Wait, what? Surely they can go before or after rather than piss and ◊◊◊◊ their pants at the crime site?
I see weirdness from one poster is still on the "high strength" setting. Who said Guede was a pro? He seems pretty inept to me. As for the door & "finding a key", Guede had no way of knowing the front door would not STAY shut unless locked with a key. That's why Knox found it standing open the next a.m. Guede may well have had a swag bag when he shimmered up the wall
. He could have stuffed it in his jacket or down his pants for all we know. Or maybe he was going for small swag. Like money. Or jewelry. In any event, this remark about using the loo is one of the more extraordinary I've seen on this thread. Which is saying plenty. I'm not aware of the trend of burglars ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ on the floor...doesn't poo have a lot of DNA, e.g.? In any event, somebody here has burglars confused with line workers at your average chicken slaughterhouse.Whoa... I guess that just flew right over your head.
Bullcrap. Amanda AND fellow roommates played a PRANK, and only ONE prank, so not pluralized. She did not break in, she didn't steal anything. It WAS a prank. Just ask the other friends who were involved. Good lord, Vixen, are you really this desperate?
Taramontano is a sideshow diversion. All he said was that some black guy broke into his apartment. He didn't bother to report it at the time, claims the queue at the questura was too long. It doesn't follow, even if true, the guy was Guede. Police can't just prosecute on someone's whim. They need probable cause. Even if it was Guede, it doesn't prove anything else, unless it's some kind of subliminal persuasion technique. It is hardly relevant to the Kercher crime, in any case. There is a massive difference between the crime of burglary and rape and sadistic murder. The proprietor of the nursery in Milan testified in court it was not breaking and entry as there was a faulty lock and a member of staff there had told Guede he could crash there for the night after a party, which is what he did. Simply saying over and over again Guede was a prolific burglar doesn't actually prove anything. The courts determined he was let in through the front door and that the burglary was staged. You need to have a real burglary and a stranger rape/murder but that is not what was proven in court.
AIUI burglars during a crime are in a heightened sense of fear of being caught. It is well-known burglars defaecate on people's carpets, either out of anti-social attitudes or their need to not waste time by seeking a toilet. The involuntary hormone-induced fight-or-flight syndrome can cause a person to want to 'pap their pants' in a high-anxiety situation.
That's the problem, you don't understand it, correctly anyway. "Well-known"? Got a link?
Tramontano AND HIS GIRLFRIEND witnessed Guede, and he immediately recognized him when he entered the bar Tramontano was working. He's not a sideshow, he's a credible witness whose sole error in all of this was losing patience as he waited hours trying to report the crime.
It's not me saying it over and over again, it's del Prato, it's Tramontano, it's him having property stolen from the law office that tell us he was actively committing B&E's.
She just pulled it from AI google, but skipped the part that it is not common.
I don't believe it was "all argued in court." I believe the court short-circuited any additional argument by simply accepting the erroneous contention of the prosecution's "expert" that the width of the big toe matches Raffaele's rather than Guede's because of the aforementioned measurement error.
Actually, I was referring to the key to Mez' door. That was a major red flag to me. Re the front door, Napoleoni on arrival at the murder scene, briefly chatted with the house occupants who were there. She said Knox told her when she found the front door swinging open, she assumed someone had gone out to the bins. Napoleoni remarked that the situation of the bins meant Knox would have had to pass anyone at or going towards the bin.I see weirdness from one poster is still on the "high strength" setting. Who said Guede was a pro? He seems pretty inept to me. As for the door & "finding a key", Guede had no way of knowing the front door would not STAY shut unless locked with a key. That's why Knox found it standing open the next a.m. Guede may well have had a swag bag when he shimmered up the wall
Wrong. I did Criminology as part of my second year Psychology degree options. Being Psychology, it was much more focused on behavioural aspects of crime, rather than law, being a science; physiological and biological bases were the core elements of the module.
Dalla Vedova would say that wouldn't he? That's what he was being paid to do. Look, I'll tell you what. I'll play 'devils' advocate' and adopt the position Knox and Sollecito are innocent and Guede is the sole perp. So Guede, being a migrant from Africa at age five, was obviously a drifter and n'er-do-well. So on a bank holiday weekend he decides he's going to burgle the cottage of his acquaintances. Instead of entering the easy way, via the boy's roof terrace downstairs, and who are all away, he decides to clamber thirteen feet up a wall after chucking a 10lb sandstone/limestone rock through Filomena's window, via the car park area. Mez arrives home unexpectedly, or maybe she was already at home, with the light from her room at the back of the house, not visible from the side or front. Guede, being a predatory male, makes advances which Mez rejects. So he overwhelms her by force, inflicting 47 wounds plus four neck wounds whilst she was still alive, whilst holding her arms behind her back. Once deceased, after about fifteen minutes of suffering, he rips off her clothes and moves her body by her hair. He takes her rent money, two phones and credit cards, leaving all the laptops, camera and jewellery behind. He fetches AK's lamp from her room and for some reason places it on the floor by Mez' bed. In a moment of great pity, he fetches towels to staunch the blood and covers the body with a duvet. He finds a key to her door and locks it after himself after finally leaving, having left his footprint on the bathmat.. By coincidence, Knox and Sollecito have both switched off their phones but Sollecito denies it, claiming the walls of his apartment stopped pings from the mast. So they come under suspicion.
Does it take a pathologist to determine that holding a knife to someone's throat might make them comply?
Coming from our resident armchair psychic who repeatedly claims to know what AK, RS, and other "know/knew, think/thought, believe/believed".
I've always been amused by your creative writing style...
Well, let's see. How does one get up on the terrace in the first place? Hmmm... it appears you'd have to climb the security grate on the window below it to get up there, which sounds very much the same effort as climbing the security grate under Filomena's window to get up there. So far, it's no easier. Next, there's breaking the window, or are you suggesting the glass french doors should have been what he broke to get into? For Filomena's window, all he had to do was toss the rock from the parking area parapet. If he broke in from the terrace, he'd have had to carry the rock up with him as there was no easy way to throw the rock from the ground. And, of course, this creates another problem. If someone is home it's easy to just run from the parapet, but if he's up on the terrace, getting away is much harder. In fact, the only thing that would be easier from the terrace would be climbing in through the window, but only slightly, and it certainly does not offset the harder aspects of getting onto the terrace and getting away if someone is home.
I see no evidence that suggests her clothes didn't come off until she was deceased. In fact, I believe the aspirated blood droplets on her bare breasts is proof she was in fact still alive when she was undressed. Further, there is no evidence she was moved after death, nor is there any evidence it was by pulling her hair.
He finally did something smart, as taking those other items would link him to the murder. He apparently realized the same was true with the cell phones, which is why he tossed those, but cash is easily spent without tracing.
I don't think it was pity, nor do I think he was trying to staunch the blood. But whatever the motive, he did fetch the towel and cover her body with the duvet.
This is exactly what I mean when I say you misrepresent and twist what people say. Nowhere in my statement did I refer to Meredith...nor did LondonJohn to whom I was responding. We both were referring to "a woman" in general terms.
And what does that have to do with what either LondonJohn or I wrote?
That is an irony cake with hypocrisy frosting!
We don't have to do either of the above to know that a woman (never mentioning Meredith) might comply with her assailant's demand if they had a knife to their throat.
Again, you are deliberately and completely misrepresenting what I said. And Meredith did indeed have wounds on her hands which might have been defense wounds. As Manuela Comodi said in the Neflix docu:
Note she did NOT say there were NO defensive wounds.
You're assuming Guede was SWIPING at Kercher. There is no evidence of this. In fact, most of the wounds are small nicks or tip stab wounds which a swiping motion would not inflict. The fatal wound certainly wasn't from a swiping motion as it resulted from a sawing motion.
Not if he arrived AFTER Meredith came home. But he didn't. According to his deposition, he arrived around 8:30 not at 9:00 when we know she arrived.
They made that assumption based on their belief the burglary was staged and that Knox let him in. There is no actual evidence of either which is why Hellmann disagreed entirely.
LOL. Really? That's your evidence? The interrogation statement she retracted?