Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
RWVBWL said:
Hi Mary H,
After the stabbing, I can also see Guede panicking immediately and quickly running out of the apartment. Or if Guede was there with his still unknown aquaintance, who might have done the stabbing, they both would have probably left, FAST. But Rudy came back hours later, broke the window to see if anyone was there, and then re-entered with the missing keys. That kinda explains why there was no fingerprints/DNA, etc. of Guede in Filomena's room. And after making sure no one was in the apartment, Guede then moved and assaulted Miss Kercher's body.
RWVBWL
Click to expand...

Hi, RWBVWL. I agree that it is likely Rudy (and if he was accompanied, his pal) would have panicked and left fast, and he may have broken the window from outside either before or after the crime. I can't really see him having the presence of mind or the desire to return to the scene of the crime, though. For all he knew, Amanda or one of the other roommates could have been home by that time. I would think he would want to put as much distance between himself and his horrible deed as he could.

I don't get the feeling Rudy was motivated by sexually assaulting Meredith, but rather that he made kind of a halfhearted attempt at seizing the opportunity that had presented itself when he disabled her. No semen was left at the scene, and her vaginal area was bruised, but that can be explained as easily by assault as by rape. He had a history of breaking and entering, but not of abusing women, as far as I know.

Given how little evidence there was of actual sexual activity at the scene, it's a wonder Mignini came up with his theory at all.

odeed wrote: "Was there any of Meredith Kercher blood found around her genitalia, or was it just Rudy Guede DNA?"

I don't know.
 
HumanityBlues said:
I remember reading about this and I can tell you right now that it is total bunk. There is no scientific or psychological evidence that would say that this would be the case. If you told any experienced police officer this they would laugh in your face.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. If those who claim this think they are relying on statistics, then they should also have respect for the statistics that show how few, if any, women ever commit this type of crime.
 
odeed said:
Question about the sexual assault.

Was there any of Meredith Kercher blood found around her genitalia, or was it just Rudy Guede DNA?
Click to expand...
Hi Odeed,
I have only read the following on TJMK, that her shirt was rolled up her top to reveal her chest, her jeans were removed, and a pillow placed under her buttocks. I believe I have read that there is DNA, such as what a finger would leave, inside her.
If Miss Kercher were alive when the assault happened, but with her throat already stabbed, I just don't think that she would have laid there calmly with a pillow under her buttocks as blood was shooting out of her throat. Or that Guede could assault her as she bleed to death in front of him.
Since this is probably the first murder Guede was involved in, and a bloody one at that also, it is much easier to visualize Guede panicking after he/his unknown aquaintance stabbed Meredith, and they split FAST. Hours later, if/when Guede came back, after breaking Filomena's window, and then entering with the apartment keys, he might have then creepily removed her pants, placed a pillow under her buttocks, digitally assaulted her, and with her scent on his hands, masturbated to climax. I believe I have seen, I think it was on Perugia Shock, photo's of what appears to be a dried semen stain on a pillow in the room. If I recall correctly, for some reason, this stain was never tested.
RWVBWL
 
That deafening silence is the sound of people reporting your post, RWVBWL. Are you sure you're here for the reasons you said you were here?
 
Hi Mary H,
re: "I can't really see him having the presence of mind or the desire to return to the scene of the crime, though. For all he knew, Amanda or one of the other roommates could have been home by that time. I would think he would want to put as much distance between himself and his horrible deed as he could."

But if Guede had left fast, in a panic, he might have been unsure if Miss Kercher had died or not. And after a few hours of running everything that had just happened through his mind, that might have made him want to return to the scene of the crime.
From what I have read, Guede's history of getting lucky with the gals wasn't too good, maybe after Miss Kercher was dead he then assaulted her body. Pretty sick, either way.
RWVBWL
 
Mary_H said:
That deafening silence is the sound of people reporting your post, RWVBWL. Are you sure you're here for the reasons you said you were here?
Click to expand...

Hi Mary H,
I am just an old surfer from the beaches of Los Angeles, no agenda, who had originally thought that Raffaele and Amanda were guilty, until I spent hours and hours reading about this case, which changed my mind.
I joined the James Randi Educational Foundation because I am SKEPTICAL of the court's conviction and the evidence that did convict these 2.
And I wish only the best for the Kercher Family, for they have forever lost their beautiful daughter and sister...
RWVBWL
 
Last edited:
Okay, but no more explicit descriptions of sex scenes, or we will have to assume you are here for the wrong reason.

You wrote: "But if Guede had left fast, in a panic, he might have been unsure if Miss Kercher had died or not."

I believe he thought she had survived. That's why he took her phones.
 
Oops, I posted too soon. Meant to say, that would also be a reason NOT to return to the scene.
 
RWVBWL said:
Hi Mary H,
re: "I can't really see him having the presence of mind or the desire to return to the scene of the crime, though. For all he knew, Amanda or one of the other roommates could have been home by that time. I would think he would want to put as much distance between himself and his horrible deed as he could."

But if Guede had left fast, in a panic, he might have been unsure if Miss Kercher had died or not. And after a few hours of running everything that had just happened through his mind, that might have made him want to return to the scene of the crime.
From what I have read, Guede's history of getting lucky with the gals wasn't too good, maybe after Miss Kercher was dead he then assaulted her body. Pretty sick, either way.
RWVBWL
Click to expand...


What time do you think he might have returned to the scene?
 
Mary_H said:
Okay, but no more explicit descriptions of sex scenes, or we will have to assume you are here for the wrong reason.

You wrote: "But if Guede had left fast, in a panic, he might have been unsure if Miss Kercher had died or not."

I believe he thought she had survived. That's why he took her phones.
Click to expand...
Hi Mary H,
I have beautiful sisters also, so I do I understand your point of view.
We discuss and debate what is simply a horrible, horrible crime.
RWVBWL
 
. I've followed this case for quite a long time now, and I've read everything I can on it, including three books so far far.

. I visit most of the main sites for and against and what I've found is, it seems almost everyone is either 100% sure she is either guilty ot innocent.

. I myself feel it's more like 70 / 30 thats she's guilty to some degree but this average changes as I learn more and more, I started out being one of 100% guilty guys.

. Is there anyoneone else on this site thats not one of the 100% sure people?
 
capealadin writes:

Nah, that would be no problem, compared to doing the balancing act on his toes, working the window latch, scooting through the window, then playing mahjonng with the pieces of glass, removing every piece of dna and forensics.

Do you believe the lack of physical evidence shows that Guede could not have entered through Filomena's window? If so, you might wish to re-evaluate whether Amanda could have participated in a violent assault without leaving any trace of her presence in Meredith's room, where more than 70 DNA samples were tested, versus five from Filomena's room.
 
Sherlock Holmes wrote:

. Is there anyoneone else on this site thats not one of the 100% sure people?

Good luck with that quest. I can't help you. I'm a card-carrying, board-certified FOA, 100 percent sure she and Raffaele are both completely innocent.
 
Fiona said:
What time do you think he might have returned to the scene?
Click to expand...
Good day Fiona,
I would imagine that if Guede returned to the scene of the crime it would be after he had went out to the club's. If he came back hours later to see if Miss Kercher was still alive, well that makes a bit of sense, I think. Breaking the window at 2-3-4am would be harder for most people to hear, as they are asleep.

Interestingly, I remember readng that Guede had fallen asleep in the bathroom of the boys apartment below, and had thought that was odd. I also thought it odd that Amanda said the feces of Guede that she saw were at first floating. But I believe that they generaly do not float overnight, like for 10-12 hours or so, and have done my own un-scientific tests to prove my theory. Best I did was a few hours or so.

I believe that Guede might have used the restroom after asaulting Miss Kercher if/when he came back, and who know's, maybe he fell asleep on the toilet again? If Amanda awoke him by suprise a few hours after that when she came home, maybe thats why Guede did not flush the toilet, he did not want Amanda to hear the toilet, and left in a quick rush while she showered. And then it might be true that the feces of Guede were indeed floating when Amanda saw them after coming out of the shower, but they were not when the police arrived.

It's late in L.A., time for bed...
RWVBWL
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
. I've followed this case for quite a long time now, and I've read everything I can on it, including three books so far far.

. I visit most of the main sites for and against and what I've found is, it seems almost everyone is either 100% sure she is either guilty ot innocent.

. I myself feel it's more like 70 / 30 thats she's guilty to some degree but this average changes as I learn more and more, I started out being one of 100% guilty guys.

. Is there anyoneone else on this site thats not one of the 100% sure people?
Click to expand...

There appear to several that would fall into this category including me.
 
Hi Mary H,
One more last post before I hit the sack:
RE: "I believe he thought she had survived. That's why he took her phones."

If Guede had taken Miss Kercher's cell phones, he also probably had her rent money, and possibly her missing, and never found apartment keys.
Makes me wonder about the thoughts I have posted, you too?
RWVBWL
 
Hi RWVBWL -- sorry, I'm not sure what you mean by your last question.

I, too, enjoyed your discussion of your "experiment," and find your speculation on whether Rudy was there when Amanda got home to be novel.

I am in Seattle -- the night is young! ;-)
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
. Is there anyoneone else on this site thats not one of the 100% sure people?
Click to expand...

Absolute certainty isn't the issue. The issue is reasonable doubt. We're all going to experience doubt about the guilt of all three of those who were convicted and sentenced. This is due to a number of circumstances, including incomplete information.

The best you can do is to challenge assertions. The facts as examined and judged are not assertions because someone's already done the work for you.

@HumanityBlues: You have to watch out for unsourced attributions. In this case it's that the prosecution presented Meredith's covered body as evidence that a woman had been there to help with the partial clean-up. The only place I've seen this alleged quotation was on Frank Sfarzo's unreliable blog.

Moreover, it makes no sense that the investigators (and Meredith's British friends) would find Amanda rather detached from 'proper' emotion and at the same time to credit her with 'compassion' by covering the victim's corpse.

If someone could direct me to where Mignini (or anyone else) argued in court that Amanda, or any woman for that matter, must have covered the body, I'd be very appreciative. Otherwise it's just another of those unsourced things that has no bearing on the case or the convictions.
 
stilicho said:
Absolute certainty isn't the issue. The issue is reasonable doubt. We're all going to experience doubt about the guilt of all three of those who were convicted and sentenced. This is due to a number of circumstances, including incomplete information.

The best you can do is to challenge assertions. The facts as examined and judged are not assertions because someone's already done the work for you.

@HumanityBlues: You have to watch out for unsourced attributions. In this case it's that the prosecution presented Meredith's covered body as evidence that a woman had been there to help with the partial clean-up. The only place I've seen this alleged quotation was on Frank Sfarzo's unreliable blog.

Moreover, it makes no sense that the investigators (and Meredith's British friends) would find Amanda rather detached from 'proper' emotion and at the same time to credit her with 'compassion' by covering the victim's corpse.

If someone could direct me to where Mignini (or anyone else) argued in court that Amanda, or any woman for that matter, must have covered the body, I'd be very appreciative. Otherwise it's just another of those unsourced things that has no bearing on the case or the convictions.
Click to expand...

There's also no valid basis that covering up the body after a murder is a sign of compassion.

Here is what Mignini said about it in closing arguments: "It is Amanda who later covers the cadaver with a blanket -- a form of pietas, of respect for the victim. An unknown male would not have any need to cover the body. As a woman, and friend, she couldn't stand to see that nude, battered cadaver that she was responsible for."

How the hell he would know she covered the body is beyond me. His reasoning here certainly doesn't justify the conclusion with any sort of persuasiveness. An unknown male would not have any need to cover the body? Really? Someone should tell the cops who caught Ted Bundy they got the wrong man.

Here is Mignini saying pretty much the same thing in 2008: "Outlining the case against Knox, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini said he believed she was the prime suspect because 'the body of Meredith Kercher was covered by a duvet, and only a woman would want to cover another naked woman's body'."

Totally unsubstantiated by any data but Mignini said it's the reason she was the prime suspect.

If any of you think that covering the naked body of a victim means it must be a woman, there must be some reference point to draw that conclusion. I challenge any skeptic here to substantiate such apparent idiocy. The only reason I make this challenge is because the answer is so obvious. You will lose the challenge, so actually don't bother wasting your time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom