Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[wasnt_me]

Yes, but you've proved my point. You have to come up with additional scenarios to explain the evidence. The straightforward scenario is she committed murder in the clothes she was last seen wearing. Of course, she could have been naked, or wearing different clothes, but that adds complexity to the story. Going somewhere to wash and dry her clothes also adds complexity (and if they brought forward the guy who says he saw her at a grocery store, one would've thought they would bring forward a laundromat witness. Both would have had the same credibility.)

FR testified that the clothes on AK's bed were the ones she'd worn the previous day, the last time FR saw AK. those clothes appeared to have been just tossed on the bed, not freshly washed. There was no evidence presented that I know of that those clothes were washed. They were on the bed, as if AK had returned home and showered that morning, just as she said she did. The caption on this photo says this: This photo shows Amanda's outfit that she wore on the night of the murder laying on her bed. Her clothes were tested and nothing incriminating was found.

Rumors and "what if"'s are exactly what they are--Rumors and "what ifs."

 

[wasnt_me]

*Snipped*. I think ringing the door bell is 'a bit' easier.

It's possible to ring the doorbell, but Ringing the doorbell means you might be seen through a window. What burglar wants to be seen as lurking around, spinting away from the door or anything else, if the homeowner is home and happens to see them outside while they're playing with the doorbell? Also LE has said rock-throwing is a common practive among burglars to detect the presence of residents. Whether it's logical to non burglars or not, this is what LE says.

It's a mute point because he very well could have rang the doorbell before throwing the rock.

I think he went there around 6 or 7 something, like he claimed to hang out with the boys. He waited aroud for them to get home, but realized no one was arriving at the cottage. When it got dark, no lights were on. I think he figured they were all gone for the holiday and he broke in.

ETA, I'm not sure how RG would have gotten off the porch quickly enough not to be seen by ringing the doorbell cause of the way the house and drive are situated. However, he might have rang the bell, expecting to find "friends." But when no one was home, he decided to squat, as has been evidenced in other crimes he was linked to, like the nursery.

 

[SMK]

It's possible to ring the doorbell, but Ringing the doorbell means you might be seen through a window. What burglar wants to be seen as lurking around, spinting away from the door or anything else, if the homeowner is home and happens to see them outside while they're playing with the doorbell? Also LE has said rock-throwing is a common practive among burglars to detect the presence of residents. Whether it's logical to non burglars or not, this is what LE says.

It's a mute point because he very well could have rang the doorbell before throwing the rock.

I think he went there around 6 or 7 something, like he claimed to hang out with the boys. He waited aroud for them to get home, but realized no one was arriving at the cottage. When it got dark, no lights were on. I think he figured they were all gone for the holiday and he broke in.

ETA, I'm not sure how RG would have gotten off the porch quickly enough not to be seen by ringing the doorbell cause of the way the house and drive are situated. However, he might have rang the bell, expecting to find "friends." But when no one was home, he decided to squat, as has been evidenced in other crimes he was linked to, like the nursery.

All true. And reading in Burleigh's book, at they way he seemed to feel entitled to enter others' premises, cook their food, take their belongings, it would be the natural thing for him to do, once he realized that the cottage was empty. It annoys me to no end in the Massei report when it is stated that Rudy would not have broken in there as they were his friends.:furious:

I keep trying to open the door to believing it was the 3 of them; I guess as it would make the worry about the appeals easier..........

but simple logic always leads back to Guede. Occam's razor will not allow the other, possible but highly improbable account, with dubious evidence supporting it flimsily.

Whenever one contemplates Rudy, and envisions him there, and MK surprising him, or rebuffing him in a way that shocked him (because he had deceived himself about her attraction to him) then it all falls into place and makes far more sense than the 3 on 1 theory.

(Another thing that bothers me, is Giocomo from downstairs, and the way he had bragged to his roommate about certain sexual things with MK, who then informed police. I did not know of this until I read Burleigh's book. It stuck in my mind. How do we know he did not brag in front of Rudy, and then Rudy, as clueless males are wont to do, believed that while G was away, MK would be this way with him as well. As he said, they had a "date". Maybe in his own mind, he envisioned her wanting him........)

 

[wasnt_me]

RG stated in his diary that they had the same nasty conversation about AK, so it's entirely possible, that if he is telling the truth, the conversation might have included MK. And maybe the BF didn't claim MK as his girlfriend--to the other men.

It's possible that RG went there for AK or for MK, but MK was the one who came home.

 

[SMK]

RG stated in his diary that they had the same nasty conversation about AK, so it's entirely possible, that if he is telling the truth, the conversation might have included MK. And maybe the BF didn't claim MK as his girlfriend--to the other men.

It's possible that RG went there for AK or for MK, but MK was the one who came home.

Yes, this would make sense; that he went there with the dual purpose of robbing and of seducing. There is even the slight possibility that he went there premeditating a rape, (rather than being surprised and having things escalate) if he were drugged up, or in a certain frame of mind. Especially if he knew the boys downstairs and other girls were away (if he had heard through the grapevine, and saw MK arriving home alone). I tend to think if one is in the habit of break and entry, and then drugs and sexual motive is added to the mix, with the presence of a knife - that this could easily and rapidly escalate to murder.

 

[Nova]

Regarding the so-called "ear" evidence: hasn't it been established that the people with the broken-down car were near the cottage for an hour or so before the footsteps were supposedly heard? And that they heard and saw no one at the cottage during that time?

 

[sherlockh]

The truth is, if I found the DNA evidence convincing, I would believe they were guilty, and it wouldn't matter what the difficulty of committing the murder was. Truth IS often stranger than fiction.

But I don't see how you would dismiss the bloody washing up but believe in her guilt. Unless you don't believe the luminol footprints were a result of diluted blood?

If her feet were bloody from diluted water, then that means she washed off in the bathroom. That means her hands and legs were bloody, because she used the bidet to wash off her leg and blood got on her foot.

Why would her hands be bloody and not the cuff of her shirt? Why would her legs be bloody and not her pants? That means her clothes had to have been cleaned, disposed of, or she wasn't wearing clothes. I would vote wearing clothes and she disposed of them. Actually, I would probably vote naked, and trying to stop them, screaming, and then freaking out.

Actually... no... I still can't come up with a good scenario. For her behaviour the next day to work (IMO), she had to either be a cold instigator or in a hallucinogenic drug haze/frenzy.

I understand that you see it, but I really don't.

EDITED TO ADD:
Obviously I don't think the luminol footprints prove anything because I don't think she is guilty. But if I DID believe she was guilty, I would absolutely believe they were diluted blood, and my scenario would include the sequence of how they would have occurred.

Now her legs are bloody? Where you get all that stuff? Massei said they were barefoot because the evidence points in that direction. He doesn't start making up some scenario where their legs would have been bloody. You start with the evidence and from there you draw conclusions. Simple.

 

[sherlockh]

Yes. Absolutely.

But if he was still concerned someone MIGHT be home, breaking through the window nearer to the pathway of the house would enable him to flee more quickly, and also to see someone approaching the home and flee upon spotting them.

Sounds very complex to me He could ring the bell for however long he likes and he would be sure nobody was home. There is no need to climb up the wall, open the shutter, get back up the parking lot, and start throwing a huge rock. He knew the guys downstairs, he knew some of the girls, and could simply ring the bell and make up an excuse in case somebody was home. IMO that is exactly what he did with the toilet excuse. He even mentions the doorbell in his diary so he knew about it. Only, it was AK who let him in.

 

[SMK]

Regarding the so-called "ear" evidence: hasn't it been established that the people with the broken-down car were near the cottage for an hour or so before the footsteps were supposedly heard? And that they heard and saw no one at the cottage during that time?

Yes, I think you are right about that.....

 

[SMK]

Sounds very complex to me He could ring the bell for however long he likes and he would be sure nobody was home. There is no need to climb up the wall, open the shutter, get back up the parking lot, and start throwing a huge rock. He knew the guys downstairs, he knew some of the girls, and could simply ring the bell and make up an excuse in case somebody was home. IMO that is exactly what he did with the toilet excuse. He even mentions the doorbell in his diary so he knew about it. Only, it was AK who let him in.

There remains the possibility that he tried the boys downstairs, saw no one was home, rang the bell, and got no answer. After a while, realizing no one was home, he used the rock to break in.

 

[SMK]

Now her legs are bloody? Where you get all that stuff? Massei said they were barefoot because the evidence points in that direction. He doesn't start making up some scenario where their legs would have been bloody. You start with the evidence and from there you draw conclusions. Simple.

I think emyr was trying to be thorough in terms of inference and deduction.

 

[sherlockh]

I think emyr was trying to be thorough in terms of inference and deduction.

That is great but I have not heard before that there was blood on the legs so it is new to me. Hands and feet I understand but what element proves that there was blood on his/her legs? Here is what Massei thinks:

It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as has been said, washed her hands which were stained with Meredith’s blood; in the bidet it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood.

 

[SMK]

That is great but I have not heard before that there was blood on the legs so it is new to me. Hands and feet I understand but what element proves that there was blood on his/her legs? Here is what Massei thinks:

Yes, I understand. It does strike me as strange that if this scenario holds true, that no blood was found on their clothing, unless they did wash it during the night. But I had assumed traces would remain even so, as when a carpet steam cleaned after a murder still tests positive for blood.

 

[emyr]

Now her legs are bloody? Where you get all that stuff? Massei said they were barefoot because the evidence points in that direction. He doesn't start making up some scenario where their legs would have been bloody. You start with the evidence and from there you draw conclusions. Simple.

Massais imagined Amanda put "her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this"

"to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet which were bloodstained in Meredith's room, where widespread and abundant traces of blood even on the floor, and * where the blood was spattered over various parts of the room, and also in the bidet"

A bloody foot involves either a clean-up (where there was none) a lot of hopping around (possible), or blood originating not on the bottom of the foot and then washed onto the foot so that it completely covers the foot. The foot must be entirely covered in blood for the entire foot to flouresce in luminol. The blood must be higly diluted but not be cleaned up (because a clean-up would leave swipe patterns for the luminol to see).

I thought a more likely scenario to be blood on the leg, requiring washing in the bidet. This is trying to fit the crime scene pieces together in a logical manner. Perhaps hopping around is more logical.

As for Rudy and the break-in. If they are innocent, I am giving examples of why he logically would have acted in a way that fits the evidence. I am, however, aware that the explanation that fits the evidence requires a more complex argument. The evidence for the break-in requires us to find a burglar who would scale a wall, break a window, and steal few items. A burglar who would hang out in the house, eat a little food, and leave a dump in the other toilet. I believe Rudy Guede exactly fits such a strange profile.

But while I don't think it's difficult to believe he chose a less suitable route to break-in, I cannot for certain say what his decision making process was. Perhaps he was simply waiting for the boys to show up, and on the spur of the moment decided to break in, using the closest window that presented itself.

 

[emyr]

That is great but I have not heard before that there was blood on the legs so it is new to me. Hands and feet I understand but what element proves that there was blood on his/her legs? Here is what Massei thinks:

Quote:
It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as has been said, washed her hands which were stained with Meredith’s blood; in the bidet it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood.

My response:

But the footprint on the bathmat is not her footprint. It is way too large.

 

[SMK]

As for Rudy and the break-in. If they are innocent, I am giving examples of why he logically would have acted in a way that fits the evidence. I am, however, aware that the explanation that fits the evidence requires a more complex argument. The evidence for the break-in requires us to find a burglar who would scale a wall, break a window, and steal few items. A burglar who would hang out in the house, eat a little food, and leave a dump in the other toilet. I believe Rudy Guede exactly fits such a strange profile.

Yes, after reading Burleigh's well-researched and well-documented text, Rudy's modus operandi makes one see just how easily the Kercher murder might have occurred. If there were no Rudy Guede in the picture, I would be far more suspicious of Knox and Sollecito. With him, all is answered....

 

[wasnt_me]

Regarding the so-called "ear" evidence: hasn't it been established that the people with the broken-down car were near the cottage for an hour or so before the footsteps were supposedly heard? And that they heard and saw no one at the cottage during that time?

I was just reading up on this last night and same to post thoughts. I just can't trust NC's ear testimony.

[video=youtube;Nd-Th8lIxyo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd-Th8lIxyo[/video]

Frank interviewed her, too:

Nara Capezzali Interview Frank Sfarzo cut subtitled.wmv - YouTube

I am thinking Nara might have heard screeches and grinding of the tow truck.

 

[sherlockh]

A bloody foot involves either a clean-up (where there was none) a lot of hopping around (possible), or blood originating not on the bottom of the foot and then washed onto the foot so that it completely covers the foot. The foot must be entirely covered in blood for the entire foot to flouresce in luminol. The blood must be higly diluted but not be cleaned up (because a clean-up would leave swipe patterns for the luminol to see).

I thought a more likely scenario to be blood on the leg, requiring washing in the bidet. This is trying to fit the crime scene pieces together in a logical manner. Perhaps hopping around is more logical.

*Snipped*. I am sure you leave swiping patterns if you try to clean a pool of fresh blood, but in this scenario we are talking of tiny amounts of dried blood. No swiping patters are necessary IMO although the luminol prints weren't exactly crystal clear either. I agree that in the diluted scenario the hallway prints might not even have needed any cleaning and they were simply not visible to begin with. That is an interesting suggestion. This would make AK's own scenario of bathmat surfing more probably. No hopping required

I always found the cleanup in the bathroom more evident with no blood on the floor and leftover traces on door, sink and bidet. Somebody mopped the floor of the bathroom, and quickly tried to scrub away the blood traces on the door, in sink and bidet. This IMO must have been done sometime after the murder when the blood had dried otherwise it would have been easy enough to just flush the blood away in the sink. I never understood why they didn't use luminol on the bathmat floor. The investigators messed up!

 

[wasnt_me]

Regarding the so-called "ear" evidence: hasn't it been established that the people with the broken-down car were near the cottage for an hour or so before the footsteps were supposedly heard? And that they heard and saw no one at the cottage during that time?

What it was, is, first, Nara does not give an express time she heard these things.

She says she went to bed around 9 or 930 and she took some medicine that makes her go to the bathroom 2 hours after she takes it. She takes it every night for some reason. I guess she likes to be awakened two hours later.

In any event, she heard the scream when she got up and she says two minutes or so later, she heard all this so-called running.

Another tenant over there, Monacchia Antonella, says she went to bed at 9pm. ‚"I looked at the clock and it was late; after, I can’t say the precise time, I woke up hearing two people arguing in an animated way, a man and a woman in Italian; after which I heard an extremely loud scream and, seized by anxiety, I opened the window and looked to see if there was someone outside, but I couldn’t see anything and I closed the window"
MOT--page 97

This other tenant, Maria Ilaria Dramis, says she went to bed at 1030pm and was "half asleep" when she heard running under her window.

Massei concludes:

On the basis of the declarations just recorded, given by Nara Capezzali and by Antonella Monacchia, it can thus be held that, in fact, towards 23:30 pm on November 1, 2007 there was a loud, long scream from a woman which came from [91] the house at 7 Via della Pergola.

On page 381, Massei says:

Giampaolo Lombardo who testified that he had arrived at about 23,00 pm with the tow truck after a phone call received at about 22.30 pm, and had loaded the broken-down car and left again at about 23.15 pm: hearing of 27 March 2009)......

The situation outside the house must have seemed quiet (the tow truck had arrived and left by about 23.15 pm and there was no-one in the street looking at the house, moreover Capezzali and Dramis, who testified that they had heard the scream, did not go outside their own homes) and it was then decided to break the glass in order to create the staging of an unknown criminal entering from the window, and they decided they could go outside.

I think the appeal docs said the family was broken down in front of the house frm about 1015 or 1020 until about an hour later. So I personally think all these things "heard" from behind closed windows while people were "half sleep" was the tow truck activity.

Because no one on the street, not the tow people, not the family in need of a tow, not the couple who saw the tow truck, not the olive thrower, and not the bumb in the square heard these screams and running. So why NOT?

 

[sherlockh]

Quote:
It should be considered that those in the sink occurred when Amanda, as has been said, washed her hands which were stained with Meredith’s blood; in the bidet it should be considered that they [the traces] originated from a similar activity, but in relation to the feet, which must also have been covered with blood as can be inferred from the print of a bare foot left on the sky-blue mat, stained with Meredith’s blood.

My response:

But the footprint on the bathmat is not her footprint. It is way too large.

I think he refers to his scenario where both were barefooted, and so if one was cleaning his foot then the other must also have been cleaning at the same time. She just didn't leave a visible footprint on the bathmat. I think it is also possible that she cleaned his feet, as I can never keep my balance doing that. But that might just be me