Who killed Meredith Kercher? part 23

[LondonJohn]

The nutjobs at TJMK claim that Amanda had a pathological hatred of Meredith. If this was the case, why was Amanda hanging around with Meredith as can be seen in the video.

And it's also well worth remembering that if Kercher really was annoyed/upset with Knox for taking that video (which clearly she wasn't, from any objective, rational viewing of the video), she still went with her to the classical recital the following week (the one at which Knox met Sollecito).

Aaaaaaand..... cue more bat guano from the pro-guilt crew with a biassed and utterly unsubstantiated "interpretation" of Kercher leaving that recital at the interval, coupled with a moralistic condemnation of Knox for "jumping into bed" with Sollecito on that first night that they met.

Continued from part 22. The cut-off point was arbitrary and you may freely quote from previous threads here. Thank you.

Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Welshman]

I can't answer your question, but I can say that it was very interesting reading a PGP's view of that video taken by Amanda of Meredith. This poster said that Meredith was obviously upset that Amanda was sticking her phone in her face and told her to stop filming her but Amanda, being a jerk, just ignored her. Amazing. I saw something completely different.

If as the loonies on TJMK claim Meredith was genuinely unhappy at being filmed and Amanda was behaving in a rude and obnoxious manner towards Meredith, would the prosecution not have used the film?

 

[acbytesla]

I know what you mean, some people are just so gullible.

I mean, who would believe stuff like:
Amanda showered in a blood soaked bathroom
Amanda was caught outside the cottage with a mop and bucket
Police found bleach receipts
Amanda bombarded Meredith with texts on Halloween
Amanda had sex on a train
Amanda was caught on CCTV going to the cottage
Amanda bought "sexy" underwear and boasted about having hot sex

Some people just believe anything they read.

Some people voted for Hitler and will vote for Trump. Some people are gullible. Some people are stupid.

 

[LondonJohn]

Some hilarious rationalisation going on over at Nutter Central, where they are now trying to reconcile Pisa's statement that Mignini "briefed me daily" with their faith-held belief that Mignini was a whiter-than-white public official who would NEVER have been talking to journalists in such a way!

To any rational, sane observer, it's perfectly obvious that Mignini was regularly briefing various tame and credulous journalists - most notably Pisa, Vogt and Nadeau. Perhaps God and the ballerina botherer ought to email Pisa directly and ask him just how often Mignini invited him into his office for a "cosy chat" or came up as the incoming call on his mobile phone.

 

[Bill Williams]

Some hilarious rationalisation going on over at Nutter Central, where they are now trying to reconcile Pisa's statement that Mignini "briefed me daily" with their faith-held belief that Mignini was a whiter-than-white public official who would NEVER have been talking to journalists in such a way!

To any rational, sane observer, it's perfectly obvious that Mignini was regularly briefing various tame and credulous journalists - most notably Pisa, Vogt and Nadeau. Perhaps God and the ballerina botherer ought to email Pisa directly and ask him just how often Mignini invited him into his office for a "cosy chat" or came up as the incoming call on his mobile phone.

And thus the nutters' Achilles Heel. The admissions were from Pisa's own lips. Anyone interested in pursuing it will obviously run into the PMF's of the world, and choose for themselves.

These last few weeks have restored faith in people's abilities to discern. (Then again, it has swelled greatly the Gogerty-Marriott payroll! No wonder Marriott never released his taxes - he's preparing for a 2020 presidential run!)

 

[zooterkin]

Some posts on the topic of Donald Trump have been moved to AAH.

There are whole sub-forums devoted to American politics in general and the presidential election in particular, please use those for discussing such topics. Why not explore the other sub-forums, while you're at it?

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[LondonJohn]

Oooh the title of the thread has changed!

Fortunately it has an easy and obvious answer: Rudy Guede.

 

[bagels]

Oooh the title of the thread has changed!

Fortunately it has an easy and obvious answer: Rudy Guede.

Who dat? Is he on this cover of People magazine:

https://subscription-assets.timeinc.com/article-covers/2424_2015_02_27_205_thumb.jpg

Edited by Agatha: 

Edited to comply with rule 5. Please do not hotlink unless the originating site explicitly permits it.

 

[Vixen]

Oooh the title of the thread has changed!

Fortunately it has an easy and obvious answer: Rudy Guede.

How do you work that out, as the courts found all three of them were at the crime scene and the trial and first appeal judges found all three guilty as charged, naming Rudy as the accessory to the crime and Amanda the inflicter of the mortal wound.

 

[MikeG]

How do you work that out, as the courts found all three of them were at the crime scene and the trial and first appeal judges found all three guilty as charged, naming Rudy as the accessory to the crime and Amanda the inflicter of the mortal wound.

What's that got to do with anything?

 

[Vixen]

It is heartening to see the title of the thread changed to 'Who KIlled Meeredith Kercher', who is the real victim here.

Moving forward, can we focus on the latest PR effort to rehabilitate Amanda and Raff in the public eye. One has to ask, what is the purpose of putting out such a skewed and biased film on Netflix, 'Amanda Knox' [2016], which has the effect of looking through a telescope through the wrong end and seeing only a small speck of the scene in front of us.

I put forward the proposition that the film's message, 'the kids are innocent and exonerated' in fact simply serves to underline the opposite conclusion. Why? Because in carefully selecting what the viewer sees and is presented with, what is highlighted in flashing lights is what has been left out.

By examining what has been omitted from the film, or modified, we see the spotlight moved from 'innocence' which becomes a mere silhouette against the blinding glare of of what is in plain sight.

To start the ball rolling, here's the Netflix film's Lie #1:

Lie: claims after ‘police broke down door’ (lie) the kids were told Meredith had had her throat slit and there was blood everywhere, whereupon the camera cuts to Amanda appearing to be comforted by Raffaele rubbing her arm (Message to viewer: she has just been told the awful news.)

Truth is, she and Raffaele did not see the murder room, she was not told by the police these details, she herself brought it up at the Questura. The pair claimed Luca told them in the car (*after* the kissing scene), Luca said he only knew ‘because Battistelli made a cut throat motion with his hand’. – It hardly explains Amanda’s prior knowledge of the crime scene.


Bear in mind, in that kissing scene, Amanda was known to have earlier been carting a mop back and forth, visited a store to browse bleach and the pair had been listening to grunge rock at 5:30 am. None of this is mentioned.

Compare and contrast with the film's message: 'So what if the pair were canoodling in front of the cottage? Raff was merely comforting her after the sad news of her roommate's demise, 'with blood everywhere and her throat slashed'.

 

[bagels]

How do you work that out, as the courts found all three of them were at the crime scene and the trial and first appeal judges found all three guilty as charged, naming Rudy as the accessory to the crime and Amanda the inflicter of the mortal wound.

Well the only person convicted for Meredith's murder is Rudy Guede.

If that isn't enough you can look at the considerable evidence against him: his DNA inside her vagina, taken from her stabbed naked body. His 16 bloody footprints around the body and throughout the cottage. His bloody handprint right next to the body. The break-in at the cottage that night was done by smashing an upper window with a large rock and climbing up metal bars to get to it - closely matching another nearby break-in he was tied by strong criminal evidence to also featuring a rock smashed upper story window above climbable metal bars.

It's perhaps one of the most straight forward murder cases in history. Hardly necessary to get Columbo on the case. We just need to make 23 threads worth of posts about it, because the world thought it had its first bubbly blue eyed college coed sex killer. Reality failed to deliver. Maybe next time.

 

[Vixen]

What's that got to do with anything?

The trial and second instance courts (Massei and Nencini - [but not Hellmann]) predicate the findings of the Supreme Court, that (a) the pair were at the murder scene, (b) Amanda did wash off Mez' blood, (c) the pair told umpteen lies and their behaviour remains 'strongly suspicious' , and (d) Amanda was covering up for Rudy when she named Patrik.

The Fifth Chambers had to dream up some fantastical scenario which had never been properly pleaded, nor cross-examined, of (a) fatal flaws in the investigation and (b) media pressure (enter the hapless Nick Pisa of the DAILY HORROR MAIL) to effect the acquittal of the pair and remains IMV outside of their remit (for LoJo: ultra vires).

So, in answer to your question, it has everything to do with it. The trial is all.

 

[Vixen]

Well the only person convicted for Meredith's murder is Rudy Guede.

If that isn't enough you can look at the considerable evidence against him: his DNA inside her vagina, taken from her stabbed naked body. His 16 bloody footprints around the body and throughout the cottage. His bloody handprint right next to the body. The break-in at the cottage that night was done by smashing an upper window with a large rock and climbing up metal bars to get to it - closely matching another nearby break-in he was tied by strong criminal evidence to also featuring a rock smashed upper story window above climbable metal bars.

It's perhaps one of the most straight forward murder cases in history. Hardly necessary to get Columbo on the case. We just need to make 23 threads worth of posts about it, because the world thought it had its first bubbly blue eyed college coed sex killer. Reality failed to deliver. Maybe next time.

Problem is, this scenario fits in with Rudy's alibi, that he was at the scene administering first aid, and sure enough, there are blood soaked towels at the scene, just as he said there was. You omitted to mention the three strands of blonde hairs directly relating to the scene, (1) in Mez' vagina, (2) gripped in her hand and (3) across the bag/purse, which had been posed on the bed after the murder and removal of the duvet.

You omit the ladies size 37 footprint and the bra-clasp with a near full profile of Raff's DNA on it. Not to mention all the luminol highlighted footprints compatable with the pair, and the FIVE mixed DNA profiles of Mez and Amanda.

Rudy has NO convictions for burglary no matter how much you wish it to be so.

Strange how you always overlook any evidence pointing to the kids.

 

[bagels]

Problem is, this scenario fits in with Rudy's alibi, that he was at the scene administering first aid, and sure enough, there are blood soaked towels at the scene, just as he said there was. You omitted to mention the three strands of blonde hairs directly relating to the scene, (1) in Mez' vagina, (2) gripped in her hand and (3) across the bag/purse, which had been posed on the bed after the murder and removal of the duvet.

You omit the ladies size 37 footprint and the bra-clasp with a near full profile of Raff's DNA on it. Not to mention all the luminol highlighted footprints compatable with the pair, and the FIVE mixed DNA profiles of Mez and Amanda.

Rudy has NO convictions for burglary no matter how much you wish it to be so.

Strange how you always overlook any evidence pointing to the kids.

Poor poor Rudy.

Anyway you can argue the same dumb stuff for eternity I guess. This case was officially closed by the courts over a year ago, when the ECHR is done it will be even more closed.

I've satisfied my curiosity about what drove people to obsess over Amanda Knox being guilty. Mostly low-info people who couldn't believe it possible for someone to walk into a police station, and walk out signing an incriminating statement without thumbscrews being involved. Or can tell she's evil by her eyes. Then a small handful of nutters who know every detail of the case but are drowning in self delusion to the point where they see a clear unmistakable Nike Outbreak shoepint belonging to Rudy Guede as a size 37 ladies shoeprint (*cough*).

This case is settling into its resting place in history. Maybe the next continuation might make more sense in CT alongside the who shot JFK thread.

You guys should focus your efforts on getting Rudy to talk, he saw everything so I'm sure that will prove very useful and will blow this case wide open. Any day now I'm sure he'll tell a story that doesn't sound like a killer trying (badly) to cover for himself. Best of luck.

 

[LondonJohn]

It is heartening to see the title of the thread changed to 'Who KIlled Meeredith Kercher', who is the real victim here.

Moving forward, can we focus on the latest PR effort to rehabilitate Amanda and Raff in the public eye. One has to ask, what is the purpose of putting out such a skewed and biased film on Netflix, 'Amanda Knox' [2016], which has the effect of looking through a telescope through the wrong end and seeing only a small speck of the scene in front of us.

I put forward the proposition that the film's message, 'the kids are innocent and exonerated' in fact simply serves to underline the opposite conclusion. Why? Because in carefully selecting what the viewer sees and is presented with, what is highlighted in flashing lights is what has been left out.

By examining what has been omitted from the film, or modified, we see the spotlight moved from 'innocence' which becomes a mere silhouette against the blinding glare of of what is in plain sight.

To start the ball rolling, here's the Netflix film's Lie #1:

Lie: claims after ‘police broke down door’ (lie) the kids were told Meredith had had her throat slit and there was blood everywhere, whereupon the camera cuts to Amanda appearing to be comforted by Raffaele rubbing her arm (Message to viewer: she has just been told the awful news.)

Truth is, she and Raffaele did not see the murder room, she was not told by the police these details, she herself brought it up at the Questura. The pair claimed Luca told them in the car (*after* the kissing scene), Luca said he only knew ‘because Battistelli made a cut throat motion with his hand’. – It hardly explains Amanda’s prior knowledge of the crime scene.


Bear in mind, in that kissing scene, Amanda was known to have earlier been carting a mop back and forth, visited a store to browse bleach and the pair had been listening to grunge rock at 5:30 am. None of this is mentioned.

Compare and contrast with the film's message: 'So what if the pair were canoodling in front of the cottage? Raff was merely comforting her after the sad news of her roommate's demise, 'with blood everywhere and her throat slashed'.

You have no idea whatsoever of "the truth".

What evidence do you have, for example, that neither Knox nor Sollecito were informed - either from being told directly by a police officer, or from overhearing conversation among police officers, or from being told by somebody else who themselves had discovered the information from the police - that Kercher had had her throat cut.

What's that? You've got zero evidence of this? And it's just your sloppy prejudices that are driving you to the "truth" that neither Knox nor Sollecito could have known that Kercher had had her throat cut at the point when Knox first mentioned it at the police HQ. And why have you come to this sloppy prejudicial mis-conclusion? Well, it's obvious of course: it's because you want (need?) to believe that Knox only had knowledge of Kercher's throat having been cut because Knox was a participant in the murder itself and saw it first hand.

A textbook example of a sorry absence of critical thinking.

 

[LondonJohn]

Problem is, this scenario fits in with Rudy's alibi, that he was at the scene administering first aid, and sure enough, there are blood soaked towels at the scene, just as he said there was. You omitted to mention the three strands of blonde hairs directly relating to the scene, (1) in Mez' vagina, (2) gripped in her hand and (3) across the bag/purse, which had been posed on the bed after the murder and removal of the duvet.

You omit the ladies size 37 footprint and the bra-clasp with a near full profile of Raff's DNA on it. Not to mention all the luminol highlighted footprints compatable with the pair, and the FIVE mixed DNA profiles of Mez and Amanda.

Rudy has NO convictions for burglary no matter how much you wish it to be so.

Strange how you always overlook any evidence pointing to the kids.

Now there are THREE strands of "blonde hair"!!!!!!!!

Where are these "hairs" now, Vixen? Are they blonde? Whose "hairs" are they? What did the careful forensic analysis of these "three hairs" show? Are they human hairs, Vixen? Is there evidence that they are human hairs, Vixen? Is there evidence of the origin of these "hairs", Vixen?

You have nothing. Other than your prejudices, coupled with an agenda and extraordinarily poor reasoning.

I think I'll make up something not in evidence from the crime scene myself! Hey Vixen: did you know there was a piece of paper lying on top of Kercher's body, written and signed by Guede, which said (English translation) "I, Rudy Guede, murdered Meredith Kercher all by myself. I am not sorry"? It was there! I saw it once in one of the photos. I guess those photos must have got lost or something. It wasn't entered in evidence in any court. But it was definitely there. Which gives me the right to assume it as fact

 

[Welshman]

It is heartening to see the title of the thread changed to 'Who KIlled Meeredith Kercher', who is the real victim here.

Moving forward, can we focus on the latest PR effort to rehabilitate Amanda and Raff in the public eye. One has to ask, what is the purpose of putting out such a skewed and biased film on Netflix, 'Amanda Knox' [2016], which has the effect of looking through a telescope through the wrong end and seeing only a small speck of the scene in front of us.

I put forward the proposition that the film's message, 'the kids are innocent and exonerated' in fact simply serves to underline the opposite conclusion. Why? Because in carefully selecting what the viewer sees and is presented with, what is highlighted in flashing lights is what has been left out.

By examining what has been omitted from the film, or modified, we see the spotlight moved from 'innocence' which becomes a mere silhouette against the blinding glare of of what is in plain sight.

To start the ball rolling, here's the Netflix film's Lie #1:

Lie: claims after ‘police broke down door’ (lie) the kids were told Meredith had had her throat slit and there was blood everywhere, whereupon the camera cuts to Amanda appearing to be comforted by Raffaele rubbing her arm (Message to viewer: she has just been told the awful news.)

Truth is, she and Raffaele did not see the murder room, she was not told by the police these details, she herself brought it up at the Questura. The pair claimed Luca told them in the car (*after* the kissing scene), Luca said he only knew ‘because Battistelli made a cut throat motion with his hand’. – It hardly explains Amanda’s prior knowledge of the crime scene.


Bear in mind, in that kissing scene, Amanda was known to have earlier been carting a mop back and forth, visited a store to browse bleach and the pair had been listening to grunge rock at 5:30 am. None of this is mentioned.

Compare and contrast with the film's message: 'So what if the pair were canoodling in front of the cottage? Raff was merely comforting her after the sad news of her roommate's demise, 'with blood everywhere and her throat slashed'.

Vixen accuses the film of lying but if the film was biased against Amanda Vixen would not complain if the film contained lies. Vixen does not have a problem with lying but only how lies are used. Lying is only wrong according to Vixen when used to defend Amanda but lying is perfectly fine when used to attack Amanda. Vixen is not honest enough to admit this.

 

[Welshman]

Now there are THREE strands of "blonde hair"!!!!!!!!

Where are these "hairs" now, Vixen? Are they blonde? Whose "hairs" are they? What did the careful forensic analysis of these "three hairs" show? Are they human hairs, Vixen? Is there evidence that they are human hairs, Vixen? Is there evidence of the origin of these "hairs", Vixen?

You have nothing. Other than your prejudices, coupled with an agenda and extraordinarily poor reasoning.

I think I'll make up something not in evidence from the crime scene myself! Hey Vixen: did you know there was a piece of paper lying on top of Kercher's body, written and signed by Guede, which said (English translation) "I, Rudy Guede, murdered Meredith Kercher all by myself. I am not sorry"? It was there! I saw it once in one of the photos. I guess those photos must have got lost or something. It wasn't entered in evidence in any court. But it was definitely there. Which gives me the right to assume it as fact

There is no record of the prosecution presenting the hairs Vixen mentions as evidence. If Amanda's hair had been found in the room the prosecution would have used it. Vixen boasts about all the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele and how strong the case was. If this was true, why does Vixen have to resort to making claims about evidence which the prosecution never made. If the case against Amanda and Raffaele was such a slam dunk, why is it that Vixen can't argue her case on actual evidence presented by the prosecution?

 

[MikeG]

......So, in answer to your question, it has everything to do with it. The trial is all.

Oh, I see. You want to pick and choose which bits of the judicial process to take notice of, and which bits to ignore. OK then. That's made your position perfectly clear.