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

[redheadedgal]

according to those tweets --which are to be taken as rumor and unconfirmed according to the rules thread-- crini (allegedly) also said the print of the knife on the sheet is compatible w/ the knife taken from RS's home... does anyone here really agree with this? (see overlay below)

imo, this alone demonstrates how deceptive and unsound things are from the prosecution's pov: twisting facts, mischaracterizing evidence etc.

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/album.php?album_id=43

i'm quoting myself b/c i'm still curious about how people who believe AK and RS are guilty feel about the very apparent difference b/w the knives and crini's assertion they are compatible... no one answered originally. thoughts?

(will be offline for a few days... will check back when i'm able to... hope everyone has a good weekend!)

 

[Tugela]

I also located this information in the Massei report:



http://truejustice.org/ee/documents/perugia/TheMasseiReport.pdf

That is interesting. That bit interested me:

Page 103
She approached Meredith’s room with the chief assistant Buratti, who remained at the door as Napoleoni took one step inside the room "while the 118 doctor uncovered the corpse" (page 228, hearing [96] on February 27, 2009).
She was wearing shoe covers and sterile gloves. ‚I then saw this girl who was on the floor with her face lying towards the right of the viewer, with a terrible wound. Was semi-naked, had the t-shirt rolled up above the breast and lots of blood and spatters of blood even on the breast‛ (page 229).

My understanding is that her bra had been removed and was on the floor. The back had been cut near the clasp, which resulted in the clasp being lose after it unhooked.

If that was the case, then the most likely scenario is that the assailant was in front of her and had the knife behind her and cut the bra strap that way. That would mean the assailant likely didn't touch the clasp at all.

But the interesting part is the bit highlighted in that quote you provided. If MK's T-shirt was rolled up above her breasts, then she was still wearing it. And if she was still wearing it, how on earth did the bra come off, even if the strap was cut? It should still be on her body, not loose on the floor.

 

[MichaelSmith]

That is interesting. That bit interested me:



My understanding is that her bra had been removed and was on the floor. The back had been cut near the clasp, which resulted in the clasp being lose after it unhooked.

If that was the case, then the most likely scenario is that the assailant was in front of her and had the knife behind her and cut the bra strap that way. That would mean the assailant likely didn't touch the clasp at all.

But the interesting part is the bit highlighted in that quote you provided. If MK's T-shirt was rolled up above her breasts, then she was still wearing it. And if she was still wearing it, how on earth did the bra come off, even if the strap was cut? It should still be on her body, not loose on the floor.

With the bra I think he ripped it off in a rage because the hooks on the clasp were bent. Katody might be able to explain it better but the defence made a mistake saying it was cut.

 

[Tugela]

Not really, IMO. Let's look at it this way. Guede breaks into the house when it is empty. He is looking for rent money or something else to steal that he won't have to worry about pawning in order to get some cash. While in the house he has to go to the bathroom, and for some reason can't seem to hold it, so off he goes to the larger bathroom. While he is in there Meredith comes home and goes to her room. She sits on her bed with her back to the door to take off her shoes to get comfortable. (The photo of her shoes show that one was untied and laces loosened while the other was pulled off without being untied.) Guede sneaks out of the bathroom and down the hall quietly. Guede comes up behind Meredith in a blitz attack. Holding a knife to her throat he demands she get on the floor. He tells her that if she fights him or screams that he will stab her. I doubt that many women would fight in this situation. There is also no need for him to restrain her if she believes that if she does what he says that he won't kill her. It really wouldn't take much for a larger male that has a weapon to control a smaller woman that has no weapon at all.

MOO

Probably something like that. Guede was friends with the males living in the other apartment, and had met the girls from time to time through that mutual connection. Since he was friends with MK's boyfriend, he probably knew her better than the other girls. Consequently he no doubt knew that the boys and most of the girls would be out of town that night. Perhaps he came specifically to catch MK or AK alone to rape them, so crept in and waited. After all, he had expressed a keen interest in pursueing AK to the boys before her relationship with S. MK was the one who was unlucky, perhaps if timing was a bit different it may have been AK dead in a pool of blood and MK defending against a murder charge. It could well be that AK was his real target.

 

[Tugela]

With the bra I think he ripped it off in a rage because the hooks on the clasp were bent. Katody might be able to explain it better but the defence made a mistake saying it was cut.

No, the clasp had been cut off. It most likely fell off the hooks during the struggle.

The act of cutting would have put considerable force on the hooks, and that probably bent them, not the bra being torn off.

In any case, applying enough force to the bra to cause the fabric to tear (Bra's are pretty tough) should have created lesions on her skin from the straps, and that would provide a forensic scientist to recreate how it had been torn, and from what direction. They made no mention of anything like that, which is very curious.

If the bra was cut at the back, then torn from the front (I don't see how else it could have been done to recreate the specifics) it would have had to have a cut in the rear and broken on both straps. The force required to do that would almost certainly have produced lesions and cuts on her shoulders or upper arms. Remember, her shirt was still on so it was not just pulled over her head or down her torso.

Why would so much force be used to remove the bra, but no effort made to remove the shirt? This does not make sense at all, since an assailant in those circumstances could use the shirt as bondage to restrict her movements by pulling the front over her head and behind her shoulders (this would basically bind her arms in place).

 

[Katody]

bbm


SMK, ITA, except I don't think it stems from presuming them guilty or innocent in the beginning. I think it stems from either believing they might be lying about things, or presuming they must be telling the truth about things.

In fact, I just wrote a post about this same things earlier.

And it all begins with the alibi. If one believes their alibi and believes they are telling the truth about their alibi, then of course one has to disbelieve the rest of the case against them.

The problem is there is no evidence their alibi is false. Alibi that is unproven is not the same as alibi disproven.
You say you assume their alibi is false and from this the guilt follows. That's circular reasoning.

 

[Katody]

That is a good point, SMK!

My guess would be that if all 3 were present during the sexual assault, then they wanted it to have a clear relation to the "burglary" itself. That way, the sexual assault would be connected to one person and one person only, the "burglar."

The sexual assault was connected to one person only. Only Guede's DNA was inside victim's body. You don't mean they staged this?

 

[Katody]

No, the clasp had been cut off. It most likely fell off the hooks during the struggle.

The act of cutting would have put considerable force on the hooks, and that probably bent them, not the bra being torn off.

In any case, applying enough force to the bra to cause the fabric to tear (Bra's are pretty tough) should have created lesions on her skin from the straps, and that would provide a forensic scientist to recreate how it had been torn, and from what direction. They made no mention of anything like that, which is very curious.

If the bra was cut at the back, then torn from the front (I don't see how else it could have been done to recreate the specifics) it would have had to have a cut in the rear and broken on both straps. The force required to do that would almost certainly have produced lesions and cuts on her shoulders or upper arms. Remember, her shirt was still on so it was not just pulled over her head or down her torso.

Why would so much force be used to remove the bra, but no effort made to remove the shirt? This does not make sense at all, since an assailant in those circumstances could use the shirt as bondage to restrict her movements by pulling the front over her head and behind her shoulders (this would basically bind her arms in place).

I don't want to look up and post all the grisly photo evidence again but the close-ups revealed that all the presumed cuts to the bra were in fact seams that failed. It would be a strange coincidence if the attacker took time to cut exactly at the seams instead of across the fabric.

Bending of the metal hooks indicates significant force. Force that is not required for simply cutting the straps.
I don't think the lesions would be inevitable. Simple physics - while the force is applied to very small area at the hooks, the same force counteracts on the skin through much larger area of fabric at the side of the bra.

About the removing of the shirt: Meredith had her jacket on, during the attack it was possibly used in a way you suggest, to restrain her arms, then removed by the assailant.

All of it was a side issue during the trial so far. It may come into light this time because Crini put some importance on the act of cutting in his closing arguments.

The fact that the bra wasn't cut and there is Guede's DNA on the fabric strap indicating he was the one pulling it may be important for the defence this time.

 

[SMK]

What about the bra strap which is clearly soaked in blood (I presume from the flowing from the neck). How would it be so soaked if it was off beforehand?

I think the problem is, the prosecution contented that soak strap showed she had lain on her side for quite some time before being moved (indicating a later moving/staging); while the defense says the soaking might have happened in a matter of minutes. Who to believe?

 

[Katody]

I think the problem is, the prosecution contented that soak strap showed she had lain on her side for quite some time before being moved (indicating a later moving/staging); while the defense says the soaking might have happened in a matter of minutes. Who to believe?

Guede moved the victim while she was still alive.
Evidence:

1. There were smears of blood showing the direction she was dragged.
2. Aspirated blood on the side of the wardrobe near her head - in her final position she was still alive.
3. Pool of blood around her head.
4. Aspirated blood on the bra. Droplets shape indicate she was lying on her back with the bra exposed.
5. Aspirated blood on her breast, indicating that the bra had been torn off after moving her while she was still alive.

 

[aa9511]

Not really, IMO. Let's look at it this way. Guede breaks into the house when it is empty. He is looking for rent money or something else to steal that he won't have to worry about pawning in order to get some cash. While in the house he has to go to the bathroom, and for some reason can't seem to hold it, so off he goes to the larger bathroom. While he is in there Meredith comes home and goes to her room. She sits on her bed with her back to the door to take off her shoes to get comfortable. (The photo of her shoes show that one was untied and laces loosened while the other was pulled off without being untied.) Guede sneaks out of the bathroom and down the hall quietly. Guede comes up behind Meredith in a blitz attack. Holding a knife to her throat he demands she get on the floor. He tells her that if she fights him or screams that he will stab her. I doubt that many women would fight in this situation. There is also no need for him to restrain her if she believes that if she does what he says that he won't kill her. It really wouldn't take much for a larger male that has a weapon to control a smaller woman that has no weapon at all.

MOO

Yes, someone wrote a theory similar to this before on here.

That all makes a lot of sense until you get to the point of the stabbing. Ok, so then he's using the knife to stab her, the "threat" has already taken place! Remember he was threatening her to shut up or he'll stab her? I'm sorry, once someone begins stabbing someone else, I doubt the victim would still lay there totally submissive.

So then during the stabbing, he would have had to restrain her.

How did he do that, is the question?

 

[aa9511]

Tossed onto the floor in a pile of blood? On the floor already and Meredith bled onto it? Just because there is blood on the bra strap does not mean that the blood had to get on the strap while she bleeding and wearing it.

It would have to have been tossed "just so" so that only the strap got totally soaked in blood. And the rest was not. It makes much more sense, IMO, that it was on her, and the strap got soaked from the blood flowing from her neck.

I believe that is much more likely than leaving it to chance that it got tossed "just so."

 

[aa9511]

i'm quoting myself b/c i'm still curious about how people who believe AK and RS are guilty feel about the very apparent difference b/w the knives and crini's assertion they are compatible... no one answered originally. thoughts?

(will be offline for a few days... will check back when i'm able to... hope everyone has a good weekend!)

I didn't answer, speaking for myself, because that picture does not seem clear to me. I see a lot of shadows and I just can't make it out clearly. Is it the shadow, or is it the knife??

 

[aa9511]

That is interesting. That bit interested me:



My understanding is that her bra had been removed and was on the floor. The back had been cut near the clasp, which resulted in the clasp being lose after it unhooked.

If that was the case, then the most likely scenario is that the assailant was in front of her and had the knife behind her and cut the bra strap that way. That would mean the assailant likely didn't touch the clasp at all.

But the interesting part is the bit highlighted in that quote you provided. If MK's T-shirt was rolled up above her breasts, then she was still wearing it. And if she was still wearing it, how on earth did the bra come off, even if the strap was cut? It should still be on her body, not loose on the floor.

I guess someone could have pulled it off of her? Like, cut it and then pulled it off? You make a good point, though.

 

[aa9511]

No, the clasp had been cut off. It most likely fell off the hooks during the struggle.

The act of cutting would have put considerable force on the hooks, and that probably bent them, not the bra being torn off.

In any case, applying enough force to the bra to cause the fabric to tear (Bra's are pretty tough) should have created lesions on her skin from the straps, and that would provide a forensic scientist to recreate how it had been torn, and from what direction. They made no mention of anything like that, which is very curious.

If the bra was cut at the back, then torn from the front (I don't see how else it could have been done to recreate the specifics) it would have had to have a cut in the rear and broken on both straps. The force required to do that would almost certainly have produced lesions and cuts on her shoulders or upper arms. Remember, her shirt was still on so it was not just pulled over her head or down her torso.

Why would so much force be used to remove the bra, but no effort made to remove the shirt? This does not make sense at all, since an assailant in those circumstances could use the shirt as bondage to restrict her movements by pulling the front over her head and behind her shoulders (this would basically bind her arms in place).

Those are good points.

So why do you think the bra couldn't have been cut in the back with the knife, and then just pulled off?

I agree that if done by hand, it would have been very hard and would have left marks on her body showing it was "ripped apart" with much force. I also don't really understand the point of that when the perp had a knife with him anyway? Wouldn't it be easier to just cut it?

 

[aa9511]

The problem is there is no evidence their alibi is false. Alibi that is unproven is not the same as alibi disproven.
You say you assume their alibi is false and from this the guilt follows. That's circular reasoning.

Yes, there is evidence that they might be lying/making up their alibi. It's drop-stop reasoning to assume their alibi is truthful just because they say so. I didn't say I "assume," as if I just assumed this from the beginning without knowing anything about the evidence. I said I believe, based on the evidence. Remember, there are no other credible witnesses to their alibi...their alibi is each other, and they are both suspects. So do we take a suspect blindly at their word when they say "oh no, of course I wasn't there"? I imagine 100% of guilty suspects would place themselves away from the crime scene if they could, unless they're confessing! No, I imagine in any other case, the suspect's claimed alibi would be at least questioned considering their status as defendant in the case, and considering there is no one else to refute their claimed alibi.

Yes, alibi "unproven" means one has to keep an open mind and be open to the possibility that the suspect in a case just might, just might be lying about where they were at the time of the murder.

 

[SMK]

Yes, someone wrote a theory similar to this before on here.

That all makes a lot of sense until you get to the point of the stabbing. Ok, so then he's using the knife to stab her, the "threat" has already taken place! Remember he was threatening her to shut up or he'll stab her? I'm sorry, once someone begins stabbing someone else, I doubt the victim would still lay there totally submissive.

So then during the stabbing, he would have had to restrain her.

How did he do that, is the question?

I guess if you go on the theory of Guede acting alone, once the victim was stabbed in the throat, she was too weak to put up much resistance.

She may have resisted, but she would have been in a greatly impaired state at that point. (not to mention difficulty breathing, etc.)

 

[SMK]

Guede moved the victim while she was still alive.
Evidence:

1. There were smears of blood showing the direction she was dragged.
2. Aspirated blood on the side of the wardrobe near her head - in her final position she was still alive.
3. Pool of blood around her head.
4. Aspirated blood on the bra. Droplets shape indicate she was lying on her back with the bra exposed.
5. Aspirated blood on her breast, indicating that the bra had been torn off after moving her while she was still alive.

Yes, this greatly weakens the whole, "Who would have had an interest in returning and moving Meredith, and staging a sex assault?" meme.

This is why even when I factor some culpability on the part of Knox and Sollecito in (to explain various holes, questions) I am finding more and more, as the info on the murderwiki seems to be strongly refuted empirically) that I have to assign them some peripheral role ( e.g., they put Guede up to robbing MK, and became frightened when they realized the point to which he had taken things.)

 

[SMK]

Yes, this greatly weakens the whole, "Who would have had an interest in returning and moving Meredith, and staging a sex assault?" meme.

This is why even when I factor some culpability on the part of Knox and Sollecito in (to explain various holes, questions) I am finding more and more, as the info on the murderwiki seems to be strongly refuted empirically) that I have to assign them some peripheral role ( e.g., they put Guede up to robbing MK, and became frightened when they realized the point to which he had taken things.)

Adding to my above words from my prior post, the only thing I could think of is:


1. Knox placed the duvet on MK and locked the door - nothing else. This was from being distraught and horrified that RG had done as he had.

2. Knox and Sollecito may have staged the burglary - ( for even the Postal Police believed it looked staged, prior to finding a murder had occurred on the premises) - to deflect from their having given Guede entrance via a key. (perhaps some argument/ill will had carried over from that afternoon, and from MK having distanced herself from AK on Halloween)

3. They never expected to have to explain this, and now they feel it would be too horrifying/embarrassing when so many have viewed them as completely innocent . When a person is murdered, anyone having been part of a criminal plan (robbery) which led to that act would be culpable as an accessory. Not to mention lying to police, staging a crime scene, obstruction of justice, hampering a murder investigation... (Imagine what their parents and the Kerchers would think, as well; and having been part of such a prank/crime would do nothing for their future reputations/careers, either .)

4. Perhaps (if they had anything to do with it at all) they simply had wanted Guede to rob an empty cottage, and MK came home unexpectedly early.

5. Perhaps the piercing scream heard that night was Amanda finding that Guede had murdered MK. (I always felt this, intuitively, for some reason.)

***In any event, I think the above is a lot easier to believe than that 3 attacked MK but all the evidence keeps pointing to one.
( all speculation only, of course - and I might add, all cooked up only because so much of the strong evidence I had found on the wiki has dissolved and been empirically explained away--and if Halkides is correct that the luminol reacted to something other than blood, and the mixed blood prints/traces are actually not that, and not from the crime night - if not, then there are pieces of evidence pointing to MK/AK bleeding together; and if multiple attackers theory is true, this would place them back at the crime scene when the murder occurred. )

 

[Katody]

Yes, someone wrote a theory similar to this before on here.

That all makes a lot of sense until you get to the point of the stabbing. Ok, so then he's using the knife to stab her, the "threat" has already taken place! Remember he was threatening her to shut up or he'll stab her? I'm sorry, once someone begins stabbing someone else, I doubt the victim would still lay there totally submissive.

So then during the stabbing, he would have had to restrain her.

How did he do that, is the question?

1. I imagine being stabbed in the neck may put you in shock so severe that it completely rules out fighting back.

2. Her nose and lips had injuries, there was bruising on the back of her head. It is possible Guede knocked her out before the stabbing.

3. She was on the floor, facing the wardrobe when Guede inflicted the killing wound. He was on top of her. Not a position to fight back.