Continuation Part 17: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[RWVBWL]

Something Theatrical

All those clothes and things picked from the wardrobe tossed around the room. The stager wanted something theatrical. In what room could they do that?

The staging does is not consistent with reality, but it has its own logic, it reflects a scheme, a setting in the stager's mind.

Ah,
I've recently wondered why it was that The Rapist,
oops, make that The Stager,
placed a movie ticket stub on Miss Kercher's duvet
(which covered her naked, bruised +raped body)
from Tuesday night, Oct. 29th, 2007
to see a flick at 10:30pm at Cinegatti.

Link: http://www.cinegatti.it/home.asp

It was something theatrical.



Ya know something else I wonder about?
This: Meredith Kercher's ATM cash with-drawls,
which I just recently started digging' into.

In the days before she was raped + murdered,
Meredith Kercher needed $60 Euro, $50 Euro, $50 Euro, $250 Euro,
and apparently received her $$$ from the same bank's ATM.

She also only wanted $20 Euros around this time.
BUT she, or someone else, took this small amount from a different bank's ATM.

This small amount seems odd,
as does the bank officials testimony,
of which I will kindly give you a snippet and a link to read further,
ok?

* * *

PF:
The last transaction on the 2nd…
ah well because rightly you won’t see them, on the 2nd November 20.00 euro,
on the 31st October 250.00 euro.

GCM:
Yes, then?

PF:
29 October 50.00 euro, 25 October 50.00 euro, 22 October 60.00 euro.

Read more here:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Paolo_Farsi's_Testimony_(English)#Paolo_Farsi.27s_Testimony

It's kinda interesting how the banker kind of hems and haws
when trying to describe to The Massei Court how he had a tough time
gettin' info about Miss Kercher's last few ATM cash with-drawls.
I wonder what that last $20 Euro was needed for?

I hope "poor Rudy" was not using her ATM card somewhere, somehow...

Weird stuff,
in my surfer opinion...
RW

 

[acbytesla]

But what happens if they stay away in Gubbio the whole day (after having spent the night awake) they come back at night, and there is still nobody home and nobody has discovered the body?

And what happens if they need to wait for the opening of the shops - like Quintavalle's shop - because they need to buy a new mop or a new cleaning rag?

Actually, we know they cleaned up the house, precisely because of the blood drops, which indicate that some parts had been cleaned.
The bathmat was completely soaked with water: this means they tried to wash it. But what happens if they dispose of it? It's dangerous, because it would appear it's missing and at that point a cleaning would become obvious.

And what happens if Sollecito's disposes of the kitchen knife: it does not belong to him, it's listed in the kitchen inventory. They would need to replace it, or in alternative clean it the best they can.

And what happens if someone noticed Amanda Knox walking out through the town in the morning carrying a mop and a bucket. Her story must be set in a way that could explain it.

Or what happens if someone notices that the bathroom and the shower were used recently: going to Gubbio hardly explains that.

The life of a stager is a hard life.



It's interesting. But from testimonies, it looks like Knox was almost obsessed with the detail of the "s** in the toilet". It's almost as if there is a psychological urge to attribute, to project, the "s** in the toilet" on someone else, to tell everyone that "they" ("she", Knox) is the clean one, she is not the one who could possibly leave "s** in the toilet", just like as she blamed Meredith of being the one who would leave menstrual blood in the bathroom. Those were in fact Knox's behaviours. Her need to project them on someone else is evident.
And then, although she didn't want Guede to be caught, she also may have been capable to perceive that maybe it was better if there was some actual evidence of a foreign intruder, since only some actual evidence of someone else could deflect suspicion from her.

No it's not! Except with people that are themselves obsessed with feces. Which you seemed to be. This is one of your nasty tactics. A disgraceful anecdote to try and suggest some bizarre motive. Since of course there is no credible motive for Amanda to commit the crime you wrongfully accuse her of.

You have no evidence, you have no motive, all that you have is wild speculation. Anyone can make up a theory, it is quite a different prospect proving it. Something you fall woefully short of doing.

Present evidence to support your theory or be gone.

 

[RWVBWL]

Delete,
see my add in below The Movie Ticket Stub
up above ACbytesla's last post.

 

[bagels]

TMB detecting blood on various surfaces after luminol application and cleaning with various methods

They certainly didn't clean with odorless bleach, and the TMB was negative. Basic science confirms what is already obvious given the bloody mess and visible prints all over the cottage: there was no cleaning.

 

[toto]

Dan O has never defeated anyone. Quite the stunning contrary. He was just unable to put together a sequence that included stepping on the pillow and putting the pillow under the body, washing his own clothes and walking out without dripping bloody water along his way.
Failed to explain why he left bloody shoeprints after he had already washed himself (how does that make sense), or to explain how he could leave a trail of bloody shoeprints linked to the pillow prints just after leaving the shoeprints on the pillow, but manageing to take a shower on his trousers between the two actions.
Everything is inconsistent.
This includes the failure to explain why the trail of his print doesn't turn towards the door to lock it, while evidence shows it walks out without coming back. And why there is a 2,7 meters gap between two prints.
Dan O. coult not explain this kind of things through a reasonable sequence, because it's impossible.

On the other hand, your argument is defeated by the fact that the same could be said of Guede's clothes of or his own apartment. Ask yourself: was any blood trace found on Guede's clothes? Was any blood trace found in his apartment?
The answer is no. Bear in mind that Knox and Sollecito had a time of many hours after the murder. In fact Knox took care of delaying the discovery of the body as long as possible for this reason, to take time. You didn't find any blood traces on Guede's clothes, not even his shoes, and no blood trace in his home. It appears less than few hours were enough for him to get rid of such evidence, given that he even managed to go to the disco that night, looking clean.
So what are the clothes or the traces you were looking for? Actually inside the cottage there are a lot traces from Knox's and Sollecito's bodies that can be linked to blood, luminol prints bathmat etc., there is nothing alike in Guede's apartment. There are visible luminol stains from bare feet in Knox's room, there are luminol stains that yield Knox+Meredith DNA in the staging room. And yet you ask for "clothes": why? And by the way, considering that there are tracks from bare feet, is there evidence they were even wearing clothes, both of them? Maybe they were naked, or almost naked. We don't even know.

Surely Guede only had minutes if Meredith's screams were as loud as was seemingly heard by one of the local residents? (Or all three if one is to go against the Judicial Facts).

 

[Desert Fox]

Let us say that I was Amanda and I, along with Raffaele and Guede, murdered Meredeth. I have looked at the map and there are plenty of bodies of water and secluded areas within easy driving distance and Raff has a car.

I would report nothing. Instead, I would bundle Meredeth in a plastic bag and transport her either to a body of water or a secluded area. I would then scrub the cottage of all traces. easier to clean everything and leave a mystery than leave blood.

Meredeth will eventually be missed. I would call her cell phone, which I would have made permanently disappear, to make it look like I was looking for her. I would also though talk about seeing her with a mystery guy. Meredeth was an adult and is most jurisdictions can disappear if she wishes.

Now, there are many things that can go wrong with the plan but it has a damn better chance of success than what is suggested by the pro guilt side.

Also, as soon as any suspicion falls on me, I am running home

 

[Grinder]

Let us say that I was Amanda and I, along with Raffaele and Guede, murdered Meredeth. I have looked at the map and there are plenty of bodies of water and secluded areas within easy driving distance and Raff has a car.

I would report nothing. Instead, I would bundle Meredeth in a plastic bag and transport her either to a body of water or a secluded area. I would then scrub the cottage of all traces. easier to clean everything and leave a mystery than leave blood.

Meredeth will eventually be missed. I would call her cell phone, which I would have made permanently disappear, to make it look like I was looking for her. I would also though talk about seeing her with a mystery guy. Meredeth was an adult and is most jurisdictions can disappear if she wishes.

Now, there are many things that can go wrong with the plan but it has a damn better chance of success than what is suggested by the pro guilt side.

Also, as soon as any suspicion falls on me, I am running home

Well I'd have gone to Gubbio in the morning as planned. I would have waited for a message and if none came I'd have gone back to Perugia and stayed with Raf.

An alternative is that I would have gone to Gubbio 45 minutes away and hung out for a few hours and if no one had messaged I would have driven to the cottage and "discovered Meredith as the door would only have been closed and not locked. I would have run into the room and tried to save her explaining blood on my clothes and any DNA of mine in the room near her or even on her.

The bathmat would have been left in the shower soaking. The knife would have either been soaked in a bleach/soap/water solution for the day with other dishes or tossed into a lake after buying a substitute knife, as it was a very common knife. When I bought it I would have bought pots and pans etc. and burned the receipt.

I certainly wouldn't have left blood droplets in the bathroom and the bloody bathmat as is especially if I'd stepped on it if I was going to call Filomena and the police. If I didn't go to Gubbio I'd have waited hours more before returning as the longer it took the bigger the TOD time span would have been.

The last thought I would have had is that I needed to stage a burglary.

 

[bagels]

It's interesting. But from testimonies, it looks like Knox was almost obsessed with the detail of the "s** in the toilet". It's almost as if there is a psychological urge to attribute, to project, the "s** in the toilet" on someone else, to tell everyone that "they" ("she", Knox) is the clean one, she is not the one who could possibly leave "s** in the toilet", just like as she blamed Meredith of being the one who would leave menstrual blood in the bathroom. Those were in fact Knox's behaviours. Her need to project them on someone else is evident.
And then, although she didn't want Guede to be caught, she also may have been capable to perceive that maybe it was better if there was some actual evidence of a foreign intruder, since only some actual evidence of someone else could deflect suspicion from her.

Nah but I think you can read something into the way Guede left the murder scene. I said in a previous post that if Amanda was guilty the crime scene would look very different (Guede wouldn't be involved at all for starters, but I digress) and one example of that is the blanket over the body.

A thrill killing narcissistic Amanda has no reason to cover her work. Instead she ought to be proud of it. The first thing the shocked police see when they open the door is her perfectly staged sex crime victim spread on the floor in full display. Now that's theatrical. The blanket serves no use to Amanda at all.

But for Guede it makes sense. He's a more simple minded imbecile that's criminal profile is more animal-like, instinctual. After breaking in and being in one of his altered fugue states he's confronted by a defenseless female, possibly in a state of undress. On impulse he decides to quickly take what he wants in the moment, and he uses the weapon we know he likes to arm himself with during his crimes, a knife, to subdue his victim. When he's finished, the true realization of his horrible actions take hold, and in an act of child-like logic he attempts to sweep his mess under the rug, literally, by covering what he did with the blanket. When he leaves, he closes and locks the door, along similar lines as a child that places the lid back on the cookie jar, so nobody sees what happened.

Amanda certainly wouldn't elaborately close all the doors, lock Meredith's door, and then leave the front door wide open, but Guede doesn't know that closing the front door wont prevent it from blowing open, because he doesn't live there or know about the broken latch. The crime is actually very simple and straight forward for anyone clearheaded enough to look at what happened. I'd say a reasonable person can solve it in about 10 minutes skimming over the basic facts.

 

[RWVBWL]

Why'd they take it down?

Mach, I agree with you. Maybe RW spent too many hours in the sun today and suffered from sunstroke. But what he wrote is much less absurd than Mignini's claim to the court where Mignini quotes Amanda verbatim, at length, tormenting the victim.
<snip>

Hiya Strozzi,
Nope, nada, etc.

Though my tan is golden, my body is pretty lean + mean for a dude my age,
I'm not sun-striken, at least not right now. It happened though once before in Puerto Rico,
waaay back in the '80's, too much time in the water, my back blistered, and it hurt.

Here's what's up:
It was only after spending many hours in the dark looking for a shadowy figure who was vandalizing my sister and husbands trucks, for over a month(!) that I thought about, realized, and figured out a lot about many of the different things we discuss.

In The Still of the Night,
(err, I think that's an old WhiteSnake song?)
you can hear, indeed, leaves cracklin' and twigs snappin'
if you cautiously, carefully try + move your surveillance position, it sounds really loud,
if you are right there.

But to a dude sittin' out in the open air, on a bus stop bench merely some 15 feet away,
he can not and did not hear those dry leaves and twigs crackilin' as I, RW,
moved into a different position and I tried, and succeeded in videoing him at a super sloooow shutter speed to let as much street light in as I possibly could -(it almost looks like daylight!!!), while using image stabilizer on, at about 2:15am the other night, err make that mornin'.

And he, unbeknownst to him, he, looked right at me, it's a good clip.

Too bad he wasn't the perp who was vandalizin' my sis's truck!
He was just out there to listen to some rap, smoke some bud and escape for a few hours,
from where ever he lived.

For some reason I think the white perp who was vandalizin' my sis + her husbands trucks
dressed like this black dude to try and place the blame on him.
When ever I post a shot of him, you'll see what I mean...

* * *

NO WAY that Nara,
across a 2 lane highway, and a parking lot,
heard someone running in dry (because winter was coming) leaves in Miss Kercher's driveway area.

Heck,
it appears that The Fake Wiki took down Nara's testimony in The Massei Trial, ya know, the English translation of it which mentions her hearing someone running in the dry leaves of Miss Kercher's cottage.
How odd:
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Nara_Capezzali's_Testimony_(English

Weird too is that they do not mention Nara speaking' of hearing perps
running in the dry leaves of Miss Kercher's cottage either
when mentioning her testimony to The Massei Court
in a recent posting on tj4MK...

I wonder why these fine folks are hiding this information from their readers?


Anyways,
I don't feel like posting it again,
here's my old post with the relevant testimony of Nara C + those dry leaves that she heard:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10782347&postcount=764


Machiavelli + Strozzi,
I wonder of The Scream,
because I can not imagine having heard a young woman scream out for HELP!!! or AHHHH!!! as I hid in the bushes for many hours doin' surveillance and not call the police to report this, as ol' Nara or Antonella did not, would not or could not be bothered to call 118 and report The Scream at the time!!!

(Maybe they too, like Rudy Guede, could have helped save Miss Kercher's life if they'd only called 118).

Strozzi + Machiavelli,
Maybe neither of you have had to sit in a Civil Court Trial for the crime of rape, as I did.
Sorry if the brutal questions I ask bothered you.
Sometimes when seeking the truth,
it's tough...


No way that Nara heard a loud horrible scream yet did not come forward the next morning to tell the cops this when the boyz in her apartment or condominium complex told her a girl had been murdered across the street.

I mean,
come on, we can guess why Toto did not wanna talk with the cops that day, he was still high on heroin!

What, was ol' Nara f'ed up too?
I don't wanna talk to the cops today!

I'll say it once more, I talked with the cops on Thursday morning
after further vandalism happened again to my sisters truck.

And we talked some more later that day when they pulled me over because I exited the parking structure where the perp was parked and I was wearing a Gilligan/fisherman hat my brake light was out. Glad I did, it seems whatever info I gave them help them make a decision to apprehend the alleged perp with 2 Detectives and 6 officers there for the arrest.


Who would not,
in their sane mind,
with or without sunstroke upon their face, back or body,
have come forward to tell the police of hearing a horrible scream that made her skin crawl,
so as to maybe help catch the rapist and murderer?

 

[RWVBWL]

Ah,
you come forward and tell the cops that you heard a horrible scream that made your old flesh crawl at, you guess-ta-mate, around 11:30 pm on a holiday night and guess what?

The cops check any and all CCTV footage from the surrounding area at that time.
It's Soooo Easy,
(err, I think that's an old GnR song?)
if you know the time to check...

No need to go thru 2,068 registered files from the evening of the murder.
(Odd how they still apparently have never been analysed in depth.)

I know it's great to have an approximate time,
as we've been searchin' + doin' it in our Family a lot, recently...
My last 2¢ for tonight,
See ya,
RW

 

[Bill Williams]

It's interesting. But from testimonies, it looks like Knox was almost obsessed with the detail of the "s** in the toilet". It's almost as if there is a psychological urge to attribute, to project, the "s** in the toilet" on someone else, to tell everyone that "they" ("she", Knox) is the clean one, she is not the one who could possibly leave "s** in the toilet", just like as she blamed Meredith of being the one who would leave menstrual blood in the bathroom. Those were in fact Knox's behaviours. Her need to project them on someone else is evident.
And then, although she didn't want Guede to be caught, she also may have been capable to perceive that maybe it was better if there was some actual evidence of a foreign intruder, since only some actual evidence of someone else could deflect suspicion from her.

It's not interesting at all. Your ramblings are precisely the reason why many say that guilters will say **aanything** just so long as it sounds guilt like.

Either that or you really are a false flag operative from the innocentisti side to make guilters seem stupid.

For mercy's sake man, even Rudy admitted to going #2 in the toilet.

I certainly hope on the Italian forums that you DO post like this.

 

[RWVBWL]

She likes it Double Glazin'...

Gosh,
I gotta get off The ISF
and the other web pages I'm readin from,
which are mainly about shark sightings and shark activity seen.

But 1 last quote, from,
yep you guessed it right,
The Massei Trial.

This 1 is for you Vixen,
or is this for Machiavelli?

From ol' Nara herself:

Question – Did you open the bathroom window?
Answer – No.
Question – Explain what happened for us.
Answer – I haven’t any shutters on that window,
I only have double-glazing so I can look straight out.

[….]

Luca Maori: In your house, which faces north, have you double glazing?
Answer: Yes.
Luca Maori: In all the rooms?
Answer: Yes.
Luca Maori: In the living room as well?
Answer: Yes.

Link:
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-scream-compromised-witness/

 

[Mike1711]

All those clothes and things picked from the wardrobe tossed around the room. The stager wanted something theatrical. In what room could they do that?

The staging does is not consistent with reality, but it has its own logic, it reflects a scheme, a setting in the stager's mind.

....and then Knox went into the garden and found a rock (boulder????) she could barely lift. and thought to herself.....

"This one will do! It's damn big. Now where's a window...a nice high window. Aaah that one will do. Now I have a chosen a rock so big that the police and prosecution will argue it's too big to throw and chosen a window so high the police and prosecution will argue its unclimbable."

Then she opened Meredith's door, floated in, and immediately located the cell phones and the purse with the rent money. She didn't have to look for any of this stuff because being magic and able to float, she was also able to use her X-Ray eyes to find the purse and the money without touching anything. Then using Rudy Geller's psycho-kinetic energy abilities (which also has) she was able to remove the money from the bloody purse without touching it. She then floated out of Meredith's room, leaving all traces of Rudy after magically removing her's and Sollecito's. She did this to ensure that when Rudy was caught after her deliberately leaving his evidence he could then spill the beans on her....which she must've thought was a particularly brilliant part to her foolproof plan

What she didn't do if she was feigning is "break" open Meredith's door walk in to see who was under the duvet and whether that "someone" was alive. Having now "innocently" contaminated the crime scene she phones the police and feigns panic. That would be just too simple, too logical and too foolproof.

 

[davefoc]

Obviously not.
In many common law courts such information would be even deemed prejudicial and not admitted at the trial.

But it's important to point out that in fact there is no evidence Guede committed any burglary.
He has no precendent for burglary. Even the theft inside the Perugian lawfirma - the only known episore actually - cannot be ascribed to Guede beyond reasonable doubt.

As for the school where he was caught in Milan, he did not break any window or door, and did not steal anything. He didn't even attempt to flee and waited for police. He was only charged with unauthorized entry in a private estate, a very petty offence that doesn't have imprisonment penalty.



Obviously not.
First, because there was a fight between Meredith and the murderers, and DNA can be left in the context of such confrontation, without any link to a burglary (that is DNA on purse is equally explainable in both scenarios).
Second, it should not evidence from an innocentisti point of view; I mean it cannot be evidence if one assumes that Sollecito's DNA on the clasp is not evidence because of alleged contamination. Guede's DNA on the purse was found 46 days later in the same context of bra clasp, among same mess and rummaging, dirty floor etc. Those who rule out bra clasp DNA because of this also have to rule out Guede's DNA.



Obviously not. Because someone else had interest to remove the phones.
(also, it's not usual for a burglar to throw away stolen items after 3 minutes).
How can you link it to Guede? You can't. No evidence.



No. There is no evidence of any money inside Meredith's purse. Btw her wallet was there and there was no Guede's DNA on it. Nor inside her purse. There is some circumstantial evidence that money was taken, but no evidence it was inside Meredith's purse. Also Meredith's cell phones are not assumed to be in her purse: she used to keep at least one of them in the pocket of her jeans.
There is no evidence that someone committed burglary. Only that someone committed a theft. But that could equally fit the other scenario, where - as suggested by Guede on his skype call - Meredith and Knox started an argument over rent money and drugs.



It means: absolutely zero evidence Guede committed a burglary, and also zero evidence that a burglary had been committed overall.



This is quite unacceptable "profiling". When I hear those things I usually respond by providing some accurate "profile" of Knox's charachter. One could question, for example, tha cash flow from Amanda Knox's banck account. Or talke about her phone contacts with drug dealers. There are not many good explanations for withdrawing such an amount of cash on the part of a student with the lyfestyle of Amanda Knox living in Perugia. One wonders why she needed so much cash money every month.



This is unacceptable and quite delusional. I have no "guesses" of that kind, and actually I also have a big question about the fact that that is actually semen (I suspect it may be vaseline).
What I have learned from my research is that in order to test semen stains on fabric they cannot use a swab; they they need to cut an area of the fabric and immerse it into a special a solvent, which separates the biological part from the fabric. Then, the liquid sample undergoes a series of tests, which may include specific enzyme tests for semen, and then is processed for DNA extraction.
I don't assume anyone like prosecution or Stefanoni did anything illegal, there is no evidence of that. And if they tested the pillowcase stains secretly, the pillowcase would be poked with several holes.

Wow, are there two Machiavelli's, one that can wax eloquent over the idiosyncrasies of the English language and a second one that is unaware of the difference between evidence and proof?

The notion that there is zero evidence that Guede stole after he murdered Kercher is one of the silliest things said in this thread. I suppose if you meant to say that there isn't proof that Guede stole on after he murdered Kercher there is something to your argument. But if the litany of facts that suggest that Guede stole after he murdered Kercher isn't evidence then what is short of absolute proof?

I'm not going to respond to most of your individual points. On occasion, I admire the skill of your lawyerly presentation of evidence to put the best case forward for what you believe. But there is a line where a lawyerly presentation consists of such obvious misrepresentations and failures to confront contrary information that the lawyerly presentation is ineffective and even counterproductive. I think you crossed way over the line with most of your post above. Do you think people participating in this thread are unaware of the underlying facts that you are attempting to obscure?

If you are indeed sincere one thing you might consider with regard to your claim that there is zero proof that Guede committed burglary is the way you asymmetrically place the evidence bar. There is evidence up the kazoo that Guede stole items after he murdered Kercher, but you want to ignore it all, because it isn't proof. But somehow you find it perfectly fine to believe completely all the bizarrely not credible witnesses even when their stories are in conflict so they can't all be true and all the questionable and discredited forensic evidence when it suits your need to believe that AK/RS are guilty.

As to your nonsense about the semen stain: It just doesn't matter what rationalizations and half baked theories you come up with as to why test results weren't released for it. The simple fact is that no test results for it have been made public. You can guess that it might be Vaseline or Champagne. Is it even remotely possible to you in your considerations about this issue that if Mignini truly believed Sollecito was guilty he would not have had the item tested? What kind of lunacy would that have been for Mignini not to have the stain tested? He could have saved Italy millions of dollars in trial costs if he had a single piece of compelling evidence like the semen stain. Instead he spends tens of thousands of dollars on a BS animation that is evidence of nothing except his willingness to waste public money while he allows evidence that could prove Sollecito guilty without any controversy to go untested? And this is the guy you've chosen to believe? Wow.

 

[Mr Fied]

But what happens if they stay away in Gubbio the whole day (after having spent the night awake) they come back at night, and there is still nobody home and nobody has discovered the body?

And what happens if they need to wait for the opening of the shops - like Quintavalle's shop - because they need to buy a new mop or a new cleaning rag?

The shop where no one could remember them being at when questioned after the murder?

Actually, we know they cleaned up the house, precisely because of the blood drops, which indicate that some parts had been cleaned.

ACTUALLY, we don't know they cleaned the house because..... now here comes the wacky part..... THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THEM CLEANING THE HOUSE.

The bathmat was completely soaked with water: this means they tried to wash it. But what happens if they dispose of it? It's dangerous, because it would appear it's missing and at that point a cleaning would become obvious.

No, it means it was wet from after the shower.

And what happens if Sollecito's disposes of the kitchen knife: it does not belong to him, it's listed in the kitchen inventory. They would need to replace it, or in alternative clean it the best they can.

And what happens if someone noticed Amanda Knox walking out through the town in the morning carrying a mop and a bucket. Her story must be set in a way that could explain it.

Or what happens if someone notices that the bathroom and the shower were used recently: going to Gubbio hardly explains that.

The life of a stager is a hard life.

And what happens when the mop that has been forensically stored in wrapping paper is tested for blood, as you recently told me?

And what happens when the only evidence against Raff, the shoe print rings in blood, is proved to be not from him?

Who decided that 46 days later would be a good time to go back and the bra clasp?

The life of a stager is a hard life.

 

[LondonJohn]

Look: it's impossible to conduct a debate with someone who has a fixed and inviolable faith-based position. It's like trying to debate with a fervent christian who might say something like "Jesus turned water into wine, and there were loads of witnesses who attested to this, so clearly a miracle took place, and this is very strong evidence of Jesus' divinity".

The facts of the matter are these:

1) ALL the known evidence (and lack of evidence) is entirely consistent with a single attacker (Guede) breaking in through Romanelli's window, then subsequently attacking, stabbing and sexually assaulting Kercher, then doing a cursory clean-up of himself and the crime scene before exiting the cottage.

2) ALL the evidence that the prosecution (and a number of previous courts) presented as convincing evidence of the guilt of Knox/Sollecito is fundamentally unreliable and/or entirely bogus.

3) There is, in fact, NO credible, reliable evidence pointing to the involvement of either Knox or Sollecito in this crime.

4) And putting all of the above together, it's manifestly obvious that no sane court should ever have found Knox or Sollecito guilty. Fortunately for them (and for justice), the Italian Supreme Court has ultimately come to its senses and come to the same (entirely correct and just) decision.

5) The ONLY people left arguing that Knox and/or Sollecito were involved are either those with a practical vested interest in their guilt, or those who have made a substantial emotional investment in pronouncing their guilt.

6) I would suggest that such people are, at this point, simply not worth engaging - since they by definition are now doing no more than stubbornly sticking to their position no-matter-what, for one of a number of reasons. Just as with 9/11, where there is a small, zealous cohort of people who still adamantly proclaim that there's plenty of evidence that it was a US Government conspiracy, that the WTC towers were brought down with Thermite, etc, there is a small cohort of people who still adamantly proclaim that all the evidence is there to prove the guilt of Knox/Sollecito. In my opinion, such people will never change their minds. I would suspect that even if (say) Guede were to come clean and say what really happened (but he IMO will never do that, unfortunately), such people would "argue" that Guede was either paid off or threatened.


Fortunately, enlightened objective people know the logical way to assess this case. And the only logical conclusion to draw is that a) there's zero credible, reliable evidence of the involvement of Knox/Sollecito, b) all the credible, reliable evidence points to Guede acting alone (and nothing contradicts this scenario), c) Knox and Sollecito should therefore never have been found judicially guilty of the murder, and d) Knox and Sollecito are almost certainly factually innocent as well as judicially innocent.

End of.

 

[Matthew Best]

6) I would suggest that such people are, at this point, simply not worth engaging - since they by definition are now doing no more than stubbornly sticking to their position no-matter-what, for one of a number of reasons. Just as with 9/11, where there is a small, zealous cohort of people who still adamantly proclaim that there's plenty of evidence that it was a US Government conspiracy, that the WTC towers were brought down with Thermite, etc, there is a small cohort of people who still adamantly proclaim that all the evidence is there to prove the guilt of Knox/Sollecito. In my opinion, such people will never change their minds. I would suspect that even if (say) Guede were to come clean and say what really happened (but he IMO will never do that, unfortunately), such people would "argue" that Guede was either paid off or threatened.End of.

This reminds me of a joke I once heard about a JFK conspiracy theorist. He spent his entire life arguing that JFK was murdered in a conspiracy and that the truth was ruthlessly covered up by elements of the US government. Finally, he died and at the Pearly Gates was greeted by God, who said "Before you enter the Kingdom Of Heaven, you can ask me a question about absolutely anything you like, and I will tell you the truth".

So the conspiracy theorist asks: "Who really murdered JFK?".

God answers: "It was Lee Harvey Oswald and he did it all by himself".

To which the conspiracy theorist responds: "Looks like this thing goes higher than I thought."

 

[Kauffer]

Dan O has never defeated anyone. Quite the stunning contrary. He was just unable to put together a sequence that included stepping on the pillow and putting the pillow under the body, washing his own clothes and walking out without dripping bloody water along his way.
Failed to explain why he left bloody shoeprints after he had already washed himself (how does that make sense), or to explain how he could leave a trail of bloody shoeprints linked to the pillow prints just after leaving the shoeprints on the pillow, but manageing to take a shower on his trousers between the two actions.
Everything is inconsistent.
This includes the failure to explain why the trail of his print doesn't turn towards the door to lock it, while evidence shows it walks out without coming back. And why there is a 2,7 meters gap between two prints.
Dan O. coult not explain this kind of things through a reasonable sequence, because it's impossible.

On the other hand, your argument is defeated by the fact that the same could be said of Guede's clothes of or his own apartment. Ask yourself: was any blood trace found on Guede's clothes? Was any blood trace found in his apartment?
The answer is no. Bear in mind that Knox and Sollecito had a time of many hours after the murder. In fact Knox took care of delaying the discovery of the body as long as possible for this reason, to take time. You didn't find any blood traces on Guede's clothes, not even his shoes, and no blood trace in his home. It appears less than few hours were enough for him to get rid of such evidence, given that he even managed to go to the disco that night, looking clean.
So what are the clothes or the traces you were looking for? Actually inside the cottage there are a lot traces from Knox's and Sollecito's bodies that can be linked to blood, luminol prints bathmat etc., there is nothing alike in Guede's apartment. There are visible luminol stains from bare feet in Knox's room, there are luminol stains that yield Knox+Meredith DNA in the staging room. And yet you ask for "clothes": why? And by the way, considering that there are tracks from bare feet, is there evidence they were even wearing clothes, both of them? Maybe they were naked, or almost naked. We don't even know.

Um...not why but how! He went back into the room after his visit to the bathroom.

What you have been distinctly unable to do, is to give an account of the murder as it happened, paying due consideration to the evidence left behind and taken away, which demonstrates the involvement of anyone other than Guede. We have evidence in the room of only one perpetrator. There is nobody else. You seem to want to find gaps in the evidence supporting the involvement of Guede, yet ignore the absence of real evidence against anyone else.

 

[Strozzi]

. . .

And what happens if someone noticed Amanda Knox walking out through the town in the morning carrying a mop and a bucket. Her story must be set in a way that could explain it.
. . .

Mignini and Machiavelli want people to believe that A & R are so clever that they stage a break-in and clean up all DNA traces of themselves while leaving Rudi's DNA, shoe prints, etc, (and then wipe away all swirl evidence of their cleanup), yet in the morning Amanda walks through the town past residences and shops carrying a mop and bucket for everyone to see. Fantasy world!

 

[Desert Fox]

Well I'd have gone to Gubbio in the morning as planned. I would have waited for a message and if none came I'd have gone back to Perugia and stayed with Raf.

An alternative is that I would have gone to Gubbio 45 minutes away and hung out for a few hours and if no one had messaged I would have driven to the cottage and "discovered Meredith as the door would only have been closed and not locked. I would have run into the room and tried to save her explaining blood on my clothes and any DNA of mine in the room near her or even on her.

The bathmat would have been left in the shower soaking. The knife would have either been soaked in a bleach/soap/water solution for the day with other dishes or tossed into a lake after buying a substitute knife, as it was a very common knife. When I bought it I would have bought pots and pans etc. and burned the receipt.

I certainly wouldn't have left blood droplets in the bathroom and the bloody bathmat as is especially if I'd stepped on it if I was going to call Filomena and the police. If I didn't go to Gubbio I'd have waited hours more before returning as the longer it took the bigger the TOD time span would have been.

The last thought I would have had is that I needed to stage a burglary.

I have a feeling that whomever discovered the body would be the immediate suspect. The Perugia police seem to have a very simple view towards crime.

One thought I have is that it is argued that Amanda was able to get all of teh blood off herself and her clothes. At the same time, there is the argument that she smelled and had not taken a shower. These seem to strongly conflict with each other.