WARNING:GRAPHIC PHOTOS Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #9

[SMK]

So there was an African American in the cottage? That clears Rudy and Patrick.

Witness statements were not video taped. Should they be?

What difference does it make what Amanda said in statements that were excluded from the murder trial? Amanda had one year added to her sentence for falsely accusing Patrick.

I meant African, I obviously am used to saying "African American" because of where I write articles, in the U. S.:furious::furious::furious: Yes, they should be. And no, I do not believe she should have had that added.

 

[otto]

Thanks. I didn't realize there were 3 statements total. I'll look into this nov 7th one.

Here it is: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570225/Transcript-of-Amanda-Knoxs-note.html

That article has the date of Nov 6. I've also seen Nov 7 as the date of the statement.

 

[wasnt_me]

Oh, I got another question and I cannot remember where I read this from, so please bear with it.

I read somewhere that they found some bloody tissues in the murder room and outside somewhere, but blood didn't match suspects. What does anyone know of this?

And I really need to try to find where I read that, of course.

 

[SMK]

Oh, I got another question and I cannot remember where I read this from, so please bear with it.

I read somewhere that they found some bloody tissues in the murder room and outside somewhere, but blood didn't match suspects. What does anyone know of this?

And I really need to try to find where I read that, of course.(wasnt_me)
__________________

@WASNT_METhey broke down her door and found her body under a duvet in the whitewashed property at Viale Sant?Antonio, close to the centre of Perugia.


Perugia ... popular with international students
Bloodstained pieces of paper were beside her – but her computer and other items were untouched.
Police believe the maniac escaped through a window, as the door to Meredith?s room was locked from the inside.

A bloodstained tissue was found close to wire fence backing on to the house.

Police also said there were blood stains on the window

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article424024.ece

 

[wasnt_me]

She was using the blow dryer that belonged to Laura or Filomina. That's why she was in their bathroom. I think it's quite reasonable to ask why she didn't flush ... that is probably what most people would do. Perhaps she wanted evidence of Rudy to remain at the cottage.

I can't come to that last conclusion, but I can mark it in my "strange for AK to do" file. That's the file I'm tagging things against her in, but so far, the things I tag are coming up circumstantial or something I'm taggin her for based on what regular people do.

It could be that she wanted to leave it for FR or laura to clean up their own crap, so to speak, because she'd been accused of being a slob. I'm leaping to a conclusion and you're leaping to a conclusion, so really it's not hard evidence of a conclusion for guilty or innocence. your conclusion is based on guilt and a conspiracy to blame RG. Mine is based on witness accounts of her being a slob.

As far as setting up RG, I repeat that if it were her intention to leave crap, footprints, and the like to frame him, his name should have been the first one was was saying at 145am, at 545am and on November 7th in her statements.

 

[otto]

I meant African, I obviously am used to saying "African American" because of where I write articles, in the U. S.:furious::furious::furious: Yes, they should be. And no, I do not believe she should have had that added.

Amanda only had to step up at some time during the 2 weeks that Patrick was in jail and admit that she lied ... failing to do so is a big problem. She's lucky she got off with only 1 year in jail.

Are all witness statements recorded in the US? I think her statement as a suspect should have been taped ... perhaps it was. The defense has not mentioned it, so perhaps they would prefer that information deemed not admissable in court not be released. After all ... whatever Amanda said was pretty damning for Patrick.

 

[otto]

I can't come to that last conclusion, but I can mark it in my "strange for AK to do" file. That's the file I'm tagging things against her in, but so far, the things I tag are coming up circumstantial or something I'm taggin her for based on what regular people do.

It could be that she wanted to leave it for FR or laura to clean up their own crap, so to speak, because she'd been accused of being a slob. I'm leaping to a conclusion and you're leaping to a conclusion, so really it's not hard evidence of a conclusion for guilty or innocence. your conclusion is based on guilt and a conspiracy to blame RG. Mine is based on witness accounts of her being a slob.

As far as setting up RG, I repeat that if it were her intention to leave crap, footprints, and the like to frame him, his name should have been the first one was was saying at 145am, at 545am and on November 7th in her statements.

She provided Rudy's name shortly before she accused Patrick ... that was when police asked her for the names of anyone that had been at the cottage. Dempsey discusses this in her book.

Amanda had a lot to risk by accusing Rudy ... because Rudy would have accused Amanda. As it stands, Rudy has been back and forth in accusing Amanda.

 

[wasnt_me]

Otto, can you please tell me your theory as to why AK and RS would clean their evidence up, but purposely not clean up RG, leave the feces in the toilet to additionally implicate Rudy, but when it came time to accusing someone, AK accuses PL, but not RG, the person they appear to be setting up?

I understand people have said that they dont roll over on your accomplices, but leaving his tracks behind while deleting their own sounds like they are setting him up. If you do not believe they were setting him up, tell me why not, IF you believe they were cleaning. because if they were cleaning, there had to be a reason they missed RG's evidence. Even an interrupted cleaning doesn't really explain that, because his footprints led out the front door, but some have contended that AK and RS cleaned their footprints from the hallway. So if they did that, they had to have seen RG's prints and purposely decided not to clean them.

 

[SMK]

Otto, can you please tell me your theory as to why AK and RS would clean their evidence up, but purposely not clean up RG, leave the feces in the toilet to additionally implicate Rudy, but when it came time to accusing someone, AK accuses PL, but not RG, the person they appear to be setting up?

I understand people have said that they dont roll over on your accomplices, but leaving his tracks behind while deleting their own sounds like they are setting him up. If you do not believe they were setting him up, tell me why not, IF you believe they were cleaning. because if they were cleaning, there had to be a reason they missed RG's evidence. Even an interrupted cleaning doesn't really explain that, because his footprints led out the front door, but some have contended that AK and RS cleaned their footprints from the hallway. So if they did that, they had to have seen RG's prints and purposely decided not to clean them.

I agree and hope otto does...did you see i found the piece for you about the bloody tissues?

 

[wasnt_me]

I meant African, I obviously am used to saying "African American" because of where I write articles, in the U. S.:furious::furious::furious: Yes, they should be. And no, I do not believe she should have had that added.

This is understandable. Just say black man to avoid this later. That sounds better than "a black" as RG said. I'm a so-called African American, but I don't too much like to be called such because we are 100's of years removed from Africa, and I'm not 100% AA, but white and indian as well, so it's not accurate and it makes me feel as if i'm some American immigrant transplant, rather than an American. We don't hear white people being call Italian-American, European-American and what have you. So anyways, I'm off topic.

 

[wasnt_me]

Oh, I got another question and I cannot remember where I read this from, so please bear with it.

I read somewhere that they found some bloody tissues in the murder room and outside somewhere, but blood didn't match suspects. What does anyone know of this?

And I really need to try to find where I read that, of course.(wasnt_me)
__________________

@WASNT_METhey broke down her door and found her body under a duvet in the whitewashed property at Viale Sant?Antonio, close to the centre of Perugia.

Perugia ... popular with international students
Bloodstained pieces of paper were beside her – but her computer and other items were untouched.
Police believe the maniac escaped through a window, as the door to Meredith?s room was locked from the inside.

A bloodstained tissue was found close to wire fence backing on to the house.

Police also said there were blood stains on the window

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article424024.ece

Ah-ha! What's all that about? Could it be RG's unknown accomplice that I so desperately want him to have had? Mark my words, I'm gonna find a way to get him another accomplice!

:waitasec:

 

[otto]

Otto, can you please tell me your theory as to why AK and RS would clean their evidence up, but purposely not clean up RG, leave the feces in the toilet to additionally implicate Rudy, but when it came time to accusing someone, AK accuses PL, but not RG, the person they appear to be setting up?

I understand people have said that they dont roll over on your accomplices, but leaving his tracks behind while deleting their own sounds like they are setting him up. If you do not believe they were setting him up, tell me why not, IF you believe they were cleaning. because if they were cleaning, there had to be a reason they missed RG's evidence. Even an interrupted cleaning doesn't really explain that, because his footprints led out the front door, but some have contended that AK and RS cleaned their footprints from the hallway. So if they did that, they had to have seen RG's prints and purposely decided not to clean them.

Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up some of the evidence, but not all of it. It looks like they wanted to stage the cottage to implicate a stranger. They had no way of knowing that Rudy's fingerprints were on file with police.

 

[wasnt_me]

She provided Rudy's name shortly before she accused Patrick ... that was when police asked her for the names of anyone that had been at the cottage. Dempsey discusses this in her book.

Amanda had a lot to risk by accusing Rudy ... because Rudy would have accused Amanda. As it stands, Rudy has been back and forth in accusing Amanda.

But, Otto, that doesn't go with intentionally leaving his crap in the toilet with the hopes of implicating him. And her giving his name as a cottage visitor, along with any others, to say that is implicating him, says that's implicating all the others, too.

 

[wasnt_me]

I agree and hope otto does...did you see i found the piece for you about the bloody tissues?

Heck, yeah! That's what I want. This is my "bloody glove!"

:great:

 

[wasnt_me]

Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up some of the evidence, but not all of it. It looks like they wanted to stage the cottage to implicate a stranger. They had no way of knowing that Rudy's fingerprints were on file with police.

What is your theory for them only cleaning up some of it but not all of it? How could that have happened? If there is a smear mark on the wall, it's potentially from any of the 4 of them, RG, MK, AK, or RS, why would they not clean it immediately? If there is a big blood print on the bathmat, why not clean it immediately? These things are obvious, not invisible. If they cleaned their foot prints out of the hallway, why are RG's still there? Seriously. You said she could have left the crap to implicate RG. So seriously, if they're implicating a stranger, why leave the crap?

If it's so dangerous to accuse RG, why not clean up his evidence, too? Why clean around his evidence? Please explain. For me, there is no evidence of a clean up of the crime scene, just a clean up of the criminal himself, so please help me to logically understand this clean up attempt. Please.

 

[otto]

But, Otto, that doesn't go with intentionally leaving his crap in the toilet with the hopes of implicating him. And her giving his name as a cottage visitor, along with any others, to say that is implicating him, says that's implicating all the others, too.

There is no reason for Amanda to want Raffaele or Rudy caught. Instead, she mentioned names of people that were at the cottage, but accused Patrick of murder.

Amanda had no reason to suspect that Rudy would be connected to the murder. He had no criminal record and since he was in Germany, he couldn't be connected ... except through the finger prints that police had on file.

The scene was staged to suggest a break in, robbery and murder.

 

[otto]

What is your theory for them only cleaning up some of it but not all of it? How could that have happened? If there is a smear mark on the wall, it's potentially from any of the 4 of them, RG, MK, AK, or RS, why would they not clean it immediately? If there is a big blood print on the bathmat, why not clean it immediately? These things are obvious, not invisible. If they cleaned their foot prints out of the hallway, why are RG's still there? Seriously. You said she could have left the crap to implicate RG. So seriously, if they're implicating a stranger, why leave the crap?

If it's so dangerous to accuse RG, why not clean up his evidence, too? Why clean around his evidence? Please explain. For me, there is no evidence of a clean up of the crime scene, just a clean up of the criminal himself, so please help me to logically understand this clean up attempt. Please.

They cleaned up some of the evidence because they wanted to implicate a stranger. They couldn't clean it all up ... that wouldn't look good.

 

[wasnt_me]

Police also said there were blood stains on the window frame and broken glass of Meredith?s bedroom.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article424024.ece


What of this? Are they saying 2 windows were broken out in the house? I haven't hardly read a thing about this. Is it true? Front door wide open and a second broken window does sound like another person involved, IF one went out the window and one went out the front door.

 

[wasnt_me]

They cleaned up some of the evidence because they wanted to implicate a stranger. They couldn't clean it all up ... that wouldn't look good.

But it can't be both ways. One can't say they left crap in the toilet to implicate RG, but then say they didn't want to implicate RG. One can't say they couldn't clean it all up because it wouldn't look good because that's no reason at all. Even if they didn't clean it all up, it doesn't explain cleaning up every trace of theirs in that room, but not RG's. So either they did that to implicate RG or they were not in that room at all. Just as they could not see all of RG's evidence, they wouldn't have been able to see all of their own, either, so it is impossible that they didn't leave a single trace in that room but a contaminated bra clasp. If that's true, it means they are some hella cleaners, and left RG's stuff in that murder room on purpose.

Still, it has been contended that they cleaned their foot prints in the hallway, but not RG's. How is that possible and why unless to implicate him. Set him up.

If you don't know a theory, that's fine, I'm just saying.

 

[sherlockh]

Amanda and Raffaele cleaned up some of the evidence, but not all of it. It looks like they wanted to stage the cottage to implicate a stranger. They had no way of knowing that Rudy's fingerprints were on file with police.

IMO they didn't even find that one fingerprint and leave it on purpose. There was only one after all. I think they simply missed it. Leaving crap and shoe prints doesn't directly indicate RG. I guess they watched a few episodes of CSI