Continuation Part 14: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

She had a ear issue and blood was found on her pillow IIRC but no DNA of hers was found in the murder room where the PGP assume Mez used her Karate skills to wound Amanda. Their theory is that while being restrained by the entranced boys Mez broke free for an instant and punched Amanda in the nose or scratched her neck and she bled. Repeating no blood or DNA of Amanda was found on Mez where one would assume the blood would go or on the floor.

 

[Kauffer]

I don't see how Rudy not speaking English and Amanda not speaking Italian prevents drugs, sex and crime sharing?

Have you never been in a loud club or disco, where, despite not being able to hear a word, couples manage to get off with each other. Where there's a will...

There is no evidence of any relationship between Amanda and Guede or Raffaele and Guede. There is evidence only of three brief random interactions between Amanda and Guede. Guede did not have their phone numbers and they did not have his. There is some indication in fact that Guede did not have a phone IIRC.

How do you derive any "will"? Nobody testified to suggest there were meetings, conversations, planning, discussions. - there's nothing. No encounters in loud clubs or discos and no getting off.

 

[anglolawyer]

How many of those were self-defence injuries?

I don't know. If you want to make the case that there was something special about Kercher's injuries, aside from their number, then go ahead.

 

[Vixen]

...And the ladies trainer shoeprint in Amanda's size in the murder room?

 

[Kauffer]

So why did Amanda claim her ears were bleeding? (Ew.)

There's the photo of the neck scratch. Who scratched Amanda's neck?

Raffaele bit her!

It's a key plank in the case against Raffaele actually because you see the evidence is that Raffaele flew into Meredith's room and touched her bra clasp. How did he do that? Well, everybody knows that vampires can fly, right?

 

[MichaelB]

So why did Amanda claim her ears were bleeding? (Ew.)

There's the photo of the neck scratch. Who scratched Amanda's neck?

If you wanted to find the answer then all you have to do is read the testimony of State pathologist Dr Luca Lalli who examined her. But that'd be boring wouldn't it compared to the tabloids?

I'll give you a hint: he said the mark wasn't a scratch.

 

[Vixen]

This is Nicks idea of 'research' for his book. Read the old tabloid articles and conspiracy theory blogs then join a forum and see which factoids work and which ones don't. He's tweeting the same crap as well.

I have never heard of this Nick guy. However, I agree there has been a plethora of junk books and articles, some by raving bigots.

"The public gets what the public wants" ~ Paul Weller, 'Going Underground'

 

[Antony]

So why did Amanda claim her ears were bleeding? (Ew.)

Irrelevant. The drop of blood from her ear (not "ears") was the result of an attempt at a piercing, prior to the crime and not connected to it.

There's the photo of the neck scratch. Who scratched Amanda's neck?

It's a love-bite. It never bled. The police had Amanda arrested just 4 days afterwards and recorded no wounds indicating a struggle.

The bogus prosecution evidence was of mixed DNA, not mixed blood. You can see from their own video that their samples were inevitably mixed with whatever traces were on the surface underneath. Since it was the sink where Amanda brushed her teeth, her DNA in the samples is meaningless. The "mixed blood" claim is another guilter fabrication.

 

[Antony]

...And the ladies trainer shoeprint in Amanda's size in the murder room?

It's an incomplete print from the same shoes as the other prints - Guede's shoes.

 

[Kauffer]

I have never heard of this Nick guy. However, I agree there has been a plethora of junk books and articles, some by raving bigots.

"The public gets what the public wants" ~ Paul Weller, 'Going Underground'

And what do you want? People have been telling you for days that there is no evidence of Amanda in Kercher's room. You say nothing about this. Today, you trot out that Amanda's shoe print was found in blood in Kercher's room!

Do you realise how monumentally stupid such a claim is?

If Amanda's shoe print in blood had been found in Kercher's room, then this forum would not exist.

 

[Vixen]

Raffaele bit her!

It's a key plank in the case against Raffaele actually because you see the evidence is that Raffaele flew into Meredith's room and touched her bra clasp. How did he do that? Well, everybody knows that vampires can fly, right?

So you confirm Amanda was bleeding as of the time of the murder, and Grinder confirms there was blood on her pillow from the earrings.

If you were a detective, that wouldn't ne a clue?

 

[Dan O.]

Even if we accept the rock was thrown from outside, for example, from the car park space, in a straight trajectory, how does that prove Rudy threw it?

The person who threw it, is the same person who ransacked Filomena's room. Yes? Or no?

Considering that I believe part of the ransacking of Filomena's room was Filomena herself tossing things on her bed in a frantic rush to get ready for her party, and the rest is just the rock smashing through the window and Rudy stumbling through the window in the dark, I would say yes and no.

Have you even examined this evidence for yourself? Nothing on either the table or the bed stand has been swept to the floor. One stack of clothes that should have been in the cupboard has apparently fallen to the floor in front of the window. The police photos show glass under this stack and not on top of it so it is difficult to believe Filomena is telling the truth but rather going along with the police theory. Her laptop was positioned at the foot of her bed and fell over towards the window. This may have happened before the window was broken as Filomena is again claiming glass on top. Alternatively, the stack of cloths and the laptop are both in front of the broken window that is swinging in the wind. Additional glass may have fallen out overnight.

There is the bag with the rock toppled under the table and I believe a purse (sorry, I don't have the photos in front of me so have to do this by memory). The purse would have been hung over the back of the chair and dislodged when the chair was shoved away into the opposite leg of the table. The bag falls over this and spills the rock.

A case, one CD and a few papers are on the floor in the middle of the room. And then there is all the glass from the window sprayed into the room from the broken window. This is the extent of the ransacking of Filomena's room.

The drawer in the nightstand may have been opened and the matrass at the head of the bed lifted as was done in Laura's room. It's difficult to say for sure since Filomena was not as tidy as Laura.


Why don't you put together a comprehensive theory of what happened in a timeline that is consistent with the known evidence and we will compare your theory with our theory which has precipitated from the debates here over the last 5 years.

 

[Dan O.]

You would need a six-foot reach? Not even the finest boxers have that.

1.5 meters is only 5 feet. Fortunately he has a mop in the bucket right there that gives him that reach.

 

[Vixen]

And what do you want? People have been telling you for days that there is no evidence of Amanda in Kercher's room. You say nothing about this. Today, you trot out that Amanda's shoe print was found in blood in Kercher's room!

Do you realise how monumentally stupid such a claim is?

If Amanda's shoe print in blood had been found in Kercher's room, then this forum would not exist.

It's helpful to read the earliest reports. First impressions and hunches are often the correct ones, before the chattering classes overthink it.

For that reason, I do think the early judges' belief the motive was aggressive sex by more than one person, the most likely. We know both Raf and Amanda had strong rape and stalker fantasies. That does not prove anything in itself. However, if you are going to argue "burglary gone wrong, therefore Rudy", then by the same logic, if it was a sex orgy scenario gone wrong, as Massei reasoned, then the profile of aggressive sex fantasists as perps fits, by the same criteria as "it must have been by a career cat burglar".

 

[Kauffer]

So you confirm Amanda was bleeding as of the time of the murder, and Grinder confirms there was blood on her pillow from the earrings.

If you were a detective, that wouldn't ne a clue?

Where did I say she was bleeding at the time of the murder?

We know that Amanda had an issue with her ears and as Grinder has explained and indeed, as Amanda has explained, they had bled before. This has nothing to do with the murder. A boyfriend's love bite is not suspicious; blood from her ear on her own pillow is not suspicious, unless you wish to argue that after having slaughtered Kercher, she went for a lie down!

The theory goes that Kercher wounded Amanda in the course of Amanda stabbing her to death in her small bedroom. If that were true, we would expect to see evidence of Amanda, in the form of blood or at least DNA on Kercher's body or elsewhere in the room. Not only do we not see this, we see no physical evidence at all of Amanda in the room or on the body. This cannot be explained in a manner consistent with Amanda's presence in the room.

 

[Kauffer]

It's helpful to read the earliest reports. First impressions and hunches are often the correct ones, before the chattering classes overthink it.

For that reason, I do think the early judges' belief the motive was aggressive sex by more than one person, the most likely. We know both Raf and Amanda had strong rape and stalker fantasies. That does not prove anything in itself. However, if you are going to argue "burglary gone wrong, therefore Rudy", then by the same logic, if it was a sex orgy scenario gone wrong, as Massei reasoned, then the profile of aggressive sex fantasists as perps fits, by the same criteria as "it must have been by a career cat burglar".

From where do "we" know this? Your arguments are becoming bizarre.

Once again, you deflect attention away from the response given to your previous post. Amanda's shoe print in Kercher's blood was not found in Kercher's room! You stated it as a fact. You didn't say anything about this being an early indication. If you are reading the "earliest reports" and haven't read the "latest reports", I recommend a hiatus until you have finished your reading.

Again, this forum could not exist if Amanda's shoe print in blood was found in Kercher's room.

I'll say it again for you. There is no physical evidence of Amanda in Kercher's room. Remember this if you ever again feel like posting any statements linked to a claim of there being evidence of Amanda in Kercher's room. If you think you have found evidence that the rest of us have missed of Amanda's presence in the room, then you will need to cite convincingly from an appropriate source. Citation, citation, citation, before claim, claim claim!

 

[Vixen]

Where did I say she was bleeding at the time of the murder?

We know that Amanda had an issue with her ears and as Grinder has explained and indeed, as Amanda has explained, they had bled before. This has nothing to do with the murder. A boyfriend's love bite is not suspicious; blood from her ear on her own pillow is not suspicious, unless you wish to argue that after having slaughtered Kercher, she went for a lie down!

The theory goes that Kercher wounded Amanda in the course of Amanda stabbing her to death in her small bedroom. If that were true, we would expect to see evidence of Amanda, in the form of blood or at least DNA on Kercher's body or elsewhere in the room. Not only do we not see this, we see no physical evidence at all of Amanda in the room or on the body. This cannot be explained in a manner consistent with Amanda's presence in the room.

There is mixed blood on the faucet and bidet, in Filomena's room (x 2).

It matters not a jot, why Amanda was bleeding. What's salient is her blood was mixed with Mez' dying blood whilst both were wet.

Amanda therefore ipso facto, was at the murder scene either during, or within twenty minutes of it.

QED::

 

[Grinder]

No mixed blood. Please agree or cite Massei

 

[Vixen]

From where do "we" know this? Your arguments are becoming bizarre.

Once again, you deflect attention away from the response given to your previous post. Amanda's shoe print in Kercher's blood was not found in Kercher's room! You stated it as a fact. You didn't say anything about this being an early indication. If you are reading the "earliest reports" and haven't read the "latest reports", I recommend a hiatus until you have finished your reading.

Again, this forum could not exist if Amanda's shoe print in blood was found in Kercher's room.

I'll say it again for you. There is no physical evidence of Amanda in Kercher's room. Remember this if you ever again feel like posting any statements linked to a claim of there being evidence of Amanda in Kercher's room. If you think you have found evidence that the rest of us have missed of Amanda's presence in the room, then you will need to cite convincingly from an appropriate source. Citation, citation, citation, before claim, claim claim!

OK. The lamp.

 

[Grinder]

No mixed blood. Please agree or produce court cite