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

[Katody]

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.

There is evidence of only one knife. There is no evidence of cleanup.
Guede was a burglar, he broke-in for real. He was absolutely capable to overpower or intimidate Meredith with the knife into submission. The footprint in the bathroom is his, luminol footprints are unrelated noise, not blood and don't even contain Meredith's DNA.

It's simple as that. And reasonable.

Now let's finally see a theory that makes sense from the prosecution. The latest one raised eyebrows of people even in Italy.

 

[aa9511]

Why could RG not go out the same window he had come through? If he can scale the wall, he can hang from the window ledge and drop down to get out.
(I don't believe the lone wolf, just giving thoughts)

Yesss, I think the prosecution should make a "demonstration" of that to show it's possible. With a professional climber/acrobat. Then, of course we would have to believe it.

 

[SMK]

If they did it, they would have had to have done something with their bloody clothes, too. Maybe that's what the bleach was for at RS's house. Did they ever find the clothes they were supposedly wearing that day? The bleach could have been to clean up rags and stuff that they brought over from RS's house, and then they went back and cleaned everything at his house. I don't know if anyone checked rags and things at his house?

I thought I read somewhere that they never found Rudy's clothes, or did they even know what he was wearing that day?

I am assuming that they checked RS's apt. thoroughly as they did take note of bleach smell and did try to find receipts (not found). I am not sure about what the 3 of them were wearing: Or if it was determined that they had changed clothes.

 

[Katody]

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.

It's hardly technicality.
Integrity of the crime scene wasn't preserved allowing for cross-contamination.

Not to mention the bra-clasp evidence was destroyed by Stafononi, preventing any independent and competent testing of it.

 

[aa9511]

Yes, of course I do see and understand. I think what I meant is that, unfortunately, I have known of so many cases (one in my family) where there has been this break-in which escalates in the presence of a woman found alone. And sadly - although I have no idea why this would be - I can name 6 cases where the perpetrator was black, and known to the woman he robbed/raped/murdered (as a friend, as someone that was known through work or around town). And prior to the crime, he was not seen as dangerous in any way, or as capable of doing such an act, or even wanting to do it. I am not racist so I will assume coincidence or some social reason. Of course this does not prove a thing about Guede or what happened to Kercher.

Yes, every case must be judged individually. I guess there is just a familiarity about such a scenario. I'd be lying if I said there wasn't. I think when I look at the crime scene photos of MK's bedroom, there is an intuitive sense that she was alone with Guede. Of course, this cannot be viewed as evidence in any sense. But can others picture all 3 of them in there ? (I don't mean because the room was small; I mean it just doesn't make sense. ) Guede's dna was found on MK's tampon: What were Knox and Sollecito doing at that point? And on her purse? Why not theirs? Just questions that pop up in the mind. This is why when I try and fit Knox and Sollectio in, I feel they had a peripheral role.....more grist for the mill....

I understand, and you make good points about the state of the room, etc..

I'm sorry about what happened to your family member and what she went through. :hug:

 

[Katody]

Why did Knox make up a story of walking the streets with a mop? I don't think they would have dumped bloody rags/mop in their own garbage. Sollecito had a car after all. Nothing was found, so we can only speculate what was used.

Making up story about mops makes zero sense in a guilt scenario.

Raffaele's car was tested.

 

[aa9511]

Given that only one of his shoes was bloody I think the two prints near Meredith's door are plenty. (See attachment)
There is some distance between the shoeprint marked "2" and the hallway door indeed. It was the area most trampled by the first responders on November 2, as it was the only access way to the murder room. I think it's possible the print that was there got obliterated before anybody noticed it.
What do you think?


I think not every step of his left a noticeable trace. His shoe got a little bloody during the attack, leaving faint fading prints on the pillowcase but it wasn't leaving marks anymore by the time he walked to the bathroom. He stepped in blood again some time later, after returning to the room.

bbm

So he stepped onto the pillowcase, and then jumped over to an area with no, or little, blood on it?

 

[SMK]

I understand, and you make good points about the state of the room, etc..

I'm sorry about what happened to your family member and what she went through. :hug:

Thanks; it was back in the late '80s. Yes, just some thoughts to try and clear up; always better to entertain doubts than to quash them. That way, you can feel more confidence about a theory, as you didn't repress doubts.

 

[sherlockh]

That's the way it works. Welcome to trial watching and being a cyber juror. It's no different than ALV or Dr Dick being mocked and laughed out of court during the Arias trial. Have you got anything on Amanda & Raffaele's defence experts who testified in Italy and why their opinions should be rejected or they weren't qualified vs the prosecution experts and why they are superior?

Have you got anything impeaching Amanda or Raffaele's character witnesses who said they were normal and good people? Have you got anything on Filomena or Laura discrediting them who said Amanda was a normal girl and Meredith and Amanda were friends?

I could go on and on but that's how trials are decided. It's about weighing the evidence and witnesses, what it means, is it credible and the qualifications of those testifying..... etc etc. It's not blasphemy to reject prosecution evidence or witnesses

Attacking people for being 68 or taking drugs. Attacking the people but not the evidence and blindly accepting all defense points. That is not weighing.

 

[aa9511]

There is evidence of only one knife. There is no evidence of cleanup.
Guede was a burglar, he broke-in for real. He was absolutely capable to overpower or intimidate Meredith with the knife into submission. The footprint in the bathroom is his, luminol footprints are unrelated noise, not blood and don't even contain Meredith's DNA.

It's simple as that. And reasonable.

Now let's finally see a theory that makes sense from the prosecution. The latest one raised eyebrows of people even in Italy.

I don't think that theory is reasonable. MOO. Okay, let's even say he did come in through the window. Okay, he's doing his burglary thing, suddenly he sees Meredith or he finds Meredith. Murder occurs with stabbing. His hands must have been dripping with blood. He must have had blood all over his clothes. So he goes to the bathroom to get some towels. Where are the footprints? Where are the drippings of the blood dripping off of his hands as he goes out the door, into the hallway, and into the bathroom. Where are his footprints in the hallway (going to the bathroom) and bathroom? And he must have been pretty careful to not smear his clothes on the doorway or anyplace in that small bathroom. He comes back, supposedly puts towels on her, the floor is wet with blood. He then goes out. Where are the missing footrpints coming out of the room? He closes and locks the door. Where are the footprints facing the door? Where is the blood on the door handle? If he wiped off his hands with the towel, what about the cut on his finger, which would have still been bleeding? Where are the drippings from that cut? Where are the footprints when he exited the door?

I'm suring I'm missing even more details.

 

[Katody]

[/B]

bbm

So he stepped onto the pillowcase, and then jumped over to an area with no, or little, blood on it?

Why would he jump?

 

[aa9511]

Why would he jump?

Because for him to have no footsteps going to the bathroom, you said he stepped on the pillow which absorbed the blood, and then that's why he was able to get to the bathroom with no footprints.

So I'm asking, so did he jump off the pillow? Because stepping off regularly would have gotten blood on his shoes, thus footprints going to the bathroom.

 

[Sigh Sister]

Attacking people for being 68 or taking drugs. Attacking the people but not the evidence and blindly accepting all defense points. That is not weighing.

Speaking for myself, I have weighed the evidence. When the sensational headlines came out, I assumed that there must be a lot of evidence against them. As time went on, it became apparent to me that the AK & RS were railroaded. I truly believe that if she hadn't come home that morning, they never would have been named as suspects. She was a suspect simply because she didn't behave has others felt she should have. RS was a suspect simply because he was her boyfriend. Had they conducted the investigation as they should have, allowing the evidence to point to the suspect, RG would have been found to be the sole perpetrator and would be serving a just sentence. Instead, he gets out in 2014.

 

[SMK]

Speaking for myself, I have weighed the evidence. When the sensational headlines came out, I assumed that there must be a lot of evidence against them. As time went on, it became apparent to me that the AK & RS were railroaded. I truly believe that if she hadn't come home that morning, they never would have been named as suspects. She was a suspect simply because she didn't behave has others felt she should have. RS was a suspect simply because he was her boyfriend. Had they conducted the investigation as they should have, allowing the evidence to point to the suspect, RG would have been found to be the sole perpetrator and would be serving a just sentence. Instead, he gets out in 2014.

I must admit, I initially thought there would be really hard evidence to back up the story of the 3 on 1 attack.

Any one of these or a few of them: (More dna; indisputable evidence such as bleach receipts for the morning of Nov 2; finding of blood on their clothes and shoes; bloody rags found in the garbage of Sollecito's apt. with MK's dna and blood on them; murder weapon found; webcam catching them walking in the early morning hours of Nov 2, or throwing a knife into a dumpster; MK's blood drops found in Sollecito's car or trunk; scratches on them which had MK's dna; wire-tapped calls which made it clear that they had been present at the crime scene, etc, etc. )

I never expected there to be a whole innocence campaign or for the Italian police and prosecutors to be decried - mainly because I thought the case would be far clearer.

There are cases where there can be no PR campaign and no innocence campaign because the evidence is just too strong for anyone to buy into such.

 

[Katody]

I don't think that theory is reasonable. MOO. Okay, let's even say he did come in through the window. Okay, he's doing his burglary thing, suddenly he sees Meredith or he finds Meredith. Murder occurs with stabbing. His hands must have been dripping with blood.

Why? it's not a cheesy horror movie.

He must have had blood all over his clothes. So he goes to the bathroom to get some towels. Where are the footprints? Where are the drippings of the blood dripping off of his hands as he goes out the door, into the hallway, and into the bathroom.

The known traces he left on the way to the bathroom:
blood on the door handle, blood on bathroom light switch, blood on bathroom door - this one an obvious transfer from his bloody clothes.

Where are his footprints in the hallway (going to the bathroom) and bathroom? And he must have been pretty careful to not smear his clothes on the doorway or anyplace in that small bathroom.

See attachment 1.

He comes back, supposedly puts towels on her, the floor is wet with blood. He then goes out. Where are the missing footrpints coming out of the room?

There are no missing prints, they are there. See attachment 2.

He closes and locks the door. Where are the footprints facing the door?

Only one of his shoes was bloody. The print in front of Meredith's door is partial. Can't say which way it's facing.

Where is the blood on the door handle? If he wiped off his hands with the towel, what about the cut on his finger, which would have still been bleeding?

Maybe he used the other hand. Maybe he wrapped his hand. Maybe the traces were obliterated by the many people trying the handle of the locked door. There are too many simple reasonable possibilities to list them.

The evidence still stands. Guede broke-in and murdered Meredith when she walked in and he realized she's alone.

 

[aa9511]

Speaking for myself, I have weighed the evidence. When the sensational headlines came out, I assumed that there must be a lot of evidence against them. As time went on, it became apparent to me that the AK & RS were railroaded. I truly believe that if she hadn't come home that morning, they never would have been named as suspects. She was a suspect simply because she didn't behave has others felt she should have. RS was a suspect simply because he was her boyfriend. Had they conducted the investigation as they should have, allowing the evidence to point to the suspect, RG would have been found to be the sole perpetrator and would be serving a just sentence. Instead, he gets out in 2014.

bbm

I am no detective, obviously, but just thinking logically about this, I don't think that would be how it works. Just going strictly based on the evidence, I mean. Whenever there's a murder, they question the last people who saw them, and those who are close to them or had association with the murder scene, such as family members, roommates, co-workers, of course any witnesses if there were any, etc..

If they question someone and their story doesn't add up, or they find something peculiar about how they're acting, they investigate a little further. Usually the further investigation will rule them out or explain something about their initial reactions/answers, or sometimes it leads to something else.

I would imagine that's how it would work.

But again, I'm no expert, so take it with a grain of salt.

 

[aa9511]

Why? it's not a cheesy horror movie.

For the record, I don't watch horror movies. No, you're right it's not. But do you see the blood in the murder room? And do you see the parts where the blood obviously spattered? And do you see that there was a lot of blood, and that whole towel got soaking wet with blood? And do you not think Rudy's hands would have been covered in blood, which is logical conclusion from the crime scene and what happened?

The known traces he left on the way to the bathroom:
blood on the door handle, blood on bathroom light switch, blood on bathroom door - this one an obvious transfer from his bloody clothes.


See attachment 1.

No, actually bathroom looks pretty cleaned-up to me. I see those, but it also looks relatively cleaned-up. To have blood on faucet, wouldn't that mean he was by the sink area? What was he doing there if he just went to the bathroom to get towels? Did he reach over the sink to look at himself in the mirror, before going to get the towels? How come there are only couple of drops? Wouldn't the sink have blood smear from his clothes as he's leaning to do whatever he was doing? Why aren't there blood SMEARS on the faucet handle, from when he turned on the water?

There are no missing prints, they are there. See attachment 2.

There are completely missing prints going to the bathroom and back. And missing footprints on the bathmat of the bathroom.

Only one of his shoes was bloody. The print in front of Meredith's door is partial. Can't say which way it's facing.

Please explain how only one of his shoes could have gotten bloody. I find that to be a very "out-there" theory to try to fit it with the pro-innocence theory. How is it that one shoe had enough blood on it to make prints, and one shoe magically didn't have any. If it's from the pillow, it means he would have had to jump off that pillow in order for his foot to land somewhere where there was no blood, leaving no prints on his way out. And he jumped, but yet stepped in blood with his other foot.

Maybe he used the other hand. Maybe he wrapped his hand. Maybe the traces were obliterated by the many people trying the handle of the locked door. There are too many simple reasonable possibilities to list them.

I don't know, maybe. Just don't find it very plausible how he could get no blood on the knob.

The evidence still stands. Guede broke-in and murdered Meredith when she walked in and he realized she's alone.

That's questionable to say the least.

Oh sorry, my replies are in your quote, underneath your questions/statements is my reply. Didn't do it right.

 

[Yellow]

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.

To make out a case of all 3, you really need some evidence of some pre-involvement, friendly texts, people seeing them together, even people hearing AK talk about RG. But there is just nothing. You cannot have a conspiracy without the people at least knowing each other

I think you also need more evidence of pre murder hostility. All we have is MK gossiped about AK not being clean. I think you would either need to prove 1) all three were tripping and this is a drug infused murder, of which it seems the prosecution backed away from alleging as such since there is no evidence of hard drugs or 2) evidence of AK being jealous of MK, being angry at her for chiding her, etc, There is no evidence at all of AK having negative feelings toward AK, all the evidence is that of MK feelings. And even that evidence is conflicting. Some even testified the girls were friends, went to chocolate festival, etc, I don't think anyone testified there was any long simmering fued.

The motives are conflicting, on the one hand there is the spur of the moment cleaning thing building up after weeks of tension (of which there is no evidence). Here you would have to believe that it was done in anger, like someone is fighting and grabs a weapon in anger. Usually such murders are rage attacks.

But here you also have third people getting involved and perpetuating violence. This is where the timing of the rape could be key. It need not be after, but if the rape was after the murder, that would support the state's stance. By switching to this rage motive, state now has to essentially show AK went first, killed her in a rage, then the others joined in second.

I never heard of a case where 3 people are involved in a rage attack. Sex story maybe but not rage

 

[Yellow]

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

Some evidence is more important than others. DNA on murder victim and RG palm print - case closes as to his involvement, it is clear he is involved.

I don't rely on statements even the SC of Italy threw out and on DNA work done by discredited experts in the intl scientific community or by labs not certified to do DNA. I think that is the norm, and I don't know why we would want a justice system that did either. Why would we want this in out system?. I think some of those witnesses, like the roommates, are believable, for others one would have to evaluate their credibility.

So that leaves, a murder weapon without blood (no one EVER answers the question of how you could stab someone 46 stabs yet leave none of MK blood on that knife), footsteps that are suppose to be teaming in MK blood having NONE of her DNA, and no evidence of suspects in the murder room. How did bloody footprints get from murder room to hallway? (If that is what luminol cleans up)

Even if you accept the state's evidence as given that still does not prove murder. All it proves is AK and RS came to the cottage that night, maybe inadvertently stepped in stuff, and tried to clean it up bc maybe they thought the police would misinterpret their actions. Lock them up for 30 years for not timely reporting a crime scene then

The state or anyone supporting guilt also fails to address the competence of the independent experts. What is the attack on the credibility? This is not stating disagreements w their conclusions, this is actually attacking their inability to evaluate the evidence bc they are biased or were corrupt or simply did not have the training to do the job. Evidence of any of this?

 

[Yellow]

bbm

I am no detective, obviously, but just thinking logically about this, I don't think that would be how it works. Just going strictly based on the evidence, I mean. Whenever there's a murder, they question the last people who saw them, and those who are close to them or had association with the murder scene, such as family members, roommates, co-workers, of course any witnesses if there were any, etc..

If they question someone and their story doesn't add up, or they find something peculiar about how they're acting, they investigate a little further. Usually the further investigation will rule them out or explain something about their initial reactions/answers, or sometimes it leads to something else.

I would imagine that's how it would work.

But again, I'm no expert, so take it with a grain of salt.

It is detective 101 that you are suppose to follow the evidence not follow the suspect. Sometimes, the evidence will lead to the suspect as in Jodi arias. Other times, police focus on a suspect and either try to ignore or misinterpret other evidence that does not favor their side. We saw this in the David Camm case where he was eventually acquitted after 3 trials, but police there co pellet ignores DNA evidence pointing to someone else and since they were so focuses in the husband they misinterpreted Innocent evidence in a nefarious light

I believe the same thing happens here. They zeroed in on them from day 1 and once it was clear RG was involved they has to make it fit.