Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[moodstream]

I just read Knox’s trial testimony from 6 – 12/13 – 09. I got stuck on the story of Meredith’s door. If AK/RS are guilty, why invent the detail of trying but failing to break down Meredith’s door? Why would they lock Meredith’s door?

The Carabinieri were called before the postal police arrived. If AK/RS are guilty and they called the Carabinieri on themselves, a one good explanation is that by locking the door, they could reasonably claim not to have been aware of Meredith’s murder prior to the discovery of the body by the police. They could act just as surprised as the police.

My issue is this: If AK/RS are guilty, and imagined the coming scenario of the arrival of the police with a such fine level of detail to consider locking Merdith's door, how could it possibly be that they did not have one unified story to present to the police during the interrogation. It seems impossible that AK/RS could put so much careful and detailed thought into the staged break in, going so far as to weigh the advantages of having Meredith’s door locked, and yet be completely unprepared for the interrogation, totally unaware of what the other was saying.

 

[Chris C]

What lie did the police tell Amanda? All I know they said was that her boyfriend would not back her alibi which was the truth.

ETA: goalpost move noted. First assertion: police lying to witness wrong and illeagal
Second assertion: police can lie but not too much.

I gave you the link for you to read. Did you read it? If so, I'll explain it to you if you request it.

 

[Antony]

Both Amanda and Raffaele failed miserably in this regard. The police need to make sure that when they use such tactics they take care to verify that the result makes sense and they should have as much doubt about an admission after they use such tactics as they would about denials.

This is indeed something to be wished for. The trouble is that the police have no incentive to do so in those countries where we see practices that lead to miscarriages of justice - a false confession is as good as a real confession and a wrongful conviction is as good as a real one.

Even in the UK (where we have had safeguards against false confessions since the Guildford Four case unravelled in 1989) we still see blatant travesties like the wrongful conviction of Barry George over the Jill Dando murder. What is needed is real accountability against police who corrupt justice, and against judges who fail to act with impartiality. At present there is still little will to see injustice as a problem - even in cases where the real culprit escapes as a result.

 

[TomCH]

I just read Knox’s trial testimony from 6 – 12/13 – 09. I got stuck on the story of Meredith’s door. If AK/RS are guilty, why invent the detail of trying but failing to break down Meredith’s door?

Because they tried to break it in so that they could remove Amanda's lamp that they left in the room.

 

[moodstream]

Because they tried to break it in so that they could remove Amanda's lamp that they left in the room.

Why? So what if Amanda's cheap plastic lamp is in Meredith's room? It's probably not even really Amanda's and even if it is, she lives in the next room of a *shared* cottage. There is nothing suspicious about it. But anyway,if that's the reason, why tell the police about it?

 

[Chris C]

I just read Knox’s trial testimony from 6 – 12/13 – 09. I got stuck on the story of Meredith’s door. If AK/RS are guilty, why invent the detail of trying but failing to break down Meredith’s door? Why would they lock Meredith’s door?

The Carabinieri were called before the postal police arrived. If AK/RS are guilty and they called the Carabinieri on themselves, a one good explanation is that by locking the door, they could reasonably claim not to have been aware of Meredith’s murder prior to the discovery of the body by the police. They could act just as surprised as the police.

My issue is this: If AK/RS are guilty, and imagined the coming scenario of the arrival of the police with a such fine level of detail to consider locking Merdith's door, how could it possibly be that they did not have one unified story to present to the police during the interrogation. It seems impossible that AK/RS could put so much careful and detailed thought into the staged break in, going so far as to weigh the advantages of having Meredith’s door locked, and yet be completely unprepared for the interrogation, totally unaware of what the other was saying.

You left out a couple of other small things. If AK/RS are guilty, then someone killed Meredith while they watched. Since there is no evidence that they cleaned up the scene. Bathroom wasn't cleaned, there was blood in sink. Floor wasn't mopped, Rudy's bloody shoeprints led from the body to the door. So why even return in the morning at all. Continue with your planned trip like the rest of the roommates. You then have an alibi you were out of town.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Why? So what if Amanda's cheap plastic lamp is in Meredith's room? It's probably not even really Amanda's and even if it is, she lives in the next room of a *shared* cottage. There is nothing suspicious about it. But anyway,if that's the reason, why tell the police about it?

I bet it has something to do with the mop. Or the bathmat. Or [403].

 

[Chris C]

Because they tried to break it in so that they could remove Amanda's lamp that they left in the room.

Its funny you would mention a lamp, when Rudy's bloody handprint is all over the wall by the lightswitch. There is also another lamp below it.

 

[TomCH]

Why? So what if Amanda's cheap plastic lamp is in Meredith's room? It's probably not even really Amanda's and even if it is, she lives in the next room of a *shared* cottage. There is nothing suspicious about it. But anyway,if that's the reason, why tell the police about it?

It is very suspicious.

Why tell the police? Because the police would notice the damage to the door, so they had to invent something!

 

[Draca]

Its funny you would mention a lamp, when Rudy's bloody handprint is all over the wall by the lightswitch. There is also another lamp below it.

We don't know for sure if the fingerstreaks on the wall belong to Meredith or Rudy. No DNA or fingerprints were retrieved from them.

Amanda's lamp in Meredith's rooms seems to be destined to remain a mystery. An unexplained oddity.

 

[Draca]

Because they tried to break it in so that they could remove Amanda's lamp that they left in the room.

Do you have a theory as to why they would need to bring Amanda's lamp into Meredith bedroom?

The overhead light and Meredith's lamp both worked. Why couldn't they use those?

What did they need the lamp for if there was no sign of cleaning?

 

[Chris C]

It is very suspicious.

Why tell the police? Because the police would notice the damage to the door, so they had to invent something!

The lamp was lying behind the door on the floor. It left a scraping mark when the door was opened. Thats an odd place to place a lamp while cleaning up. They couldn't possible not noticed it when leaving the room, the lamp would have been in the way of closing or opening the door. So the most likely explanation is the lamp was already in the room when the murder happened. It got knocked down in the way of the door during the struggle. When the murderer jerked the door open to leave the room it left the scrape.
If a clean up happened and Knox or Sollecito put the lamp in the room, where did they plug in the lamp that would have left it in the way of the door and left the cord of the lamp facing towards the desk where Meredith's computer is.

 

[Chris C]

We don't know for sure if the fingerstreaks on the wall belong to Meredith or Rudy. No DNA or fingerprints were retrieved from them.

Amanda's lamp in Meredith's rooms seems to be destined to remain a mystery. An unexplained oddity.

We know its not Meredith's, there would be more than a hand streak on the wall, bed or night stand if her throat was cut. A lot more! So that leaves Rudy. We know its not Knox's or Sollecito's because if either of those left it, it would have been the first thing they would have scrubbed off the wall in their supposed clean up.

 

[Chris C]

Do you have a theory as to why they would need to bring Amanda's lamp into Meredith bedroom?

The overhead light and Meredith's lamp both worked. Why couldn't they use those?

What did they need the lamp for if there was no sign of cleaning?

Like i just said in a previous post. The lamp had to have been in the room before the murder. If it was there after the murder, Knox/Sollecito couldn't have closed the door because the lamp would have been in the way.

 

[Draca]

We know its not Meredith's, there would be more than a hand streak on the wall, bed or night stand if her throat was cut. A lot more! So that leaves Rudy. We know its not Knox's or Sollecito's because if either of those left it, it would have been the first thing they would have scrubbed off the wall in their supposed clean up.

I don't think that's true. There was also blood on the floor by the bed. One of the first knife stabs probably happened in this corner of the room. Not the fatal stab that happened near the wardrobe but one or both of the shallower cuts. Meredith could have raised her hand to her throat getting blood on her hand and then touched the wall.

Where do you think Rudy got the blood on his hand if it wasn't from Meredith? If you believe it is his fingerstreaks - and I'm not sure one way or the other.

 

[Chris C]

Where do you think Rudy got the blood on his hand if it wasn't from Meredith? If you believe it is his fingerstreaks - and I'm not sure one way or the other.

Not Meredith's fingerstreaks. The prosecutions reconstruction of the crime makes it impossible for Meredith to be standing and leave those fingerstreaks. The clean up, they claim happened, makes it impossible for it to be Knox's or Sollecito's. So therefore you have Rudy's fingerstreaks by the light switch.

 

[colonelhall]

I try to keep away from this thread, I really do, but it is so compulsive. Especially now that most reasonable people have left Kev to argue with nobody to listen.

However, we are now getting back to the lamp and I just find it hilarious. For a group of people who are constantly shouting "cite" whenever their views are challenged, I crack up when I see explanations such as the lamp was "probably not even really Amanda's"

As for "The lamp was lying behind the door on the floor. It left a scraping mark when the door was opened" - Is the theory that Meridith put it in this position before she expired? Surely, if the lamp was blocking the door, then it could only have been placed there by somebody in the room.

The lamp was "probably" there because the murderers "probably" knew that the bra clasp would dob them in it, so they "probably" used it to search for the incriminating evidence ....... but "probably" not.

 

[Chris C]

As for "The lamp was lying behind the door on the floor. It left a scraping mark when the door was opened" - Is the theory that Meridith put it in this position before she expired? Surely, if the lamp was blocking the door, then it could only have been placed there by somebody in the room.

Why do you assume it was placed? The prosecutions theory is they forgot the lamp in the room. Yet how could they forget it when it would be in the way of opening and closing the door. They couldn't have opened the door to leave without knocking it down if they placed it behind the door. If the door was open when they placed it on the floor it would have gotten knocked out of the room when closing the door. Since the lamp was in the room, we know the lamp would was behind the door. So for Knox/Sollecito to place the lamp there it would have been in the way of the door when they left. So they would have had to have jerked the door open after they used the lamp to leave the scrape. Its kind of hard to forget your lamp in a room when u just smashed it.

 

[Draca]

Not Meredith's fingerstreaks. The prosecutions reconstruction of the crime makes it impossible for Meredith to be standing and leave those fingerstreaks. The clean up, they claim happened, makes it impossible for it to be Knox's or Sollecito's. So therefore you have Rudy's fingerstreaks and if I had to guess it would be his right hand, by the light switch.

Why am I to believe the prosecutions reconstruction? I'm talking about what really happened based on the evidence in the room.

We are talking about the fingerstreaks on the wall between the bedside table and bed right? I don't see how it can be determine if they were made by Meredith or Rudi. If there was blood on one of their hands it was probably from Meredith. Rudi could have gotten her blood on his hand or Meredith could have gotten her own blood on her hand after touching her throat. Both are possibilities.

There is even the outside possibility that it is Rudi Guede's blood and print. We do know that he had a cut on his hand.

 

[Draca]

Like i just said in a previous post. The lamp had to have been in the room before the murder. If it was there after the murder, Knox/Sollecito couldn't have closed the door because the lamp would have been in the way.

Meredith would have needed to both depart and arrive with the lamp set in such a way that it would be possible to do so without the lamp tipping over in that case. Very possible.

I have wondered if Rudi Guede grabbed the lamp to look for Meredith's keys in the past. However, Dan O. has pointed out that the overhead light worked so I don't see a reason to do that.

The lamp remains a mystery.