Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[bolint]

OK, so it's Amanda in her white skirt. Why no blood on that skirt the day after?

She changed it upon arrival. That's probably one of the reasons she went there anyway.

So he was completely unaware and innocent? Why would he "lie repeatedly" then?

Completely unaware? I don't think so. At some point during the night he learnt that a murder had happened.
he wanted to help, got involved into the cleanup/coverup and there was no innocent way out for him.

Anyway, it is remarkable that he hardly helped Amanda during the trial.
Only when it was useful for himself.

Why?

 

[lowriderrsa]

No. The skirt's edge is much lower than the bottom of the bag.



Fully? How could I?



9:20 may be somewhat later, but not later than 22:20.




I don't think that was the explanation. It was centered around RG, unknown to RS but referred to as someone from Lumumba's pub. Exactly what she told RS is not known. It was not necessarily murder at first.



Why would RG be confused? He fully knows how the murder happened. Even by his own account.



Let's discuss them.

Bolint. I've had a look at multiple versions of the CCTV footage. Based on that I would have to say that you must be mistaken. Not because I can actually clearly make out what is on the footage, but simply because, for your theory to hold water there would have to be additional footage of another female shortly before or after. Which there isn't. So we can be fairly certain it was Meredith.

 

[RoseMontague]

Personally, I've looked at the CCTV picture and I can't tell anything more than something that looks human and probably female passed up the street. I can't possibly use that as evidence against Knox.

I would also point out that we know for sure Meredith walked up that street at about that time. So if that isn't her, where is she?

Rolfe.

Good point. I don't see Raffaele either.

 

[LondonJohn]

No. The skirt's edge is much lower than the bottom of the bag.

Sorry, but I think you're totally wrong here.

Take a look at this link, which shows a still from the CCTV footage:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...V-footage-night-British-student-murdered.html

Look at the human figure in the right centre of the red circle in the image. That is as clear an image of the figure as is possible given the quality of the camera equipment and the lighting. You will note (if you examine the figure objectively) that we can see the lower torso of the person (the upper torso and head are obscured by the ceiling of the parking garage), and the lower body. The upper torso appears to be mid-light in colour, and you can also clearly see a blob of light colouration below the lower torso area. But it's also clear to see that this light blob is not directly below the lower torso area: it is quite clearly offset to the right. In fact, directly below the lower torso area can be seen a dark area, which can be therefore taken to be the figure's lower body.

The figure in this grainy, blurry image is therefore entirely consistent with Meredith Kercher, who was wearing a light-blue Adidas jacket and mid/dark-blue jeans, and carrying a large light beige tote bag. The figure is walking from left to right across the screen, so the light blob at below-waist level offset to the right is entirely consistent with Meredith holding her tote bag slightly in front of her legs as she approaches the cottage. And it's also clear, even from this blurry image, that the light blob below and to the right of the waist of the figure does not extend all the way to ground level (as a long skirt of the type worn by Knox would have done).

 

[Katody Matrass]

She changed it upon arrival. That's probably one of the reasons she went there anyway.

Where are those bloody clothes?

Completely unaware? I don't think so. At some point during the night he learnt that a murder had happened.
he wanted to help, got involved into the cleanup/coverup and there was no innocent way out for him.

Now I don't get what you mean. Why wouldn't they rehearse a story?

Anyway, it is remarkable that he hardly helped Amanda during the trial.
Only when it was useful for himself.

Nonsense. He supported Amanda's alibi all those years.

 

[js202]

Could you cite something that it was illegal no to record?
If it was illegal why was this illegality not used by the defence?

The Italian Supreme Court ruled the statement inadmissible. That's good enough for me. Meanwhile, leaks to the press and rampant speculation on sites like PMF and TJMK had poisoned opinion against a 20 year old girl who had no attorney, suffered a round robin interrogation like something out of the Third Reich or a Kafka novel, and was coerced to sign a statement not written in her native language.


I know of the Tramontani and the lawyer's office burglary but it was not proven to be Rudy, though I'm willing to believe that he was the one in both cases.

Then you admit that Guede was the experienced criminal in this case. Given that Guede was caught red-handed in the elementary school with a laptop from the attorney's office, I think most fair-minded and rational persons can come to the likely conclusion without too much difficulty.


There is reason to argue that way.
Amanda's story of spending more than one hour in the cottage and seing some disturbing signs and not even knocking on anyone's door is ridiculous.
Also, they contradict each other about Filomena's door. Raffaele says it was open, Amanda says it was closed when they entered tha cottage.

Again, because you do not have reliable physical evidence that the break-in was staged, you are forced to rely upon your suspicions regarding Amanda Knox's statements and behavior. You believe her to be guilty -- or at least on some level culpable -- so you are inclined to give the prosecution the benefit of the doubt on their unproven theory. If you are predisposed to such speculation, then knowledge about Rudy Guede's background as a burglar should incline you to at least consider it equally likely that he broke in without any staging, whatsoever. Regardless, by working backward from your assumption of AK's involvement/guilt, you are engaging in a logical fallacy.


Three drives were damaged, but two of them (those in Raffele's second computer and Meredith's computer) have been repaired and it was possible to read them.
The only unreadable hard drive is Amanda's but I don't see what exculpatory evidence could come out of it. In Amanda's version her computer was not used during that night and the next day.

That any hard drives, whatsoever, were damaged, should make all cautious persons blanch with regard to the competence and trustworthiness of these provincial, Keystone Kops.

 

[lowriderrsa]

She changed it upon arrival. That's probably one of the reasons she went there anyway.

Sounds plausible, but there's no prooof. You see she was photographed the next day with it on and clean. And the chances of her or any other person having two simmilar pieces of clothing by choice is highely unlikely.

 

[katy_did]

According to this article, the Perugia police saw a skirt in the "clear cut image" from the CCTV camera. Now that we have all seen the image, it's clear this was just a media play to discredit the suspects.

Funny how the same people who keep calling Amanda a liar don't seem to mind the police telling lies about Amanda.

I wonder whether the people claiming that the image is a woman wearing a skirt were influenced by this early claim from the police. Is that what they were expecting to see, and therefore what they see? Would anyone be suggesting it was a woman in a white skirt if (a) the police hadn't made this claim early on, and (b) they hadn't seen footage of Amanda wearing a white skirt the next day?

If it's so obviously a woman wearing a white skirt, one wonders why the police presented it in Court as an image of Meredith wearing jeans.

 

[katy_did]

Good point. I don't see Raffaele either.

Ah, but as the police said, he could have been cunningly wearing dark clothing, thus making him invisible to the naked eye (and the camera lens).

 

[Grinder]

Just searched Maasei and couldn't find any hits for white skirt - was it mentioned in Massei?

 

[LondonJohn]

Ah, but as the police said, he could have been cunningly wearing dark clothing, thus making him invisible to the naked eye (and the camera lens).

Maybe he was hiding behind Guede.....

(awaits inevitable accusations of racism)

 

[Katody Matrass]

Just searched Maasei and couldn't find any hits for white skirt - was it mentioned in Massei?

Bolint has his own hypothesis of the crime that is very different from Massei's.

 

[Ampulla of Vater]

Can someone that is plausibly more familiar with this subject give me an approximate value on these 5 pot plants?

Back in the day they would have been worth maybe $25 or so. From what I understand inflation has seriously affected the pot industry and things are far more expensive than what they were in the late 70's.

 

[Kaosium]

The police chief's boasting is irrelevant. Even Miginini called it "stupidity" in the Graham interview.

Actually that's how they really do it, they corroborate information from suspects and do their investigation before they do their arrests. That's what they produced before Mattenini on the Eighth, the 'evidence' they thought would help prove Amanda, Raffaele and Patrick were involved in a bizarre murder. The 'buckling' comment strongly suggests they were suspicious of Patrick before the arrest, being overly concerned with Amanda's mistaken text in all versions of the interrogation, including their own, but also Amanda's and also what we know of Patrick's also indicates the police thought that an important 'admission.'

So when Amanda tried to tell them later in the day she wasn't sure of all this, that it seemed like a dream, a result of all the hitting, yelling and threats, and them telling her they had 'hard evidence' she was at the scene and her being deprived of sleep, what did they do? Called her a 'compulsive liar' and said she 'changed her story three times' which is a bizarre way to interpret those three statements.

It also suggests they must have had other reasons to be suspicious of Patrick, another thing proven by the 'evidence' against Patrick produced before Matteini. Otherwise, if all they had was what they had from Amanda, how could they 'know' she was lying about the night of the murder? What gave them such confidence they refused to reconsider their arrest of Patrick? Do you suppose they thought cherry picking lines completely out of context actually solves this conundrum?

By no means was it coincidence.
She fabricated it beacuse she did not know what Raffaele had told them and they were asking her about Lumumba's SMS.

Why weren't the cops talking to Raffaele about the murder? Isn't that extraordinarily odd? They're going to arrest him anyway for the murder, but once they get that signed statement from him about he and Amanda splitting up at the town square and that strange 'admission' that he called the Carabinieri after the Postal Police arrived, he just sits there while the police go after Amanda about someone else. How do you explain why the cops didn't automatically think the new boyfriend of the girl they're suspicious of was her accomplice, and instead spend hours putting the screws to her about someone else while he'd broken down and given them everything they wanted already?

As I read it I have the feeling that it is a damage control.
She would like to retract it without definitely retracting it because in that case she could not answer a lot of questions.
The first one: Why did she accuse Lumumba?

Better question is, why did the cops think she'd accused Patrick? Why did they think that gibberish was credible, and didn't probe her for more details, as in anything outside the fact that Patrick was there, and she 'vaguely' remembered him killing her, or she 'confusedly didn't actually remember him killing her' and nothing about the break in, how the murder occurred, (he had a weapon on him?) or could have, (did he normally carry a knife?) whether he actually did it, as in, she's standing in this timeless void about to be teleported back to Raffaele's bed, yet the murderer never emerged from the bedroom?

If the cops version of the story is true, and she was acting strangely and all of a sudden blurted out that Patrick did it, (ever wonder why that line didn't make it into either statement?) why did they accept these two 'vague and confused' statements as fact, rush out and arrest Patrick ostentatiously without bothering to investigate at all, then refuse to accord her note any significance except of her 'lying'--yet claim that her account corroborated the facts of the crime as they knew them?

It is no wonder that she broke down before Mignini on Dec 17.
She fully knew that in the 5:45AM questioning and confession there were no beating, yelling, etc. And she did not have the courage to tell into the Mignini's face that he had coerced her. Because he did not and Amanda knew that. So she again availed herself of the option of not responding.

Or maybe talking to Mignini sometimes isn't a pleasant experience?

 

[Fine]

Ah, but as the police said, he could have been cunningly wearing dark clothing, thus making him invisible to the naked eye (and the camera lens).

________________________

Katy_did,

It's clear from Amanda's ackward, halting, motion that Raffaele was hiding under cunning Amanda's skirt. And that so-called tote bag? Looks a lot like a sawed-off shotgun (a typical tool of choice for American criminals in constricted spaces).

///

 

[Grinder]

Or maybe talking to Mignini sometimes isn't a pleasant experience?

Understatement. I'd up it to usually.

 

[Grinder]

________________________

It's clear from Amanda's ackward, halting, motion that Raffaele was hiding under cunning Amanda's skirt. And that so-called tote bag? Looks a lot like a sawed-off shotgun (a typical tool of choice for American criminals in constricted spaces).

///

Yes it's always best to wear dark clothing and walk in front of video cameras instead of just avoiding being taped.

 

[Kaosium]

What I see established is that she was at the cottage around 21:00 and on.
And their account of the events of the night and the next morning is not believable.

Two students hanging out during a holiday weekend smoking hash, cuddling and watching movies is pretty mundane behavior, and considering those circumstances it would be wildly improbable if their accounts matched to the minute in all details if questioned on precise times a week later.

That's enough for me to conclude that at least Amanda is involved somehow.

Have you ever considered that the prosecution and police which elicited or coerced that 'confession' didn't consider it as merely 'establishing' that she was there that night, they immediately attempted to use it to prove she was a gleeful participant in a sordid ritualistic orgy rape murder--whatever? In other words the purpose of getting those statements, which she was never sure of going by the note or even the 'vague and confused' nature of the statements themselves, was never to simply 'establish' her presence at the scene, but as a confession to being a participant in their bizarre hypothesis made with no physical evidence to support it?

 

[curi0us]

No. The skirt's edge is much lower than the bottom of the bag.

I spent some time studying the footage previously and I disagree, but it is very blurry footage and I am willing to explore the rest of theory regardless.

Fully? How could I?

Good point. Let me rephrase that as: could you explain in more detail.

9:20 may be somewhat later, but not later than 22:20.

I think you want to have the cellphone be outside the house by 10:13 so a little earlier seems better.

I don't think that was the explanation. It was centered around RG, unknown to RS but referred to as someone from Lumumba's pub. Exactly what she told RS is not known. It was not necessarily murder at first.

Umm, you seriously just lost me here. Why would RS get sucked into a murder cover up for a guy he never met? if she didn't tell him it was a murder what did she tell him? In your theory does RS go inside the house and help with a clean up?

Why would RG be confused? He fully knows how the murder happened. Even by his own account.

I was thinking that he knows the details of the murder itself but he Is confused because he doesn't know anything about the clean up, the staged break in, or why RS and Lumumba are involved. So initially he is kind of protecting Knox because he thinks she is protecting him.

Let's discuss them.

The detail of the CCTV footage matching when Meredith came home with no other footage that shows Meredith needs addressing.

You don't need have to a clear motive or know all the details but it would be good to have a little more info about why RG kills Meredith, and why Knox helps him, and why RS helps with a cover up. The involvement of RS is I think the major weak point. RS is risking a life in jail to help protect a guy he's never met who murdered a girl he had nothing against. That just seems incredibly unlikely to me.

Do you have a position on the importance of the kitchen knife and bra?

 

[katy_did]

________________________

Katy_did,

It's clear from Amanda's ackward, halting, motion that Raffaele was hiding under cunning Amanda's skirt. And that so-called tote bag? Looks a lot like a sawed-off shotgun (a typical tool of choice for American criminals in constricted spaces).

///

Now you point these things out, Fine, they're so obvious that I can't believe I didn't notice them earlier.