Continuation Part 13: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Annella]

Doug, do remember that Italian judge who retired shortly after the acquittal and listed the video of the bra clasp as one of the most embarrassing things he'd seen and indicative of the need for reform in the Italian judiciary or somesuch? I can't recall the name, but I do think it came out shortly after the acquittal in October, 2011.

It was Edoardo Mori. I have quoted pieces from him here and elsewhere many times. Very educational piece.


http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/e-giudice-si-tolse-toga-non-sopportavo-pi-l-idiozia-troppi.html

These quotes may or may not be from the article. I have found many at his website.

" in the case of Perugia there was something unusual and never seen before that three defendants in opposition to one another, it has been decided to separate the judgment against one of the defendants , so precluding the possibility of a normal hearing control of individual positions. "

" The police system, the treatment of the accused and the relationship between Prosecutors and the Courts are all stuck in the 1930's. All suspects are considered to be criminals, citizens are treated like dirt, often questioning degenerates into violence. The Prosecutor plays to the Commissioner and the Judge thinks it is his duty to support the activities of the Prosecutor."

" Even you can become an expert. Just find a friend that is Court appointed. Courts are full of spin doctors who pride themselves on being able to deliver any material from graphology to fingerprints. Often they do not even have a college degree. Italian experts blatantly blunder and continue to be called by Prosecutors then repeat offending undeterred as if nothing happened. "

"During the 1990's in Puglia Italy, a serial killer...Sebai Muhammad raped and murdered 15 elderly women. Seven people were arrested for these murders, all of them innocent and all convicted on evidence that for Judges is fundamental, they confessed! No matter that they retracted these confessions and stated they were forced. One of the seven committed suicide in prison, others are still not yet fully exonerated. Not one shred of scientific evidence against any of them was ever found. But there is still a Public Minister in Puglia who believes several people with the same MO committed these murders."

Below is the link to where he talks about the bra clasp. Just about 1/2 way down page I believe. It translates reasonably well also. But I already have that piece.

"I remember the case of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia where I had the satisfaction of guessing the underlying problem as early as April 2009. See my page where I referred to the extreme delicacy of the investigations on DNA, has been fully implemented by an appraisal conducted in court of appeal. But it was enough to see the movie in which one of the investigators triumphantly waved the famous bra to understand that the crime scene had intervened the infamous "team destruction of evidence" ! ( Update Note : the two defendants were acquitted by the court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia October 3, 2011 , also in this case the judgment has censored the total inconsistency of the prosecution's plan is not based on a critical evaluation of the evidence, but on a supine acceptance of the thesis of PM and improbable conclusions of the police . Judgment has observed something that should have been clear to everyone from the beginning : that the motive may be assumed at the beginning of the investigation to direct them , but when it comes to process the motive must be proved, not enough to argue that if the defendants had committed the murder, a motive force for bringing this ! in the case of Perugia was then something unusual and never seen that before three defendants in opposition to one another it has been decided to separate the judgment against one of the defendants , so precluding the possibility of a normal hearing control of individual positions. )
This only because , as we shall see , it seems that the investigators do not trust most of the test logic, which instead will always be the most reliable . Statistics show that in almost all cases a crime is trivial and that it is useless to look for solutions to crime novel and which are still valid with the rules established by a medieval philosopher , who was famous for the logical rules called " Occam's Razor" :
- Factors being equal the simplest explanation is to be preferred.
- Do not multiply the elements and subdivisions more than necessary.
- Do not consider the plurality if not necessary.
- It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less.
In other words , there is no reason to complicate what is simple . Inside a reasoning or a demonstration should instead sought the simplicity and conciseness . And unfortunately in many cases the trivial answer is that you just do not know who the author of the crime , and what a find it is foolish to want to force the prison putting the suspects .
What is most striking in all these cases is the total inexperience of the PM that faced with sensitive cases leave get their hands on the first unwary evidence that they operate , then they let the modest laboratory experts of the police to do analysis by university laboratory , technical expertise or that are made ​​from ballistic decisive first scalzacani that advise the secretary them , they do make a forensic autopsies of murder victims that have seen very few . And all the more striking the arrogance with which these investigators insist in not wanting to admit and correct their mistakes early , even before the evidence .

http://www.earmi.it/varie/scienze forensi.html

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Elements that are not in contradictions with each other?

According to PM Mignini the standard needed to bring about a conviction is: "Yes it’s true you need to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the high court has said, but the high court was merely codifying a principle that already existed in our jurisprudence […] It doesn’t mean you need to find the absolute truth, which is the province of God alone […] You need only be certain enough for the purposes of a trial. What does that mean? It means two things, essentially: that the reconstruction of the facts is based on logic, and that its elements are not in contradiction with each other."

Andrew Gumbel commented, "Tellingly, Mignini did not direct the court to look at the evidence per se, but to look at the logic of his reconstruction of the murder." I don't see where reasonable alternatives that the defense might propose even fit into Mignini's version of reasonable doubt. It is absurd.

 

[Dougm]

I've been picking up them for years, and I watched the Knox fans going wild on them on this forum.
Pick up what you want. Take the bathmat print. It's very visible, and very connected to other elements. Does it fit "equally well" to Guede's foot? We know it doesn't.
Many series from my latest post (talking about Guede-alone-scenario, pillowcase etc.) were instances of how the pro-Knox explanations don't work equally well.

You have argued for years that it is not just one piece of evidence, it is the collective set of evidence. The problem is, you can't put together any one piece that works for guilt, much less a collection that forms any coherent narrative, without twisting the facts to mean things they simply do not mean.

If the bathmat print truly has been proven to have been left by Raffaele Sollecito, then we would all have gone home a long time ago, wouldn't we?

I ask you to put together a scenario, just one that is reasonable, because I don't think you can. For every scenario I have ever heard (and there are remarkably few of them), there is a piece of the evidence presented in court that either contradicts that scenario, or fits an equally (if not more) likely scenario that fits innocence.

 

[Numbers]

It was Edoardo Mori. I have quoted pieces from him here and elsewhere many times. Very educational piece.


http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/e-giudice-si-tolse-toga-non-sopportavo-pi-l-idiozia-troppi.html

These quotes may or may not be from the article. I have found many at his website.

" in the case of Perugia there was something unusual and never seen before that three defendants in opposition to one another, it has been decided to separate the judgment against one of the defendants , so precluding the possibility of a normal hearing control of individual positions. "

" The police system, the treatment of the accused and the relationship between Prosecutors and the Courts are all stuck in the 1930's. All suspects are considered to be criminals, citizens are treated like dirt, often questioning degenerates into violence. The Prosecutor plays to the Commissioner and the Judge thinks it is his duty to support the activities of the Prosecutor."

" Even you can become an expert. Just find a friend that is Court appointed. Courts are full of spin doctors who pride themselves on being able to deliver any material from graphology to fingerprints. Often they do not even have a college degree. Italian experts blatantly blunder and continue to be called by Prosecutors then repeat offending undeterred as if nothing happened. "

"During the 1990's in Puglia Italy, a serial killer...Sebai Muhammad raped and murdered 15 elderly women. Seven people were arrested for these murders, all of them innocent and all convicted on evidence that for Judges is fundamental, they confessed! No matter that they retracted these confessions and stated they were forced. One of the seven committed suicide in prison, others are still not yet fully exonerated. Not one shred of scientific evidence against any of them was ever found. But there is still a Public Minister in Puglia who believes several people with the same MO committed these murders."

This is a link to where he talks about the bra clasp. Just about 1/2 way down page I believe. It translates reasonably well also.

http://www.earmi.it/varie/scienze forensi.html

{Highlighting added to quote.}

The highlighted text seem most important in understanding some of the flaws in the Italian judicial system as it (dys)functions.

 

[Dougm]

According to PM Mignini the standard needed to bring about a conviction is: "Yes it’s true you need to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, as the high court has said, but the high court was merely codifying a principle that already existed in our jurisprudence […] It doesn’t mean you need to find the absolute truth, which is the province of God alone […] You need only be certain enough for the purposes of a trial. What does that mean? It means two things, essentially: that the reconstruction of the facts is based on logic, and that its elements are not in contradiction with each other."

Andrew Gumbel commented, "Tellingly, Mignini did not direct the court to look at the evidence per se, but to look at the logic of his reconstruction of the murder." I don't see where reasonable alternatives that the defense might propose even fit into Mignini's version of reasonable doubt. It is absurd.

Indeed. I think to convict, you need:

A) A scenario where all the pieces of evidence fit -- there is not a piece of reliable evidence that contradicts that scenario
and
B) No alternative scenario that is believable, based on that evidence.

What the court has done in this case is to look at the evidence, having already decided they are guilty. Then they accept the pieces of evidence that indicate guilt, no matter how flimsy or dubious, and hand wave away the pieces of evidence that support an innocent scenario, well, just because.

 

[Desert Fox]

The Italian Supreme Court says, reasonable doubt means reasonable alternative scenario. "Resasonable" means, it must not be a sequence of things merely possible in rerum natura, but remote and improbable. A reasonable scenario cannot be made with a sequence of weaker or improbable explanations.

Being that the United States (as well as most of the free world) does not define reasonable doubt that way, why should the United States (or most of the free world) extradite to them. Not even trying to be nasty here but such treaties should be null and void.

Edit: There is a very reasonable scenario. . . . .Simply put, Rudy Guede did it alone. All of the evidence supports this scenario. The Italian prosecution scenario is a fantasy just as much as the one against the Norfolk Four is.

 

[carbonjam72]

A murder that happened is something real, and something real is not "improbable or impossible".

Msssive evidence from multiple sources of multiple kinds against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is also real, so not something "improbable or impossible".

Again, I will respectfully request.

Please provide one piece of evidence that cannot be explained if Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. That cannot be placed into a "reasonable" scenario of what could have happened if they are innocent.

If that doesn't work for you, please provide a story, a theory, or some scenario of what happened that both fits the evidence presented at the trials, and is more reasonable than the alternative scenario of what happened if they are innocent.

The extraordinary part of mach's argument is that the defendants must provide a reasonable explanation for the investigators incompetence.

The alibi that Amanda and Raf never left Raf's apartment is not complex or improbable. It takes no extraordinary action on their part. It simply means they spent a quiet evening inside, enjoying each other's company. There is nothing improbable about that.

The extraordinary claim here, is the prosecution, without any supporting evidence, constructing the most fantastic scenario imaginable, and even that is flatly contradicted by the physical evidence of exactly one person, Rudy Guede, in the room where meredtih was killed.
Yet in Machevelli's world, the defense must disprove the prosecution's wagonload of fantasy.

Mach, perhaps we should call you Wackyavelli, or maybe Wackidelli, or Wackivelii?

Someday you will give up this nonsensical Alamo you've boarded yourself up into, and let us all in on the joke.

 

[Kaosium]

It was Edoardo Mori. I have quoted pieces from him here and elsewhere many times. Very educational piece.


http://www.ilgiornale.it/news/e-giudice-si-tolse-toga-non-sopportavo-pi-l-idiozia-troppi.html

These quotes may or may not be from the article. I have found many at his website.

" in the case of Perugia there was something unusual and never seen before that three defendants in opposition to one another, it has been decided to separate the judgment against one of the defendants , so precluding the possibility of a normal hearing control of individual positions. "

" The police system, the treatment of the accused and the relationship between Prosecutors and the Courts are all stuck in the 1930's. All suspects are considered to be criminals, citizens are treated like dirt, often questioning degenerates into violence. The Prosecutor plays to the Commissioner and the Judge thinks it is his duty to support the activities of the Prosecutor."

" Even you can become an expert. Just find a friend that is Court appointed. Courts are full of spin doctors who pride themselves on being able to deliver any material from graphology to fingerprints. Often they do not even have a college degree. Italian experts blatantly blunder and continue to be called by Prosecutors then repeat offending undeterred as if nothing happened. "

"During the 1990's in Puglia Italy, a serial killer...Sebai Muhammad raped and murdered 15 elderly women. Seven people were arrested for these murders, all of them innocent and all convicted on evidence that for Judges is fundamental, they confessed! No matter that they retracted these confessions and stated they were forced. One of the seven committed suicide in prison, others are still not yet fully exonerated. Not one shred of scientific evidence against any of them was ever found. But there is still a Public Minister in Puglia who believes several people with the same MO committed these murders."

Below is the link to where he talks about the bra clasp. Just about 1/2 way down page I believe. It translates reasonably well also. But I already have that piece.

"I remember the case of the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia where I had the satisfaction of guessing the underlying problem as early as April 2009. See my page where I referred to the extreme delicacy of the investigations on DNA, has been fully implemented by an appraisal conducted in court of appeal. But it was enough to see the movie in which one of the investigators triumphantly waved the famous bra to understand that the crime scene had intervened the infamous "team destruction of evidence" ! ( Update Note : the two defendants were acquitted by the court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia October 3, 2011 , also in this case the judgment has censored the total inconsistency of the prosecution's plan is not based on a critical evaluation of the evidence, but on a supine acceptance of the thesis of PM and improbable conclusions of the police . Judgment has observed something that should have been clear to everyone from the beginning : that the motive may be assumed at the beginning of the investigation to direct them , but when it comes to process the motive must be proved, not enough to argue that if the defendants had committed the murder, a motive force for bringing this ! in the case of Perugia was then something unusual and never seen that before three defendants in opposition to one another it has been decided to separate the judgment against one of the defendants , so precluding the possibility of a normal hearing control of individual positions. )
This only because , as we shall see , it seems that the investigators do not trust most of the test logic, which instead will always be the most reliable . Statistics show that in almost all cases a crime is trivial and that it is useless to look for solutions to crime novel and which are still valid with the rules established by a medieval philosopher , who was famous for the logical rules called " Occam's Razor" :
- Factors being equal the simplest explanation is to be preferred.
- Do not multiply the elements and subdivisions more than necessary.
- Do not consider the plurality if not necessary.
- It is pointless to do with more what can be done with less.
In other words , there is no reason to complicate what is simple . Inside a reasoning or a demonstration should instead sought the simplicity and conciseness . And unfortunately in many cases the trivial answer is that you just do not know who the author of the crime , and what a find it is foolish to want to force the prison putting the suspects .
What is most striking in all these cases is the total inexperience of the PM that faced with sensitive cases leave get their hands on the first unwary evidence that they operate , then they let the modest laboratory experts of the police to do analysis by university laboratory , technical expertise or that are made ​​from ballistic decisive first scalzacani that advise the secretary them , they do make a forensic autopsies of murder victims that have seen very few . And all the more striking the arrogance with which these investigators insist in not wanting to admit and correct their mistakes early , even before the evidence .

http://www.earmi.it/varie/scienze forensi.html

Thank you, Anella! I especially liked the bit on 'experts' in Italy; I also found this intriguing:

"During the 1990's in Puglia Italy, a serial killer...Sebai Muhammad raped and murdered 15 elderly women. Seven people were arrested for these murders, all of them innocent and all convicted on evidence that for Judges is fundamental, they confessed! No matter that they retracted these confessions and stated they were forced. One of the seven committed suicide in prison, others are still not yet fully exonerated. Not one shred of scientific evidence against any of them was ever found. But there is still a Public Minister in Puglia who believes several people with the same MO committed these murders."

This isn't the only time this happened in Italy. They convicted four men of the Monster of Florence murders as well. One thing I do agree with Mignini regarding is that they never caught the actual Monster, despite convicting four different men for the murders. Our agreement ends there though.

 

[sept79]

The Italian Supreme Court says, reasonable doubt means reasonable alternative scenario. "Reasonable" means, it must not be a sequence of things merely possible in rerum natura, but remote and improbable. A reasonable scenario cannot be made with a sequence of weaker or improbable explanations.

How does the rigged science fit in ?

 

[AmyStrange]

-

I've been picking up them for years, and I watched the Knox fans going wild on them on this forum.
Pick up what you want. Take the bathmat print. It's very visible, and very connected to other elements. Does it fit "equally well" to Guede's foot? We know it doesn't.
Many series from my latest posts (talking about Guede-alone-scenario, pillowcase etc.) were instances of how the pro-Knox explanations don't work equally well.

-

Mach, could you please link to your post on this one subject (the bathmat print), or give me a keyword and I'll look it up myself. I remember at least one discussion on this, but I can't remember exactly when or what exactly was written.

Thanx in advance.

By the way, I've given you a one-attacker scenario that fits all the evidence, but you never responded back.

Rudy surprises Meredith from behind, wrapping one hand around her waist and arms, while holding a knife under her chin with the other hand; or surprises her while she is in the middle of taking off her coat or sweatshirt, which would naturally hold at least one hand immobile (try taking a coat off and you'll see what I mean), she tries to get away and Rudy hits her in the face, dazing her and making her fall to her knees or to the floor, then he gets on top of her, pulls her hair back from behind and stabs her three times under the chin.

Now let's hear your three-attacker scenario,

d

-

 

[Bill Williams]

Ergon tells a whopper

I had to stop reading Ergon's latest.

He repeated the lie that the Italian police stopped Raffaele at the Austrian border. Couldn't read any farther. There is scarcely any truth, anymore, which comes from that guy.

 

[Dan O.]

I had to stop reading Ergon's latest.

He repeated the lie that the Italian police stopped Raffaele at the Austrian border. Couldn't read any farther. There is scarcely any truth, anymore, which comes from that guy.

Isn't it obvious that Raffaele would hold up in Italy, afraid to cross the boarder. Just look at how these armed border patroll guards are scrutinizing every traveller trying to cross the Italian/Austrian boarder:




ETA: if the above is not enough, Trip Advisor has a special page specifically for this crossing: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g187768-s602/Italy:Crossing.The.Border.html

 

[anglolawyer]

Reasonable doubt is a possible line of defence (albeit to any rational person it is not the same thing as believing innocence).

But reasonable doubt does not consist in just stating that each piece of evidence may have an improbable innocent explanation.

Not really Mach. It's a threshold. In a soccer match the defence is four guys and a goalkeeper. The goal itself is not part of the defence. The attacking team still has to score whether there is a defence or not and the prosecution must likewise erase all reasonable doubt regardless of any defence.

Your second sentence is oddly worded. It still looks like you think the defence must establish doubt rather than that the prosecution should eliminate it.

 

[RWVBWL]

-
Mach, could you please link to your post on this one subject (the bathmat print), or give me a keyword and I'll look it up myself. I remember at least one discussion on this, but I can't remember exactly when or what exactly was written.

Thanx in advance.

By the way, I've given you a one-attacker scenario that fits all the evidence, but you never responded back.
Rudy surprises Meredith from behind, wrapping one hand around her waist and arms, while holding a knife under her chin with the other hand; or surprises her while she is in the middle of taking off her coat or sweatshirt, which would naturally hold at least one hand immobile (try taking a coat off and you'll see what I mean), she tries to get away and Rudy hits her in the face, dazing her and making her fall to her knees or to the floor, then he gets on top of her, pulls her hair back from behind and stabs her three times under the chin.

Now let's hear your three-attacker scenario,

d

-

Hey Dave,
I beg to differ,
for in my hunble opinion, well your theory does not take into consideration ALL of the evidence.

Look,
we all seem to not remember all the different aspects of this brutal case, so allow me to chime in with a few tidbits that we have discussed over the years.

IIRC,
Meredith did not call her Mom every day.
Find and re-read the record of her phone calls. The fact that she did not retry calling her Mom after losing the signal does not seem that important to me. I recall that she did not call her Mom on at least 1 day in the week prior to her murder. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I betcha my memory is correct...


What about the bruising on her body:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110504...logspot.com/2008/10/pointing-at-murderer.html

I asked LMT years ago if these might have been caused by rough foreplay or luv making with Giacomo, before he split town for the holiday. LMT did not think this so.

So LJ and others have helped inform me here on The ISF that bruising stops when a person dies, ok?
Yet if Giacomo's rough sex play, which Barbie Nadeau even wrote of in Angel Face,
was not the cause of these bruises as seen in the above link to old Perugia Shock, how the heck did these bruises appear if she was immediately assaulted and killed? She was knifed in the throat and bled out in minutes, right? She shouldn't have bruised. Yet she has bruising on her...

ETA:
Allow me to quote some Sfarzo,
he went to court, you nor I did, right?

-Meredith was found with a white t-shirt on, rolled up towards her shoulders, above her bare breast, while her blue sweatshirt and bra were lying on the floor.
But, by looking at how t-shirt, sweatshirt, bra were soaked in blood, and how the spurts reached her chest we deduct that --when she was stabbed-- Meredith had still the bra on, to cover her breast, and was likely wearing the blue sweatshirt, unzipped and rolled up towards her shoulders, together with the t-shirt.
The sweatshirt was taken off after the stab as well as the bra, which was cut off with a knife. Probably the first act of a staging of the crime scene, which we will see.

-There are bruises around both her elbows and on the right forearm which are typical of a restraining action. It seems quite evident that one or more persons, in one or more phases of the attack, were holding Meredith's arms behind. Same kind of bruises by restraining action are in the area below her chin.

-On the palm of her right hand and on her right thumb, there are some little defense wound as if she tried to keep the blade away from her neck before her arms were constrained behind by one of the aggressors, other than the one holding the knife.

Keeping the blade away until her hand was taken behind. Meredit's right palm and thumb injured by the tip of the knife.

-Since there's blood on her left hand (picture above) and almost none on her right hand, we have to assume that her left hand was close to her neck when she was hit.

Another possibility is that someone was keeping her arms behind her back while someone else stabbed her. Right after the stab Meredith managed to free her left hand and brought it to the wound, while her right arm was still constrained behind her. In this way the one who was holding her arm sustained her until she fell down.

How come there is no blood on her blue jeans buttons or zipper,
or her black underwear? many think these were removed after she was knifed, right?
Where's the bloody fingerprints or hand prints from whomever removed these items of clothing off her?
What about her shoes and socks? Were they covered in blood from whomever removed them? I don't seem to recall this being so...


Lastly Dave,
why do many of you seem to discredit and apparently completely disregard all of the downstairs evidence of that too being an unexplained part of the murder scene when putting forth your theories?


Have a good 1 D!
These are just a few random thoughts from an old surfer,
(Sorry you're freezin' Kaosium, but I wore board shorts + a tank top today
as I rode my beach cruiser around town to pick up lunch and beverages, hehehe!),
who still reads up here sometimes of this discussion...
L8, RW

 

[Bill Williams]

Isn't it obvious that Raffaele would hold up in Italy, afraid to cross the boarder. Just look at how these armed border patroll guards are scrutinizing every traveller trying to cross the Italian/Austrian boarder:




ETA: if the above is not enough, Trip Advisor has a special page specifically for this crossing: http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g187768-s602/Italy:Crossing.The.Border.html

Raffaele was in Austria when he heard of the conviction. He came back into Italy and checked into a villa. The next day the Carabinieri came to enforce Nencini's dictates by seizing his passport.

Ergon makes it sound like he was fleeing.

 

[AmyStrange]

-

Hey Dave,
I beg to differ,
for in my hunble opinion, well your theory does not take into consideration ALL of the evidence.

Look,
we all seem to not remember all the different aspects of this brutal case, so allow me to chime in with a few tidbits that we have discussed over the years.

IIRC,
Meredith did not call her Mom every day.
Find and re-read the record of her phone calls. The fact that she did not retry calling her Mom after losing the signal does not seem that important to me. I recall that she did not call her Mom on at least 1 day in the week prior to her murder. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but I betcha my memory is correct...


What about the bruising on her body:
http://web.archive.org/web/20110504...logspot.com/2008/10/pointing-at-murderer.html

I asked LMT years ago if these might have been caused by rough foreplay or luv making with Giacomo, before he split town for the holiday. LMT did not think this so.

So if bruising stops when a person dies,
and Giacomo's rough sex play, which Barbie Nadeau even wrote of in Angel Face,
was not the cause of these bruises as seen in the above link to old Perugia Shock, how the heck did these appear if she was immediately assaulted and killed? She was knifed in the throat and bled out in minutes, right? Yet she has bruising on her...


How come there is no blood on her blue jeans buttons or zipper,
or her black underwear? many think these were removed after she was knifed, right?
Where's the bloody fingerprints or hand prints from whomever removed these items of clothing off her?


Lastly Dave,
why do many of you seem to discredit and apparently completely disregard all of the downstairs evidence of that too being an unexplained part of the murder scene when putting forth your theories?


Have a good 1 D!
These are just a few random thoughts from an old surfer,
(Sorry you're freezin' Kaosium, but I wore board shorts + a tank top today
as I rode my beach cruiser around town to pick up lunch and beverages, hehehe!),
who still reads up here sometimes of this discussion...
L8, RW

-

I wonder about the downstairs evidence also. I also wonder about what happened to the pot plants that were growing down there. But, no one else seems to care about that either.

As far as all the bruising being missing from my scenario, if Rudy had surprised her while she was taking off her coat, and she struggled to get away from Rudy and get out of the coat, I see this causing elbow and shoulder bruising. The bruising on her hip might have been caused when she fell to the floor after being hit in the face by Rudy, or when Rudy jumped on her after she fell to her knees or knee.

I don't see exactly what evidence I'm missing here. Please enlighten me,

d

-
ETA: I'm just theorizing about the murder itself, that it's quite possible a single attacker could have killed Meredith. That's all I'm talking about right now. The downstairs evidence either happened before or after the murder, and although interesting to me also, really has nothing to do with my single attacker scenario, at least as to how it happened or unfolded.

-

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Dave,
For a street-wise guy as you are, as I am too,
I gotta wonder, as should you too, how does a gal get bruising on both of her elbows if a knife is at her throat in a sudden attack that immediately turned violently murderous right after she walked in the door?

Did the single perp, as many believe it is only 1,
grab ahold of only 1 of her elbows, and then release it to then grasp ahold of her forearm+her other elbow, squeezing hard enough to cause bruising on this other elbow, while keeping the knife at her throat?

Come on, look at the main wound,
http://images.teinteresa.es/sucesos/agonica-muerte-Meredith-Kercher_TINIMA20110907_1137_1.jpg
the bruises, the struggle.

Look at the old Perugia Shock photo's,
read Sfarzo's descriptions and ponderings as he sat through court, which I quoted above.

Don't you too find it weird how Meredith was fighting for her life and yet all this went down but that glass of water on her beds nightstand was not even tipped over. Sometimes I wonder what Sfarzo writes of when he too sometimes envisions more than 1 assailant, which I quoted in an ETA above?
RW

 

[Kaosium]

why do many of you seem to discredit and apparently completely disregard all of the downstairs evidence of that too being an unexplained part of the murder scene when putting forth your theories?

In my case it's because I don't know enough about it. I read through what you, Diocletus, Michael B, Anglo and Dan-O write about it and still am unable to get a fix on just what relevance it has to Amanda Knox and Raffaele being part of Rudy's grisly crime. The samples taken from the downstairs are one area I'd be looking to find trace elements of Rudy Guede were the EDFs to be released, but considering the lengths Stefanoni went to in order to keep them hidden I suspect ever seeing them is a forlorn hope.

Have a good 1 D!
These are just a few random thoughts from an old surfer,
(Sorry you're freezin' Kaosium, but I wore board shorts + a tank top today
as I rode my beach cruiser around town to pick up lunch and beverages, hehehe!),

Laugh it up, surfer boy! p)

I found out just now that it's going to get down to five degrees below zero (F) tomorrow, the previous few days of five above are going to look nice and balmy. During every winter like this I think back twenty-five years when I hung out about an hour north of where you are and grilled out at the beach at night in shorts and sandals and wonder why I ever left that paradise for this icy wintery hell.

who still reads up here sometimes of this discussion...
L8, RW

Oddly enough, I was thinking of you earlier today, wondering what had happened to you--and Grinder too.

 

[AmyStrange]

Hi Dave,
For a street-wise guy as you are, as I am too,
I gotta wonder, as should you too, how does a gal get bruising on both of her elbows if a knife is at her throat in a sudden attack that immediately turned violently murderous right after she walked in the door?

Did the single perp, as many believe it is only 1,
grab ahold of only 1 of her elbows, and then release it to then grasp ahold of her forearm+her other elbow, squeezing hard enough to cause bruising on this other elbow, while keeping the knife at her throat?

Come on, look at the main wound,
http://images.teinteresa.es/sucesos/agonica-muerte-Meredith-Kercher_TINIMA20110907_1137_1.jpg
the bruises, the struggle.

Look at the old Perugia Shock photo's,
read Sfarzo's descriptions and ponderings as he sat through court, which I quoted above.

Don't you too find it weird how Meredith was fighting for her life and yet all this went down but that glass of water on her beds nightstand was not even tipped over. Sometimes I wonder what Sfarzo writes of when he too sometimes envisions more than 1 assailant, which I quoted in an ETA above?
RW

-

All good points.

I believe it's possible if she was surprised while taking off her coat, say it was down around her elbows, the struggle to get out of that coat, I believe that would be enough to cause bruising of both the elbows and shoulder. She might have used her heel to kick his shins, and he released her enough so she almost got away, but he punched her in the face. Dazed, she fell to her knees and elbows (maybe) and that could have caused bruising then also.

I just had an interesting thought, do you think maybe the struggle that caused all the bruising actually happened downstairs?

d

-
ETA: As far as the glass of water is concerned, what evidence is there that shows it was there on the nightstand before the murder? Was it ever dusted for prints?

-

 

[RWVBWL]

I gotta think out loud sometimes,
here's 1 more time...


Might the attack 1st started downstairs?
Maybe Miss Kercher went downstairs to feed
or check on the hurt cat when she came home.
Might this explain some of the blood drops on Stefano's bed? The disheaveled bedspread, etc. If so, might it be when Meredith screamed out loud, while being outside and led back upstairs as Rudy sat on the toilet after having broken in before she arrived home? Maybe this is the commotion that had all the people looking towards the cottage, as seen last year, (I think it was) on the video camera freeze frame pix from the parking lot CCTV across the street in what was it, Oggi Magazine??
Just a thought...
RW


PS - Stay warm, Kaosium, and enjoy the crisp winter air,
for man, though I'm as tan as I can be from our bitchin' So Cal winter sunshine,
(yes I surfed the other day for an hour while wearing only surf trunks),
well I gotta say, since I've dated a coupla cute New England girlz before,
I miss seein' + bein' in the snow, well just for a lil' while!!!

PSS - I too wonder: Where's The Grinder?!?

PSSS - Thanks for the conversation D, I'm out...
RW