RoseMontague
Published Author
The could have been looking for a large rock, or perhaps they went to the library.
Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Chris_Halkides
- Start date
- Status
The could have been looking for a large rock, or perhaps they went to the library.
Katody Matrass
Master Poster
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,119
That's the problem.
Unless you finally articulate a scenario out of your hunches, a consistent one (let alone plausible), there is really not much to talk about. For you things look suspicious. For me nothing unusual. You cannot even show anything that is obvious lie or attempt to mislead and not just randomness and imprecision of memory of the witnesses. It just gets boring after some time.
Let's see your scenario of the crime. Let's see there's some alternative to the common sense conclusion that Guede assaulted and murdered the girl that walked on him in the course of a burglary.
Antony
Graduate Poster
Is this a serious question? Why would Amanda not wish to destroy evidence, having arrived home to find the front door open, drops of blood in the other bathroom, a broken window and her flatmate's bedroom door locked?
Of course, if she had flushed it then there would only be her word that there had been anything there in the first place, and the guilters would be accusing her either of making it up or of destroying evidence.
I find the suggestion that Amanda's not flushing the toilet is in some way suspicious behaviour on her part, quite bizarre.
Nor, the first part of it is clearly about Juve because he got the job for Amanda.
Surely they did not spend four hours in the town centre streets.
Complete nonsense.
At least you should know her cockamamie story.
In that story at that time there was no suspicion of any crime.
She even had to consult with Raffaele first to arrive at the conclusion that there is "something strange" there.
So what they were doing?
RoseMontague
Published Author
Watching a movie, at Raffaele's.
Skwinty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5,593
From your link, says the same thing.
The witnesses also recalled how Ms Kercher struck up a friendship with Ms Knox, who she first regarded as "pretty and nice" – but said that the relationship degenerated as the English girl struggled to put up with her flatmate's personal habits.
They recalled how Ms Kercher complained that Ms Knox left the shared bathroom dirty, failed to flush the toilet and left a see-through washbag containing condoms and a rabbit-shaped vibrator lying around. They also said that she brought men home.
Certainly it is. If it were not a problem then the case would be solved.
Of course, if I show something which is an obvious lie, then it is
- coerced
- stoned
- imprecise
- confused
- beaten out
- inadmissible
- not beyond reasonable doubt
- or any combination of the above
Can't be a serious problem. You can always cheer up by imprecating Stefanoni or Mignini for a while.
Does common sense conclusion also imply that Amanda and Raffaele start to lie about there whereabouts and their activities and Amanda accuses Lumumba?
It is at a variance with Raffaele's account.
RoseMontague
Published Author
OK. Other accounts and evidence confirm it. Raffaele was wrong. Do you think he was intentionally lying? Again, for what reason?
Skwinty
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 5,593
The reason anyone lies is to try and excuse themselves from responsibility.
If I committed a murder and was arrested, I would have 2 options.
1. Come clean and admit guilt.
2. Lie through my teeth and hope I can pull the wool over the polices eye.
Option 2 tends to get a bit sticky and the aim of lying in the first place is acquittal.
Just my opinion, YMMV.
RoseMontague
Published Author
I don't disagree with you. However, no crime happened in the time frame we are discussing. Neither the prosecution or defense makes that claim. It does not matter where those two were at this time. Meredith was with her friends up to 8:45PM. Why would they lie about what they did at 7PM?
That's what I doubt.
To my knowledge there is nothing between 18:27 and 20:35 that proves that they were at home.
Is there anything according to you?
Justinian2
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2,804
Thank you for the facts and the reply. I looked in the Massei report to confirm what you said. The small bathroom was near Meredith's room and Amanda's room. The luminol stain was found there. Rudy's legacy was in the other bathroom. I was thinking that an explanation that had them being made at the same time was simpler and thus more logical, but I was wrong.
I'm trying to connect pairs of evidence and fact as many of the evidentiary tidbits are too small to indicate anything by themselves.
Looking the aggregate DNA evidence shows gross incompetence more than anything else. Looking at the DNA evidence separately told a different story in the first trial.
RoseMontague
Published Author
They don't have to prove their innocence, Bolint. The prosecution has to prove they were at the scene of the crime at the time the crime occurred and that they committed the crime. I can't prove I was home last night at certain times, nor could anybody provide proof of where they were and what they were doing every minute of a day. At 18:27 to 20:35 Meredith was with her friends, how could AK and RS have murdered her then?
RoseMontague
Published Author
Have you ever experienced any uncertainty as to what you did or when you did something on a certain day? Is it your opinion that anyone who doesn't get this right is lying about it?
RWVBWL
Master Poster
Condoms
I know that most do not believe Rudy Guede's story that he had a "date" with Meredith Kercher and that after they fooled around a bit, they only stopped because Rudy didn't have a condom. I've always thought to myself what kinda guy heads over to a woman's house that he hopes to hook up with and doesn't bring his jimmy's with him? But then I recalled reading that Rudy hadn't had much luck with the ladies in quite awhile, heck he didn't even have a girlfriend, so that made his lack of carrying a condom a little more understandable.
I had wondered, didn't I read that Amanda had a toiletry case in Meredith and hers shared bathroom that had a toy in it, and some condoms too? Thanks for refreshing my memory, Skwinty, it was true, there were condoms in the bathroom. So I thought that if Rudy and Meredith were consensually gettin' it on, well Meredith herself would have known where to find a condom, as any gal would want to if she was really in need of 1 right then. Hadn't she borrowed them before from Amanda?
So Rudy's story, that they stopped their intimate encounter is, as I always knew in my gut anyways, bogus, for he should have known where some condoms were and known of that pink vibrator.
Now I've seen it written before that some rapists will wear a condom when they commit a rape, so as not to leave evidence behind, which makes sense to me. You too?
So how come,
-(if Amanda was there that night, partipated, and then preformed a nearly immaculent clean-up),
when Rudy possibly, no probably pulled his penis out of his pants when Miss Kercher was sexually assaulted, Amanda did not get a him a condom from her bathroom case so that he might also not leave evidence behind? Evidence which was possibly, dare I say, probably, left behind? Evidence that appears to have been wet when the shoeprint stepped on it. Evidence which, according to the prosecution, does not need to be tested.
Hmmm,
RW
Hi all,
I know that most do not believe Rudy Guede's story that he had a "date" with Meredith Kercher and that after they fooled around a bit, they only stopped because Rudy didn't have a condom. I've always thought to myself what kinda guy heads over to a woman's house that he hopes to hook up with and doesn't bring his jimmy's with him? But then I recalled reading that Rudy hadn't had much luck with the ladies in quite awhile, heck he didn't even have a girlfriend, so that made his lack of carrying a condom a little more understandable.
I had wondered, didn't I read that Amanda had a toiletry case in Meredith and hers shared bathroom that had a toy in it, and some condoms too? Thanks for refreshing my memory, Skwinty, it was true, there were condoms in the bathroom. So I thought that if Rudy and Meredith were consensually gettin' it on, well Meredith herself would have known where to find a condom, as any gal would want to if she was really in need of 1 right then. Hadn't she borrowed them before from Amanda?
So Rudy's story, that they stopped their intimate encounter is, as I always knew in my gut anyways, bogus, for he should have known where some condoms were and known of that pink vibrator.
Now I've seen it written before that some rapists will wear a condom when they commit a rape, so as not to leave evidence behind, which makes sense to me. You too?
So how come,
-(if Amanda was there that night, partipated, and then preformed a nearly immaculent clean-up),
when Rudy possibly, no probably pulled his penis out of his pants when Miss Kercher was sexually assaulted, Amanda did not get a him a condom from her bathroom case so that he might also not leave evidence behind? Evidence which was possibly, dare I say, probably, left behind? Evidence that appears to have been wet when the shoeprint stepped on it. Evidence which, according to the prosecution, does not need to be tested.
Hmmm,
RW
Last edited:
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
Uneasy feelings.
Amanda in Nov 4 email:
"it was after i was putting back the dryer that i noticed the
**** that was left in the toilet, something that definately no one in
out house would do. i started feeling a little uncomfortable and so i
grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, closing and locking
the door that no one had come back through while i was in the shower"
Last edited:
- Status