Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

[Harmony 2]

Please be sure to provide links to facts, information and photos including attached thumbnails or posts will be removed... please go back and self-edit to include links in recent posts.

 

[aa9511]

Just pondering something that Katody had said in reply to the idea that AK and RS wanted Filomena to discover the crime scene (and hence, phoned her):

Supposing Knox and Sollecito are in some way culpable or involved.
Or even suppose they are innocent and not involved.

Supposing they leave early in the a.m. of Friday, from Sollecito's apartment, for their planned weekend away.

1. Meredith's phones are never rung, so no Postal Police become aware of anything amiss.

2. Late in the day, or the next day, Filomena arrives home at the cottage. Laura is away with boyfriend.

3. F sees feces in toilet, hole in window, MK's door locked, phones police.

4. Police come and see all, break down MK's door, discover murder.

5. Laura, AK and RS are phoned-- the latter say they will return from their trip away soon or after the weekend.

6. AK calls Mom and tells her what Filomena found while they were away.

7. Guede makes his Skype call; at some point gets brought back.

8. His bloody handprint, footprints are found; as is his DNA, on the victim's tampon and inside her.

QUESTION: In this scenario, at what point do the police decide AK and RS were probably involved? Even if it comes to be believed that there were multiple attackers or a simulated burglary?

Ergo, if they are innocent, no trouble is in the offing.

If they are culpable/involved, they made a massive mistake to "discover" the scene.? * If guilty, what motivated them to want to discover the crime scene (those who do are always examined very closely and almost always suspect, at least initially).

SMK, you make very good points here. (I know I'm way out-of-order in the thread, just catching up so bear with me, if my posts don't make sense to what the topic of the day is right now).......

Ok, so I think their thinking was something like this.....

What if police ended up finding evidence of them? THey didn't know, back then, what evidence would be found and what wouldn't be found. They tried to clean-up as best they could, but of course with something like that, they couldn't be sure what police/investigators would end up finding.....

So, at the time, their thinking could have been....what if we go away, pretend like nothing's happened, then the police find some evidence of us....and that will end up making us look guilty and also like we're lying....as if they were "hiding."

So what they had to do, in their minds, was to account for any evidence of them, such as fingerprints, DNA, etc, that they found in the house of them, and it had to be from after the murder, so they could say, oh yeah, those fingerprints, etc., well that was because I was actually home for about an hour taking my shower and stuff, and see then I went and got Raffaelo, and he had to come back to the house with me so I could "show" him these things, and see that's why his fingerprints are here, here, and here. And that's why you found that evidence of us in the bathroom (thinking that police might find some evidence in there), because see, I actually took a shower there the morning of the murder. So it wasn't because I was there that night, it was because I was there in the morning, late in the morning.

It's easy to look in hindsight, after we know ALL of the evidence the police actually found, and say, well, geez, why didn't they just not "go back" to the cottage.

But then, just think how you would react if they said nothing about coming back to the cottage for the "shower", etc.. and then you find out, oh look, there's Amanda's DNA here, here, and here, and there's Raffaelo's bloody footprint, and there's Amanda's bloody footprints, and oh geez, and looky here they have no proven alibi for that night....well geez, there's really nothing to explain this DNA, this mixed DNA, and this and this....and then on top of that you would have their "inconsistencies" about their alibi and on top of that their other lies like Patrick, etc.etc., and it sure would make them look guilty.

But now that we have this story of being at the cottage, well that just puts kind of a doubt-cloud over the whole thing, now doesn't it?

 

[aa9511]

I agree except she never describes it as a "footprint" so Imo they didn't think it would be identified.

She also claims to use this bloody bathmat to scoot to her room. Which is completely unbelievable!

This is a very good point, too!

Also, didn't she need some stuff to "see" in order to make her "worried-ness" believable? I mean, the "open" front door, couple drops blood on the faucet, some poo-poo in the toilet.....she really needed as much stuff as she could to make her claim beleivable. Since she conveniently left out the "broken window" in her pre-discovery account. So without the window, she kind of needed other stuff to make the account valid that she was "worried" about the house and "worried" about Meredith.

She left out the broken window, IMO, b/c then how could she have explained why she went to the bathroom to take her "shower"? Because anyone who sees a broken window in their house, does not proceed to do nothing and instead go take a shower, and then call the police or anyone a few hours later.

So without the window, if we think about, not too much else going on. So you may be just right when you say, she didn't think they would identify it as a footprint. Or maybe........let's see, since she didn't think anyone would be suspicious of Amanda and RS if they put their plan into action (we were at the house, not hiding, etc..), and they thought police would think it was just a burglar.....then why would they ever think the police would ever get that footprint and test it against Raffaelo's? They were prob. thinking, the police would just assume it was the "burglar's," of course.

I don't think they thought in a million years that the police would get Raffaelo's footrpint and then compare it to that one.

 

[aa9511]

I understand these, but in your opinion, why not have Filomena return home and raise the alarm? She would then be the one to discover the scene, and thus be initially at least somewhat suspect. Someone was going to find that crime scene either that day, or the next. (just trying to tie up any loose ends)

And then find some evidence of Amanda or RS somewhere in the house, even though they were claiming they were nowhere near the cottage (at RS's house, and then on their trip)? How would they then explain that?

 

[aa9511]

Why would they need something to raise alarm? Why raise alarm at all?

Why cover the traces in the bathroom with stories while pointing the traces to the police instead of simply cleaning them? This one is really baffling to me.

Think about it, Amanda didn't report the "broken window" as one of her original discoveries. She didn't, obviously, report seeing Meredith's dead body. So what else was there to "report" that she had seen which "worried" her about the house?? They had already cleaned everything obvious up, everything was behind locked door in Meredith's room. If she didn't see the "broken window," there must have been OTHER things she saw which worried her.

I've give the reason, IMO, why they alerted Filomena instead of jsut going off on there trip, in the couple posts above this one.

 

[aa9511]

About the locked door: I knew the door to MK's room needed a key to lock it, but I did not know (prior to just reading now) that in order to lock the door, the key had to be taken out of the interior lock, placed in the exterior, and locked. I had assumed that it could be pulled shut with the key in the exterior and it would lock that way.

I suppose this is why the police might have suspected Amanda locked it: Why would Guede trouble himself with the process? Unless it was to keep MK from going for help? Indeed, why would Amanda or anyone do it? (unless to force others to discover the body if she wanted to be the one to discover the crime scene).

I am also having issues with this key/lock thing.

Ok, well, first of all, it doesn' tmake sense to me why Rudy would lock Meredith's door or the front door in the first place. Secondly, there should have been signs that he stopped at both doors and locked them. As in footprints, fingerprints, blood smears from clothes or fingers, etc.. There is nothing.

Third, you would expect some shuffling around while he finds the right key for the doors, figures out the process of locking front door. We don't find any evidence of any of that. It's like a ghost came and locked both of the doors.

 

[Amber29]

I am also having issues with this key/lock thing.

Ok, well, first of all, it doesn' tmake sense to me why Rudy would lock Meredith's door or the front door in the first place. Secondly, there should have been signs that he stopped at both doors and locked them. As in footprints, fingerprints, blood smears from clothes or fingers, etc.. There is nothing.

Third, you would expect some shuffling around while he finds the right key for the doors, figures out the process of locking front door. We don't find any evidence of any of that. It's like a ghost came and locked both of the doors.

He would've only locked Merediths door, the front door was left open.
Or that's how AK says she found it the next morning.

So you are correct IMO that there were no shoeprints proving RG locked Merediths door. I to have issue why he would bother locking her door, considering it has to be with the key.

Why not simply shut it?

 

[aa9511]

So you do believe he lied when ha said it was easy to do even for an amateur.
You also do believe the TV station produced a very unethical manipulation o facts with trick montage of video.

This is a bold claim that I think requires some justification.

I cannot think about any reason why a Perugian doctor, member of a climbing club identified by name would take part in such an unethical manipulation.

Can you?

Isn't RS"s father some big-shot in Italy? Maybe that has something to do with it.............................................................

 

[MichaelSmith]

I am also having issues with this key/lock thing.

Ok, well, first of all, it doesn' tmake sense to me why Rudy would lock Meredith's door or the front door in the first place. Secondly, there should have been signs that he stopped at both doors and locked them. As in footprints, fingerprints, blood smears from clothes or fingers, etc.. There is nothing.

Third, you would expect some shuffling around while he finds the right key for the doors, figures out the process of locking front door. We don't find any evidence of any of that. It's like a ghost came and locked both of the doors.

Amanda & Raffaele must be ghosts then because there's no footprints of them in the room. Were they levitating?

 

[sherlockh]

There are 2 different issues when it comes to raining or being wet IIRC. One is Curatolo's testimony. The one that prosecutor Crini points out. Raining on October 31st and not on November 1st. So Curatolo was not mistaken about it being the night of the murder.

The other argument is it being wet (not raining) outside when it comes to the fake burglary. No signs of mud on the wall or grass or whatever.

 

[aa9511]

I know adults whose room is messier than this. I think one forgets sometimes that neither of them were married, they as well used drugs, I would also think they would be like many young adults in their 20's spending more time with their friends and boyfriends than cleaning house.

Makes it sound like they were a bunch of young men. Yes, I would expect young professional, unmarried MEN to live that way. Not most women, and probably not all 4 women. I know many women who can manage boyfriends and one small apartment room at the same time. It's not either/or.

 

[aa9511]

I have noticed.

British TV is suspending a Perugian doctor on wires like in the Matrix to fake the climb and Amanda spends her nights falsifying Crini's arguments in original rambling Italian.

I believe there was a rather long discussion on the last thread, which suggested that someone was going around and changing Edda's statement?? Remember, "someone made up that sentence," "that sentence did not exist in original testimony," "that sentence is completely fake"?

So let's talk about "conspiracies".....................................

 

[aa9511]

He would've only locked Merediths door, the front door was left open.
Or that's how AK says she found it the next morning.

So you are correct IMO that there were no shoeprints proving RG locked Merediths door. I to have issue why he would bother locking her door, considering it has to be with the key.

Why not simply shut it?

bbm

Well, now, that just makes it all the more confusing/conflicting/contradictory, doesn't it? Lock Meredith's door, but "apparently" leave the front door completely wide open? Or at least not locking it, even though he has the keys, and he knows he has the keys. And didn't he need to unlock the front door, b/c the girls locked it when they came in? So Meredith would have locked it. He would have had to unlock it. And if he iddn't know if was locked, wouldn't there have been signs on inner doorknob (fingerprints, DNA), from where he turned the knob a few times to open it, not realizing it was locked?

I keep hearing, this case is so "typical" of all burglary/rape/murders. I don't find it so typical. What about all these locking doors? Do most rapes/murders done by strangers end by the murderer searching for the victim's keys, and then going around and locking all the doors before he leaves? And in the process, leaving no traces behind (of locking the doors). Or, even weirder, locking one door and then not locking another?

 

[aa9511]

Amanda & Raffaele must be ghosts then because there's no footprints of them in the room. Were they levitating?

The whole point is they locked/unlocked the doors and then wiped off the doorknobs for no fingerprints of them. And no blood, etc., from Rudy because he didn't lock/unlock the doors!

 

[redheadedgal]

Uh oh....someone mentioned the Arias case again....we're not supposed to compare that to this case, or so I've been told. Last thread, there is a post with about 20 of my posts linked to where I mentioned her trial

this is totally inaccurate. no one said we shouldn't compare cases. aa9511 said every case is unique and we shouldn't lump cases together b/c they share plot lines. i then merely pointed out that the JA case was brought up a lot as a comparison re: AK's guilt, and it was a contradiction to the earlier statement about cases being unique.

I feel like Im trying to be brainwashed into seeing something that isn't there...

Like if its said to me over and over, I'll start to believe it.

like what happened to AK in her interrogations that produced the lie about PL or her being at the house?

 

[MichaelSmith]

The whole point is they locked/unlocked the doors and then wiped off the doorknobs for no fingerprints of them. And no blood, etc., from Rudy because he didn't lock/unlock the doors!

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PhotoGallery4.html

Photo 3 shows blood on the inside handle.

 

[redheadedgal]

otto: Yes, a prosecutor will bend the truth when cross examining a suspect for the sole purpose of revealing the suspect as a liar. Let's keep it in context. Is this about finding the truth?

and which suspect was crini cross examining during his presentation of the facts to the appeals court november 26, 2013 when he stated the kitchen knife was compatible with the knife stain on the sheet? b/c he's clearly "bending the truth" as the two knives don't look the same at all...

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php...rosecutor_alessandro_crini_proposes_30_years/

 

[Katody]

So the link is Knox's blog? ... and a phrase, taken out of context and removed from a sentence, is presented to demonstrate that a MSM article is incorrect? I don't buy it.

Incorrect. Of course I quoted the full sentence upthread and even summarized it's contents.

Your claim is Amanda falsified the court document on her webpage. I must say it's baffling because it does look authentic. How sure you are of this and what evidence suggest it to you?



BTW: Could you provide the quote from Crini's transcript confirming what you claim the article says? Or do you concede there is none?

 

[Katody]

Isn't RS"s father some big-shot in Italy? Maybe that has something to do with it.............................................................

He's an urologist IIRC but please elaborate

 

[Katody]

Katody in this post you asserted that they were shocked in December that shoeprints were missing
Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

I can't see me using the word shocked. Why do you assert I asserted it?
I just wrote about it as an interesting aside.

In watching the crime scene videos again (sorry its been years since I have REALLY studied all this) I noticed in the 2nd one on the list on IIP deals with the shoeprints.http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/PDF-Files.html

It very clearly shows the investigators taking little clothes held with tweezers and wiping away the shoeprints, they put these clothes in sealed tubes. For what reason I don't know, I only wonder why you would think that they would be later be concerned about "someone" removing them.

The time stamp on the video shows it was 12:30am on 11/3/2007

Im guessing once the shoeprints are photographed and documented maybe this is the procedure that follows.

I would like to know your thoughts on the Scientifica returning in December to "someone having removed the shoeprints"

Thank you! Watching the video of December inspection it looks like they have hard time locating where the shoeprints were originally. They spin around with the photo of them in hand helplessly for some time. That's just my impression because there's no audio track unfortunately.

What is evident from the video itself is the complete lack of preservation of the crime scene after the November inspections.

The place looks like a hurricane went through. It's utterly compromised. The examinators seem to know it because their bunny suits are just for show. They disregard any guidelines preventing room-to-room cross contamination. They're not changing gloves or shoecovers. They walk around stepping on blood traces.

Of course the final part after all the farce was luminol testing the floor and... swabbing it for DNA.