Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce Fisher said:
This is simply not true. In fact, the photos of Meredith's body show small round droplets of blood on her bare breasts. She was on her back, with her bra pushed above her breasts. She had an aspirating wound in her neck causing her blood to spray into the air and fall back down onto her body. The blood droplets landed on her bra and on her bare breasts, proving that her bra was removed before she died.

The evidence doesn't show that Meredith's body was moved hours after her death. I believe she was moved a few feet immediately after she was no longer able to fight. Guede moved her out of the pool of blood so he could sexually assault her. When she was still breathing, her bra was pulled up exposing her breasts. At this time blood was spraying into the air from the wound in her neck and falling back down onto the bra and her bare skin as Guede cut her bra off of her body and sexually assaulted her. Meredith's sexual assault was not staged by Amanda and Raffaele. Rudy Guede's DNA was found inside Meredith's body. That evidence would be impossible to stage.

This was all sorted in court. I guess you've forgotten the lividity in her shoulder which she wasn't resting on when found and the pattern of her shoulder and bra strap in dried blood at another point on the floor in the room.
 
There was no clean up done at the cottage. The clean up that has been described by the prosecution would simply be impossible. For the prosecution to make their case, they had to come up with the clean up theory because there was absolutely no evidence putting Amanda at the scene of the crime.
 
Why wouldn't it have occurred to Amanda and Raffaele to make it look like the murder was the work of someone who'd broken in? My first thought upon hearing of the doubts about the burlery was "Murder on the Orient Express". It's a common enough plot in crime fiction, probably even more common than the body in the locked room. It's hardly such a wild and daring leap of the imagination that it stretches credibility to imagine they thought of it.
 
Mary H said:
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

Why???
 
How does casing the cottage let Rudi know who was away and when they would be returning? It has been proved there were at least two knives used. So, Rudi has esp, is able to switch knives, and Meredith, who by all accounts, was a strong girl, was able to inflict no marks on Rudi. Bruce: HOW DID RAFF KNOW NOTHING WAS MISSING???
 
There was no clean up done at the cottage. The clean up that has been described by the prosecution would simply be impossible. For the prosecution to make their case, they had to come up with the clean up theory because there was absolutely no evidence putting Amanda at the scene of the crime.
We agree that Rudy restrained Meredith. We agree that he had a violent struggle with her. Yet he didn't leave terribly much DNA behind. If Amanda and Rudy's role was less physically involved that Rudy's, why must we expect to find much in the way of physical evidence?
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
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.

That goes both ways mate.
 
That is odd but you have the wrong picture. The toilets in the cottage were not setup properly so there was little water in the basin. Remember that Amanda was criticized for not cleaning the toilet properly and had to use the brush when flushing. The girls (or previous tenants) had probably removed the hose between the valve and the overflow pipe in a misguided belief that they were saving water. Rudy's feces was on the upper part of the basin and slid down later (as Raffaele said).

There are of course pictures but I won't inflict them on this forum.
Good day Dan O.
Thanks for the link, it looks similiar to the toilet in the place I have rented for some 10 years. I know, because I've changed the inside parts, sounds like my landlord is similiar to the landlord over there in Perugia. But still though, I believe that Guede's feces timeline is an overlooked clue, since if his feces were in the bowl for what, lets say overnight for 10-12 hours, I believe they should've dropped much sooner, instead of doing so in the short time between Amamnda's shower and her return with Raffaele. I can recall reading that Amanda was freaked out a bit when she saw that they were different, for that meant that the murderer might still have been inside when she came home to shower.
RWVBWL
 
Humanity Blues said:
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."

The FOA should be glad of it, for Judge Massie agreed with it and thanks to that he granted Amanda very generous mitigation indeed. Were it not for that, she'd be looking at a good deal more than 26 Years.
 
Alt+F4 writes:

Who are these "important people"? What is your evidence of the "overall situation"?

I'm interesting in wrongful convictions. I've seen the pattern in lots of other cases, most of them right here in the U.S. of A. I've read too many books and articles that start like this...

I used to think that even bad cops lied only about the worst bad guys. I believed most prosecutors tried only defendants they considered guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/dec/30/exonerating-eric-frimpong/

Sometimes it's the black guy who doesn't leave any DNA but gets convicted anyway. But this guy is lucky compared with a lot of others. He has supporters who know he didn't do it. They won't ever abandon him, and eventually, they'll get him out. Ditto Amanda and Raffaele.
 
There was too much publicity. Acquitting Knox and Sollecito would have been tantamount to an admission that the criminal justice system in Perugia screwed up on this case. It's not just Mignini who would have looked bad. The police would have looked bad, and Micheli and Matteini would have looked bad. Massei works with those people. They're all part of a local system?

Every criminal justice system makes mistakes now and then. How is Perugia any different in this respect? What is your evidence that Perugia would somehow be damaged if Rudy alone was convicted?

There have been many high profile cases where law enforcement "screwed up" (Azaria Chamberlain comes to mind) and later the situation was rectified.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Guede smashed Filomena's window with a rock and crawled through it, using a planter next to the window and the bars on the lower window for footholds. He was using the toilet when Meredith arrived home. He surprised her and chased her into a corner of her room, in front of her wardrobe, where he grabbed her from behind. He clapped his left hand over her face to silence her screams, hard enough so he left bruises on her jaw that show where his fingertips were. He pushed her to the floor, and he stabbed her in the right side of her neck with a small knife held in his right hand. At some point, she twisted around so she was on her back facing him. That is when he inflicted a large cutting wound in the left side of her neck.

I refer you back to this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036
 
How does casing the cottage let Rudi know who was away and when they would be returning? It has been proved there were at least two knives used. So, Rudi has esp, is able to switch knives, and Meredith, who by all accounts, was a strong girl, was able to inflict no marks on Rudi. Bruce: HOW DID RAFF KNOW NOTHING WAS MISSING???

Why do you think burglars study their future break-ins?

There is no proof that two knives were used. Nothing whatsoever. The knife that left the imprint on the bed could have made all of the wounds on Meredith. Where is the murder weapon? Where is the knife that left the imprint on the bed?

The two knife theory was created by the prosecution when they realized that the police officer grabbed a knife that was too big.

Rudy did have marks on his body consistent with an assault using a knife.
 
Charlie Wilkes said:
Then he went in the bathroom where he cleaned up. He removed his right shoe and rinsed it under the bidet, leaving a streak of blood around the drain of the bidet and drops of blood on the side of the basin. While his shoe was off, he made a footprint on the bathmat with diluted blood or bloody water.

He put his shoe back on and returned to Meredith's room, where he removed the quilt from her bed and threw it over her body. Then he sat on the bed with the bloody knife at his side while he went through her purse. He tossed a receipt from a movie theater on top of the quilt. He took her money and her cell phones. Then he exited the room, stepping in blood just before he did so, and thus leaving a trail of bloody shoe prints that starts in her room, extends into the corridor, shows where he stood when he locked the door behind him, and then runs down the corridor toward the exit, with each successive shoe print becoming fainter.

That's it. The rest is fantasy. There was no sex game, no staging, no cleanup except Guede cleaning himself in the bathroom. This was a sexual homicide which, like the overwhelming majority of similar crimes, was committed by a disturbed young man acting alone.

Why do none of his bloody footprints lead to the bathroom? Did he levitate? He must of done, since you insist he didn't hop.
 
I'm interesting in wrongful convictions. I've seen the pattern in lots of other cases, most of them right here in the U.S. of A. I've read too many books and articles that start like this...

So who do you think is responsible for the wrongful conviction you see in this case? The police? The prosecutors? The jury?

In cases of wrongful convictions the conviction gets reversed because wrongdoing or incompetence is uncovered by evidence. What's the evidence here?
 
Mary H said:
Is it logical to hang the photo of a suspect in your criminals' "hall of shame" before she has been indicted? Is it logical to say you don't need evidence against a suspect when your intuition tells you she is guilty?

It doesn't matter whether it was logical or not. What matters is they provided plenty of evidence and enough to get her convicted in a court of law in a unanimous verdict after an 11 month trial, despite the defence teams having some of the best lawyers and experts in the land...and that says a lot about how compelling the evidence was. And it doesn't matter what the police think...it's not their job to think you are innocent.

Mary H said:
Pro-Amanda: It is impossible to clean up the DNA of two suspects and leave the DNA of one. Also, when the postal police arrived, Amanda took one of them into the bathroom and showed him the drops of blood on the sink.

This is based on an assumption that they would have left DNA to clean. Where is that written? And as it happens, they left plenty of DNA. Amanda left her DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in multiple places and Raffaele left his on the bra clasp.

Mary H said:
The colpevolisti want her to be guilty, so they look for data that support her guilt.

And let's face it, they don't need to look very hard or for very long. There's a reason for that.
 
Last edited:
Alt+F4 writes:

Who are these "important people"? What is your evidence of the "overall situation"?

I'm interesting in wrongful convictions. I've seen the pattern in lots of other cases, most of them right here in the U.S. of A. I've read too many books and articles that start like this...

I used to think that even bad cops lied only about the worst bad guys. I believed most prosecutors tried only defendants they considered guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

http://www.independent.com/news/2009/dec/30/exonerating-eric-frimpong/

Sometimes it's the black guy who doesn't leave any DNA but gets convicted anyway. But this guy is lucky compared with a lot of others. He has supporters who know he didn't do it. They won't ever abandon him, and eventually, they'll get him out. Ditto Amanda and Raffaele.
I'm sure the pattern does hold pretty well. What do you suppose the false positive rate is though? That's the important thing. There must be quite a few people who get convicted without leaving DNA. If Rudy had been only slightly more careful, he could have fallen into that category. He managed to get through the window without leaving any DNA after all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom