Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[otto]

It doesn't take a list 100 items long to determine that AK and RS may not be guilty.

If MK was murdered around the time she got home or within the first 20 or 30 min, then it wasn't AK or RS because they were still eating dinner/cleaning up. We know RG was there during the murder. We know there is no reason for his DNA to be in that apt. We have his fingerprints in blood in the victim's room. Yet the focus remains on AK and RS as the real villains of this case. Why the vitriol reserved for the 2 people who may have had nothing to do with this murder and very little for the guy who actually DID the murder (that everyone agrees on)?

No, but it may take a list 100 items long to demonstrate that tunnel vision works both ways.

 

[Salem]

HEADS UP! From here on any post with the word YOU in it will be removed. Everyone is now put on notice that all posts must be written based on YOUR own analysis - NOT on what the other guy says.

So..... reivew your post and find a way to word it without using "you" or your post will be zapped.

Thanks,

Salem

:seeya:Hello Everyone!

I am changing the rules again :innocent:

The You restriction is being removed with the following notice:

This discussion is about the facts, assumptions and conclusions of the case, not personal characteristics of fellow posters. Argumentum ad hominem posts, defined as: Answering your opponent's argument with irrelevant assumptions about personal characteristics of your opponent in an attempt to derail an argument that you are losing will be removed.

Okay? Please let me know if you have any questions by way of pm.

Thanks!

Salem

 

[SleuthyGal]

RG's lawyers should have argued that it wasn't his dna mixed with blood (contamination or planting), because he had only come over for a date with Meredith. His dna mixed with her blood or in her body doesn't mean anything.
His fingerprints were on file and the police used his to frame him. He was just scared and tried to help her, then panic set in. He was confused, had smoked a joint... and decided that LE would frame him for a murder someone else committed. To the best of his rememberance, he didn't have anything to do with the murder. Any lies he has told are due to LE pressure and coercion. Any lies or inappropriate behavior before the trial is just... RG being RG.

How can fingerprints found at a crime scene in blood be a frame job? Unless someone cut off his hands, dipped them in the victim's blood and placed them on the wall or items in MK's room, I'm unaware of such a capability.

What evidence is there that RG was "smoked a joint?"

When RG told his friend that no one else was with him in MK's apt (including AK and RS) was he lying?

:floorlaugh:

 

[otto]

True, how can Rudy leave poop in the toilet, but then take off and put on his shoes after a murder, wash the floor but not clean up everything, and break a window when it's easier to walk in through the deck door.

 

[otto]

:seeya:Hello Everyone!

I am changing the rules again :innocent:

The You restriction is being removed with the following notice:

This discussion is about the facts, assumptions and conclusions of the case, not personal characteristics of fellow posters. Argumentum ad hominem posts, defined as: Answering your opponent's argument with irrelevant assumptions about personal characteristics of your opponent in an attempt to derail an argument that you are losing will be removed.

Okay? Please let me know if you have any questions by way of pm.

Thanks!

Salem

I can't even remember acronyms, how the heck am I supposed to remember rules!

I guess, so long as we're polite ... all's well.

 

[otto]

How can fingerprints found at a crime scene in blood be a frame job? Unless someone cut off his hands, dipped them in the victim's blood and placed them on the wall or items in MK's room, I'm unaware of such a capability.

What evidence is there that RG was "smoked a joint?"

When RG told his friend that no one else was with him in MK's apt (including AK and RS) was he lying?

:floorlaugh:

It's quite possible that Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele continue to cover for each other, and it's possible that they are three completely unrelated people in the misfortunate situation of having their DNA spread around a murder scene.

What crime scene are you referring to where the hands were cut off and placed in a wall?

There is ample evidence that Amanda, Rudy, and Rafaele were three sheets to the wind ... smoking "hashish" and maybe a couple of drinks and maybe some "pot".

 

[Allusonz]

Of course nobody will reveal the guy's name :innocent: , but why not if he was just a friend? IMO he was not recorded just for the sake of it... he/she must have revealed something related to dealing for LE to continue the investigation of him. After all, isn't the theory that LE already 'had their man/woman anyway??? Why would she be calling him just after the murder? Is his advice/comfort that valuable to her? How would talking to a cocaine dealer not be relevant in the case, if true? Naming the guy and a firm denial would go a long way in a remedy for this. I'm also sure nobody from the innocent side cares who he was... oystering.

My understanding is this thread is about the APPEALS of AK and RS

 

[Allusonz]

It's quite possible that Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele continue to cover for each other, and it's possible that they are three completely unrelated people in the misfortunate situation of having their DNA spread around a murder scene.

What crime scene are you referring to where the hands were cut off and placed in a wall?

There is ample evidence that Amanda, Rudy, and Rafaele were three sheets to the wind ... smoking "hashish" and maybe a couple of drinks and maybe some "pot".

Man even i have to admit if i was that stoned, that drunk, i would have a hard time standing up let alone being able to commit a crime, clean it up, run away from the crime scene...

I would be passed out on the first available piece of floor

 

[Allusonz]

True, how can Rudy leave poop in the toilet, but then take off and put on his shoes after a murder, wash the floor but not clean up everything, and break a window when it's easier to walk in through the deck door.

Glad you found the photo but it still does not have the reference points

Again, i am personally familiar with various graphic programs and dont believe the pixels are the reference point being referred to

 

[Allusonz]

:seeya:Hello Everyone!

I am changing the rules again :innocent:

The You restriction is being removed with the following notice:

This discussion is about the facts, assumptions and conclusions of the case, not personal characteristics of fellow posters. Argumentum ad hominem posts, defined as: Answering your opponent's argument with irrelevant assumptions about personal characteristics of your opponent in an attempt to derail an argument that you are losing will be removed.

Okay? Please let me know if you have any questions by way of pm.

Thanks!

Salem

Thanks Salem i have a hard enough time fixing my typos and spelling typos right rofl

 

[otto]

My understanding is this thread is about the APPEALS of AK and RS

Indeed ... and all the surrounding discussions.

When is the next appeal date?

 

[otto]

Glad you found the photo but it still does not have the reference points

Again, i am personally familiar with various graphic programs and dont believe the pixels are the reference point being referred to

I didn't find a photo and don't know what you mean by "reference points". Does this have anything to do with scale?

If I can post footprint pictures and resize Amanda's foot to look like Raffaeles, or Raffaeles to look like Rudys ... so much the better to obfuscate the facts.

 

[otto]

Knox ... Amanda Knox being the Amanda Knox convicted of murder. Rudy Guede being Rudy Guede, like a character in Amerlie, rich ... so can't Ted Bundy be just being Ted? Knox just being Knox, like her stories, and being an Amelie, but not really, and Sollecito ... maybe being that guy preferring bestiality?

 

[otto]

Man even i have to admit if i was that stoned, that drunk, i would have a hard time standing up let alone being able to commit a crime, clean it up, run away from the crime scene...

I would be passed out on the first available piece of floor

Stoned on what?

 

[otto]

I think Hendry's conclusions make the most sense in this case.

What made me first doubt the case against them was the poop left in the toilet. A threesome prank sex game doesnt make people poop and not flush, but someone who doesnt want the person who just walked in the door to know they are there - perfect sense.

So Rudy is just trying to be quiet by not flushing. Perhaps he even plans just to run out the front door but finds that it needs a key. Then the crime happens very quickly from there. The fact that she didnt finish a call with her mother (or call back), didnt take her jacket off, had not finished her laundry, and her stomach had not yet emptied all point to it happening just after she arrived home.

Could you please recap Hendry's conclusions ... poop ... how could Rudy's going to the bathroom and not flushing twice be the deciding factor when there is so much evidence?

Rudy is trying to be quiet in the toilet, so Amanda and Raffaele are innocent? He's pooping, tries to run out the door, needs a key, goes to the back bedroom to murder a woman, and then ... what ... he runs out ... and Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because the victim bleeds out but it's not their fault?

 

[otto]

For those that believe Amanda is innocent ... any thoughts on why her fantasy about being a creative writer is based on stories she has written about rape, torment and death?

Keeping in mind that we should look at her stories in context ... it's not like Amanda Knox has written any story about something nice or good since she was a teenager ... and she has not written a good story with a happy outcome since she was born. We know this because if there was anything that Amanda Knox had written that was not about hurting other people, her PR team would have released it.

None of the creative writing stories released by Amanda Knox have a happy ending ... they're all about being overcome and death.

 

[Malkmus]

RG's lawyers should have argued that it wasn't his dna mixed with blood (contamination or planting), because he had only come over for a date with Meredith. His dna mixed with her blood or in her body doesn't mean anything.
His fingerprints were on file and the police used his to frame him. He was just scared and tried to help her, then panic set in. He was confused, had smoked a joint... and decided that LE would frame him for a murder someone else committed. To the best of his rememberance, he didn't have anything to do with the murder. Any lies he has told are due to LE pressure and coercion. Any lies or inappropriate behavior before the trial is just... RG being RG.

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.

Nobody said recording, just a record signed by both parties.

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.

It does have a bearing if AK states she didn't leave RS's or wasn't near the square at that time period.

The key word being if. And the answer to that is no, she did not.

Of course nobody will reveal the guy's name :innocent: , but why not if he was just a friend? IMO he was not recorded just for the sake of it... he/she must have revealed something related to dealing for LE to continue the investigation of him. After all, isn't the theory that LE already 'had their man/woman anyway??? Why would she be calling him just after the murder? Is his advice/comfort that valuable to her? How would talking to a cocaine dealer not be relevant in the case, if true? Naming the guy and a firm denial would go a long way in a remedy for this. I'm also sure nobody from the innocent side cares who he was... oystering.

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've pm'ed Nicky personally, and I do trust her judgement. My response received was Patrick was very unhappy with the quality of AK's work, and would have been very pleased if she just quit. She flirted too much, and was 'all over the guys' very often. He did not demote her in name, as it is correct that her job was both handing out flyers and waitress... but from that point (a day or two before the murder) she would not be waitressing in actuality. She was also told of Meredith's coming to make drinks, and stormed off according to Patrick. That's clear IMO.

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:

Patrick Lumumba has repeated several times on different talk shows and speaking to the media that:

- he had not fired Knox but he was sorry he had hired her because of her poor performance on the job (flirting instead of attending tables etc). He said that if she had quit spontaneously he would have been happy. It 's reasonable to think that she knew her boss was not happy, perhaps he had threatened to fire her if things wouldn't get better but we do not know if and what he ever said to her.

- he had asked Meredith to work as a bartender preparing her vodka mojitos only on the upcoming "all ladies night".

If Lumumba's appreciation of Meredith bartendering skills disturbed Knox we don't know. In the same way, we could speculate-as probably Knox did- what could have come next, but the fact remains that Lumumba -as per his own words, and not through some journalist 's report-has repeatedly stated that he had not fired Knox to replace her with Meredith, nor that he had offered Meredith permanent employment at his bar.

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.

What unknown dna mixed with AK's blood and Meredith's dna in the sink, etc?

It's in the appeals:

From reading the electropherograms for tracks mixed knox - since Kercher here can not exclude the presence of an additional track biological attributable to third female subject.

If AK had an infected ear, wouldn't she have noticed it bleeding in the sink?

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.

If one was torn out in a struggle, what would that struggle have been on the night of a murder?

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.

I do not believe RG taking off his pants and shoes is a reasonable explanation of the scene... so I will not respond to it further.

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).

It seems no evidence in this case can be considered legitimate from such a viewpoint... it ALL can be excused or brushed away. :stretch:

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.

 

[Malkmus]

For those that believe Amanda is innocent ... any thoughts on why her fantasy about being a creative writer is based on stories she has written about rape, torment and death?

Keeping in mind that we should look at her stories in context ... it's not like Amanda Knox has written any story about something nice or good since she was a teenager ... and she has not written a good story with a happy outcome since she was born. We know this because if there was anything that Amanda Knox had written that was not about hurting other people, her PR team would have released it.

None of the creative writing stories released by Amanda Knox have a happy ending ... they're all about being overcome and death.

Sounds par for the course to me. I'm going to guess that many young adults write about taboo subjects or edgy topics that mimic the current media trends. If you were to take a sample from a college creative writing class of women today would you be surprised to see many of the stories depicting certain fears like rape, drugs, pregnancy, and death? How often are these things depicted in books, movies, and TV?

 

[Malkmus]

Could you please recap Hendry's conclusions ... poop ... how could Rudy's going to the bathroom and not flushing twice be the deciding factor when there is so much evidence?

Rudy is trying to be quiet in the toilet, so Amanda and Raffaele are innocent? He's pooping, tries to run out the door, needs a key, goes to the back bedroom to murder a woman, and then ... what ... he runs out ... and Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because the victim bleeds out but it's not their fault?

According to Cristian Tramontano who testified about Rudy breaking into his home, he said that RG turned on him with a knife and demanded he open the front door for him to let him out. Seems a very similar thing happened at the cottage. The difference being that at the cottage it was a young attractive girl that stood between him and the door. On top of that, a girl who knew and could identify him to police if he simply ran out the door. It's not bizarre to assume that lust followed by violence occurred soon thereafter.

BTW, how many similarities between Rudy's other break-ins does it take to realize that he must have also broken into the cottage that night?

 

[Malkmus]

Stoned on what?

Marijuana is what they smoked that night. I too find it straining credulity to believe they were stoned out of their gourds but were lucid enough to stage a break-in nearly identical to RG's other break-ins, wipe all their DNA fingerprints away while carefully leaving all evidence of RG, and still be wide awake the next day.