Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Comodi: luminol reacts w/blood, fruit juice. "Were they playing around with fruitjuice in the hallway of Via della Pergola". #amandaknox
7 minutes ago

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Comodi says they had to decide between testing the semen or the footprint, but wasn't it obviously blood? Why not just be sure? #amandaknox
11 minutes ago

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Comodi now on bloody shoeprint on semen-stained pillowcase. She says it is a woman's shoe but too small for Mez, so has to be #amandaknox.
16 minutes ago

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Everyone agrees these are #amandaknox bare footprints, but what were they made with? Found with luminol but why didn't they test for blood?
19 minutes ago

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Comodi now moving to the highly contentious bare footprints outside #meredithkercher bedroom that were never tested for blood. #amandaknox
21 minutes ago
»

BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Comodi returns to footprint on bathmat but feel we've heard enough about #sollecito 's apparently ugly toes. #amandaknox
22 minutes ago

ETA: Never tested for blood, agreed they are Amanda's footprints, partial shoe print on pillow definitely woman's shoe.- please Barbie get a clue.

No body except a doll should be called Barbie over the age of 18.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
It's long since time to nail this rubbish about Meredith's supposed karate training somehow proving that Guede couldn't have been a lone assailant. A 57kg medium-height woman against a probably 85kg above-average-height athletic male is a mismatch in any context. But when you add in the fact that the male in this scenario was brandishing a large knife, the mismatch is even larger.
Click to expand...

Fighting someone 10kg heavier is a huge PITA unless they have no idea what they are doing. Fighting someone 20kg heavier is pretty much hopeless unless there is a huge skill disparity in your favour. That's without a knife in the hands of the bigger fighter, and without the additional advantage of male upper body strength versus female upper body strength.

People who haven't done full-contact martial arts (or been in a lot of fights I suppose) typically have no idea how much of a difference size and weight make when two people settle matters physically.

The idea that a fit 80kg man with a knife would need help to win a fight with a 57kg women is not realistic.
 
From Barbie:
Comodi says #meredithkercher cellphone was in the hands of the assassins when it dialed her bank, first entry in add book.
Click to expand...
Bit of a departure from the first trial there...?

ETA: next tweet:

Comodi seems to be contradicting herself on Meredith's cellphone and time of death, quickly moving on to next topic.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
katy_did said:
From Barbie:

Bit of a departure from the first trial there...?

ETA: next tweet:
Click to expand...


Nice work Manuela!

And this raises the possibility that Comodi was just being incompetent rather than devious when she talked about the "midday" phone call from Knox to her mother on 2nd November, and about this call correlating to "around 3am in Seattle".....
 
LondonJohn said:
Nice work Manuela!

And this raises the possibility that Comodi was just being incompetent rather than devious when she talked about the "midday" phone call from Knox to her mother on 2nd November, and about this call correlating to "around 3am in Seattle".....
Click to expand...

More from Barbie:

Back to bank call on cellphone, bank name started with A, asking jury how many times they've made a pocket call.
Click to expand...

LOL. Do you think a page from the defence closing accidentally got mixed up with Comodi's notes?

Sounds like the prosecution are going for a pre-10 p.m. start of the attack (ETA).
 
Last edited:
Clouseau also tweets that Comodi still can't pronounce the victim's surname correctly, instead mispronouncing it "Kerker". I wonder how much vilification any non-prosecution lawyer would have received from the pro-guilt nutters if they had been guilty of the same mistake....?

(By the way, it's likely that Meredith's surname derives from the German name "Kärcher". The umlauted "a" in the German name is pronounced in a similar way to an English "err" sound, so it's likely that the English spelling mutated to reflect the pronunciation. But funnily enough, Comodi's mispronunciation of Meredith's surname is somewhat closer to the German original than "Kercher": in the original German name, the "ch" sound would be pronounced in a similar way to the "ch" in "loch ness".)
 
BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Comodi driving home point of cellphones. Why turn off your phones the night your roommate gets murdered? odd coincidence?
What kind of question is this?!
If Barbie is being accurate here, this is very bizarre.
They did not know Meredith would be murdered.

Coincidence (and how people think about it) is an area I have some expertise in. To find out if it's a coincidence, we'd need data concerning how many other nights (similar in salient ways, i.e. sex / quiet night with lover is planned, or trying to avoid your boss calling you to work) they turned their phones off. Absent this data, there's no way of telling how likely this is to be coincidental.
 
katy_did said:
More from Barbie:



LOL. Do you think a page from the defence closing accidentally got mixed up with Comodi's notes?

Sounds like the prosecution are going for a pre-10 p.m. start of the attack (ETA).
Click to expand...


Not if Comodi is claiming that the short aborted call to Abbey was an accidental pocket call. But then Comodi appears to have also said (according to Clouseau) that Meredith's phone was "in the hands of her assassins" when the call was placed. Is she suggesting that "the assassin" put the phone in his/her pocket after the attack, then the button accidentally got pressed?

And anyhow, if this is what she claims took place, then how would the call have been manually terminated before any network connection was ever made? This fact naturally suggests that the phone was in someone's hand when the Abbey number was mistakenly dialled, that the person holding the phone immediately realised that a number was being dialled, and that this person therefore immediately terminated the call by pressing the red termination button. And of course the exact same thing happened with the voicemail aborted call just two minutes earlier. The evidence strongly suggests that the phone was indeed in the hands of the killer at just before 10am, but it suggests that the killer was fiddling with the phone - probably trying to turn it off - but mistakenly activating two numbers, then immediately cancelling the calls.
 
Rose, you are correct (again) But....

RoseMontague said:
Here is what I see in the SC report.

Doesn't appear a very strong "statement". Maybe I am missing something because I see the words possible and thesis (my bolding).
Click to expand...

Rose, as always your research and documentation are impeccable.

However, I am sure you also have researched the literally scores of sources that much more dogmatically quote that the Supreme Court stated that 3 people were involved.
Just one quick example of many available:
"Italy: British student Meredith Kercher slain by more than one person, top court rules".
http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/En...-one-person-top-court-rules_311723203597.html

The way the dichotomy that you correctly point out is resolved IMHO is by a closer examination of the reasons behind the wording of the sentencing report.
That court was charged with examining Guede's guilt, and only Guede's guilt.
Therefore since it was beyond what they were tasked to do, they casually mention as an aside about the other 2 people being involved.
It has no bearing on Guede's guilt and is not an integral part of what they are determining.
Therefore it is stated 'less strongly', as you so concisely point out.
But the statement is no less significant, and no less damning to Knox and Sollecito.
Who, as you know, but did not chose to include in your bolding, were also specifically mentioned *by name* in that sentencing report

Oh and by the way, disregard London John's argument totally.
It has no basis in logic, and is unsupported by the known facts.
And he has no comprehension of the implications of Guede's Supreme Court judgement either.
 
cell phone's being turned off or on

bri1 said:
BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
Comodi driving home point of cellphones. Why turn off your phones the night your roommate gets murdered? odd coincidence?
What kind of question is this?!
If Barbie is being accurate here, this is very bizarre.
They did not know Meredith would be murdered.

Coincidence (and how people think about it) is an area I have some expertise in. To find out if it's a coincidence, we'd need data concerning how many other nights (similar in salient ways, i.e. sex / quiet night with lover is planned, or trying to avoid your boss calling you to work) they turned their phones off. Absent this data, there's no way of telling how likely this is to be coincidental.
Click to expand...
bri1,

BLNadeau sent out in Twitter, "Comodi says #amandaknox and #sollecito turned on their phones at around 6am the morning of Nov. 2. They said they slept til 10ish."

One's cell phone records do not show when phones are turned off or on. We know when Amanda turned hers off from her testimony, but Raffaele was vague about it. I cannot think of any proof that Amanda turned hers on in the early morning hours of 2 November.
 
Last edited:
BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau
#sollecito defense said the cat must have turned on the phone, Comodi tells jury she's got a dog who has NEVER turned on her's. #amandaknox


Err....what?!!! This is becoming surreal, in the very real meaning of the word. Where the heck has Sollecito's defence team ever claimed that "the cat must have turned on the phone"? Which cat? The cat from the downstairs apartment?

Oh, and fans of Clouseau's writing skill might want to not her misplaced apostrophe in the last word of this tweet. A missing apostrophe in a tweet (particularly one made at speed on a mobile device) is understandable, but inserting a superfluous incorrect apostrophe most certainly is not :)
 
LondonJohn said:
Not if Comodi is claiming that the short aborted call to Abbey was an accidental pocket call. But then Comodi appears to have also said (according to Clouseau) that Meredith's phone was "in the hands of her assassins" when the call was placed. Is she suggesting that "the assassin" put the phone in his/her pocket after the attack, then the button accidentally got pressed?

And anyhow, if this is what she claims took place, then how would the call have been manually terminated before any network connection was ever made? This fact naturally suggests that the phone was in someone's hand when the Abbey number was mistakenly dialled, that the person holding the phone immediately realised that a number was being dialled, and that this person therefore immediately terminated the call by pressing the red termination button. And of course the exact same thing happened with the voicemail aborted call just two minutes earlier. The evidence strongly suggests that the phone was indeed in the hands of the killer at just before 10am, but it suggests that the killer was fiddling with the phone - probably trying to turn it off - but mistakenly activating two numbers, then immediately cancelling the calls.
Click to expand...

I thought she might've been saying that it was unlikely to have been a 'pocket call', although it's impossible to tell without context (not to mention, how often do you make three in a row...?). If not, that's even weirder since she's contradicting what she said five minutes earlier! Assuming Nadeau is right, of course (and as you say, assuming she's not suggesting that the 'assassins' put the phone in their pocket and accidentally made the call! All a bit confusing).
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Rose, as always your research and documentation are impeccable.

However, I am sure you also have researched the literally scores of sources that much more dogmatically quote that the Supreme Court stated that 3 people were involved.
Just one quick example of many available:
"Italy: British student Meredith Kercher slain by more than one person, top court rules".
http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/En...-one-person-top-court-rules_311723203597.html

The way the dichotomy that you correctly point out is resolved IMHO is by a closer examination of the reasons behind the wording of the sentencing report.
That court was charged with examining Guede's guilt, and only Guede's guilt.
Therefore since it was beyond what they were tasked to do, they casually mention as an aside about the other 2 people being involved.
It has no bearing on Guede's guilt and is not an integral part of what they are determining.
Therefore it is stated 'less strongly', as you so concisely point out.
But the statement is no less significant, and no less damning to Knox and Sollecito.
Who, as you know, but did not chose to include in your bolding, were also specifically mentioned *by name* in that sentencing report

Oh and by the way, disregard London John's argument totally.
It has no basis in logic, and is unsupported by the known facts.
And he has no comprehension of the implications of Guede's Supreme Court judgement either.
Click to expand...


Seriously, you don't know what you're talking about. And you may think it's somehow amusing or satirical to parrot my post at the end of yours, but it merely goes to illuminate the utter paucity of your argument. With regard to the whole Supreme Court business, you're wrong, pure and simple. Please try to understand that. Thank you for your consideration.
 
SomeAlibiLies BillyBob
Comodi has screwed this up. Curatolo says they were at basktball court when bank call made. Somebody is wrong. #amandaknox

Trying to work out prosecutions timeline here, after Comodi's efforts today.
So, they kill Meredith before 9.30pm (when Toto says they arrived at basketball court) stand around chatting and playing with Meredith's phone for 2 hours, before going back to the cottage at 11.30pm, for the clean-up, before arriving back at Raff's at 6am?

Even without the computer evidence, this would mean that after Popovich calls at the apartment at 8.45, Amanda and Raffaelle spend 10 mins or so getting super-stoned (according to reefer-madness theory) somehow get together with Rudy, walk to the cottage (5 mins?). The situation deteriorates at the cottage, and Meredith is assaulted and killed by 9.30................
However, this leaves Nara's testimony out in the cold (as she heard the screams / people running between 11 and 12).

If only Popovic had stayed for a glass of wine.............
 
bri1 said:
SomeAlibiLies BillyBob
Comodi has screwed this up. Curatolo says they were at basktball court when bank call made. Somebody is wrong. #amandaknox

Trying to work out prosecutions timeline here, after Comodi's efforts today.
So, they kill Meredith before 9.30pm (when Toto says they arrived at basketball court) stand around chatting and playing with Meredith's phone for 2 hours, before going back to the cottage at 11.30pm, for the clean-up, before arriving back at Raff's at 6am?

Even without the computer evidence, this would mean that after Popovich calls at the apartment at 8.45, Amanda and Raffaelle spend 10 mins or so getting super-stoned (according to reefer-madness theory) somehow get together with Rudy, walk to the cottage (5 mins?). The situation deteriorates at the cottage, and Meredith is assaulted and killed by 9.30................
However, this leaves Nara's testimony out in the cold (as she heard the screams / people running between 11 and 12).

If only Popovic had stayed for a glass of wine.............
Click to expand...


Maybe Comodi and Mignini have Google-de-gooked and used their library cards to figure out that the stomach/intestine evidence leads to the inescapable conclusion that Meredith was killed long before 10pm......? :D

What do you think, pilot? You're the expert in this area, after all.
 
Time and blood...

Thanks for the updates everyone! :)

I wish to bring something up after reading here today:
bri1 said:
Magister, I'm a female, I used to do self-defence, and I have also been punched in the face on quite a few occaisions (the town where I grew up was pretty rough!). One time, in a situation where I was totally unprepared for an assault (not that you're ever that prepared) I had my nose and cheekbone broken, as well as 5 ot 6 chipped teeth.
I'm fully convinced that in a situation where I was completely unexpectedly attacked by a man with a knife, that I wouldn't have a hope. These things usually happen so quickly that not much of a response can be given. In the situation where a woman attacked me as described above, the whole thing lasted probably 5 minutes in total, and I managed to 'hit back' only once. Probably 1 minute of the time frame was me running away (before she caught up and struck me from behind).

The only was self-defense can work is either if luck is on your side, or if you've practised and practised over years to the point where should a violent situation occur, muscle-memory kicks in (because conscious thought is not a lot of help).
Click to expand...


Hi Bri1,
I noticed your post, where you mentioned that the assault that happened was over in minutes, it rang a bell with relation to a post I wrote the other day about time. For I currently believe that Meredith was not stabbed within 5 minutes of coming home.

We know Meredith came home around 9:00, put her bag with the borrowed book in her bedroom, and after walking into the kitchen, probably had a bite of mushroom. How long would that have taken? A minute or 2, max? But she had not yet had enough time to relax and make that call to her Mom, nor even, it appears, turn on the heat.

But there still is a long time, 20 minutes, give or take, in the time frame before Rudy says that Meredith screamed. I'm sure that we all have wondered what specifically happened, the sequence of events, in the apartment that night, and recently I had made mention of Meredith possibly having to use the restroom after she came home, doing her business like Rudy Guede did in the larger bathroom. Heck, doesn't walking a few blocks, -(as Meredith, after zipping up her jacket against the chill, did when she left the Robin and Amy's flat), sometimes make a persons bowel need a movement? I know taking my ol' dog Tang for a walk often did.

In my search for more time to use up before Meredith emitted that loud scream that Rudy Guede mentioned, I recall reading something. Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall reading that Rudy said, where was it, in the skpe call?, that he and Meredith had oral sex, but that they stopped because of no condoms. Am I right, didn't he make mention of oral sex?

If so, that would erase some time before the scream was heard. Maybe the scream happened when Rudy decided to oral sex wasn't enough, Meredith finally fought back, and she was stabbed for the 1st time, with Rudy then stabbing her again until she stopped screaming.

We know Rudy had little scars on his hands, evidence tht he was cut somehow.
I found this post by Snook1 also interesting:
snook1 said:
BLNadeau Barbie Latza Nadeau Twitter
Comodi says the blood on the sweater was #meredithkercher and #rudyguede in #amandaknox appeal. Trying to downplay forensic flubs.
Click to expand...

So what, exactly, is she saying? That on the sweater there was Meredith's blood and Guede's DNA/blood? Or what?

If that's correct, then we've got yet another proof of Guede's presence in the room and still not a speck of Amanda and Raffaele.
Click to expand...


Comodi mentions Rudy Guede's blood being on Meredith's jsweater?
Not his DNA? I had never heard of this.

Comodi has previously stated that she shares with the defense what the prosecution feels that they need to know. Did Comodi have a slip of the tongue, as <Dr. Stefanoni did in the 1st trial?

If Meredith's sweater had Rudy Guede's blood and her own on it,
where did Rudy's blood, come from? His cut hand?
 
Last edited:
pilot padron said:
Rose, as always your research and documentation are impeccable.

However, I am sure you also have researched the literally scores of sources that much more dogmatically quote that the Supreme Court stated that 3 people were involved.
Just one quick example of many available:
"Italy: British student Meredith Kercher slain by more than one person, top court rules".
http://www.adnkronos.com/IGN/Aki/En...-one-person-top-court-rules_311723203597.html

The way the dichotomy that you correctly point out is resolved IMHO is by a closer examination of the reasons behind the wording of the sentencing report.
That court was charged with examining Guede's guilt, and only Guede's guilt.
Therefore since it was beyond what they were tasked to do, they casually mention as an aside about the other 2 people being involved.
It has no bearing on Guede's guilt and is not an integral part of what they are determining.
Therefore it is stated 'less strongly', as you so concisely point out.
But the statement is no less significant, and no less damning to Knox and Sollecito.
Who, as you know, but did not chose to include in your bolding, were also specifically mentioned *by name* in that sentencing report

Oh and by the way, disregard London John's argument totally.
It has no basis in logic, and is unsupported by the known facts.
And he has no comprehension of the implications of Guede's Supreme Court judgement either.
Click to expand...

If the High Court "Ruled" something, I would expect to see it in the "Ruling".

I think it is a myth, perpetuated by erroneous news reports and propagated by pro-guilt factions, and certain lawyers and prosecutors connected to this case. As I said, maybe I missed it in the report, just not seeing it. Maybe it is on those missing pages that keep popping up in these things. Just saying.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom