• 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.
Dan O. said:
A few pages back, someone mentioned that it would have been easier for rudy to use the shower to clean up the blood on his trousers than the Bidet. The problem with using a shower is if the spray is coming down from overhead he would be likely to get drenched from top to bottom. Since he is in a hurry to get away from the crime scene, I doubt that he would be stripping down to take a full shower.

It recently occurred to me that if the shower had a flexible sprayer like this one:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=4045[/qimg]

He could rinse blood off the lower pant leg without undressing (only the shoe would need to be removed). And he could step out from the shower directly onto the edge of the bath mat so as not to put his bare foot on the cold tile floor.
Click to expand...


That brings up an interesting point Dan O. According to the Massei report, Raffaele took a shower as Amanda cleaned off in the Bidet. My question is, how he could have showered off blood without leaving droplets all over the shower curtain, walls, and basin?
 
Katody Matrass said:
Some guilters' argument that Rudy couldn't possibly have made the bathmat print because it requires some unbelievable gymnastics always appeared strange to me. After all someone made that print, while cleaning himself up, it didn't come to existence magically. If it's doable, Guede could have done it very well.
Click to expand...


The guilters like to say that this footprint made in diluted blood came from someone (they say Raffaele) walking barefoot from the murder room into the bathroom. But they never complete the scenario by explaining why there are no bloody bare footprints in the murder room or in the hall leading towards the bath.
 
Shall we have a new title also

Fiona said:
Time for this thread to be closed and a new one started surely ?
Click to expand...


Shall we have a new title also - we did last time.

Perhaps a poll would be in order.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of an internalized false confession

Amanda Knox guilty - No, it was the african one shoed man.

Amanda Knox guilty - No, she's not the type.

Amanda Knox guilty - Its Dreyfus all over again [I tell ya]

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of Mignini

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of Comodi's lies.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a virtual parade

Amanda Knox guilty - all because ....I dont care - she's pretty.

Amanda Knox guilty - Another thread ? you're really juicing the piglet on this.

.
 
Last edited:
moodstream said:
That brings up an interesting point Dan O. According to the Massei report, Raffaele took a shower as Amanda cleaned off in the Bidet. My question is, how he could have showered off blood without leaving droplets all over the shower curtain, walls, and basin?
Click to expand...

Also I thought blood could be identified in a drain. Did they check the shower thoroughly?
 
platonov said:
Shall we have a new title also - we did last time.

Perhaps a poll would be in order.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of an internalized false confession

Amanda Knox guilty - No, it was the african one shoed man.

Amanda Knox guilty - No, she's not the type.

Amanda Knox guilty - Its Dreyfus all over again [I tell ya]

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of Mignini

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of Comodi's lies.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a virtual parade

Amanda Knox guilty - all because ....I dont care - she's pretty.

.
Click to expand...

How about

The Amanda Knox Case: The Appeal

Or

Amanda Knox: The Appeal

That way we keep all the sarcasm out of it.
 
Dan O. said:
The guilters like to say that this footprint made in diluted blood came from someone (they say Raffaele) walking barefoot from the murder room into the bathroom. But they never complete the scenario by explaining why there are no bloody bare footprints in the murder room or in the hall leading towards the bath.
Click to expand...

Well, of course they claim that these prints were magically cleaned up to a perfect degree. :rolleyes:

But more important that that is that the bath mat print is clearly made in by the sole of a foot that is fairly saturated with a blood/water mix. This is evident because the partial print is very distinctive, with strong edges and no blotches. But if this print is part of a series of prints that originated in Meredith's room, there's practically no way that the person's right foot sole would still have sufficient volume of fluid on it to make such a print by the time they reached the bathroom. In other words, the majority of blood/water on the person's right sole would have deposited itself onto the floor in the two or three (minimum) prior footfalls that would have been necessary before reaching the bathroom. But this rather important point seems to get overlooked. Wonder why...?
 
tsig said:
Then no one here is in a position to say they were paraded around town so using the "paraded around town" factoid to deride the Italian justice system is dishonest.
Click to expand...

"Dishonesty" is a very strong accusation to bandy about. And a touch desperate? Getting worried about the appeal?
 
moodstream said:
That brings up an interesting point Dan O. According to the Massei report, Raffaele took a shower as Amanda cleaned off in the Bidet. My question is, how he could have showered off blood without leaving droplets all over the shower curtain, walls, and basin?
Click to expand...


The blood stain found in the bidet is like a single drip of diluted blood that started near the rim and flowed down to the drain. If the bidet was used for cleanup, the flushing would have removed this drip. Therefore the drip into the bidet occurred after the bidet was last used and not during the cleaning. One possibility is a drip from the cuff of his pants as Rudy uses the bidet as a foot stool to put his shoe back on.

When using the shower to clean a pant leg that is still being worn, one would use a low pressure to avoid getting water and blood splashback everywhere. The basin and lower walls can later be cleaned up with a high pressure rinse. Amanda using this same shower in the morning would have also inadvertently washed away the residue.


BTW: Tilex is another substance that reacts with luminal.
 
platonov said:
Shall we have a new title also - we did last time.

Perhaps a poll would be in order.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of an internalized false confession

Amanda Knox guilty - No, it was the african one shoed man.

Amanda Knox guilty - No, she's not the type.

Amanda Knox guilty - Its Dreyfus all over again [I tell ya]

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of Mignini

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of Comodi's lies.

Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a virtual parade

Amanda Knox guilty - all because ....I dont care - she's pretty.

Amanda Knox guilty - Another thread ? you're really juicing the piglet on this.

.
Click to expand...

Genius.

How about:

Amanda Knox not guilty - all because of the evil TV networks?

Amanda Knox not guilty - all because of an ex-FBI agent?

Amanda Knox not guilty - all because oooh she's put on weight in prison hasn't she?

Amanda Knox not guilty - all because a lawyer from Seattle who's not working on her defence committed a drink-driving offence?

.
.
.
.
****
.
&&
.
.
.
 
christianahannah said:
An article from Umbria24.it. It is readable for most part with Google Translate. Includes summaries of Amanda's, Raffaele's and the prosecution's appeals.

The first paragraph states that the trial will likely last not less than 10 meetings. I wonder with the holidays and limited days that the court meets how long this will be - and if the trial will go much longer if the court grants the requests of the defendants in their separate appeals.

http://www.umbria24.it/cronaca/mere...appello-per-amanda-knox-e-raffaele-sollecito/
Click to expand...

From what I could make out are they saying that the November 24th appeal date is being pushed back to December 11th because someone involved with the case is pregnant?

If this article is correct then we will be hearing from two new witnesses: the baby killer and the mobster. I think it's a bad sign for the defense.
 
LondonJohn said:
I can only suppose that the defence teams have got something significantly more than just the publicly-known statements of these two gentlemen. After all, as you say, they are controversial figures (to say the least), and I imagine that it wouldn't be difficult for the prosecution to refute their testimony if it wasn't backed up by something more substantive. And if their testimony were easy to refute, then it would probably end up damaging the defence's credibility in producing them in the first place. I guess we shall soon find out...
Click to expand...

It sounds like desperation to me. There is zero evidence that Antonio Aviello was ever in that house. So where's the knife and keys this gangster said he hid?
 
LondonJohn said:
I wonder why so many people are lobbying for this? Very interesting...

And what would this new thread be titled....?
Click to expand...


The last split at 15000 posts was primarily because the forum software requires more CPU resources to display a page from a long thread and the system was noticeably overtaxed at the time. I'm seeing some delays refreshing pages now but it's not nearly as bad as things were before the last round of thread splitting. The new server helps significantly.

There is no pressing need to split the thread but I wouldn't mind seeing it split when the appeals start.
 
Alt+F4 said:
It sounds like desperation to me. There is zero evidence that Antonio Aviello was ever in that house. So where's the knife and keys this gangster said he hid?
Click to expand...

Well this is the whole point. I (and most neutral observers) believe that the appeals have strong arguments attacking most of the important prosecution evidence from the first trial*. As such, there would appear to be little point in bringing these two characters into the defence, unless they had something a good deal more substantive than just their words. We will have to wait and see.

* And I remain somewhat critical of the defence teams for not being able to produce these arguments during the first trial. I wonder if the additional of extra legal assistance has had an effect here?
 
Alt+F4 said:
From what I could make out are they saying that the November 24th appeal date is being pushed back to December 11th because someone involved with the case is pregnant?

If this article is correct then we will be hearing from two new witnesses: the baby killer and the mobster. I think it's a bad sign for the defense.
Click to expand...

No, the December 11 date was always in the calendar. IIRC, Bongiorno is currently about 5 months pregnant, so it's likely that this issue will only potentially affect the timing of the appeal from February of next year onwards.
 
christianahannah said:
I noticed that the appeals ask to question two somewhat controversial witnesses, Mario Alessi for Raffaele and Luciano Aviello for Amanda. If granted, this could have the effect of adding many more meetings to the trial.
Click to expand...

Hasn't a big part of Amanda's defense been the lack of her DNA in Meredith's bedroom? Yet now, they want to present evidence that someone (the gangster's brother) could have murdered Meredith and left ZERO DNA or any other evidence!

If the gangster's brother could have murdered Meredith without leaving DNA then so could Amanda. What is the defense thinking?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom