Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[NewtonTrino]

Honestly I'm swinging more towards guilty as I read all of the presented evidence.

However, I really really need someone to come up with a plausible reason that the three of them were working together. Rudy Guede's involvement really adds a big chunk of doubt to whether or not Amanda was involved. Almost all of the other evidence is seams weak, although there seems to be a lot of it.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Honestly I'm swinging more towards guilty as I read all of the presented evidence.

However, I really really need someone to come up with a plausible reason that the three of them were working together. Rudy Guede's involvement really adds a big chunk of doubt to whether or not Amanda was involved. Almost all of the other evidence is seams weak, although there seems to be a lot of it.

Honestly, that's something we may never know. Anything we have to say is pure speculation.

We can say that Guede likely raped Kercher before murdering her (or in the process of). The Judge's report seems to read that Knox and Sollecito helped hold Kercher down while Guede was raping her.

Why did they get to that point? Perhaps, as has been speculated, Knox didn't appreciate Kercher being a goody-two-shoes and wanted to get her back. At some point, the situation got out of control and in the aftermath, we see evidence of her and Sollecito attempting to clean the scene.

 

[Matthew Best]

Unless someone else has already posted it, here is Ms Knox' own testimony (or a lot of it) from JUN 2009:

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=165

Her memory is crystal clear about many details excepting the specifics of her whereabouts during the time the crime was committed. She affirms she was there

I'm afraid I can't see the passage you're referring to. Can you point it out?

At what point does she affirm that she was there?

 

[Matthew Best]

What is clear beyond doubt to me is that Amanda Knox is a psychopath, and a psychopathic liar.

Oh, please. Beyond doubt????

 

[stilicho]

I'm afraid I can't see the passage you're referring to. Can you point it out?

At what point does she affirm that she was there?

These are Ms Knox' words:

AK: Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these details that I couldn't tell them, because in the end, what happened was this: when I said the name of "Patrick", I suddenly started imagining a kind of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn't agree, that maybe could give some kind of explanation of the situation. I saw Patrick's face, then Piazza Grimana, then my house, then something green that they told me might be the sofa. Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted to know everything I had done. But I didn't know how to say. So they started talking to me, saying, "Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?" I don't know, maybe in Piazza Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. "Okay, fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the door?" Well, with my key. "So you opened the house". Okay, yes. "And what did you do then?" I don't know. "But was she already there?" I don't know. "Did she arrive or was she already there?" Okay. "Who was there with you?" I don't know. "Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?" I don't know. It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me: "Excuse me, I don't understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?" No. "But how could you not have heard the scream?". I don't know, maybe my ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don't know, maybe, imagining...

It's not that much different than her admissible note:

1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.

Remember, MB, there's a whole dossier of things Ms Knox wrote between the murder and now. If you go through her JUN 2009 testimony you will see several of them referenced.

She writes (more than she talks) about being at the scene of the crime and this is where the 'dream sequence' stuff kicks in. The 'imagination' comes up in this exchange:

CP: Signorina Amanda, listen. On the evening of November 1, 2007, did you hear Meredith, poor Meredith, scream?

AK: No.

CP: In the interrogation of November 6, 2007, at 5:45, you declared that before she died, you heard Meredith scream. How could you know that Meredith screamed before she was killed? Who told you?

AK: So when I was with the police, they asked if I heard Meredith's scream. I said no. They said "But if you were there, how could you not hear her scream? If you were there?" I said "Look, I don't know, maybe I had my ears covered." So they said "Fine, we'll write that down. Fine."

CP: [louder] But I can tell you that on November 6, the police did not know that Meredith screamed before she died, so why would they suggest it to you?

AK: I imagine that maybe they were imagining how it might have been.

This is a theme in her writing. She knew details about the disposition of the corpse inside a locked door (qv. Butterworth) and about the scream before the police have told her about either thing. That's why the court officers keep bringing them up (especially the scream) and then Ms Knox writes that she must have been there but only in her imagination.

If I haven't satisfied your request, I'd urge you to read all the testimony.

 

[shuttlt]

Honestly, that's something we may never know. Anything we have to say is pure speculation.

We can say that Guede likely raped Kercher before murdering her (or in the process of). The Judge's report seems to read that Knox and Sollecito helped hold Kercher down while Guede was raping her.

Why did they get to that point? Perhaps, as has been speculated, Knox didn't appreciate Kercher being a goody-two-shoes and wanted to get her back. At some point, the situation got out of control and in the aftermath, we see evidence of her and Sollecito attempting to clean the scene.

This sounds plausible enough to me, though clearly it's pure speculation. I don't see any need to suppose that anybody involved went into it intending to have happen what happened. Perhaps it was some stupid drunken prank that seemed super funny but didn't work out how they expected. Once it began to go wrong they felt it was better to carry on than turn back, or with Guede there and the knife/knives Knox and Sollecito didn't feel able to turn back.

There certainly are ways that it could have gone down in which all three were involved and to greater and lesser degrees responsible.

 

[Matthew Best]

If I haven't satisfied your request, I'd urge you to read all the testimony.

I've read most of it, and what I've seen fits in with my speculation just as much as it fits yours.

 

[Matthew Best]

She knew details about the disposition of the corpse inside a locked door (qv. Butterworth) and about the scream before the police have told her about either thing. That's why the court officers keep bringing them up (especially the scream) and then Ms Knox writes that she must have been there but only in her imagination.

What details about the disposition of the corpse did she know? What does Butterworth say?

Do you really think that the notion of somebody screaming while they're being stabbed to death falls under the rubric of "something only the killer could possibly know"? It seems like a reasonable guess on the part of the police that such a scream might have been made.

 

[chillzero]

Blood all over the bathroom... these are young women living there. Women have periods that can make a mess.

I'm sorry, but this has been mentioned in several posts. What on earth do people think women do every month???

 

[shuttlt]

For me the big problem is being found at a crime scene with a mop and bucket. They clearly knew it was at least potentially a crime scene since they had, so they claim, already called the police and tried to kick in Meredith's door. What kind of fool cleans up a crime scene and then phones the police?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

This sounds plausible enough to me, though clearly it's pure speculation. I don't see any need to suppose that anybody involved went into it intending to have happen what happened. Perhaps it was some stupid drunken prank that seemed super funny but didn't work out how they expected. Once it began to go wrong they felt it was better to carry on than turn back, or with Guede there and the knife/knives Knox and Sollecito didn't feel able to turn back.

There certainly are ways that it could have gone down in which all three were involved and to greater and lesser degrees responsible.

At this point, I think we need to determine if Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of murder or being accessories to murder. I seem to recall seeing that they were charged with accessory. Which, really, dovetails nicely with the evidence. They might not have committed the murder itself, but they sure seem to have tried to clean up afterward (Kercher's laundry in the washer/drier 12+ hrs after the murder, apparently staged robbery, bloody footprints, scrubbed knife at Sollectio's apt, etc).

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm sorry, but this has been mentioned in several posts. What on earth do people think women do every month???

I dunno...but none of the women I've ever lived with poured blood all over my bathroom/hallway every month... lol

You'd think, given the ages of the women involved, that they'd have their monthly habits down pretty well and, hopefully, in a sanitary manner...


ETA: And, of course, I haven't seen anywhere that Romanelli's blood/DNA was mixed in with that of Knox and Kercher found in the bathroom.

 

[JihadJane]

and Knox's elaborate scheme to blame an innocent man.



-Mike

Elaborate scheme?

Oh, you know......evidence that she was held in isolation without food or drink or rest; evidence of very protracted questioning; evidence of physical abuse; evidence that she regretted accusing an innocent man in the form of telling someone official she had done it once she was out of hands of her brutal interrogators. Anything like that would do, really.

What kind of physical evidence would you expect to see from two cuffs to the back of the head?

Once one is isolated from society and imprisoned (in “enemy hands” in Solnishko’s words) one is entirely at the mercy of whatever one’s jailers/interrogators can get away with.

I think in this case, on this board, scepticism has sometimes crossed over into the realm of excusing an extreme liar.

Being an extreme liar isn't a criminal offence.

 

[Ryokan]

Being an extreme liar isn't a criminal offence.

It is if you lie about a murder.

 

[JihadJane]

It is if you lie about a murder.

There's a difference being being and doing, which "Mike" overlooks.

 

[Matthew Best]

For me the big problem is being found at a crime scene with a mop and bucket. They clearly knew it was at least potentially a crime scene since they had, so they claim, already called the police and tried to kick in Meredith's door. What kind of fool cleans up a crime scene and then phones the police?

The mop and bucket were already at the flat. What is your evidence that they cleaned up the crime scene?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

What kind of physical evidence would you expect to see from two cuffs to the back of the head?

Once one is isolated from society and imprisoned (in “enemy hands” in Solnishko’s words) one is entirely at the mercy of whatever one’s jailers/interrogators can get away with.

And, yet, she admitted that she wasn't mistreated at a later date. So, which was it?

Again, she's on trial for murder and her Defense team fails to present this?

 

[Matthew Best]

And, yet, she admitted that she wasn't mistreated at a later date.

What were her words when she did this? Can you quote them please?

 

[shuttlt]

The mop and bucket were already at the flat. What is your evidence that they cleaned up the crime scene?

I'm not as up on the primary sources as some here, but the gist of what I am given to understand is this:

On their arrival at the cottage, the agents of the postal police found Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox standing outside the front door with a mop and bucket.

http://www.zimbio.com/Amanda+Knox/articles/58/Understanding+Micheli+2+Judge+Micheli+Rejected

If this is wrong, then I'd certainly appreciate being corrected.

 

[Matthew Best]

I can't say for sure, but Knox's testimony was that she went to the flat after spending the night at Sollecito's to pick up the mop and take it back to his place. She did this, and cleaned up the mess that was there (caused by a broken pipe I believe). Nobody seems to have asked her if she then brought the mop back to the flat afterwards, but I suppose it would be a reasonable thing to do (since that is where it belonged). I am not aware of anyone saying that they had cleaned the crime scene with the mop and bucket and if they had, it would certainly be counter-intuitive to then take the mop and bucket outside while waiting for the police.