• 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 Seven: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought I had you there. I still say bidet though. So what if the mat was moved. It doesn't have to have ended up differently than when it started. And you still have Guede walking right inside the shower and walking out face forward when all he was washing was one leg.

I tend to agree, mostly because of the trace of blood in the bidet and the fact that the print is where you'd expect to find it if he'd washed his foot in the bidet and then stepped onto the mat. Using the shower just seems a bit too involved somehow for someone who was trying to clean up quickly; presumably he was only trying to wash a particular spot on his jeans or to wash his foot rather than take a shower...

Of course, there's nothing to actually rule it out, either - we'd just need to say he did it without leaving traces or washed them away - it's just that the traces he did leave seem explained well enough by him using the bidet instead.

(P.S. Welcome back Anglo, glad you're not sulking any more).
 
Last edited:
I think this is where Mach makes a point that the judge is not permitted to open a new investigation at this point. It makes no sense to me but could be the Italian law.

Actually in a way this does make sense. In the US it is very difficult to win an appeal based on facts. However mistakes with procedure is a different issue.

A second or third trial in the US would be exactly that. A total do over.

This third trial much more resembles an appeal as opposed to third trial. They are only reviewing the original evidence and what was ordered by the ISC. It certainly isn't a new trial.
 
A new, non-anonymous, Wiki-website is now up and running.


Anonymous wiki-editor "Edward McCall" has a pro-guilt website, one that is being activity promoted within guilter-sites, as well as Andrea Vogt, as an impartial-objective site.

The one above, though, is not anonymous:

Murder of Meredith Kercher
This website is not associated with Wikipedia.org. This website uses a free wordpress template that incorporates similar features seen on Wikipedia. This website's sole purpose is to set the record straight about a deceptive Wikipedia style website that egregiously misrepresents the facts about the Meredith Kercher murder case in a blatant attempt to smear Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Please visit www.injusticeinperugia.org to learn more about the Meredith Kercher murder case.​

This website has been created to set the record straight about a deceptive Wikipedia style website that discusses the Meredith Kercher murder case. The site was designed by an anonymous anti-Amanda Knox blogger using the alias “Edward McCall”. The misleading pro-guilt website can be found at www.themurderofmeredithkercher.com.​
 
Last edited:
Actually in a way this does make sense. In the US it is very difficult to win an appeal based on facts. However mistakes with procedure is a different issue.

A second or third trial in the US would be exactly that. A total do over.

This third trial much more resembles an appeal as opposed to third trial. They are only reviewing the original evidence and what was ordered by the ISC. It certainly isn't a new trial.

In what way did this new trial "review" the "motive" evidence, or the "multiple attacker" evidence, other than to have the prosecutor, Crini, simply assert various things?

In what way is THIS the review ordered by Cassazione?
 
I tend to agree, mostly because of the trace of blood in the bidet and the fact that the print is where you'd expect to find it if he'd washed his foot in the bidet and then stepped onto the mat. Using the shower just seems a bit too involved somehow for someone who was trying to clean up quickly; presumably he was only trying to wash a particular spot on his jeans or to wash his foot rather than take a shower...

Of course, there's nothing to actually rule it out, either - we'd just need to say he did it without leaving traces or washed them away - it's just that the traces he did leave seem explained well enough by him using the bidet instead.

(P.S. Welcome back Anglo, glad you're not sulking any more).

You have no idea.....
 
In what way did this new trial "review" the "motive" evidence, or the "multiple attacker" evidence, other than to have the prosecutor, Crini, simply assert various things?

In what way is THIS the review ordered by Cassazione?

Well Bill, I'm not saying they didn't let the lawyers run their mouths but they didn't examine any new evidence other than the testimony of Allessi and the DNA on 36I. Beyond that they have done nothing except go over previous the evidence.

It is hardly a new trial.
 
I thought I had you there. I still say bidet though. So what if the mat was moved. It doesn't have to have ended up differently than when it started. And you still have Guede walking right inside the shower and walking out face forward when all he was washing was one leg.


This is his first trip into the small bath. His hands are covered with blood. He could use an elbow to turn on the light but he is going to have to use a hand to turn on the water. If he is thinking ahead, the shower is a much easier environment to clean up afterwards.

The first thing he would need to do is pull the shower wand down and then turn on the water. He could put his right foot into the shower to do that. But the stain is on the outside of the right leg. If the wand doesn't reach that low he needs to turn around to get the right angle with the spray.

It's an equal likelihood that the mat would end up either way. You cannot use it as an argument. Since it was the position of the mat that led to the bidet theory, removing the mat position weakens that theory.
 
I don't think it's possible. People that are in position to test evidence potentially have enormous power over people's lives. If they produce false results either because of mistakes or intentional misconduct the damage they do almost can not be undone.

In this case a positive result for Kercher's DNA was reported for the kitchen knife. That is evidence that there was Kercher DNA on the kitchen knife. Even after it was found that the collection and testing techniques were flawed the fact of the finding of the DNA can not be undone. The best that can be done is to explain why the result was not reliable. Claiming that there was no such result is not an effective argument against the view of people who know that there was such a finding and continue to believe the initially reported results.

ETA: As to the rest every single word was consistent with what I believe the situation is.

I hate to nitpick but precision is all in this case. What we can truly say is that the sample put though the analyser contained a small quantity of MK DNA. That DNA could have been a hang over in the instrument if the previous sample contained MK DNA then the sensitivity was cranked up by increasing the number of replication cycles. It could be contamination of a reagent or pipette. It could be from the knife. Without having available the results from the whole run in order including controls (and knowing these are proper controls put through the same number of replication cycles as the sample), we cannot exclude contamination.

Some people think the knife was contaminated, I think the contamination occurred in vitro during the analysis. I bet the controls did not undergo the same number of replication cycles as the sample, this is why there is such reluctance to provide the details of the runs.
 
A new, non-anonymous, Wiki-website is now up and running.


Anonymous wiki-editor "Edward McCall" has a pro-guilt website, one that is being activity promoted within guilter-sites, as well as Andrea Vogt, as an impartial-objective site.

The one above, though, is not anonymous:


It's about time.

Speaking of time, the timeline link on that site's main page just links to the timeline on IIP. I have a much more complete set of timeline pages on my private wiki. Someone needs to peer review each of those events and transfer the data to the public wiki.

Page title matches
  • Amanda's trial timeline
    4 KB (674 words) - 02:44, 31 May 2011
  • Kercher timeline from IT Gazzetta
    15 KB (2592 words) - 23:23, 30 May 2011
  • Timeline 2007-11-01 to 11-02 Murder and discovery
    Detailed timeline of events of November 1 and 2, 2007.
  • Republica 2007-11-21 - Prosecution Timeline
    5 KB (879 words) - 02:52, 13 February 2010
  • Timeline 2007-11-07 to ?? Investigations
    10 KB (1531 words) - 01:09, 18 October 2013
  • Timeline 2007-09-01 to 10-31 Time before crime
    5 KB (860 words) - 19:21, 22 October 2013
  • Timeline 2007-11-02 to 11-06 Interrogations and Arrest
    10 KB (1615 words) - 19:02, 12 July 2013
  • Trial timeline
    14 KB (2167 words) - 14:19, 3 November 2013

ETA: there are also some timelines for individuals within other pages

  • Meredith Kercher
    ==Timeline for Meredith Kercher==
    4 KB (723 words) - 23:57, 17 April 2010
  • Rudy Guede
    ==Timeline==
    24 KB (4091 words) - 05:42, 22 January 2014
  • Filomena Romanelli
    ==Timeline==
    879 B (138 words) - 02:03, 24 October 2013
  • Slander trial of Amanda's parents
    ==Timeline of Events==
    2 KB (366 words) - 05:53, 17 June 2011
 
Last edited:
This is his first trip into the small bath. His hands are covered with blood. He could use an elbow to turn on the light but he is going to have to use a hand to turn on the water. If he is thinking ahead, the shower is a much easier environment to clean up afterwards.

The first thing he would need to do is pull the shower wand down and then turn on the water. He could put his right foot into the shower to do that. But the stain is on the outside of the right leg. If the wand doesn't reach that low he needs to turn around to get the right angle with the spray.

It's an equal likelihood that the mat would end up either way. You cannot use it as an argument. Since it was the position of the mat that led to the bidet theory, removing the mat position weakens that theory.

Well, I ain't saying I'm going to the scaffold on this one but I remain stubbornly opposed to the shower idea. Unlike I dunno, the lamp, say, it's hardly key, is it?
 
Bill Williams said:
In what way did this new trial "review" the "motive" evidence, or the "multiple attacker" evidence, other than to have the prosecutor, Crini, simply assert various things?

In what way is THIS the review ordered by Cassazione?

Well Bill, I'm not saying they didn't let the lawyers run their mouths but they didn't examine any new evidence other than the testimony of Allessi and the DNA on 36I. Beyond that they have done nothing except go over previous the evidence.

It is hardly a new trial.

Agreed. Then again, the Hellmann trial was not a "new trial", it was the 2nd grade trial mandated by Italian law. This is a "new 2nd grade trial" which, apparently, does not review ALL the evidence to begin with.... just the stuff prosecution and/or defence feel was not properly adjudicated at the 1st grade trial.

But my point was different... Cassazione mandated 12 things as being potentially faulty with the Hellmann verdict.... motive, proving contamination, and multiple attackers are three I can think of off hand.

Well, ok, also Aviello and a DNA review. They also said that the testimony of Quintavalle, Nara, and Curatolo should not be so easily dismissed.....

..... well, did Nara or Quintavalle get called back to re-testify, like Aviello was? No. That's what I don't get.

It may be my own ignorance of Italian procedure which causes me to say it, but this trial has been a farce, even by the guilt-standards Cassazione set for it!!!

I fully expect a guilty verdict of some kind from Nencini. But I also consider this to be a no-lose situation for AK and RS (well, quite a dangerous no-lose for Raffaele in reality)... if there is a conviction of any kind, it will be laughed at by the outside world.... and perhaps simply continue the internal infighting within the Italian judiciary....

.... which, strangely, Machiavelli lets us in on, by taking one side, by calling Hellmann a criminal.
 
Last edited:
It's about time.

Speaking of time, the timeline link on that site's main page just links to the timeline on IIP. I have a much more complete set of timeline pages on my private wiki. Someone needs to peer review each of those events and transfer the data to the public wiki.

Page title matches
  • Amanda's trial timeline
    4 KB (674 words) - 02:44, 31 May 2011
  • Kercher timeline from IT Gazzetta
    15 KB (2592 words) - 23:23, 30 May 2011
  • Timeline 2007-11-01 to 11-02 Murder and discovery
    Detailed timeline of events of November 1 and 2, 2007.
  • Republica 2007-11-21 - Prosecution Timeline
    5 KB (879 words) - 02:52, 13 February 2010
  • Timeline 2007-11-07 to ?? Investigations
    10 KB (1531 words) - 01:09, 18 October 2013
  • Timeline 2007-09-01 to 10-31 Time before crime
    5 KB (860 words) - 19:21, 22 October 2013
  • Timeline 2007-11-02 to 11-06 Interrogations and Arrest
    10 KB (1615 words) - 19:02, 12 July 2013
  • Trial timeline
    14 KB (2167 words) - 14:19, 3 November 2013

AFAIK - that's the whole idea of this Wiki - peer review... I will pass on your time-line... it is the best one out there....

.... and is also the reason why guilters never even try to put together a comprehensive timeline themselves.
 
Clothes pegs

.
When I was searching for the leaf photos I spotted something interesting in a photo taken of the walkway by the kitchen.

Some people think that is is possible Meredith had a brief confrontation with Rudy in the kitchen and then ran into the bedroom. One indicator is Rudy's self serving explanation of being confronted by a man with a knife when he came out of the second bathroom with his pants down. Was the 'man' actually Meredith? Did she use a kitchen knife to cause the cuts on his hand and then run back to her bedroom? Was this the reason for Guede's apparent rage?

The main argument against that hypothesis is that nothing appeared disturbed in the kitchen, in particular the clothes drying rack in the walkway.

Before he left, Rudy locked Meredith's bedroom door, which implies he wanted to delay discovery of his crime. In order to delay discovery he had to also make the remainder of the cottage look more or less normal. That would require cleaning up any obvious signs of a confrontation outside of Meredith's bedroom.

Dan recently explained how Rudy's footprints indicate that after the murder he stopped in the hall area near the kitchen to do something. What did he do?

So ....., back to the photo. I noticed in one of the kitchen photos , that under the heat radiator near the kitchen area there is a typical white clothes peg, and another red and white spring clamp that looks like some form of clothes peg. Is this evidence that the clothes drying rack was knocked over sending those clothes pegs across the room until they hit the wall and stopped under the radiator? It does not seem to be a natural place for two clothes pegs to be. Did Rudy stop to pick up the clothes drying rack on his way out?

Click on the thumbnail to see a higher resolution photo. The one in Charlies zip file is even higher resolution and shows the two items quite clearly.



The photo is dsc_0102.jpg from Charlies November zip file.
.
 
.
When I was searching for the leaf photos I spotted something interesting in a photo taken of the walkway by the kitchen.

Some people think that is is possible Meredith had a brief confrontation with Rudy in the kitchen and then ran into the bedroom. One indicator is Rudy's self serving explanation of being confronted by a man with a knife when he came out of the second bathroom with his pants down. Was the 'man' actually Meredith? Did she use a kitchen knife to cause the cuts on his hand and then run back to her bedroom? Was this the reason for Guede's apparent rage?

The main argument against that hypothesis is that nothing appeared disturbed in the kitchen, in particular the clothes drying rack in the walkway.

Before he left, Rudy locked Meredith's bedroom door, which implies he wanted to delay discovery of his crime. In order to delay discovery he had to also make the remainder of the cottage look more or less normal. That would require cleaning up any obvious signs of a confrontation outside of Meredith's bedroom.

Dan recently explained how Rudy's footprints indicate that after the murder he stopped in the hall area near the kitchen to do something. What did he do?

So ....., back to the photo. I noticed in one of the kitchen photos , that under the heat radiator near the kitchen area there is a typical white clothes peg, and another red and white spring clamp that looks like some form of clothes peg. Is this evidence that the clothes drying rack was knocked over sending those clothes pegs across the room until they hit the wall and stopped under the radiator? It does not seem to be a natural place for two clothes pegs to be. Did Rudy stop to pick up the clothes drying rack on his way out?

Click on the thumbnail to see a higher resolution photo. The one in Charlies zip file is even higher resolution and shows the two items quite clearly.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5276152e2b76c77b62.jpg[/qimg]

The photo is dsc_0102.jpg from Charlies November zip file.
.

Interesting. It could be as you suggest. Either that, or the murderous youths placed those clothespins in that location in order to suggest the scenario that you describe, and thus sidetrack the investigation and cast suspicion on their poor co-conspirator.
 
Well, I ain't saying I'm going to the scaffold on this one but I remain stubbornly opposed to the shower idea. Unlike I dunno, the lamp, say, it's hardly key, is it?


Not at all. It's just that I have a detailed narative that explains the bathmat print preciesly and ties together other factors. If you can counter that narative with one that involves the sink, bidet or toilet then we'll have something to work with. But remember when creating the narative to account for cleaning the valve that will be operated with a blood soaked hand. That cleanup will spread bloody water on the back of the fixture and possibly the floor which also needs to be cleaned up and after all this cleaning you get a few drips of diluted blood on all of these fixtures.
 
Well, I ain't saying I'm going to the scaffold on this one but I remain stubbornly opposed to the shower idea. Unlike I dunno, the lamp, say, it's hardly key, is it?

No, it's not.

I will just chime in that I have a very hard time getting my mind around the idea that someone would wash blood off their pant leg and foot in a bidet. The water sprays directly upward, rather than downward so he could rinse his leg/foot off under the water stream. The bidet was not intended for that type of washing, and it seems to me a mess would be created, when there are other fixtures that would work far better.

Just my two cents.
 
.
Dan recently explained how Rudy's footprints indicate that after the murder he stopped in the hall area near the kitchen to do something. What did he do?

So ....., back to the photo. I noticed in one of the kitchen photos , that under the heat radiator near the kitchen area there is a typical white clothes peg, and another red and white spring clamp that looks like some form of clothes peg. Is this evidence that the clothes drying rack was knocked over sending those clothes pegs across the room until they hit the wall and stopped under the radiator? It does not seem to be a natural place for two clothes pegs to be. Did Rudy stop to pick up the clothes drying rack on his way out?

Click on the thumbnail to see a higher resolution photo. The one in Charlies zip file is even higher resolution and shows the two items quite clearly.

The photo is dsc_0102.jpg from Charlies November zip file.
.


It's good to get back thinking about this.

Rudy mentions specifically touching a chair in the kitchen and the drying rack in the hall. While he would have touched many things in the cottage, he would most likely have been wearing gloves most of the time. But the gloves would come off to take a dump.

On the bloody trail, there is a diversion to the end of the table but there is only the one print there and not an indication of stopping to do anything complex. It may be enough to pick up the chair or a pair of gloves from the table. He does this thing then heads for the door.

The drying rack has probably already been straightened as I see no evidence of delay at this point in the trail and the spacing is indicating a full stride.

This trail would represent Rudy's penultimate trip. He is trying to leave but he needs just one more thing for which he must return to the murder room or go out through the window by which he entered. Rudy stops in front of the couch viewing the paths for the two choices while he ponders.


BTW, that radiator is by the door to the small bath, Meredith's room is the door opening to the left.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. It's just that I have a detailed narative that explains the bathmat print preciesly and ties together other factors. If you can counter that narative with one that involves the sink, bidet or toilet then we'll have something to work with. But remember when creating the narative to account for cleaning the valve that will be operated with a blood soaked hand. That cleanup will spread bloody water on the back of the fixture and possibly the floor which also needs to be cleaned up and after all this cleaning you get a few drips of diluted blood on all of these fixtures.

No, it's not.

I will just chime in that I have a very hard time getting my mind around the idea that someone would wash blood off their pant leg and foot in a bidet. The water sprays directly upward, rather than downward so he could rinse his leg/foot off under the water stream. The bidet was not intended for that type of washing, and it seems to me a mess would be created, when there are other fixtures that would work far better.

Just my two cents.

OK, maybe it was the shower after all. I dunno. Bigger fish to fry.
 
OK, maybe it was the shower after all. I dunno. Bigger fish to fry.

LOL. Well for what it's worth, I think it would be easy enough (and quicker) to use the bidet; just turn the water on about half-way, point the nozzle thing down and it acts pretty much like a tap (faucet). The thing is it's something which is impossible to come to any certain conclusions about because either scenario is entirely possible. I think the bidet is more likely but that's just personal opinion really, there's nothing to prove or disprove it (the blood in the bidet plus lack of any blood in the shower area may be some indication, but there could be other explanations for those things).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom