blood in the sink is a mixture of Meredith and Knox. The blood on the light switch is Meredith's blood and where was no way to connect it with anyone because it was smeared.

 

[otto]

bbm

I just had one of those aha moments reading what you wrote - "and then he went dancing." Seems to me like he was on some kind of hard drugs to be able to do all of that, and then go dancing till wee hours of the morning. Of course it could just be simply because he's craxy.

He was up dancing at the club until 5 in the morning, so it's very likely he was on something. Given the fact that Knox and Sollecito claim that they woke up at 10 AM, but computer records show that they were listening to music at something like 5:23 AM, and Sollecito turned on his phone at about 6, it's likely that they returned home shortly after 5, around the same time that Guede returned home. Whatever they were on must have been wearing off at that time.

 

[otto]

bbm

I studied a little bit of economics. This whole thing about the 3 of them all keeping silent on each other intrigues me. It reminds me of an economics class I took (don't remember the name), anyway.....we would be given different scenarios....gosh darn I can't remember the details now....like for example salesman and customer.....and you have to figure out what the end deal is going to be based on what each of those two would do.

The basic premise was that of course, each person would have their own interest in mind and act according to that. So let's say for this scenario, all 3 (Rudy, AK, and RS are guilty).

<respectfully snipped>

In math (game theory), it's called the prisoner's paradox. The only scenario where everyone wins is where everyone remains silent.

 

[Whisperer]

Which blood? In the bathroom, there was blood on the light switch, in the sink, in the bidet and on the bathmat. The bathmat barefoot print in Meredith's blood has a hammer toe and has been attributed to Sollecito in length, width and characteristics. There were no bloody foot prints leading to, or away from, the bathmat print. The blood in the sink is a mixture of Meredith and Knox. The blood on the light switch is Meredith's blood and where was no way to connect it with anyone because it was smeared.

blood in the sink belongs to Meredith AND Knox?? :scared: