Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Dan O.]

It's lovely how all the evidence seems to fall into place for the prosecution. An officer uses his intuition to pick out the one knife from the whole drawer. And even though the blade test negative for blood they look real real close and find something in a minute scratch. And even when that tests negative for DNA they run it through the machine and find a match. And then to explain the lack of blood they claim that the knife must have been washed with bleach. And to prove that bleach was used, an officer steps forward and claims that he smelled bleach in the apartment several days after the murder, something that he forgot to mention on the original police report.

Why did they only take the one knife (one that didn't even match the outline left at the scene)? Did they know in advance that they were going to "find" the evidence they needed for a conviction? Or, was the plan to keep going back for 1 knife at a time until the lab figured out how to get it right?!

Something smells here and it's not the bleach.

 

[Megalodon]

And somehow Sollecito made up a story to explain the presence of DNA in the knife. Almost like if he knew there was DNA there to be found...

 

[Fiona]

@Moss. Yes, I cited it a long time ago Moss: but halides1 chooses to ignore it

 

[stilicho]

And somehow Sollecito made up a story to explain the presence of DNA in the knife. Almost like if he knew there was DNA there to be found...

And AK mentioned a scream and sexual assault to the police before they had the coroner's results. It's almost as though AK knew that Meredith had been sexually assaulted and stabbed. It just 'fell into place'.

EDIT:

And Raffaele told the 112 operator there was blood everywhere and that nothing had been taken during the 'burglary'. It's as though he expected them to find blood everywhere and a staged burglary scene.

Just "falls into place".

This, along with "injected false memories", have become the mantra on this thread.

 

[Dan O.]

You haven't shown proof that the story was made up. Until you have accounted for every meal that Meredith consumed since meeting Raffaele, you can't claim that one of those meals was not at Raffaele's apartment.


If they really did scrub the knife with bleach why would they still worry about it being tested? The idea of cleaning the knife would be to get rid of every trace of evidence. If that wasn't expected to be 100% successful, a simple cleaning to remove visible signs would suffice.

If they were worried about a murder weapon still containing traces of DNA after being scrubbed down, why didn't they simply dispose of the knife and leave no trace? All they would need to do is wipe off the latest fingerprints and toss it into a ravine. If the knife were subsequently found and tested, nothing would indicate more than that it was a knife from the cottage that Amanda probably used for cooking and might be traceable as the murder weapon given its manor of disposal.


There is no reason at all for the murder weapon to have returned to Raffaele's apartment. So the whole story of the cleanup and bleach must have been fabricated by the police and that leaves Raffaele explaining how blood could have gotten on a knife that never left his apartment. An explanation that is only necessary if the story he tells is true.

 

[stilicho]

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict they'll claim that this is the manner in which Sollecito normally cleaned his knife while refusing to acknowledge that this knife was chosen out of the drawer specifically because it was more shiny than the other knives - i.e. this would have been the only knife he cleaned in that manner.

Not much of a limb to walk out on. The mixed sources and individual evidence of Meredith's blood elsewhere in the cottage (with or without AK's DNA) have already been handwaved away as "expected".

I would certainly hope none of these people plan a career in the law or in law enforcement. Upon seeing a bloody footprint on a bathmat, with the DNA of the victim locked in a room embedded in it, they would merely ignore it if it was suspected that the victim had used that bathroom at any time.

 

[stilicho]

You haven't shown proof that the story was made up. Until you have accounted for every meal that Meredith consumed since meeting Raffaele, you can't claim that one of those meals was not at Raffaele's apartment.

Neither did the defence team. I wonder why.

There is no reason at all for the murder weapon to have returned to Raffaele's apartment. So the whole story of the cleanup and bleach must have been fabricated by the police and that leaves Raffaele explaining how blood could have gotten on a knife that never left his apartment. An explanation that is only necessary if the story he tells is true.

That's odd. Sollecito gave ample explanation on 18 NOV 2007 in his prison diary. Why do you take a stance in opposition to your own client? Are you mad?

 

[Fiona]

Any information about RS's DNA on the knife?

 

[stilicho]

If they were worried about a murder weapon still containing traces of DNA after being scrubbed down, why didn't they simply dispose of the knife and leave no trace? All they would need to do is wipe off the latest fingerprints and toss it into a ravine. If the knife were subsequently found and tested, nothing would indicate more than that it was a knife from the cottage that Amanda probably used for cooking and might be traceable as the murder weapon given its manor of disposal.

Why do you assume that two stupid criminals, who staged a burglary, who called police after they claimed to have done so, who locked the victim in her own room, and who lied in their statements as witnesses, would suddenly become geniuses in covering up their crimes?

I agree with you that the pair were obviously not thinking straight and there's plenty of evidence for that just from their own statements.

 

[Fiona]

Or how about they were not worried about it but rather were confident they had cleaned the knife perfectly. So when Kercher's dna was found on it they were not prepared for that and RS made up a stupid and easily discredited story just like he did with his original alibi?

 

[lector]

If they were worried about a murder weapon still containing traces of DNA after being scrubbed down, why didn't they simply dispose of the knife and leave no trace? All they would need to do is wipe off the latest fingerprints and toss it into a ravine. If the knife were subsequently found and tested, nothing would indicate more than that it was a knife from the cottage that Amanda probably used for cooking and might be traceable as the murder weapon given its manor of disposal.


There is no reason at all for the murder weapon to have returned to Raffaele's apartment. So the whole story of the cleanup and bleach must have been fabricated by the police and that leaves Raffaele explaining how blood could have gotten on a knife that never left his apartment. An explanation that is only necessary if the story he tells is true.

Very early in the case, Frank Sfarzo, on his Perugia Shock blog, speculated that they returned the knife to the drawer because Raffaele didn't want to have to pay the landlord for it at the end of his lease.

While that's obviously a facetious comment, it's the first implication I've seen that RS was renting a furnished apartment, & that the knife's absence would have been noticed by its owner sooner or later. Sfarzo, a Perugia resident, might have been in a good position to know such a detail. I've no idea whether that's true, that RS had a completely furnished apartment, but if it is, it gives RS & AK a reason not to dispose of the knife.

 

[Dan O.]

The prosecution has been making a big deal that Raffaele was a collector of knives and now you say that all those knives came with the apartment.

 

[Dan O.]

Or how about they were not worried about it but rather were confident they had cleaned the knife perfectly. So when Kercher's dna was found on it they were not prepared for that and RS made up a stupid and easily discredited story just like he did with his original alibi?

You are saying Raffaele wrote the story after the DNA was reported but Megalodon was saying that the story was written first. I do wish you would get your stories straight.

Of course, you could both be right if the DNA find was reported before the knife was tested.

 

[stilicho]

You are saying Raffaele wrote the story after the DNA was reported but Megalodon was saying that the story was written first. I do wish you would get your stories straight.

Of course, you could both be right if the DNA find was reported before the knife was tested.

You misread Megalodon's entry.

 

[Dan O.]

How do you interpret the phrase: "Almost like if he knew there was DNA there to be found..."? If Raffaele had already heard that DNA was found on the knife, there would be no "Almost" about his knowledge.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

How do you interpret the phrase: "Almost like if he knew there was DNA there to be found..."? If Raffaele had already heard that DNA was found on the knife, there would be no "Almost" about his knowledge.

He certainly showed he had no reason to suspect contamination?


ETA: So again, I ask: WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO DISAGREE WITH SOLLECITO AND HIS DEFENSE TEAM?

 

[Fiona]

How do you interpret the phrase: "Almost like if he knew there was DNA there to be found..."? If Raffaele had already heard that DNA was found on the knife, there would be no "Almost" about his knowledge.

I interpret it as a parody (or sarcastic comment) on your own position.

 

[Fiona]

The prosecution has been making a big deal that Raffaele was a collector of knives and now you say that all those knives came with the apartment.

 

[Dan O.]

ETA: So again, I ask: WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO DISAGREE WITH SOLLECITO AND HIS DEFENSE TEAM?

I have nothing to do with any of the players in this case despite the numerous attempts by some to paint me with that brush.


The defense has one shot to present their case. They can't run with every possible alternative theory because they will be mutually exclusive and the jury will know that some must be lies and therefore the defendant must be lying.

We are not in a court so we have time to explore the alternative scenarios where facts are not available to exclude them. Only juror like idiots will conflate the details in different scenarios and assume that one must be a lie because they both cannot be true. Nobody here is such an idiot because the forum rules won't permit it.


Now, what was that comment that you were making before all the shouting began?

 

[Dan O.]

have you got something to say or are you just going to sit there with that smirk on your face?