Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

[sherlockh]

There was one luminol trace described as shoeprint in the hallway.

There was no clean up for the simple reason that there are many visible bloody prints of Guede's shoe. One is located directly on the way to the bathroom.

So no cleanup unless we postulate the floor was cleaned up around Guede's prints and around the luminol prints leaving them intact, but that would be... a peculiar hypothesis.

There are shoe prints of Guede missing in his trail unless he jumped around. I am not aware of any shoe print to the bathroom or a Luminol shoe print.

 

[aa9511]

There are shoe prints of Guede missing in his trail unless he jumped around. I am not aware of any shoe print to the bathroom or a Luminol shoe print.

bbm

I don't know that much about the exact placement of all the prints in the room. However, couldn't it be something like, there was a jacket or something on the floor which he stepped on? That would explain the lack of some of the footprints.

Now, where those items are or if there were items found in the room which the "missing" footprints on it, IDK. I know about the pillow case, but that's only one and not Rudy's.

Were there items found in the room with shoeprint on them? If not, could it be they were thrown away?

 

[Harmony 2]

I am a very patient person but posts used as a p*ssing contest between sites is getting old. If an error is noted then post the correct information with a link. It is not necessary to cast aspersions and derogatory labels against other sites.
Cease discussions about other sites!!

 

[otto]

No, someone made up the sentence

Okay, you called me first to tell me about some things that had shocked you.

Thank you. If I understand correctly, there is a discrepancy between what was said in the wiretap, and how that was restated during trial? I suppose, in a sense, both would now be accurate since the original discussion was restated or confirmed during trial. I suppose that more of the content and meaning has been lost in translation, and that probably explains why there is still so much debate six years after the murder.

 

[aa9511]

I don't mean to re-hash this phone call thing, but the observation I make from both "versions" is that Edda kind of brushed aside the whole "house burglary signs" issue. As in, it was in the background somewhere, and not the forefront issue in her mind.

To me, she is basically saying, Amanda's phone call had nothing to do with the "burglary" signs. Because she asks, in both versions, paraphrasing, so why did you call me the first time, and she acknowledges the burglary signs in the same sentence, in both versions.

To me, it sounds like the burglary signs was a non-issue for her mother. Or else she wouldn't have included the acknowledgement of "it" in the very same sentence she's asking her daughter what was the reason for the first call.

So, that's my take on that.

That basically renders pointless any differences between the two versions.

 

[SMK]

No, someone made up the sentence

Okay, you called me first to tell me about some things that had shocked you.

Oh, OK - that was added, then? By whom?

 

[SMK]

I don't mean to re-hash this phone call thing, but the observation I make from both "versions" is that Edda kind of brushed aside the whole "house burglary signs" issue. As in, it was in the background somewhere, and not the forefront issue in her mind.

To me, she is basically saying, Amanda's phone call had nothing to do with the "burglary" signs. Because she asks, in both versions, paraphrasing, so why did you call me the first time, and she acknowledges the burglary signs in the same sentence, in both versions.

To me, it sounds like the burglary signs was a non-issue for her mother. Or else she wouldn't have included the acknowledgement of "it" in the very same sentence she's asking her daughter what was the reason for the first call.

So, that's my take on that.

That basically renders pointless any differences between the two versions.

I understand what you mean. I think with regard to a burglary a student would deal with 112 and the police; afterwards, the Mom would be filled in on all. It indicates (or MAY indicate) that perhaps something else was said in the first call (about some kind of trouble?).

 

[Amber29]

bbm

I don't know that much about the exact placement of all the prints in the room. However, couldn't it be something like, there was a jacket or something on the floor which he stepped on? That would explain the lack of some of the footprints.

Now, where those items are or if there were items found in the room which the "missing" footprints on it, IDK. I know about the pillow case, but that's only one and not Rudy's.

Were there items found in the room with shoeprint on them? If not, could it be they were thrown away?

I don't know IMO there was definitely something there and it was more than a book. It's too large of a space, although I agree the dictionary is a possibility for part of it.

We will maybe never know for sure.

 

[SMK]

I read The Monster of Perugia by Waterbury last night.

He makes a compelling case about Guede, as lone wolf and as a sadistic killer. This is what makes me keep going back and re-checking and triple-checking all the red flags about Knox. I don't want to be misled by bad translations or exaggerations of any kind.

I would like to think that if Knox is in the hot water she is, that she at the very least had a peripheral role (if not a main one) and the idea that - as Waterbury sets forth - Guede was a serial killer in the making , if true, makes me ill. Because it would mean that he has pulled one over on everyone, and ruined 2 lives into the bargain.

Below is from the PDF of Monster of Perugia:

During the dark, cold evening of Thursday, Nov. 1, 2007, the sun
set at 05:05 PM. After dark Rudy Guede: a 20 year old. . . a known burglar, drug dealer, set out to rape, rob and kill Meredith Kercher.
Guede is wearing a jacket and carrying with him a pocket knife with a 3 ½
inch locking blade, a pair of leather gloves, a thin plastic card and some
condoms.

Guede had been watching the upstairs apartment occupied by four female college students: Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher, Filomena
Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti, for quite some time. He made mental notes
of their habits as he planed to rape, murder and rob Meredith Kercher.

Guede associated with the college boys occupying the downstairs
apartment. From them he learned such things as: when the rent was due,
how the girls spent their time and who likely not home at certain times.
Guede knew Meredith would likely come home early as she normally does,
and the other three girls who have boy friends, would normally spend the
night with them, were not likely to come home until late, if at all. Guede
learned the college boys would be away on a trip for several days.
On the night of the crime, the conditions were perfect for Guede to rape,
murder and rob Meredith.

 

[Amber29]

I read The Monster of Perugia by Waterbury last night.

He makes a compelling case about Guede, as lone wolf and as a sadistic killer. This is what makes me keep going back and re-checking and triple-checking all the red flags about Knox. I don't want to be misled by bad translations or exaggerations of any kind.

I would like to think that if Knox is in the hot water she is, that she at the very least had a peripheral role (if not a main one) and the idea that - as Waterbury sets forth - Guede was a serial killer in the making , if true, makes me ill. Because it would mean that he has pulled one over on everyone, and ruined 2 lives into the bargain.

Below is from the PDF of Monster of Perugia:

There is so much speculation in that quote from that book I don't even know where to begin.

RG is guilty there is no doubt but even if I were to say lone wolf is possible. I would not think that he planned/premeditated to rape,murder, and rob her but to each there own in what they want to believe.

Just from that quote I question the objectivity of that book as a whole.

 

[SMK]

There is so much speculation in that quote from that book I don't even now where to begin.

RG is guilty there is no doubt but even if I were to say lone wolf is possible. I would not think that he planned/premeditated to rape,murder, and rob her but to each there own in what they want to believe.

Just from that quote I question the objectivity of that book as a whole.

I think you're right : It does seem a huge mental leap is being made. I don't want to believe the book in any case, because I don't want to think that Guede is the cause not only of Kercher's death, but of Knox and Sollecito's problems. The problem with posed scenarios is, they take on a life of their own. This is why I am obsessed with checking and rechecking all evidence and making sure things are as I am told they are. Your input as always is much appreciated.

 

[aa9511]

I read The Monster of Perugia by Waterbury last night.

He makes a compelling case about Guede, as lone wolf and as a sadistic killer. This is what makes me keep going back and re-checking and triple-checking all the red flags about Knox. I don't want to be misled by bad translations or exaggerations of any kind.

I would like to think that if Knox is in the hot water she is, that she at the very least had a peripheral role (if not a main one) and the idea that - as Waterbury sets forth - Guede was a serial killer in the making , if true, makes me ill. Because it would mean that he has pulled one over on everyone, and ruined 2 lives into the bargain.

Below is from the PDF of Monster of Perugia:

Thanks for that.

If it was planned in advance by him and even required sort of a "staking out"....wouldn't he have planned it better? As in, not leave such obvious evidence of himself (poo-poo, handprint, shoeprints, DNA inside of her even though he brought condoms)?

And he could have raped her, but then killed her in many different other ways which did not require blood everywhere and increase the messiness and the risk for himself (of getting caught?).

This was his first murder that we know of, so I'm not getting the serial killer in the making part. Have the police investigated any other murders he might have been a part of previously (I would hope they would thoroughly investigate that, but not sure).

If this is true, they need to go back and thoroughly investigate him and make sure he is not connected to any other murders.

I don't doubt what the author says, however I just don't see this as well-planned on his part.

I also see him as dumb. Not sure where exactly I'm getting that sense from, I think it's from what I've heard about his nursery stunt and the other burglary. Which were done in really stupid ways. He doesn't seem like he was a "smart" criminal. So I really don't see the planning happening as the author stated, with him gathering information and staking out the house.

If it was him alone, I think it was just a spur-of-the-moment thing. He seems very dumb to me.

And like someone who needs to be locked away for the rest of his life. I think he definately has a mental problem(s).

 

[aa9511]

There is so much speculation in that quote from that book I don't even now where to begin.

RG is guilty there is no doubt but even if I were to say lone wolf is possible. I would not think that he planned/premeditated to rape,murder, and rob her but to each there own in what they want to believe.

Just from that quote I question the objectivity of that book as a whole.

bbm

ITA.

 

[Cherry]

Well she has been found guilty twice now how many times does it take?
I think she was involved and always have. I'd like or rather I would challenge any one to persuade me. Has RG ever implicated either her or Rafael? Has he ever; said one thing that they helped in some way? That's what I'd like to know. Maybe Knox just has a personality disorder of some kind and that is why we saw all the bizarre behavior from her immediately following this crime. That and her drug use; what was her toxicology after the crime any way? I think it's really important to know. Was she trippin on something?

 

[SMK]

Thanks for that.

If it was planned in advance by him and even required sort of a "staking out"....wouldn't he have planned it better? As in, not leave such obvious evidence of himself (poo-poo, handprint, shoeprints, DNA inside of her even though he brought condoms)?

And he could have raped her, but then killed her in many different other ways which did not require blood everywhere and increase the messiness and the risk for himself (of getting caught?).

This was his first murder that we know of, so I'm not getting the serial killer in the making part. Have the police investigated any other murders he might have been a part of previously (I would hope they would thoroughly investigate that, but not sure).

If this is true, they need to go back and thoroughly investigate him and make sure he is not connected to any other murders.

I don't doubt what the author says, however I just don't see this as well-planned on his part.

I also see him as dumb. Not sure where exactly I'm getting that sense from, I think it's from what I've heard about his nursery stunt and the other burglary. Which were done in really stupid ways. He doesn't seem like he was a "smart" criminal. So I really don't see the planning happening as the author stated, with him gathering information and staking out the house.

If it was him alone, I think it was just a spur-of-the-moment thing. He seems very dumb to me.

And like someone who needs to be locked away for the rest of his life. I think he definately has a mental problem.

Thanks for your input. I regret having read any of this, for several reasons.

I read the pdf document notes of the author (not his book on Amazon). He was of the opinion that Guede was actually a practiced killer. Sadistic and wanting to knife Kercher's throat (and getting his main pleasure from the knifing and blood--- it was a dreadful read. ) And returning to the body to move it, and to desecrate it sexually (I never did think the pillow placed beneath her was the work of Knox or Sollecito).

I believe he had him pegged as a serial rapist/killer. It was upsetting in the extreme to read his account of what occurred that night. It began to take on a life of its own, and I became ill thinking that this may have actually happened. But you're right: Where is the actual evidence of any of this?

And yes, he seems a disorganized criminal. And not using intelligence if he has any. The thing I want to be certain of, is that Knox and Sollecito really played a role. I was sure of it until so many things began to be refuted. Guess I have to just keep reflecting and checking....Thanks again.....

 

[SMK]

Well she has been found guilty twice now how many times does it take?
I think she was involved and always have. I'd like or rather I would challenge any one to persuade me. Has RG ever implicated either her or Rafael? Has he ever; said one thing that they helped in some way? That's what I'd like to know. Maybe Knox just has a personality disorder of some kind and that is why we saw all the bizarre behavior from her immediately following this crime. That and her drug use; what was her toxicology after the crime any way? I think it's really important to know. Was she trippin on something?

No, she was convicted once; the acquitted on appeal; that was overturned, and she is trying for a new acquittal.

He has implicated them in writing and in testimony, from what I recall.

 

[aa9511]

I think you're right : It does seem a huge mental leap is being made. I don't want to believe the book in any case, because I don't want to think that Guede is the cause not only of Kercher's death, but of Knox and Sollecito's problems. The problem with posed scenarios is, they take on a life of their own. This is why I am obsessed with checking and rechecking all evidence and making sure things are as I am told they are. Your input as always is much appreciated.

SMK, if I am ever on trial (God forbid), I would want you on my jury. I would be sayin', "get that SMK over here right now!"

 

[aa9511]

Well she has been found guilty twice now how many times does it take?
I think she was involved and always have. I'd like or rather I would challenge any one to persuade me. Has RG ever implicated either her or Rafael? Has he ever; said one thing that they helped in some way? That's what I'd like to know. Maybe Knox just has a personality disorder of some kind and that is why we saw all the bizarre behavior from her immediately following this crime. That and her drug use; what was her toxicology after the crime any way? I think it's really important to know. Was she trippin on something?

bbm

Oh Cherry, be prepared! There will be many up for that challenge!

 

[SMK]

SMK, if I am ever on trial (God forbid), I would want you on my jury. I would be sayin', "get that SMK over here right now!"

Aww, thanks :blushing: :loveyou:

 

[TorisMom003]

The blue mat in the bedroom is here, and then the zoomed image where there is a question about what left a clean stencil area on the floor in blood.

Is the blue thing that is under the boots the object that you are calling the blue mat? If so, that is not the blue mat that was found in the bathroom but it does appear to be a darker blue hot water bottle. If that is not what you are calling the blue mat can you please point out exactly where the blue mat is? Thanks in advance.