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

[aa9511]

I think he may have put them over her head while he sexually assaulted her.

But I thought he got a thrill from the "knifing"? Sorry to be so graphic, this is from something SMK posted earlier about the book her read, Monster in Perugia. It is posted upthread.

This author said that Rudy got a thrill from the knifing, that's why he did it and then raped her afterwards (author's opinion),

But in that case, wouldn't he want to see what he had done, if that was where he got his thrill?

Again, sorry to be graphic, but it's a graphic case.

 

[aa9511]

The prosecution should give a clear answer to people on the internet who think it is a big deal? It wasn't that big of a deal in court. That is what matters.

Thanks. When you put it that way....makes it a whole lot clearer!

 

[MichaelSmith]

But I thought he got a thrill from the "knifing"? Sorry to be so graphic, this is from something SMK posted earlier about the book her read, Monster in Perugia. It is posted upthread.

This author said that Rudy got a thrill from the knifing, that's why he did it and then raped her afterwards (author's opinion),

But in that case, wouldn't he want to see what he had done, if that was where he got his thrill?

Again, sorry to be graphic, but it's a graphic case.

Who knows? The guy is a sadist.

The towels were found near Meredith's head sticking out from under the duvet soaked in blood so my theory is they may have been used to cover her head during the sexual assault.

 

[Yellow]

This was well explained by Massei how unlikely that scenario is. Not ruling something out doesn't mean it is probable.

Yeah, but the prosecution has to prove their story, if you cannot rule an alternative theory out that is reasonable doubt.massai can make out a case of multiple attackers, they cannot rule out a singke attacker

Thousands upon thousands of women are raped and killed by single attackers all the time, even without showing defensive wounds. No woman, especially a smalled boned girl like MK, is a match for a 6 foot guy w a knife. Why the most common scenario (single attacker) is not considered most probable is beyond me

 

[sherlockh]

Yeah, but the prosecution has to prove their story, if you cannot rule an alternative theory out that is reasonable doubt.massai can make out a case of multiple attackers, they cannot rule out a singke attacker

Thousands upon thousands of women are raped and killed by single attackers all the time, even without showing defensive wounds. No woman, especially a smalled boned girl like MK, is a match for a 6 foot guy w a knife. Why the most common scenario (single attacker) is not considered most probable is beyond me

I don't agree. If you can not rule something out for 0.000001% then that is not reasonable doubt. Just like contamination. You can never completely rule that out either. Even with DNA there is a one in some billion chance that somebody else on the planet has the same DNA.

Guede is not an octopus. Has no reason to handle 2 knives, to cleanup, to stage a burglary, not his footprints in Luminol, not his footprint in the bathroom, etc... JMO.

 

[MichaelSmith]

I'm quoting this again because I'd not heard about the house fines. I'm waiting for MichaelSmith to post his link but have others heard that the animosity had risen to this level?

I was just going back over what Laura had to say and here it is. It seems like Meredith didn't clean much either and Laura was a clean freak so she introduced a token 5 euro fine if it wasn't done.

Page 11

APPLICATION - A: v: e: v: ano killed Meredith. Listen, you remember that with What, what were the products of the cleaning of the house, How many: v: we select face: v: ate cleaning, such as: v: the organization: v: ate if there was a shift?

ANSWER - I do not remember the products you use: v: I love the house and as regards the cleaning was a motions: v: or a little disagreement with the girls, we have to say that I am very precise in this respect: v: ista, a little 'almost fixed and the girls who is not cleaned in much, much is: v: that I was I the last days of October: v: e: v: or done, to: v: e: v: or wrote a turn for housekeeping and: v: e: v: or hung in door of the house in which even pre: v: ede: v: or sort of fine 5 Euros for those who do not: v: they respected the turn of the cleaning and then most of the Face it: v: either I or Filomena.

 

[Sigh Sister]

I don't agree. If you can not rule something out for 0.000001% then that is not reasonable doubt. Just like contamination. You can never completely rule that out either. Even with DNA there is a one in some billion chance that somebody else on the planet has the same DNA.

Guede is not an octopus. Has no reason to handle 2 knives, to cleanup, to stage a burglary, not his footprints in Luminol, not his footprint in the bathroom, etc... JMO.

Do you find anything wrong with the way the evidence was collected at the scene? Any issue with the handling of the bra clasp? I'm assuming you have seen videos of this.

 

[Yellow]

I don't agree. If you can not rule something out for 0.000001% then that is not reasonable doubt. Just like contamination. You can never completely rule that out either. Even with DNA there is a one in some billion chance that somebody else on the planet has the same DNA.

Guede is not an octopus. Has no reason to handle 2 knives, to cleanup, to stage a burglary, not his footprints in Luminol, not his footprint in the bathroom, etc... JMO.

Of course, not every single scenario could be ruled out. But if the evidence suggests an alternative reading of the evidence, you cannot rule out that the situation occurred, bringing reasonable doubt. Here, you cannot rule out the lone wolf theory of one person doing the actual attack. That is something even the prosecutor has suggested - They think that the scene requires 2 people to hold her down but they cannot rule out that 1 person could physically do it.

99% of crimes of this sort are committed by lone perps so why RG would not be able to physically kill MK alone has always been one of the state's weakest arguments, IMO. MK was not some 6'5 kick boxer aiming for a fight. She had no chance against RG

I also don't get the argument that AK only had an incentive to clean. RG did too - he wanted the common areas to be clean or at least not look like a murder happened to buy him some time. Any criminal would do that. If he cleaned it up some, no one would notice till the next morning re murder, giving him time to dispose of bloody clothes, gather plans for fleeing, etc. he did not know when AK would be back, if she returned that night, she could have sounded the alarm then. RG could have made it look at least presentable, locked the door, covered MK so someone would think she was sleeping, and then had some time to think what he was going to do.

That is a perfectly reasonable alternative that could explain any cleaning

 

[sherlockh]

Do you find anything wrong with the way the evidence was collected at the scene? Any issue with the handling of the bra clasp? I'm assuming you have seen videos of this.

Yes, I see where that argument comes from but I am in no position to judge if that is 'wrong'. If the judge rules evidence out because of mishandling then so be it, but I am not interested in ignoring evidence because of technicalities. I don't see any reason to assume Sollecito's did not touch the bra clasp.

 

[Yellow]

Here is a list of all the things (which after Hellmann was overturned, I read on the Murder Wiki) which convinced me that Knox and Sollecito had some culpability and foreknowledge:

( I leave out Knox's statement and calumnia of PL as those were too familiar to me in conjunction with false confession syndrome. I also leave out kisses, cartwheels, weird talk, buying lingerie, not knowing open door and blood drops meant serious crime was committed---to me all these things are normal and not suspect)

• Bathmat print
• luminol prints
• sink blood droplets and smears
• evidence of multiple attackers
• not calling 112 until after PP arrived
• AK saying MK always locked her door
• AK first call to Mom
• MK moved and bra removed after death
• simulation of robbery
• AK having knowledge of crime she could only know if present
• AK lamp on MK floor
• Quintavalle
• email home
• mixed sample FR room

Here is the list of what is left now (after errors, mistranslations, fabrication has been ruled out) and all of these are now questionable:

• sink droplets?
• inference of multiple attackers?
• 112 calls?
• AK on locked door?
• simulation of robbery?
• AK first call to Mom?
• Quintavalle?
• AK lamp on MK floor
• email home
• mixed sample FR room

Does anyone feel they are sure of more things, or are left with more of a list? And why?

I think if you look at your list, one should think whether any murder anywhere was ever proved by such scant evidence. AK called her mom and forgot about it so we assume the call had am nefarious purpose. For what? What did she say in 88 seconds? Has evidence like this been used in any court anywhere?

AK lamp is in room. Um.. Maybe MK borrowed the lamp? How does that even relate? Mk property could have been in AK room too.

The only evidence that has any value in what you list could be the mixed sample, but as I detailed a few days ago, there are at least 3-4 different scenarios that could easily explain that

And the cleaning stuff - why would RG want to make it look like a murder happened? Of course he too would have an incentive to also clean up, to buy some time till morning

Some of the stuff the state uses - like the footsteps argument or DNA or even the staging stuff - at least is stuff commonly seen in cases. But some of the stuff -like the phone calls or the lamp - require people to make so many assumptions of facts not in evidence that I do not think they have any value and I would be interested if any court anywhere based a murder conviction on similiar things.i doubt it.

Especially where you have a murder weapon w no blood, no motive (except this cleaning story), and no evidence of 2 of the suspects even in the room

It would be different if there was compelling evidence, but given DNA testing done by incompetent people, they pretty much are basing their case on stitching together all these apparently weird things. That is very hard for any jury to buy without motive,.,, and if you also clearly have the person who did the crime (RG). Why put those 2 into it and have a scenario that never happened in any murder anywhere? (3 people killing a girl over cleaning)

 

[sherlockh]

Of course, not every single scenario could be ruled out. But if the evidence suggests an alternative reading of the evidence, you cannot rule out that the situation occurred, bringing reasonable doubt. Here, you cannot rule out the lone wolf theory of one person doing the actual attack. That is something even the prosecutor has suggested - They think that the scene requires 2 people to hold her down but they cannot rule out that 1 person could physically do it.

99% of crimes of this sort are committed by lone perps so why RG would not be able to physically kill MK alone has always been one of the state's weakest arguments, IMO. MK was not some 6'5 kick boxer aiming for a fight. She had no chance against RG

I also don't get the argument that AK only had an incentive to clean. RG did too - he wanted the common areas to be clean or at least not look like a murder happened to buy him some time. Any criminal would do that. If he cleaned it up some, no one would notice till the next morning re murder, giving him time to dispose of bloody clothes, gather plans for fleeing, etc. he did not know when AK would be back, if she returned that night, she could have sounded the alarm then. RG could have made it look at least presentable, locked the door, covered MK so someone would think she was sleeping, and then had some time to think what he was going to do.

That is a perfectly reasonable alternative that could explain any cleaning

The evidence does not suggest any such thing. Again 'can't rule out' does not mean that another scenario is probable. I think you misunderstand what was meant by 'can't rule out'. The judge made it very clear.

Massei report

It seems inevitable that it must be considered that the criminal action was carried out by several people acting together against Meredith

Furthermore, it is impossible to imagine in what way a single person could have removed the clothes that Meredith was wearing (shoes, pants and underwear), and using the violence revealed by the vaginal swab, could have caused the resulting bruises and wounds recalled above, as well as removing her sweatshirt, pulling up her shirt, forcing the bra hooks before tearing and cutting the bra.

In order to maintain such a hypothesis (action performed by a single attacker), Professor Introna suggested that Meredith was undressing, and thus when her attacker arrived, she had already removed her own shoes, pants and underwear; the attacker would have come up from behind, thus taking her by surprise. But this reconstruction appears unrealistic, as we have seen.

it seems inexplicable unless it is admitted that several attackers were present, with a distribution of tasks and roles: either holding Meredith and preventing her from any significant defensive reaction, or actually performing the violent actions

Such a situation seems inexplicable if one does not accept the presence of more than one attacker who, holding the girl, strongly restrained her movements and struck her on the right and on the left because of the position of each of the attackers with respect to her, by which it was easier to strike her from that side.

 

[DerKritiker2011]

The evidence does not suggest any such thing. Again 'can't rule out' does not mean that another scenario is probable. I think you misunderstand what was meant by 'can't rule out'. The judge made it very clear.

The possibility that the victim was raped, when she was dying or died was not considered by Massei. It seems to be, that something like this was happened. This will explain many questions.

The picture of the victim shows that this possibility is very probable but was completely ignored by Massei. Why?

 

[Yellow]

The evidence does not suggest any such thing. Again 'can't rule out' does not mean that another scenario is probable. I think you misunderstand what was meant by 'can't rule out'. The judge made it very clear.

Massei report

It need not be probable, it need only be possible based on what is in evidence,

Thousands of murders and rapes are committed all the time with a similar fact pattern of man coming up on female who is in home unprepared for an attack. To contend that RG had to have help as a definite matter is just laughable. Thee is nothing there that suggests that RG could not have done the phyiscal act of stabbing alone. To infer lack of defensive wounds means more than 1 attacker is something I never seen,

One can still think AK or RS were involved, and I think alot of what Massai writes is colored in a way that reads more like an advocate than a court of law. But to contend that this case is some exception and that RG could not even have physically done it is one of the state's weakest points. By making some of these silly arguments, the state calls into doubt some of the halfway decent arguments it does make.

 

[Yellow]

The possibility that the victim was raped, when she was dying or died was not considered by Massei. It seems to be, that something like this was happened. This will explain many questions.

The picture of the victim shows that this possibility is very probable but was completely ignored by Massei. Why?

Massei pretty much bought the whole state case. They destroyed their credibility by buying some of the silly arguments too. They could easily have found the guilty without making themselves look like they are the pawn of the prosecutor.

This was a pattern for Massei. In many places they just completely ignored evidence or they interpreted evidence so it 100 percent had to be in the state's favor. As such they ignored the possibility that the assault could have happened later.

 

[SMK]

SMK, why did you rule out bathmat prints and luminol prints? I am not convinced those should be so easily tossed out!!

So you think MK was moved by Rudy?

SMK, what about strong evidence of false alibis????????????? (according to laptop records!!)

Why question on mixed sample and DNA samples??? DO you believe some contamination occured?

To be honest, I don't have questions about any of the "leftover" list except for Quintavalle!! I think the answers to explain them away are weak, IMO, MOO, and require one to make hoops and leaps and jumps to get from point A to point B, to fit in with the reason/excuse.

I can take any case I've followed, make an itemized list, and come up with something to excuse each item away. And that's even with guilty cases. So I don't really understand the concept of this list, as we can take any case and do the same for it, it doesn't mean the result we get from our "list" is right. For example, in the "guilty" cases I've followed, if I made a separate itemized list of each evidenve factor, and used the defense reasoning or made up my own "answer" for each, I would end up getting "not guilty" when the person is clearly guilty. It's all the things together that is the case. I don't think you can really itemize it and get an accurate result. YKWIM?

Also, let's say RG is lone wolf. There is some evidence of Something in the small bathroom, no matter which side we're on we can all agree there is evidence in the small bathroom. RG as lone wolf - would you expect such a "cleaned-up" bathroom? Because that bathroom is pretty "cleaned-up" for it to have been used by someone dripping from a bloody bloodbath.

Thank you for your list, SMK. I have given my reasons why I don't agree with all the question marks.

Yes, this list is only my own reflections - certainly not definitive about the case. Just what I myself personally felt sure of, and then questioned.

And yes, you are right in all you say, and about the small bathroom.

And to itemize does not give any accurate conclusions, as you say - just is a record of my own questioning. I understand that often it is things taken together - and not standing separately - which form a conclusion. I am just a bit neurotic with list making

Thanks as always for your excellent input! PS: Of course I had taken the laptop records seriously, and then had read on a pro-innocence site that there was activity on the laptop that evening. See what I mean? Each side knocks the other down

 

[Sigh Sister]

It need not be probable, it need only be possible based on what is in evidence,

Thousands of murders and rapes are committed all the time with a similar fact pattern of man coming up on female who is in home unprepared for an attack. To contend that RG had to have help as a definite matter is just laughable. Thee is nothing there that suggests that RG could not have done the phyiscal act of stabbing alone. To infer lack of defensive wounds means more than 1 attacker is something I never seen,

One can still think AK or RS were involved, and I think alot of what Massai writes is colored in a way that reads more like an advocate than a court of law. But to contend that this case is some exception and that RG could not even have physically done it is one of the state's weakest points. By making some of these silly arguments, the state calls into doubt some of the halfway decent arguments it does make.

No way he could have said that with a straight face. So many things in this case have been laughable. The knife was chosen because it was unnaturaly clean (or something like that). But the knife wasn't compatible with the wounds or the print left and tested negative for blood. No problem. That just means there must have been two knives. The defense raises questions about contamination in the lab. Judge says there was no contamination. How does he know? He asked Stefanoni sand she told him there was no contamination! I could go on and on.

 

[SMK]

I think if you look at your list, one should think whether any murder anywhere was ever proved by such scant evidence. AK called her mom and forgot about it so we assume the call had am nefarious purpose. For what? What did she say in 88 seconds? Has evidence like this been used in any court anywhere?

AK lamp is in room. Um.. Maybe MK borrowed the lamp? How does that even relate? Mk property could have been in AK room too.

The only evidence that has any value in what you list could be the mixed sample, but as I detailed a few days ago, there are at least 3-4 different scenarios that could easily explain that

And the cleaning stuff - why would RG want to make it look like a murder happened? Of course he too would have an incentive to also clean up, to buy some time till morning

Some of the stuff the state uses - like the footsteps argument or DNA or even the staging stuff - at least is stuff commonly seen in cases. But some of the stuff -like the phone calls or the lamp - require people to make so many assumptions of facts not in evidence that I do not think they have any value and I would be interested if any court anywhere based a murder conviction on similiar things.i doubt it.

Especially where you have a murder weapon w no blood, no motive (except this cleaning story), and no evidence of 2 of the suspects even in the room

It would be different if there was compelling evidence, but given DNA testing done by incompetent people, they pretty much are basing their case on stitching together all these apparently weird things. That is very hard for any jury to buy without motive,.,, and if you also clearly have the person who did the crime (RG). Why put those 2 into it and have a scenario that never happened in any murder anywhere? (3 people killing a girl over cleaning)

Yes, I understand all your points. And I myself got to thinking about certain things RE the lone wolf theory - such as when Massei says that if Guede were the lone wolf, and MK came home, he would have left by the front door---yet MK had locked it so Guede was trapped inside at that point.

Insofar as the little things like the lamp, sometimes "the devil is in the details".

I always wind up thinking that perhaps RG was a lone wolf, yet Knox and Sollecito felt implicated as they had put him up to it in some way. There does not seem to be enough signs of them in the murder room. IDK.....

 

[sherlockh]

It need not be probable, it need only be possible based on what is in evidence,

Thousands of murders and rapes are committed all the time with a similar fact pattern of man coming up on female who is in home unprepared for an attack. To contend that RG had to have help as a definite matter is just laughable. Thee is nothing there that suggests that RG could not have done the phyiscal act of stabbing alone. To infer lack of defensive wounds means more than 1 attacker is something I never seen,

One can still think AK or RS were involved, and I think alot of what Massai writes is colored in a way that reads more like an advocate than a court of law. But to contend that this case is some exception and that RG could not even have physically done it is one of the state's weakest points. By making some of these silly arguments, the state calls into doubt some of the halfway decent arguments it does make.

That is not how it works. Possibilities with an astronomic probability can be safely ignored. I follow the evidence and then come to a scenario. Why would you think of scenarios without considering the evidence? You can only come to other scenarios by ignoring or denying the evidence. Not one piece of evidence but as you see on this board every single piece of evidence must be attacked, every single investigator and expert must be incompetent, prosecutors must be attacked, witnesses must be ridiculed. Even websites where the evidence is structured, sourced, and logically explained are aggressively attacked.

Just try as an experiment to assume the print expert is not incompetent and was correct in identifying Sollecito's bloody footprint on the bathmat, or that the Luminol footprints were indeed made in Meredith's blood, that there was a cleanup, or that mixed blood/DNA is not so normal even if you live there, that Sollecito's DNA on the bra arrived there because he touched it, that Merdith's DNA was on the knife because it was used in the murder, or that the break-in was staged, or that Knox accused an innocent man to hide her own involvement, or that the witness was right in hearing multiple people run away right after the scream, or the witness that saw Knox and Sollecito waiting at the basketball court, or the witness that saw Knox early the next morning.

Just try to accept one evidence point and the case for innocence comes crashing down. Then realize that all these evidence points support each other and all point in the direction of the involvement of Sollecito, Guede and Knox in this horrible murder. JMO

 

[SMK]

It need not be probable, it need only be possible based on what is in evidence,

Thousands of murders and rapes are committed all the time with a similar fact pattern of man coming up on female who is in home unprepared for an attack. To contend that RG had to have help as a definite matter is just laughable. Thee is nothing there that suggests that RG could not have done the phyiscal act of stabbing alone. To infer lack of defensive wounds means more than 1 attacker is something I never seen,

One can still think AK or RS were involved, and I think alot of what Massai writes is colored in a way that reads more like an advocate than a court of law. But to contend that this case is some exception and that RG could not even have physically done it is one of the state's weakest points. By making some of these silly arguments, the state calls into doubt some of the halfway decent arguments it does make.

BBM - I agree with all.

I have read and known of many cases that follow this same basic plot: Break and entry which escalates to rape and murder as a young female was discovered to be home. Yes, AK and RS can be brought in, but it has to be for different reasons than that the lone wolf theory is impossible.

It is extremely possible, so Knox and Sollecito have to be shown to somehow have been a party to it for some reason. I think a case can be made for that, but it has to move along very different lines. Such as clean-up, simulation, holes in their stories, signs of pre-knowledge, etc. And then a theory must arise from those facts, if proven to be solid.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

What would the origin of that trace (mixed Meredith/Amanda DNA footprint) be? Would it be Meredith walking around after she was already deceased?

Both Massei and Hellmann are incorrect about one point. The mixed DNA in the hallway is from a shoe print. The three footprints in the hallway were all negative for DNA. Websleuth's own RoseMontague alerted me to this, but I am going to have to let someone else dig through the Rinaldi report and Stefanoni's presentation to find the relevant information. I will be very busy at work for the next couple of days.