• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part Six: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
At first, the PGP pushed a strong agenda of erudite European sensibilities vs. crass American sensibilities. Quennell is from New Zealand, I think; Michael a/k/a Fulcanelli is in Great Britain, and Peggy lived in Paris for 20 years. Many of the "leaders" at their blogs seem to live in or be from other countries. This is one reason they celebrate Barbie and Andrea -- both are American ex-pats living in Europe.

I didn't know that. Maybe they're so ready to judge/hate her because she represents a stereotype they've been so careful to avoid -- the stupid, thoughtless American who neither knows nor cares what the norms are in other countries.

I don't know how you get to she's-a-lying-murderer from there, though, without an extra ingredient or two.
 
crackpot forensics

The judge was obviously interested in the knife results first and foremost.

Now add in the Crini motive, the big new surprise and the defense will be having to deal with this in December. They have to somehow overcome the new motive too.

I think blobs are blobs, and the Judges run the show the jurors are just there as puppets.
Do you mean that the new motive was the big surprise? The defense needs to rebut (very forcefully) Crini's apparent contention that Amanda's DNA did not come from simply contacting the knife. Contact with the knife by means of perspiration, oily residue, or skin cells should yield DNA, and DNA is DNA. It cannot be interrogated as to the time or manner of its deposition. Crini is a crackpot if he thinks otherwise. Unfortunately, I don't have a citations for what he said.
EDT
All I can find is a tweet from Yummi that reads: "98. Knox’s DNA between the blade and the handle (36-i)is very significant. It’s not from sweat or contact."
 
Last edited:
I didn't know that. Maybe they're so ready to judge/hate her because she represents a stereotype they've been so careful to avoid -- the stupid, thoughtless American who neither knows nor cares what the norms are in other countries.

I don't know how you get to she's-a-lying-murderer from there, though, without an extra ingredient or two.

Out of curiosity, what is the norm in Italy when a burglar craps in the toilet and doesn't flush? Get angry at the roommate? They haven't even demonstrated how Rudy came to be in the cottage. Did Crini even suggest how this guy who has been pretty much a total stranger came to be present that night?
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, what is the norm in Italy when a burglar craps in the toilet and doesn't flush? Get angry at the roommate? They haven't even demonstrated how Rudy came to be in the cottage. Did Crini even suggest how this guy who has been pretty much a total stranger came to be present that night?

I thought he broke in through Filomena's window.
 
I feel like this saga has entered some sort of parallel universe. PLEASE tell me you're joking with this "killed because of a dispute about flushing the loo" stuff.

Rolfe.
 
I feel like this saga has entered some sort of parallel universe. PLEASE tell me you're joking with this "killed because of a dispute about flushing the loo" stuff.

Rolfe.

You really have to wonder what Filomena, Laura and the boys downstairs think about this latest theory? I'm really surprised that one or more of them start saying excuse me? For all Filomena's and Laura's turn against Amanda, they stated in court that they never saw the two of them argue. How does the prosecution go from a polite discussion about cleaning to a murderous rampage?

Even the girls have to be shaking their head over the latest developments.
 
what a bunch of poopyheads

I feel like this saga has entered some sort of parallel universe. PLEASE tell me you're joking with this "killed because of a dispute about flushing the loo" stuff.

Rolfe.
No, this is what Crini said. "Crini argued that Rudy Guede — a native of Ivory Coast now serving a 16-year sentence for the murder — may have inflamed tensions between Knox and Kercher after he defecated in a toilet inside the women's apartment and didn't flush.

Crini said Guede, who was friendly with young men living in a neighboring apartment, had done the same thing the previous week. "It is an absolutely disgusting and incongruous habit that he evidently had," Crini said.

Testimony in previous trials had cited tensions between Kercher and Knox over the cleanliness of the house they shared with two Italian roommates."
 
You really have to wonder what Filomena, Laura and the boys downstairs think about this latest theory? I'm really surprised that one or more of them start saying excuse me? For all Filomena's and Laura's turn against Amanda, they stated in court that they never saw the two of them argue. How does the prosecution go from a polite discussion about cleaning to a murderous rampage?

Even the girls have to be shaking their head over the latest developments.

Laura and Filomena fell in step with Mignini and probably believe that the defendants joined with Rudy in the murder. At what point do they begin to see the light and realize that this is all a terrible miscarriage of justice and that Amanda and Raffaele are totally innocent?
 
Last edited:
They should also point out that it makes no sense that they cleaned up and left the blood in the bathroom and the print on the mat.

Why would they clean and leave the poo behind?

Why didn't they just go to Gubbio?

Why would they leave Rudi's evidence including the poo and not steer the police to him?

They should challenge the judges to look at all of the inconsistencies osmotically
 
They should also point out that it makes no sense that they cleaned up and left the blood in the bathroom and the print on the mat.

Why would they clean and leave the poo behind?

Why didn't they just go to Gubbio?

Why would they leave Rudi's evidence including the poo and not steer the police to him?

They should challenge the judges to look at all of the inconsistencies osmotically

Great point. If the poop is the epicenter of the whole conflict, they obviously would flush it during a "clean up."
 
why transport the knife

Great point. If the poop is the epicenter of the whole conflict, they obviously would flush it during a "clean up."
How does the knife fit into the fight over poo scenario? Are we back to Amanda's carrying it for protection?
 
How does the knife fit into the fight over poo scenario? Are we back to Amanda's carrying it for protection?

No, I think Crini basically said that they didn't have to show why the knife was transported to the cottage. (I guess he didn't want to address this absurdity)
 
I don't understand.

In Amanda's book she described an embarrassing conversation with Meredith over the need to "use the brush" every time you use the toilet. I have the impression that it has to do with (a) different bowl design and/or (b) not as much water in the flush, leading to less effective removal.

I know the whole poop thing that was introduced yesterday was a joke, but I'd still like to know, hopefully from somebody with experience using Perugia toilets in old cottages, what the fuss was about.

A little Seattle background: Amanda is a year older than our older daughter, so she would have been here during the summer we had a serious lack of water, maybe when she was in 4th or 5th grade. It was a bad drought, and people stopped watering their lawns and many of them stopped flushing toilets each and every time. Our kids were taught then that there's no harm in just leaving the lid down . . . nasty, yes, but really so what.

Just flush it once or twice a day and clean it well once a week. We later hosted an exchange student (from Eastern Europe) who was horrified by this practice and let us all know she thought we were disgusting. We didn't care.

So anyway, my question is, what is meant by "using the brush" every time, and why is it necessary?
 
In Amanda's book she described an embarrassing conversation with Meredith over the need to "use the brush" every time you use the toilet. I have the impression that it has to do with (a) different bowl design and/or (b) not as much water in the flush, leading to less effective removal.

I know the whole poop thing that was introduced yesterday was a joke, but I'd still like to know, hopefully from somebody with experience using Perugia toilets in old cottages, what the fuss was about.

A little Seattle background: Amanda is a year older than our older daughter, so she would have been here during the summer we had a serious lack of water, maybe when she was in 4th or 5th grade. It was a bad drought, and people stopped watering their lawns and many of them stopped flushing toilets each and every time. Our kids were taught then that there's no harm in just leaving the lid down . . . nasty, yes, but really so what.

Just flush it once or twice a day and clean it well once a week. We later hosted an exchange student (from Eastern Europe) who was horrified by this practice and let us all know she thought we were disgusting. We didn't care.

So anyway, my question is, what is meant by "using the brush" every time, and why is it necessary?

Their toilets are different. The poop doesn't really fall in water, it sits on a porcelain platform and leaves a skidder every time. So, you always have to scrub. Whereas, in the US, the poop falls into water and usually there is no need to scrub, and even if there is a mark, it goes away on the next flush. I prefer our full submersion toilet, because frankly, who wants to perform some kind of scrubbing operation afterwards?

I first became aware of these toilets on a trip to Germany, and we were convinced that it was some kind of Nazi invention.
 
Last edited:
Do you mean that the new motive was the big surprise?

Yes, I think the only departure was mainly the new motive Crini created from his brilliant mind and per the Defense lawyers , he presented it well.

Of course the Judge and jurors will have to decide if they can convict on fictional scenarios never before heard nor proven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom