Mary: No matter who killed Meredith, the murder was not quick. There is no way she didn,t see who killed her. I,m sure Meredith fought back, and that,s why there was more than one killer, imo. Two different knives used as well. Meredith was not killed in her sleep.
The "two different knives" story is not supported by the evidence. Two knives could conceivably have been used, but Ockham's Razor says one knife fits the evidence better.
It would help a great deal if the Amanda-is-guilty posters didn't feel free to state false or not-established claims as proven fact.
And the reason that Rudy, who left with blood on his hands, didn't leave any blood on the cell phones is...?
Just asking questions? A story that covers the facts is that Rudy went to the bathroom, washed his hands, and then went back to the murder room to get the cell phones and lock the door.
This is the kind of post that makes me feel like I'd dealing with a gang of entrenched partisans throwing talking points, rather than intelligent people capable of putting down the talking points and meeting the other side half way. If you'd been following the discussion you'd have seen a perfectly obvious way Rudy could have collected the cell phones without leaving blood on them. So why are you throwing this out as a challenge for the other side? It looks to me like you aren't interested in thinking about your own position, just parroting talking points without any self-reflection at all.
3] Your problem here is that RG is both brilliant and stupid at the same time. He did nothing to remove his handprints or footprints and didn't even quickly check to make sure he'd flushed the toilet. Yet he locked the door.
It's amusing that you are trying to appropriate one of our arguments and use it yourself, but locking a door on the way out or washing your hands (while leaving other evidence everywhere) is not brilliance. Nor has anybody attributed brilliance to Rudy. So you could call this a straw man, or just call it more evidence of confirmation bias since you're clutching at straws to come up with new ways of fitting Knox and Solecito up for the crime and new ways to exonerate Rudy.
I tried it several times and it's not credible.
The fact that three different (Amanda-is-guilty) posters all claim this is impossible just staggers me. I just tried it myself and it's a perfectly natural motion, and in fact I'm sure I've shut my own bedroom door that way in the past.
You really need to take a step back when you realise that you're arguing that a perfectly normal way of closing a door is in fact "not credible" or likely to injure a ballet dancer or whatever, just because you're clinging to a talking point that you think incriminates Knox. Especially when the talking point is just inane - the fact that the door was locked proves bugger all either way. Rudy could have locked it just as easily as Amanda and Raffaele, because there's nothing special about locking an ordinary door.
Let me repeat this:
Making the door an issue is stupid.
However I do have a possible explanation:
But what doesn't make sense is, if he locked the door, why? Why would he even care, and if for some reason he did, then why not lock that front door too, surely that would be more important than her door.
Plus, I have tried the door several times and there is no way you would pull the door shut with your left hand and you have to turn arround completely in order to lock it.
Read what Bruce Fisher posted again, Sherlock Holmes. You aren't closing the door with your left hand.
Why would Guede even care to lock a door and leave his shoe prints? There was no point for him to delay his exit and go to try to establish an alibi dancing.
The Amanda-is-innocent theory is that Rudy's a disorganised killer: He didn't plan to kill Meredith, and he didn't have a plan to get away with killing Meredith. Having killed her he mucked about in her apartment briefly doing whatever seemed to make sense to him at the time and then left. I doubt he was thinking about the details of forensic science at the time, it seems more plausible that he just wanted to hide what he had done a bit.
Common sense notwithstanding, the evidence tells us that they called other people before they phoned the police. This, in itself, is not terribly suspicious. But it is suspicious that they waited so long to call the Carabinieri after knowing Filomena's original reaction.
It takes both Amanda and Raffaele to be incredibly dull to have done that. According to her story, Amanda first found the break-in and the signs something was wrong. She dilly-dallied around, taking a shower alone in a house in which there had apparently been an intrusion, and in an area known to be frequented by druggies. Brave woman! Nerves of steel when she wants to.
Then, still according to her, she went to get Raffaele and he, too, saw nothing disturbing enough to spring into action. It stretches credibility to accept that both of them were that dull.
This is pure armchair psychology, and you can make up your own stories from your armchair all night without it turning into evidence they committed a murder. For someone who pretends to know something about youth crime you also seem not to realise that youths who are drug users tend to avoid calling the authorities over to their house if they can possibly avoid it. More than one drug overdose victim has died just because their friends didn't want to call emergency services for fear that trouble with the police would result - in a case where Amanda and Raffaele didn't know that someone was dead or dying, I'm not particularly surprised that they didn't leap to call the police at the first sign of something amiss.
As for the bathmat print, I'm willing to accept that it was not sufficiently well-lit in the bathroom for either of them to notice it when they staged the scene. The version we have appears to have been photographed under bright light and possibly after a reagent had been applied to it so it stood out. They just didn't notice it during the cleanup.
The claim "they could have missed the footprint on the bathmat because it was dark" is plausible. The claim that "they could have missed the footprint on the bathmat while deliberately cleaning up a whole lot of other bloody footprints nearby" is very silly. Rudy's footprint on the bathmat was pretty obvious, it's not credible that anybody looking for evidence would miss it if they were cleaning up other evidence right next to it.
Really? Even though none of his DNA is present in the bathroom? Kevin Lowe claims this as proof of absence. Do you disagree?
People, engaging with Fulcanelli is pointless. I quote this bit just to emphasise that he has no compunction about making up further straw men to attribute to me even once I've made it clear I have no interest in engaging with him. Please just ignore the troll. Responding gives him encouragement and validation.
