Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce: Amanda said she was at Raff's apartment. However, You cannot didpute that Raff said she WASN,T. Therein lies the rub. And, I will not ask again, how Raff knew nothing was stolen. Your non answer says it all.

You keep asking a useless refuted question. You think it is a smoking gun but it means nothing.

I would say that Raffaele made a quick determination that nothing was stolen because he saw things of value that were still present. Raffaele's statement proves nothing.
 
Every single person in Perugia that was either alone at home or with only one other person on the night of the murder would all have no alibi.

That is perhaps true.

However, they also wouldn't be as suspicious as someone who lived in the cottage and had a conflicting alibi for that night. Especially when evidence points toward a faked break-in (meaning the attackers entered through the front door, needing a key to do so).

ETA: Of course, add to that where one of those two admits to being in the cottage while the murder/rape is being committed...and it's completely reasonable to expect her and her alibi (Raffaele) to be arrested.
 
Last edited:
Yeah: figuring your calls may be recorded takes no stretch of the imagination, especially when you KNOW YOU ARE QUILTY.. How did Amanda not know that strangulation killed Meredith? And, she mentioned *slowly*. I do not have to take notes. The truth does not change.
 
Bruce: Amanda said she was at Raff's apartment. However, You cannot didpute that Raff said she WASN,T. Therein lies the rub. And, I will not ask again, how Raff knew nothing was stolen. Your non answer says it all.

There were several confused statements made by both Raffaele and Amanda. I do not dispute that. These statements were made under a situation of extreme stress. They repeated the truth over and over again.

Raffaele was told that he couldn't state for certain that Amanda was there the entire time because he was sleeping.

Do you see how this works? Raffaele agrees that it is possible that Amanda left when we was asleep.
 
RWVBWL writes:

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.


Guede did not return to the crime scene. He went out to a disco.

Judge Micheli tried to say that the evidence shows that Meredith's bra was removed several hours after her murder. His argument is that the bra was found in a place where there was no blood on the floor, and yet one of the straps was soaked through with blood. This would have taken a long time to occur, according to Micheli. But why would it take more than a few seconds for a piece of porous fabric to soak up blood?

The truth is crystal-clear, despite strenuous efforts to submerge it in a swamp of rhetoric and speculation. Here is what happened:

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.

It was a blitz attack that lasted just a few minutes. When the struggle was over, he moved her a few feet, put a pillow under her buttocks, removed her pants and underwear and sexually assaulted her in some manner. 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.
Good day Charlie,
You folks have researched and discussed this for some time. And your theory is quite possibly true. But sometimes looking with a fresh point of view or from a different angle might bring other ideas to light.
You forgot to mention the fact that someone called Miss Kercher's bank. If the attack was a blitz and happened soon after she arrived home, why would someone call her bank an hour or so later? It would make more sense that she was alive at the time and was pleading for her life, doing whatever she could to appease Guede, and his possible acqauintance. Also, who was the person that Alessandra Formica saw around 10:30pm that night, shortly after the bank was called? Maybe Guede did kill Miss Kercher and called her bank after he left her apartment. But that seems far-fetched.
Another fact was that Miss Kercher's apartment keys were missing, so a person might assume that Guede had those too. Since Guede went out afterwards, I would think he noticed at some time later on that night that there was no police activity at the apartment, hence he might have came back in when Miss Kercher was dead. If he did come back, would he just come right in or might he have thrown a rock to break Filomens's window to see if anyone was there? If he had the keys, would he climb in or just open the door?
I'm sorry, but I can't visualize Miss Kercher still alive, with her throat stabbed and bleeding profusely, dying peacefully with a pillow under her buttocks just laying there, for wasn't that how she was found? So when did Guede assault Miss Kercher? As blood was spurting out of her neck? Did he just kick back and wait for her to die? Or did he come back a few hours later, and not seeing any police investigation, break that window in the early morning hours, when most people would not have heard him, and then re-enter the apartment with the keys?
RWVBWL
 
Yeah: figuring your calls may be recorded takes no stretch of the imagination, especially when you KNOW YOU ARE QUILTY.. How did Amanda not know that strangulation killed Meredith? And, she mentioned *slowly*. I do not have to take notes. The truth does not change.

Your losing it. Take a break. I know you told Peggy that "I was going down" but you are just not the one that can do that. You simply do not have the knowledge. I have the truth to work with. That makes things easier for me. You need assistance. Maybe you need to call in one of your "Super Best Friends"
 
Every time you are put on the spot, Bruce, you say, oh, that means nothing. Or, you,re not talking to them anymore. Or, you have to make a quick run to Wal-mart for tylenol. How did Raff know there was no jewellry taken? Many things of value are small.He wanted the police to think there had been a breakin right? He didn.t *know* there had been a murder. So, why volunteer that info? Stop trying to weasel yourself out of relevant points. It is happening too often. I,m starting to feel sorry for you.
 
That is perhaps true.

However, they also wouldn't be as suspicious as someone who lived in the cottage and had a conflicting alibi for that night. Especially when evidence points toward a faked break-in (meaning the attackers entered through the front door, needing a key to do so).

ETA: Of course, add to that where one of those two admits to being in the cottage while the murder/rape is being committed...and it's completely reasonable to expect her and her alibi (Raffaele) to be arrested.

You and I differ on the interrogation. You believe it was handled properly and all of the information obtained in the interrogation is credible.

We will never agree on this.

You base your conclusion of guilt heavily on the information that was obtained during the interrogation. I don't

I respect your position. We disagree.
 
There were several confused statements made by both Raffaele and Amanda. I do not dispute that. These statements were made under a situation of extreme stress. They repeated the truth over and over again.

Raffaele was told that he couldn't state for certain that Amanda was there the entire time because he was sleeping.

Do you see how this works? Raffaele agrees that it is possible that Amanda left when we was asleep.

He did not say he was sleeping so far as I remember. He said he was on his computer
 
Every time you are put on the spot, Bruce, you say, oh, that means nothing. Or, you,re not talking to them anymore. Or, you have to make a quick run to Wal-mart for tylenol. How did Raff know there was no jewellry taken? Many things of value are small.He wanted the police to think there had been a breakin right? He didn.t *know* there had been a murder. So, why volunteer that info? Stop trying to weasel yourself out of relevant points. It is happening too often. I,m starting to feel sorry for you.

It was a quick assessment of the room by Raffaele. He didn't do an investigative search. He wasn't aware at the time that something horrible had occurred but they were worried by what they saw in the cottage so they called the police. This is really not complicated.

He called the police. He wanted them there. This is not the action of a guilty person. If you still believe that the police arrived before he called then you need to visit the link below.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/garage.html
 
Absolutely Right, Bruce. I am not the one to do that. The trial took are of it. When one tells the truth, there is no confusion. And, things don,t look like they,re going easy for you, Bruce. Why would I need assistance telling truth from fiction? The truth has put the three guilty people in prison. The people with the knowledge have convicted Amanda. And rightly so. You do have the truth to work with, Bruce. You,re just choosing not to.
 
Every single person in Perugia that was either alone at home or with only one other person on the night of the murder would all have no alibi.
So? An alibi isn't important for those people unless the police can somehow connect them to a crime.
 
Bruce: What Amanda did was LIE to the police many times, over MANY different things.

Amanda's so called "lies" all came about during an all night interrogation session. When the Perugia police set about to force a confession out of a suspect. The tactics used were classic abuse. Keep the suspect up all night, yell and scream at her, feed her false information and deny her the assistance of a lawyer.

May I suggest reading the literature on false confessions?
 
Why is it that you were able to see through the media influence to get to "the truth" but the jury wasn't?

I think the jury came to the wrong conclusion. Many people disagree with the jury.

Why is it so hard to believe that some people disagreed with the jury?

If juries were always correct, there would be no appeals process.
 
Amanda's so called "lies" all came about during an all night interrogation session. When the Perugia police set about to force a confession out of a suspect. The tactics used were classic abuse. Keep the suspect up all night, yell and scream at her, feed her false information and deny her the assistance of a lawyer.

May I suggest reading the literature on false confessions?

May I suggest reading amanda's testimony about the length and content of the interrogation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom