Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[BobTheDonkey]

Fourth. Ya, for some reason Rudy was let go. God knows why. But last time I checked neither Amanda or Raffale broke into a *********** nursery. And by the way, I've been made privy to one of the other crimes Rudy should have been charged with. It's way worse than anything that's been reported, and it's corroborated, and it's violent, and it provides even more evidence of an M.O.

So then show the criminal record.

 

[HumanityBlues]

So then show the criminal record.

I'm not showing you anything. Look what the patsy brigade does with a stupid noise ticket.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'm not showing you anything. Look what the patsy brigade does with a stupid noise ticket.

Then another unsupported assertion. Because we haven't seen enough of those from the "Free Amanda" camp...

 

[HumanityBlues]

Then another unsupported assertion. Because we haven't seen enough of those from the "Free Amanda" camp...

On this forum yes. I feel no need to give irresponsible patsies on this forum any info after seeing what kind of ignorant and prejudicial leaps they make with nothing.

 

[Amazer]

And by the way, I've been made privy to one of the other crimes Rudy should have been charged with. It's way worse than anything that's been reported, and it's corroborated, and it's violent, and it provides even more evidence of an M.O.

I'm rather surprised that those that support Amanda's innocence are made privy to the crimes that Rudy supposedly committed while those that are not convinced of Amanda's innocence never get to see/read/hear what those crimes are exactly.

And what is even more surprising is that the lot of you feel the need to refer to these crimes without even being bothered to provide evidence.

If you have evidence, present it. If all you have is hearsay... then please keep it to yourself. No need to keep bringing it up. I've heard it before, it didn't convince me then. Hearing it again isn't going to magically change my mind.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

On this forum yes. I feel no need to give irresponsible patsies on this forum any info after seeing what kind of ignorant and prejudicial leaps they make with nothing.

So then I was correct that this "info about Rudy's past" should be filed away in the same place as Amanda's rape-prank.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I think she used the mat more to prevent herself from slipping on the wet floor than anything else. If she had used the mop, there would have been blood evidence in it.

Not if she went to the store at 7:45 and bought a new one. Just kidding, I didn't think she mopped the floor up, I was thinking that if she was just trying not to get water on the floor, it wouldn't be a problem, she knew there was a mop there. She stated that she wipped her feet on the mat anyway, didn't she? Its only about 4 steps to her room.

 

[HumanityBlues]

I'm rather surprised that those that support Amanda's innocence are made privy to the crimes that Rudy supposedly committed while those that are not convinced of Amanda's innocence never get to see/read/hear what those crimes are exactly.

And what is even more surprising is that the lot of you feel the need to refer to these crimes without even being bothered to provide evidence.

If you have evidence, present it. If all you have is hearsay... then please keep it to yourself. No need to keep bringing it up. I've heard it before, it didn't convince me then. Hearing it again isn't going to magically change my mind.

If you heard Rudy broke into a house and killed a woman the week before it wouldn't change your mind anyways. Why bother?

And jeez....hearsay suddenly bothers people here? What trial have you been watching?

 

[HumanityBlues]

So then I was correct that this "info about Rudy's past" should be filed away in the same place as Amanda's rape-prank.

You're going to believe whatever you want to believe. I'm done talking to you.

 

[Mary_H]

So she hopped/boogied down the hallway on the mat - and then back again after drying off? That's realistic to you?

I can see (sort of) using the bathmat to get to the room for a towel (not so easy to do this with a rubber-backed mat, btw), but then to do so back to the bathroom after toweling off? What was the point of that - there was no water on her feet to cause her to slip, she wasn't going to drip water everywhere, etc.

And as for slippery floors...she very easily could have dried her feet off on the bathmat before leaving the bathroom - in fact, I do believe that's what she stated she did before her boogie.



And as for the "footprint-through-the-bathmat" theory...that's just laughable. As is the "maybe-some-of-the-blood-in-the-hallway-was-still-wet".

I realize, Mary, that these are not necessarily your arguments...I simply choose to address all the ridiculous theories for the "bathmat-boogie" in this post.

I said earlier I think she stopped the bathmat at the bathroom door and walked into the hall in her bare feet. I haven't looked at the measurements lately, but it's a pretty tiny bathroom -- like only a couple of bathmat lengths long.

Are we sure the bathmat had a rubber backing?

 

[Amazer]

If you heard Rudy broke into a house and killed a woman the week before it wouldn't change your mind anyways. Why bother?

It wouldn't change my mind till I see the evidence. Surely this is not a difficult concept?

Why is it so difficult for Amanda supporters to bring some relevant evidence to the table?

 

[Mary_H]

I'm rather surprised that those that support Amanda's innocence are made privy to the crimes that Rudy supposedly committed while those that are not convinced of Amanda's innocence never get to see/read/hear what those crimes are exactly.

And what is even more surprising is that the lot of you feel the need to refer to these crimes without even being bothered to provide evidence.

If you have evidence, present it. If all you have is hearsay... then please keep it to yourself. No need to keep bringing it up. I've heard it before, it didn't convince me then. Hearing it again isn't going to magically change my mind.

I'm surprised, too, Amazer, especially with all the inside connections Fulcanelli has. After all, he has seen -- maybe even has a copy of -- the drawing(s) Amanda made the night of her interrogation. He seems to have access to some documentation the rest of us don't.

Do you think it's possible that Fulcanelli or Peter Quennell might know about the evidence of Rudy's crimes the same way Humanity Blues does, but that they decided to withhold that information from their viewing audience? Could such a thing be?

 

[Amazer]

I'm surprised, too, Amazer, especially with all the inside connections Fulcanelli has. After all, he has seen -- maybe even has a copy of -- the drawing(s) Amanda made the night of her interrogation. He seems to have access to some documentation the rest of us don't.

Do you think it's possible that Fulcanelli or Peter Quennell might know about the evidence of Rudy's crimes the same way Humanity Blues does, but that they decided to withhold that information from their viewing audience? Could such a thing be?

Sure, it's possible. But they aren't the ones who are bringing up Rudy Guede's 'criminal record' at the drop of a hat.

As such they are under no obligation to provide that evidence, even if it's in their possession.

 

[Mary_H]

Sure, it's possible. But they aren't the ones who are bringing up Rudy Guede's 'criminal record' at the drop of a hat.

As such they are under no obligation to provide that evidence, even if it's in their possession.

Well, no, of course not. They wouldn't have any reason to bring it up, because it would weaken their arguments about Amanda having a more extensive criminal record and a greater history of violence than Rudy.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Well, no, of course not. They wouldn't have any reason to bring it up, because it would weaken their arguments about Amanda having a more extensive criminal record and a greater history of violence than Rudy.

Everything's a part of the conspiracy, eh?

Look, if you want to make the argument that Rudy has a more extensive criminal past than Amanda, you need to evidence it.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

So she hopped/boogied down the hallway on the mat - and then back again after drying off? That's realistic to you?

Depending on how much I dried off, sure. How the hell does this turn into evidence of murder?

I think you missed the mark, Stilicho.

The better response to the quoted part of KL's diatribe would be:

"Do you have evidence of Rudy having a criminal record?"

I provided the link to the relevant wikipedia page with citations before, but I guess you're not going to admit they exist unless I cut and paste everything by hand for you.

From Times online:

But there was another Rudy, the small-time drug dealer and drifter with a record of petty crime who according to some witnesses harassed women and stole from their handbags. Shortly before Kercher’s murder he was detained in Milan for an alleged theft. He had broken into a school to hide from police and had a knife in his hand.

From the Daily Mail online:

On September 27, 2007 - five weeks before the killing - Perugia bar tender Cristian Tramantano heard a noise downstairs in his home and found Guede wandering around with a large knife. Tramantano recognised Guede from his work in a nightclub.
There was a confrontation between the two, which ended when Guede ran away. On four occasions, Tramantano went to Perugia's central police station to report the break-in, identify Guede as the culprit and to detail how the intruder was armed and threatened him.
On each occasion, he says he was ignored and the police refused to log his complaint.
The following weekend, there was a break-in at an English-speaking nursery school in Milan in which 2,000 euros and a digital camera were stolen. The school owner, Maria Antoinette Salvadori del Prato, reported it to her local police station.
Three weeks later, on Saturday, October 27 - one week before the murder - Mrs Prato arrived at the school early in the morning with a locksmith to replace the front door, only to be confronted by Guede standing in the main entrance.
Police were called and Guede questioned. A stolen laptop, digital camera and ten-inch kitchen knife were found in his backpack.
But instead of being arrested and charged, Guede was merely escorted to Milan central railway station and placed on a train back to Perugia.
In the interim, on the weekend of October 13, there had been a break-in at the office of lawyers Paolo Brocchi and Luigi Palazzoli, in which a firstfloor window was smashed - similar to the break-in at Meredith's house. A computer and other items were stolen.
They were later found in Guede's possession, but he was not arrested or charged.
This series of crimes and the absence of police action has led Knox's defence team to believe Guede may have been an informant being protected by someone in the police force.

From the Telegraph online:

Guede was already well known to police by the time he killed Miss Kercher. As well as being a drug dealer with a criminal record for minor drugs offences, he had been held in Milan in the weeks before the murder for an alleged theft. On that occasion, he broke into a school to hide from police and, significantly, had a knife in his hand when he was eventually arrested.

From ABC News online:

A defense witness testified that just two weeks before British exchange student Meredith Kercher was murdered , his law studio was broken into and a computer and cell phone were stolen. The stolen objects were later found in the possession of Rudy Guede, who has already been convicted for his role in Kercher's murder.

Paolo Brocchi, a lawyer whose office is not far from where Kercher was killed, told the court that the thief had entered his office through a window that had been broken with a large rock.

If you're going to play word games and say "But he never got convicted, hence he never had a criminal record, hence this is not evidence of an M.O.!" I'm just going to dismiss you as irrational.

We've been over this time and again. Rudy does not have the criminal record those who believe in Amanda's innocence would have the rest of the world believe. However, if mere hearsay is acceptable, I suppose those of us who believe the evidence points to the involvement of Amanda and Raffaele can drag up the old rumor regarding Amanda's rape prank from college. (yes, I know, true tu-quoque).

A rumour about a prank is the same thing as credible news reports of a history of actual criminal activity? That's not rational either.

Interesting, isn't it, that one side won't allow hearsay about Amanda, while meanwhile spewing twisted hearsay about Rudy.

Rudy has as much of a criminal record as Amanda. Rudy has as much of a history of violence as Amanda.

It seems to me that you're so far gone in your conspiracy theory that you're completely out of touch with reality and lashing out randomly. Citing mainstream news sources regarding reports of crimes from credible witnesses isn't "spewing twisted hearsay". Personally I think that when you're going to those lengths to defend someone like Rudy Guede you need to step back and reassess yourself.

Then you go right back into FOA mode. Let's straighten out a few things:

[*]Amanda and Raffaele were not student lovers. They were what you'd call ****-buddies in the common parlance. Amanda was involved with many different men during her young adulthood and Raffaele was not the only man she bedded while in Perugia.

So? I don't see the relevance, except to try to demonise Knox on the basis that sexually active young women are likely to be murderers.

[*]Raffaele carried a knife by habit that would be illegal in most jurisdictions. It's what the mercenary magazines call a tactical combat knife. These are called folding knives at your local hardware store. Look up designers like Brian Tighe and knife manufactures like Spyderco.

I'm familiar with them. The overwhelming majority of knife owners do not murder people. This too is a dumb attempt to demonise the accused in lieu of proper evidence.

[*]There's a strong probability that Amanda and Raffaele didn't know about Rudy's alleged break-ins. Even if they did, the spot they selected was the least likely entry point for a real burglar. And Rudy knew the house well enough to pick the easiest point rather than a nearly impossible point. If Rudy was an experienced second-storey man then you'd be arguing on the same side as the prosecution.

There's evidence of one break-in he got caught for. That doesn't make him a criminal mastermind.

Further, if you're arguing that Amanda and Raffaele staged the broken window, how did they know about Rudy's M.O. given that they didn't know Rudy at all as far as anyone can show? Isn't it a hell of a lot simpler to just figure that the most likely explanation is that the guy with a history of throwing rocks through windows and robbing houses threw a rock through a window and robbed a house?

[*]Amanda had a troubling past including the party for which she received a citation. I don't want to make more of this than what it was but you have to admit that--of all the three--Amanda had been in more trouble with the law than any of them.

Oh for pity's sake, will you give this up? Amanda was involved in a single noise complaint which was and is completely unrelated to rape and murder. Rudy has an extensive history of armed housebreaking with a M.O. that fits the crime scene.

[*]None of the three had a prior history of violent crime or sexual assault.
[/LIST]We've been through all the FOA talking points here several times over. Some of their points may have merit but many--such as the ones you've chosen--are entirely baseless.

No prior history of violent crime or sexual assault, true, just (in Rudy's case) a history of harassing women and armed housebreaking with a M.O. that fits the crime scene.

I really think that this is another point where the Amanda-is-guilty crowd take leave of rational suspicion and have collectively charged off into ridiculous conspiracy-theory groupthink. Demonising Knox strikes me as irrational and unpleasant, but it's kind of understandable that the Amanda-is-guilty crowd go there once they have invested themselves in the belief that she's a callous rapist and murderer. However downplaying Rudy's established history of criminal behaviour in order to make Amanda look worse by comparison takes my breath away. You really do have to have your priorities seriously screwed up to do that.

As I think I said earlier a sign of dysfunctional thinking is the need to make everything evidence that Amanda is guilty as hell and the worst person ever. An even-handed, rational appraisal might come to the conclusion that Amanda is guilty but that there is also a good case for her innocence. I wouldn't agree with that conclusion, but it wouldn't be blatantly irrational. But instead to Stilicho and Bob and Fulcanelli it seems that everything is evidence of her guilt that beats you over the head, and anything that Amanda's defenders say is automatically false and needs to be gainsaid, even if it's something irrelevant to her guilt like Rudy's background.

Would Amanda be less of a murderer if she did do it, but Rudy had a criminal background? Not as I see it. His background would be totally irrelevant in that case. But it's not enough for the Amanda-is-guilty crowd that she be guilty. Nope, if the Amanda-is-innocent crowd say that Rudy has a criminal background then by God the Amanda-is-guilty crowd will argue that Rudy was a great guy and anyone who says different is "spewing twisted hearsay".

 

[Mary_H]

Everything's a part of the conspiracy, eh?

I would call that more an abuse of power.

Look, if you want to make the argument that Rudy has a more extensive criminal past than Amanda, you need to evidence it.

Will Barbie Nadeau do?

Late on the night of October 13, 2007, a couple of blocks from the house where Kercher was murdered, Guede broke into a law office and stole a Nokia cellphone and Sony Vaio computer. He smashed a window about 10 feet above the ground with a large rock, then scaled the wall, unlatched the window and crawled in. Two weeks later, the computer was in his possession when he was found in a nursery school in Milan. There, Maria Antonietta Salvadori del Prado, the school administrator, discovered him asleep in her office. "He was very serene and explained that he had been told that for €50 he could sleep here for the night," she told the court. She also testified that along with the computer, he had a kitchen knife, a woman’s watch, and a small hammer in his backpack. "I was shocked to find him there. I was more shocked when I discovered he was wanted for Meredith Kercher's murder."

And don't say they are not crimes because he was not arrested.

 

[stilicho]

It's funny that you respond to alleged "FOA" talking points with even lamer talking points.

And yet, in the end, all three were convicted of the murder. I don't know why you constantly bring up the "lamer" term. I stand by the evidence that I posted. I am sure you stand by yours. None of it matters because they weren't convicted for their chequered pasts or their knife fetishes. They were convicted because of the evidence.

Yet Kevin retreads FOA talking points that cannot be supported by anything more than hearsay. Whereas we have the citation, we have the photos of the replica combat knives, we know about the stranger Amanda brought to the cottage, and so on.

I don't doubt that Rudy also had a troubled past. The rumours are too persistent to handwave away. But to present these as though they count while Amanda's and Raffaele's issues don't is dishonest.

One might even say that it's "lame".

 

[HumanityBlues]

And yet, in the end, all three were convicted of the murder. I don't know why you constantly bring up the "lamer" term.

Grrrreeat argument. Well then, OJ must be innocent.

Edit: Yes, Amanda and Raffaele had issues. But they weren't issues like Rudy Guede had. The fact that you make anything of a stupid noise ticket and reference to a "troubled past" is lame. But hey, you can get a great job for the National Enquirer or something. You are very good making something out of nothing.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I would call that more an abuse of power.



Will Barbie Nadeau do?




And don't say they are not crimes because he was not arrested.

Sorry, that's not a source I trust. Same as with Kevin's "sources". It's all referencing hearsay. Where is the Court testimony regarding Rudy's past?

(Edit: when I say "Rudy's past" I am, of course, referencing his violent past, not merely breaking into/sleeping in a school - that's about as "violent" as a noise violation)