• 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.

Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Katody Matrass said:
any scenario of Rudy cleaning himself up is pure common sense compared to absurdities of Massei "reconstruction"./QUOTE]
If, in fact, there was any blood on his jeans and shoes to clean up.

Do you have any evidence to support this conjecture?
Click to expand...
 
TomCH said:
So why remove his shoes them?

Personally, I would have just stepped into the shower as is, much easier.
Click to expand...

Obviously that would be one option. Given that it was a pretty cold (for Italy) night, I doubt Rudy wanted to end up completely soaked to the skin.

It also would defeat the object of the exercise for Rudy, which was to make his way home without attracting attention. i.e. 'Hi Rudy, how's it going? Why are you completely soaking wet leaving a trail of wet footprints when it's not raining?'
 
Withnail1969 said:
Obviously that would be one option. Given that it was a pretty cold (for Italy) night, I doubt Rudy wanted to end up completely soaked to the skin.

It also would defeat the object of the exercise for Rudy, which was to make his way home without attracting attention. i.e. 'Hi Rudy, how's it going? Why are you completely soaking wet leaving a trail of wet footprints when it's not raining?'
Click to expand...

And how is he going to wash his jeans and shoes without leaving them wet?
 
TomCH said:
And how is he going to wash his jeans and shoes without leaving them wet?
Click to expand...

they would have been damp, he proably used a towel to try to dry off most of the moisture, but a few damp patches are not in the same league as getting in the shower fully clothed.
 
TomCH said:
YOU think it is his, most people (at least those who matter) do not.
Click to expand...

Actually a lot of people think it's Rudy's. I wondered how long it would take you to come up with 'the court decided it was Raffaele's no matter how illogical, so that's all that counts' argument. I know you have a resident MS Paint footprint expert, but please let's not go down that road again.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
He didn't miss the other nail in the wall, maybe quite a trick to miss both of them. Look at the high resolution photo of the wall showing nail photo I provided to PMF slightly below and to the left of the remaining nail shows a hole where a nail was that has part of the brick chipped out as ina nail being stepped on and dislodged.
Click to expand...

The broken nail is about 30 in. (76 cm) below the window sill and slightly left of center of the window itself. If he had pushed off the grid with his right foot to place his weight on his hands (on the sill), the distance from his palms to where his left would be located on the cottage wall is about 30 in. He would twist his body slightly right to allow him to bring his right foot up to the sill (bypassing the nail on the right). As I have said before this is the same motion we all use to exit a swimming pool. The nail on the right is about 24 in. (61 cm.) from the sill and would hit Rudy about 2 in. ( 5 cm) below his hip joint, which is generally too high to use as a foothold, much easier to just hop up off his right foot.
I was thinking that Rudy may have been the one that put those nails in place. The location of the nails seem strange to me, I can't think of any reasonable purpose for nails in that location. One of the "dings" looks like a failed attempt at inserting a nail in the middle of a brick. It's much easier to put a nail in the mortar. All speculation of course !!!
 
RoseMontague said:
Withnail, you've got to catch up with the FOAKer dogma:

On the FOAKer site, Charlie Wilkes provides this description of how Rudy supposedly made the bathmat footprint - "Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat."

After this ballet class, it seems that FOAK would have Rudy put on his clean shoe, then like clumsy fool, promptly step in blood again and run out of the house, leaving shoeprints in the living room.
Click to expand...



It is one theory. I think he sat on the bed and removed his shoes leaving the two shoe prints at the end of the bed and the knife print on the bedspread. Then he went barefoot to the bathroom and washed up, returned to the bedroom and put his shoes back on before he left. Even his testimony says he went to the bathroom for towels to try and stop the bleeding from Meredith.
Click to expand...



Are you actually serious :eye-poppi - it sounds like you & CW both are juicing the piglet with those explanations.

There was a shower in the bathroom you know - it renders all this swan lake stuff unnecessary.


ETA If I may quote Kevin Lowe..... :)

They get into a lather of incredulity over trivialities they could explain themselves with a moment's thought, and if that doesn't work they make something up.

.
 
Last edited:
Charlie Wilkes said:
People have been portraying me as a conspiracy theorist for the past two and a half years. Now it's my turn. I am drawing a comparison, which I believe is both fair and relevant, between those who think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty and the 9-11 truthers. This is a case in which a known burglar left his DNA on two items of the victim's clothing, on her purse, and inside her vagina. He also left bloody fingerprints and shoe prints - all inside the room where the victim was killed. Against that, we've got the bra fastener, a knife from a different location that doesn't fit the wounds, and a supremely improbable premise. And yet the Mignini truthers insist that the case is strong, the evidence is overwhelming. The bum in the park is an unimpeachable witness. The luminol footprints were clearly made with blood, despite negative TMB tests and negative DNA tests. Every one of those tests was meaningless - but a DNA test that barely registered on the machine is good science, as is one collected from a sample that was kicked around on the floor and handled by two people before being dropped in a plastic bag.

It is nonsense, every bit of it. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are completely innocent. They had nothing to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Rudy Guede smashed his way into the place, attacked Meredith with a knife, ripped her clothes off, raped her, stole her money, and left her to die. That is the truth about this case - the only truth.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reminder. I'd forgotten why I stopped posting in this thread.
 
Kermit said:
.
I think that Judge Massei wrote a pretty solid report, and I wouldn't presume that I could second guess him.
Click to expand...
Accidentaly Massei forgot to explain his reasoning about the origin of the bathmat print and the luminol prints.


Kermit said:
I'm not saying that either the prosecution or the judges have the puzzle of all the evidence 100% in place. However, it requires a giant leap of faith to believe the Lone Wolf scenario offered as an alternative by FOAKers and The Entourage in general.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see which parts of the single perpetrator scenario are so hard to grasp for you. Especially compared to the numerous problems like
  • the time of death at odds with experts and science, yet any other ToD causes the case to fall apart
  • Break-in compatible with Rudy's MO. No positive evidence of any staging, and no trace of any performers of that staging. Yet if there was no staging, the case falls apart

  • absolute zero traces of Amanda or Raffaele in the murder room
  • no traces of any cleanup, yet no footprints in the murder room apart from Rudy's
  • DNA collection and testing methods that raise experts' eyebrows
  • absolute zero conclusive evidence (like bloody fingerprints or footprints or DNA in victim's vagina or on her body) of AK and RS guilt

  • unlawful unrecorded interrogations that strangely coincide with sudden confessions and dropped alibis
  • false confessions bearing all characteristics of being of a coerced internalised kind

  • ridiculous witnesses like Quintavalle contradicted both by his coworkers and police documentation or Toto who see nonexistent buses yet remembers the time to the minute. Not to mention Kokomani. Lack of other witnesses with any credibility.

  • evidence of prosecution's foul play by spreading lies influencing public opinion and jury: lies about bleach receipts, Harry Potter books, missing clothing, shoe prints etc. Infamous HIV test trick. Comodi's misremembering of the phone call details and misquoting of the wiretapped conversations about it.
  • evidence of tunnel vision in the early police statements - the police knew "Lumumba did it" before Amanda "buckled".
  • evidence of ILE's confirmation bias in evidence assessment - incredible blunder of ascribing Rudy's shoe prints to both AK and RS
  • Massei blunder: phone cell data used to "prove" Amanda left RS house is used to confirm she was there on the other day

  • evidence of ILE's amazing lack of professionalism: fried hard drives, losing data on the only hard drive they managed not to fry, not recording interrogations, forgetting to collect key evidence, trashing the crime scene, manipulating evidence with dirty gloves, not changing gloves
  • collecting the bra clasp from a totally trashed and contaminated crime scene 1.5 months later, after it had been moved in an undocumented way
  • withholding of the documentation by the prosecution
  • Stefanoni withholding negative tests results

  • lack of sensible explanation for Meredith's phone activity and the rest of evidence suggesting earlier ToD
  • crazy scenario of getting together with a stranger and a boyfriend of 6 days for an attempted ritualistic foursome or
  • reefers madness murder induced by cartoons and comic books or
  • no motive at all
  • alleged struggle of 4 people in a small room that left no traces
  • the kitchen knife carried for protection :) and kept in a drawer instead of being disposed


The list could of course go on and on. I'm sure I missed some of the more serious problems. But I'm not sure you can ascribe any such serious problems to the lone wolf scenario. So far I saw only arguments from incredulity, and not very strong ones.
 
Originally Posted by Kevin_Lowe

The argumentative methodology and associated social rituals of the 9-11 deniers are quite interesting. They don't do what we call "research" here at the JREF forums, which involves looking for scientific data and the best possible understanding of the facts. They do their own kind of "research" where they watch youtube vidoes, or read explanations of the events of 9-11 aimed at laypersons, then they just make up "impossibilities" or "contradictions" which exist solely in their own mind.

They take their newfound treasure to the Twoofer forums, where instead of being critically examined and weighed up these nuggets of Twoof are applauded with cult-like fervour, and perfectly reasonable alternative explanations are vigorously ridiculed.

<snip>
Click to expand...


Kevin_Lowe said:
<snip>

That's another common argumentative tactic of the pro-guilt side, I've noticed. They get into a lather of incredulity over trivialities they could explain themselves with a moment's thought, and if that doesn't work they make something up.
Click to expand...


Wow .... just wow :) - I am reminded of the 'broken window' perplexity.

I fear this episode will have to be looked at again as a case study of what we call "research" here at the JREF forums and as an examination of 'expert witness' status.

.
 
It was him, one of your own

Kevin_Lowe said:
What evidence is there that Rudy ever stuffed anything into his burglar's backpack? This sounds like something you just made up. That's another common argumentative tactic of the pro-guilt side, I've noticed.
Click to expand...

Don't blame me, I'm only the messenger.

Your colleague Withnail had said: "It's likely that Rudy didn't want to take any items which carried a risk of linking him to the crime scene, once the burglary had turned into a rape and murder."

So it's normal that I apply "a rigorously evidence-based, science-first approach" (your self-described method of work) to such speculation by Withnail.

Let's see, when Rudy sat down on the pink toilet seat in the other part of the house he had already likely been in the house at least for a few minutes (I mean, he would be a criminally poor criminal if he got the stomach cramps just when he was stuck on the outer wall in the view of passers by, and had to tumble into Filomena's room and go running to the bathroom on the far side of the house and sit down to intestinal bliss).

Although Charlie seems now to be painting a psychological profile of Rudy to be that of some serial killer called Ramirez, for the sake of argument here, let's just assume that he's a run of the mill human-fly burglar who initially only wanted to steal a computer or two (which the FOAKers seem to insist is part of a criminal past in Rudy).

So, there's a professional burglar who has arrived unscathed in Filomena's room, and he hasn't yet felt the need to run to the bathroom ..... what do burglars do? Why they steal things!! and since a portable computer, for as small as it may be won't fit into your Levis jeans hip pocket, any burglar worth his salt will have a bag or backpack to put his loot into, and he'll start putting things into that bag.

Or is the latest version of FOAKer speculation that he sat down and watched an Italian soap opera on TV, waiting for someone to come home in order to rape and murder them?

So, Kevin, let's get back to Withnail's theory which has troubled you: if Rudy wasn't going to take anything with him when he ran out of the cottage (thereby reducing his chances - according to Withnail - of getting associated with the crime, in spite of DNA and shoeprints which he did leave), then he would have had to unload and leave behind any burglar items which he had already tucked away.

Unless if you want to go the way of him tumbling into Filomena's room with stomach cramps which have seized him in the last three minutes while he was on the outer wall, trashing the room as he flails about orienting himself, not touching any of the burglarable material, running to the farthest away toilet, and just then an unsuspecting Meredith decides to enter the front door, not having seen the broken window from the outside nor the light in the other bathroom.
 

Nice summary.

Which will win?
Snow white or the seven dwarfs?
Good or evil?
Truth or fable?

Mirror, mirror on the wall, is Mag the most beautiful of them all?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom