Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RWVBWL]

Guilters -- chirp, chirp, cricket

Over time in discussing this case with the guilters I have come to know when they have been struck the hardest by - quiet.

I have not once managed to have a conversation with a guilter after asking them why the forensic team did not collect the clothing Meredith Kercher was wearing the night she was murdered. Not once. Every comment I have made in online papers, articles, blogs - all ignored. Not one taker. Even recently on JREF I asked Bolint to discuss this with me. I had high hopes but they did not reply. Most other topics the guilters reply to. When I hear crickets I know the reason. They have no reply to give. Not even Harry Rag or Michael can in their hearts excuse this. There is no comments to be given.

The same is true of the Gift Wraps a Mop video. Quiet, sweet quiet. Not once was the video posted on any of the guilt sites. Is it because they do not find it an interesting video or topic? No, they can not muster the strength to deny what is obvious.

I will ask them, if the forensic collection was so bad it can not even be discussed or posted on your sites, how do you maintain that there is not reasonable doubt about the forensic validity of this case?

Hi Draca,
You still can't get any guilter's to discuss the evidence collection with you. That sucks. I wonder why, aren't they interested in the truth, as I am? And I am sure you are too?

Heck, reading elsewhere today, I noticed some of the folks on .org pickin' on a fellow poster named Donnie when he made this statement in reply to Piktor having posted those OGGI video's that RoseMontague posted here on JREF:

Not impressed at all. Contamination or not, the police didn't do a good job that day.

Here's a coupla replies from 2 of the heavy hitters over there:

You'd base that statement on your extensive experience of scenes of crimes and evidence collection would you?

How do you know?

Now I am a simple kinda guy, who has never watched a complete episode of CSI or other similiar forensic crime shows on tv, but even I can tell that there was some sloppy work goin' on when Meredith Kercher's murder was being investigated. Heck, that bra-clasp collection video was a joke! Even Barbie Nadeau, on pages 51 + 52 of her book "Angel Face" writes of Stefanoni and her collegues "grave errors on camera".

Come on guilter's, aren't you folks interested in the truth too? Admit it, Stefanoni made a series of grave errors on camera when she collected evidence that day from the house that Meredith was slain at.

As I mentioned, I am interested in the truth. Call me "A Truther".
In a rape and murder trial, I wonder of a few things still. Maybe someone from the colpevolisti side can help answer these few questions I have, for they surely must have been asked in court during Rudy Guede's trial, I would have imagined:

1) How many sexual partners had Rudy Guede previously been with before Miss Meredith Kercher was brutally slain?

2) When was the last time that Rudy Guede, (who was seemingly unlucky with the ladies), got laid prior to the night Miss Meredith Kercher was murdered.

3) Did Rudy Guede have any prior history of sexual encounters with multiple male or female partners prior to the night Miss Meredith Kercher was killed?

4) Did Rudy Guede have any history of violence during any sexual encounters prior to the murder and rape of Miss Merdith Kercher?

4) Rudy Guede has stated that he was on a date with Meredith Kercher before she was murdered. He had left his DNA inside Meredith Kercher's vagina. Do you believe that he and Meredith stopped foolin' around because of a lack of condoms, as Rudy had said? If you believe this to be so, I ask this: Why didn't Rudy Guede have any condoms with him for this date? If they were fooling around, how come Meredith did not just tell Rudy to go get a condom or two from Amanda's toiletry kit in the girls shared bathroom?

Thanks for any replies, I am just interested in the truth...
RW

 

[bri1]

Suspicious behaviour after seeing blood?

Interesting morning this morning. Got up after my partner had left for work and there's a certain amount of blood in the kitchen. What's probably happened is that he cut his hand opening a can of cat food, and didn't have time to clean up before going to work. I texted him about an hour ago, to check, but so far no reply.
Seeing as it's definitely more blood than Amanda saw in the bathroom on the morning after the murder, I guess the guilters' advice would be to call the cops?!

 

[RWVBWL]

Bri1,
Ya better get a lawyer, quick!

 

[Alt+F4]

As I mentioned, I am interested in the truth. Call me "A Truther".
In a rape and murder trial, I wonder of a few things still. Maybe someone from the colpevolisti side can help answer these few questions I have, for they surely must have been asked in court during Rudy Guede's trial, I would have imagined:

1) How many sexual partners had Rudy Guede previously been with before Miss Meredith Kercher was brutally slain?

2) When was the last time that Rudy Guede, (who was seemingly unlucky with the ladies), got laid prior to the night Miss Meredith Kercher was murdered.

3) Did Rudy Guede have any prior history of sexual encounters with multiple male or female partners prior to the night Miss Meredith Kercher was killed?

What does this have to do with anything? Rape is about violence, anger and power more than being about sex.

4) Did Rudy Guede have any history of violence during any sexual encounters prior to the murder and rape of Miss Merdith Kercher?

No one has come forward saying they were sexually assulted by RG.

4) Rudy Guede has stated that he was on a date with Meredith Kercher before she was murdered. He had left his DNA inside Meredith Kercher's vagina. Do you believe that he and Meredith stopped foolin' around because of a lack of condoms, as Rudy had said? If you believe this to be so, I ask this: Why didn't Rudy Guede have any condoms with him for this date? If they were fooling around, how come Meredith did not just tell Rudy to go get a condom or two from Amanda's toiletry kit in the girls shared bathroom?

There was no "date". It's just another lie that RG made up.

 

[snook1]

Guede claimed that when he left the cottage, Meredith was still dressed and not covered by the duvet, right? Was this lie ever discussed? I bet it was, but let's go over it again.

Meredith's purse was found on the bed (without a duvet) with Guede's DNA on it. There was also a towel and several other items.

Guede, most probably, was the last person to ever touch Meredith's bag and he was the one who placed the towel on the bed, right?

Did he ever give a plausible explanation where the duvet was, when he touched/ placed the bag on the bed if it was not him who moved the duvet?

My guess is that he took the duvet off right after he killed Meredith, he covered her with it and then sat on the bed with a knife right next to him and started to go through her purse for money and phones, maybe he even cleaned his hands with a towel that was also found on the bed.

 

[Alt+F4]

Interesting morning this morning. Got up after my partner had left for work and there's a certain amount of blood in the kitchen. What's probably happened is that he cut his hand opening a can of cat food, and didn't have time to clean up before going to work. I texted him about an hour ago, to check, but so far no reply.
Seeing as it's definitely more blood than Amanda saw in the bathroom on the morning after the murder, I guess the guilters' advice would be to call the cops?!

That probably is what happened, the cans can have rough edges even if you use an electric can opener. Cutting your hand on a jagged can is very common occurance but if you live in bizzaro Amandaland the explanation is that your roommate got her period, stuck her hand in her panties and smeared blood on the faucet....just because!

 

[Diocletus]

That probably is what happened, the cans can have rough edges even if you use an electric can opener. Cutting your hand on a jagged can is very common occurance but if you live in bizzaro Amandaland the explanation is that your roommate got her period, stuck her hand in her panties and smeared blood on the faucet....just because!

So are you saying that a can was the murder weapon? At this point, that does seem more likely than the knife that the cops picked out of the drawer. . . just because.

 

[Alt+F4]

So are you saying that a can was the murder weapon? At this point, that does seem more likely than the knife that the cops picked out of the drawer. . . just because.

I'm saying that blood on a faucet is more likely to be caused by a cut than by a woman smearing her own menstrual blood on it.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

blood on faucet

I'm saying that blood on a faucet is more likely to be caused by a cut than by a woman smearing her own menstrual blood on it.

Alt+F4,

It was in all probability Amanda's blood on the faucet (Rep. 24), not Meredith's. It was Amanda's DNA, not mixed with anyone else's. My recollection is that Massei notes the lack of injuries on Amanda's body, so the few drops might have been from Amanda's ear (I think that is what she speculated) or something else.
EDT
Amanda's speculation about menstrual blood was used against her in the press and on blogs after the pink bathroom photo was released to the public. Bachrach wrote in Vanity Fair, "She had found the bathroom she shared with Meredith smeared with so much blood it looked as though a butcher had attempted washing up and then given up the task. Amanda was puzzled. 'It seemed a bit strange to me for the simple reason that all us girls are pretty clean and neat, and we clean up the bathroom,' she later reflected. Perhaps menstrual blood, she had thought with disgust. Or maybe someone in the house had hurt herself."

Dan O. and I have long argued that it was likely a botched Kastle-Meyer test that caused the pink color, but whatever it was, it was not blood, nor is it likely to be latent blood. Ms. Bachrach implied that Ms. Knox was lying about the state of the bathroom, writing, "In fact, the American girl’s first response when she saw her blood-drenched bathroom, she explained to incredulous policemen, was to leave Via Pergola and return to Raffaele’s house to tell him the whole story over a leisurely breakfast." If the bathroom looked essentially normal (as other photographs would show), then why would the policemen be incredulous?

 

[bri1]

That probably is what happened, the cans can have rough edges even if you use an electric can opener. Cutting your hand on a jagged can is very common occurance but if you live in bizzaro Amandaland the explanation is that your roommate got her period, stuck her hand in her panties and smeared blood on the faucet....just because!

I was really trying to make the point that I didn't panic because of the concurrence of the two events of not hearing back from my boyf and seeing the blood, and were anything to have happened to him (heaven forbid) and confirmation bias was in effect, my reaction could be construed as suspicious.
As to what type of explanation comes to mind, as it turned out, my 'explanation' turned out to be incorrect, and we think the cat went hunting. I think that women (who don't work as doctors, nurses, police etc) probably most closely associate blood with menstrual blood (especially in the context of a bathroom), and that menstrual problems (which I believe was as specific as Amanda got on this subject, rather than sticking hands in panties ) is therefore a perfectly natural thing for Amanda to think. If I recall correctly Amanda considered it as among one of a few non-worrying scenarios of how it got there.....

 

[LondonJohn]

Alt+F4,

It was in all probability Amanda's blood on the faucet (Rep. 24), not Meredith's. It was Amanda's DNA, not mixed with anyone else's. My recollection is that Massei notes the lack of injuries on Amanda's body, so the few drops might have been from Amanda's ear (I think that is what she speculated) or something else.

And of course Knox's speculation on the origin of the blood is not the one put forward by Alt+F4. Does it seem unreasonable that a woman might experience heavy menstrual bleeding unexpectedly early (before having an opportunity to make use of appropriate sanitary products), which might have caused her to rush to the bathroom, remove soiled underwear, and rinse the underwear and her hands in the sink?

After all, that's a reasonable proposition for the presence of the blood in the small bathroom, isn't it? It would take a biased, unreasonable, deliberately-provocative commentator to make a flip comment along the lines of "your roommate got her period, stuck her hand in her panties and smeared blood on the faucet....just because!", wouldn't it.....?

 

[Kaosium]

That probably is what happened, the cans can have rough edges even if you use an electric can opener. Cutting your hand on a jagged can is very common occurance but if you live in bizzaro Amandaland the explanation is that your roommate got her period, stuck her hand in her panties and smeared blood on the faucet....just because!

Hi Alt!

It seems her problem was that to some people she didn't think enough about it, which as Bri pointed out is probably more normal than freaking out immediately. It was kind of a delayed reaction freak, the door open, the blood in the bathroom, then she goes back to Raffaele's and starts thinking more about it. When Meredith doesn't answer either phone the freaking starts in full. Then afterward she has to explain to cops with nasty suspicious minds why she didn't freak immediately and she comes up with a couple things it could have been that might have been in the back of her mind, an accident and they left quickly to get something, or maybe menstrual issues and they didn't clean up, at any rate she didn't immediately assume the worst, because honestly, what are the odds of that?

I think the problem here is more the cops not stopping to realize at the time a college girl was unlikely to jump to the conclusion someone had been murdered, that's just an experience out of their ken. Then Amanda has to try to answer over and over why she didn't freak immediately. With no obvious cause like a can opener, she thinks of things that might leave a little blood in the bathroom that might have been in the back of her mind that she didn't immediately investigate because assuming the worst inherently would have been even stranger for a girl in her circumstances.

 

[RWVBWL]

But 1st, are you experienced? Have you ever been expeienced? Well, I have...

Greetings all,
I had a laugh today, for some old barney at another site got his chonies all bunched up in a wad because of my late post last night and the personal style of how I write while discussing this very brutal murder case seems to bother him. Generally speaking, I share personal details about my own life because this is what gives me an idea, a look, might you say, into the persona of the trio convicted of this murder we discuss in minute detail.

Who cares if I was only once arrested, 30 years ago? Or that I smoked pot a lot back then too. Who cares that I even grew my own buds 35 years ago? Or that I know guys who deal drugs and years ago, even went over to their house, just because we surfed together, as many others did too, and afterwards liked to spark a post-surf spliff or 2 before we scarfed out on breakfast? Who cares if I too poised with a machine gun for some silly photograph published in a surf magazine. Who cares that some surfer chick once, in complete suprise, showed me part of a perverted sex scene and I watched it for 10 seconds? Or that I once had the Los Angeles Police Department decline to file any charges against me for lack of evidence but still had a $$$$$$ hungry surfer chick, with a prior court case against someoneelse for sexual harrassment, come after me too, which I fortunately successfully defended? And lastly, who really cares if I share these details, simply because I know, from reading their own website, that these kooks elsewhere will try and find out some dirt on me anyways, as they did with Texas LondonJohn, and Fur Salesman Bruce Fisher, just because we do not agree with the court's - and their own, interpretation of the evidence in the brutal slaying of Miss Meredith Kercher?

I'm curious, what is it that gives you input into this crime we discuss?
Maybe you flew airplanes before, or translate words for paying customers, or count birds or count $$$? Cool. So basically your crime scene experience is not of a professional level, neither is mine, so I guess, theoretically speaking, since we should all be interested in the truth, we can converse and share thoughts on what we believe happened to Miss Meredith Kercher the night she had her life taken away so brutally, so tragically, so horribly slow.

Many of you might be college edu-macated, oppps, I mean educated. Cool. I'm not, but hey, y'que? Latino ghetto slang, so what...
I can still learn from you folks, for your viewpoints offer me a differnt look into a very personal, horrible murder that I have been following since it happened. And generally speaking, I don't bag on you folks and/or talk too much crap on this fine forum here at JREF when tryin' to let you know that I believe your beliefs are stupid, oppps, there I go again, I meant to say unrealistic.

An example: I don't talk personally put you down when folks actually believe the court's theory that after stabbing Meredith Kercher with a huuuge kitchen knife, Amanda took it back home to Raffaele's pad because the landlord might have noticed it missing or that hey, maybe she still wanted to cook with it! Right! Anyone who stabbed someone to death like in this case would have immediately discarded that knife somewhere in the nearby ravine by the gals cottage or near where the cell phones where finally found. Who in their right mind, obviously a bit concerned about being caught carrying a huuuge bloody knife, or heck, even 1 already wiped down, would then take a chance of getting busted by walking it back home and put it back in the utensils drawer?

This case has a bunch of stupid, illogical theories presented time and again, and it does make for an interesting read and debate. Hence why I participate, even though my up-bringin' and background are probably a lot different than your own. But hey, I never read anywhere that a person had to have a college degree to participate here or elsewhere. Doesn't my Venice High School diploma suffice?

L8, RW



PS - Now with all of that said, can any of the pro-guilt members stop tryin' to bag on me and just answer a simple question? In a murder and rape trial, this must have come up in court:

How many sexual partners did Rudy Guede have before the night Miss Meredith Kercher was brutally slain, stabbed again and again in her throat and raped?

I ask this only because we know already how many partners Amanda Knox had, as did Raffaele Sollecito, and this is a murder and rape we discuss. But neither of these Raff nor Amanda left their DNA inside Meredith Kercher, only Rudy Guede did.


Years later, I still have not read anywhere how many partners Rudy Guede had or if he was into violent sex, or heck, even comic books...
Why is that?


I gotta run,
my old dog, Tang, age 12 in people years, is on his last legs and I have to hand feed him by spoon.

Adios,
RW

 

[Rolfe]

What does this have to do with anything? Rape is about violence, anger and power more than being about sex.

No one has come forward saying they were sexually assulted by RG.

It seems to me that these questions were originally asked in a very specific context. Amanda's sexual history had been examined in great detail, and the fact that she had had seven sexual partners in her life was seen both as a reasonable thing to have ascertained and very significant (even to being mentioned as a reason for not granting bail).

At the same time, nobody seems to have the equivalent information for Rudy. The suggestion was of sexist double standards. I have yet to hear that being refuted.

Rolfe.

 

[LondonJohn]

I was really trying to make the point that I didn't panic because of the concurrence of the two events of not hearing back from my boyf and seeing the blood, and were anything to have happened to him (heaven forbid) and confirmation bias was in effect, my reaction could be construed as suspicious.
As to what type of explanation comes to mind, as it turned out, my 'explanation' turned out to be incorrect, and we think the cat went hunting. I think that women (who don't work as doctors, nurses, police etc) probably most closely associate blood with menstrual blood (especially in the context of a bathroom), and that menstrual problems (which I believe was as specific as Amanda got on this subject, rather than sticking hands in panties ) is therefore a perfectly natural thing for Amanda to think. If I recall correctly Amanda considered it as among one of a few non-worrying scenarios of how it got there.....

Exactly. This whole "blood in the small bathroom" issue is yet another example of ex-post-facto rationalisation (apologies for overuse of this term, but it's entirely appropriate for so many facets of this case!). In other words, people with the benefit of hindsight of the horrific crime that was lying as-yet-undiscovered behind Meredith's bedroom door can all too quickly create a false rationalisation: that an innocent Knox should have realised something serious had happened as soon as she saw the blood. Furthermore, they then point to Knox's apparent initial indifference to the blood as some sort of evidence of her guilt.

But both of these lines of thinking are classicly poor reasoning. Had there been pools of blood in the bathroom or hallway, or heavy blood spatter over walls or furniture, then most rational people would indeed have become concerned immediately that a serious incident had occurred within the cottage. However, this simply was not the case in the girls' cottage. There was only a very small amount of blood in the small bathroom - certainly not nearly enough to give most rational people any significant cause for concern.

It was only when Knox discovered that Filomena's window was broken, was unable to contact Meredith, and discovered that her bedroom door was locked, that the blood started to become more a significant indicator of foul play. And even at that point, there was absolutely nothing concrete to suggest that this was nothing more than an aborted break-in, with Meredith perhaps having stayed over at a friend's house overnight (during which time she might have either lost her phones or been separated from them). So even once the postal police arrived, there was nothing definitive to indicate that Meredith had come to physical harm: it was the accumulation of strange factors (the broken window, the blood, the locked door, the failure of Meredith to answer the phone) that led to a mounting concern that something had happened to Meredith. I am betting that nobody in the cottage when the door was broken in - including the police, Knox/Sollecito, and Filomena & her friends - expected to find Meredith's body lying in pools of her blood on the floor.

 

[Alt+F4]

Amanda's speculation about menstrual blood was used against her in the press and on blogs after the pink bathroom photo was released to the public.

I'm not refering to the pink bathroom photo, I'm refering to the close up photo of the faucet.

 

[Alt+F4]

Does it seem unreasonable that a woman might experience heavy menstrual bleeding unexpectedly early (before having an opportunity to make use of appropriate sanitary products), which might have caused her to rush to the bathroom, remove soiled underwear, and rinse the underwear and her hands in the sink?

That's not unreasonable at all but then the blood would have been on the handle not on top of the faucet.

 

[Alt+F4]

In a murder and rape trial, this must have come up in court:

How many sexual partners did Rudy Guede have before the night Miss Meredith Kercher was brutally slain, stabbed again and again in her throat and raped?

Why do you think this must have been brought up? As far as I know, it wasn't.

I ask this only because we know already how many partners Amanda Knox had, as did Raffaele Sollecito, and this is a murder and rape we discuss

. But neither of these Raff nor Amanda left their DNA inside Meredith Kercher, only Rudy Guede did.

Amanda's sex life was only being used by the media for salacious reasons. Rolfe's right, it was a sexual double standard. Reading about RG's sex life wasn't going to sell many newspapers. I still don't understand your point about the amount of sexual partners someone has had and their willingness to rape/murder.

 

[el buscador]

That's not unreasonable at all but then the blood would have been on the handle not on top of the faucet.

Riiggghhhhttttt.

What do you think of the report by the independent experts?

 

[Alt+F4]

So even once the postal police arrived, there was nothing definitive to indicate that Meredith had come to physical harm.

I agree but it was Amanda who said she was so paniced that she was "really banging" on Meredith's door, ran out to the terrace to see if she could see in the bedroom. She then procedes to run downstairs to the neighbors and starts banging on their door.