• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fulcanelli said:
Perhaps you don't realise the different between a 'scratch' and a 'cut'. Also, you are assuming Rudy's cuts happened the night of the murder, when in fact they could just as easily happened only two or three days before.
Click to expand...

It was a hickey, not a scratch, not a cut.

Keep defending Rudy.
 
Matthew Best said:
Cite?
Click to expand...

Raffaele told the 112 operator there were "blood traces in the bathroom" and "a stain of blood". The claim that he said there was a lot of blood seems to be pure invention.

ETA: If anyone has a proper transcript of Raffaele's calls to 112, it would be appreciated. The audio available on the web and the translations only seem to cover the first 48 seconds of the first call.
 
Last edited:
Kestrel said:
Raffaele told the 112 operator there were "blood traces in the bathroom" and "a stain of blood". The claim that he said there was a lot of blood seems to be pure invention.
Click to expand...

I had heard both versions - I was hoping Alt+F4 would be able to come up with something conclusive.

No luck so far, but I remain optimistic.
 
That's an interesting quote about about the number of interrogations endured by Laura. I found this as well:

Mezzetti told police in November that she had seen the scratch, but she had failed to mention it in several previous interrogations by police. Asked why she had not mentioned it before then, Mezzetti said she thought everybody else would have noticed it.
Click to expand...
http://www.zimbio.com/Rudy+Hermann+Guede/articles/4/Murder+trial+Italy+student+scratch
I had been concerned when this interrogation occurred. The best I've been able to do is to pin it down to November
 
Bruce Fisher said:
It was a hickey, not a scratch, not a cut.

Keep defending Rudy.
Click to expand...

I've provided evidence (witness testimony) that it wasn't hickey. Please provide your evidence that it 'was' a hickey, rather then an assertion.

And what does Amanda having a scratch on her neck got to do with Rudy?
 
Last edited:
Shuttit said:
How does this help Rudy?
Click to expand...

It doesn't. It's just that Bruce has been proven wrong and refuses to admit he was wrong, so in desperation he's throwing out emotive straw man attacks.
 
I've had a nose around and the pictures I have been able to find of Amanda on the 2nd aren't really good enough to establish whether she even had a mark on her neck, let alone what type of mark.
 
shuttlt said:
Do you have any evidence to support this? I will have a look for pictures of Amanda on the 2nd, but I think you have a rather better collection of good quality pictures of Amanda from that period than I do.


How does this help Rudy?
Click to expand...


This one shows the inflamed ear lobe and missing earing from the lobe:

image.php



This one shows the mark on the neck:


image.php
 
Fulcanelli said:
It doesn't. It's just that Bruce has been proven wrong and refuses to admit he was wrong, so in desperation he's throwing out emotive straw man attacks.
Click to expand...

The police doctor stated there were no wounds on Amanda.

I certainly have not been proven wrong.

The only reason to point out a wound would be to try and find a source where Amanda could have bled enough to mix with Meredith's blood in 5 different place.

The police doctor examined Amanda 5 days after the murder.

5 days is not long enough for a wound to heal that could have produced that much blood. This is common sense.

Meredith's bood was mixed with Amanda's residual DNA. It was Amanda's bathroom.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for posting the photo of the hickey. This further proves my point. A hickey would have been gone 5 days later. A wound would have still been visible.
 
Has anyone ever seen a cut or a scratch that looked like the photo posted?
No, because that is clearly a hickey.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
The police doctor stated there were no wounds on Amanda.

I certainly have not been proven wrong.

The only reason to point out a wound would be to try and find a source where Amanda could have bled enough to mix with Meredith's blood in 5 different place.

The police doctor examined Amanda 5 days after the murder.

5 days is not long enough for a wound to heal that could have produced that much blood. This is common sense.

Meredith's bood was mixed with Amanda's residual DNA. It was Amanda's bathroom.
Click to expand...

And again, the police doctor didn't examine her until the 6th. Moreover, he was only looking for fresh injuries to confirm she hadn't been assaulted while in police custody, not injuries that may have been connected with the murder.

Nobody is saying the injury bled. Again, this is another straw man from you. The only purpose for bringing attention to the injury is because it is suggestive of her involvement in a violent struggle.

The prosecution experts disagree that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood was residual from some earlier innocent instance. But it was residual, residual from the murder and clean-up afterwards.
 
Bruce Fisher said:
Has anyone ever seen a cut or a scratch that looked like the photo posted?
No, because that is clearly a hickey.
Click to expand...

Did you see the injury in person, up close? Two eye witnesses did.

The photo I posted simply shows a mark. The exact nature of the mark cannot be discerned due to the poor resolution of the picture. Therefore, I defer to the eye witnesses.
 
Matthew Best said:
I had heard both versions - I was hoping Alt+F4 would be able to come up with something conclusive.

No luck so far, but I remain optimistic.
Click to expand...

Yes, the link I provided was to Candace Dempsey's blog but she does provide a link to the recording of the call in Italian. YouTube is blocked at my job so I can't listen to it now. Perhaps someone else can.
 
The mark could be a bruise, a graze, or a love bite IMHO. I don't see any grounds to definitively state it was one thing and not another. Do we have any testimony from anyone who saw it who says they thought it was a love bite?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom