The argument made was that RG should have/could have argued contamination or planting of evidence as some have claimed for AK and RS. The problem is RG could never claim contamination or planting of evidence because he admits to being responsible for his DNA being in Meredith's vagina, and you can't plant a bloody fingerprint. Therefore, that argument goes right out the window.
Just to clarify, I don't subscribe to the notion that any evidence in this case was planted.
Not sure what your point was then. If you're just talking about a record of the interrogation signed by them, that exists for Amanda as both witness and suspect, not just suspect.
The key word being if. And the answer to that is no, she did not.
I know you'd really like to know who this guy was, but the problem is that it's a tabloid story that never made it out of Italy and unless it gains any sort of real traction nobody is going to answer your question. My take on it is that no one outside of Amanda knows who this guy is because it's highly likely that they were just acquaintances or it's even possible that the whole story is bunk and they never knew each other. It wouldn't be the first time a completely false story has come out about Amanda in the Italian press. Maybe you've followed it more than me... Has there been any sort of development in the story since the initial one?
I don't know where your version of what Nicki told you ends. I saw the claim for the first time on PMF today from Capealadin, not Nicki, that she stormed off when hearing that Meredith would bartend ladies' nights. Capealadin is also still under the impression that Patrick demoted Amanda, so it seems she is still going by old rumors. Here is Nicki's post about the Patrick interviews:
And why would Amanda get mad that her roommate would be working one night at Le Chic? It just doesn't make sense within the context of what we know.
She talks about her ears in her testimony. She states that she thought Meredith's blood drops in the sink were from her ear because she often washed one of the infected ones in there.
This is worded a bit strange so not sure what you're asking. It's been speculated that Amanda may have had an earring torn out during the murder, but she was inspected by LE and according to Massei no injuries were found. An earring being ripped out would look very different from an infection from a new piercing.
Well, you've misread what I said. I didn't say he took his pants off. I said he took his shoe off and washed his pant leg in the sink. This would explain why he says in his diary that his pants were wet (not bloody).
I'm not the only one who thinks so. The fact that three retired FBI agents have looked into this case and come to the conclusion is very telling. The fact that the vast majority of major news reports question the validity of the evidence or outright ridicule it is also telling. The fact that certain members of the Italian press are now coming out against the evidence as well is very telling. It's not just posters on the internet who think there is ample reasonable doubt in this case.
RG could have claimed (like he did) that he was there on mutual agreement with Meredith. The only legitimate dna is what is found in Meredith because it was there consensually. Any fingerprint evidence outside of that is bogus... somebody else killed Meredith, while he was in the bathroom. He only tried to help and then panic set in... he 'knew' he would be blamed so ran off to Germany.
The interesting point is how nothing outside of guilt is seen for RG from the RS/AK innocent point of view... but EVERYTHING has an excuse when it comes to their guilt, EVERYTHING!
Well it doesn't have to be planted, if everything is going to be doubted in every instance because of incompetance, evil prosecutor, poor police work, police coercion, police brutality, using the wrong experts, and on-and-on.
But any record of her statements as a 'witness' were not used against her at trial... only once she accused Patrick was used.
Of course everyone on the guilt side wants to know the guys name, it could be very relevant and telling to what happened. The innocent side should too if it is actually a 'bunk'... but I also understand attempts to sweep it under the rug.
That quoted post does NOT change anything about my post. Everything I posted about Patrick was said in those interviews. I didn't claim he fired her, only that if she quit he would have been perfectly fine with it. She wasn't the kind of worker he wanted. He also claimed she stormed off when told of Meredith working there, even if it was for only one night a week.
It makes sense IMO that she was upset about it, maybe not 'mad'... yet.
Yes, she talks about her ears in testimony both claiming it 'might' have been from her ears, and also of RS cleaning them in the shower too :waitasec: . But if we go by AK's credibility... it does make one wonder.
She seems to have the same problem as the other two with changing/silly/confusing/un-reasonable explanations to evidence as LE was stating what evidence was piling up showing guilt. A pattern of behavior it seems in this case.
I have no idea how much different an infected earring hole would look from one that was torn out. But the blood of AK's did have to come from 'somewhere', no way around that.
IMO if he was going to wash off, it makes much more sense to get in the shower and wash both pant and shoes (while on)... I would speculate that his shoes had some blood on them too. I also think wet and bloody mean the same thing... he didn't want to say bloody IMO. I see no reason to take his shoes off or try to wash his pants in the sink. No way, no how. The bathmat print being a barefoot print has got pro-innocent theorist jumping thru hoops and doing mental gymnastics to explain away... much like Filomena's window IMO.
I would like to see some 'accurate' reporting and analysis from those three retired FBI agents... especially MrMoore. What I've seen from them has been inaccurate in the extreme IMO. They also haven't seen the entire case files, were not present at the trial, and their analysis/media rounds so far have been wildly off base IMO. Most media reports from Italy do not doubt their guilt. Only a couple, and they have not 'come out' IMO as they have been leaning that way all along, are claiming innocence. In fact, much of the US media reporting of the case is more along the PR variety or even tabloid IMO. Of course if AK's family is going on tv... the media is not going to grill them over the facts of the case and the evidence against her or the family would NOT come on tv in the first place. More money for the family/PR firm/hangers on. The pro-innocent posters on the internet have taken it to a whole other realm in 'oystering' IMO.
