Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Baylor]

The woman was framed.

Evidence? Cartwheels?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Yes, you called shenanigans at least twice and I corrected you on it at least twice. Here we go again.

When I began my argument about the door, I started out by saying it is not impossible to stop in one's tracks on the way out a door, let go of the handle and reach around to the inside and flip the switch on the inside doorknob without moving one's feet. I said I do that all the time. I made this claim because people had been saying that it was impossible for Rudy to have locked the bedroom door while his shoeprint was facing toward the front door.

As we delved more deeply into the discussion, it turned out that one objection was that Rudy's shoeprint was on the hinge end of the door, which led people to claim he would not have been able to reach the handle of the door and turn a key in the lock because of the distance he was standing from the handle. I tested this and found it very doable, then suggested other people try it, too. Some did, some REFUSED TO EVEN TRY IT. You know who you are.

To make a long story short, the conclusion of my point was that while I often stop in my tracks to reach inside to lock my front door, I am indeed closer to the handle of the door when I do it. That doesn't mean it's not impossible to stand at the hinge end of the door and lock, it; but that is not something I do all the time, and I never claimed it was. (Rudy, on the other hand, could have done it very easily.)

In the end, the whole discussion turned out to be moot, because Rudy probably did leave a print right in front of Meredith's bedroom door when he paused to lock it, but that footprint was cleaned up by police. The whole argument had started because SOMEONE claimed there was no evidence of Rudy having stood in front of the bedroom door; there was only evidence of the one shoeprint at the hinge end of the door.

As we have seen before, that claim was very likely not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Possible doesn't mean it's a natural movement. The natural movement would seem to be to turn toward the door. Nevertheless, there is no evidence of Rudy shifting his footing (not even with all his basketball skillz, as you asserted before, Mary) to lock the door.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

One of us is badly confused: I thought the story was that Rudy locked the door while facing mostly towards it in a perfectly ordinary manner.



My understanding was that while the prosecution initially claimed to have positively identified the print as Raffaele's, the defence proved that it was unlikely to be Raffaele's since Raffaele's second toe didn't touch the ground, his foot being a bit of an odd shape.

The same "footprint expert" that claimed that the mat print was Raffaele's also claimed to have positively identified some luminol footprints as Raffaele's, which was questionable even in principle since luminol does not give high resolution and Raffaele's and Rudy's feet differed in size by only 3mm.

Those two pieces of evidence in particular look very much like the prosecution overselling highly ambiguous "evidence" as proof positive of their theory.

So how did Rudy's entire foot become covered with blood?

 

[capealadin]

To RW: I absolutely would not hunt. I adore animals and brake for birds I rescue animals and find homes for them. And, I have not looked at any of the photos of Meredith's injuries. I simply can't handle these things. So I take the word from the people who have. And, I did see the outline of a large knife, which apparantly could not have made the smaller wounds. Also, the bruising on Meredith's neck was from strangulation, if I remember correctly.
To Kevin: I don't know if they were able to tell when Rudi's hand was cut, or how. He had fled to Germany so it was about 10 days before he was examined. As to the dna of the knife found in Raffaele's flat. Why did he say he had pricked Meredith? This was not true. It lent credence to guilt, by trying to explain away evidence imo. Why not simply say it is impossible? Why did Raffaele say Amanda must have taken it, and done something to Meredith? I will say that it doesn't make sense. Why wasn't the knife simply thrown away? There are some things we will never know.
Welcome back, Fiona.

 

[RWVBWL]

OK. Let's contrast your opinion (expressed in lovely terms of sarcasm, by the way) with the other two possible alternative scenarios:

Let's first of all suppose that Guede committed the crime alone (since that's a pre-requisite to discussing the why-would-Guede-have-locked-the-door issue). Guede would not have known when or if any of the other girls would be returning to the house, and neither would he likely have known whether Meredith had any other plans that were broken (horribly) by her murder.

So, Guede's now standing in the murder room, evaluating his options. Scenario 1: he could choose to flee, leaving Meredith's door wide open. Since many people seem to argue that the time (and manner) of discovery of the body would have been of no consequence to Guede, this scenario bears discussion.

If he'd chosen this option, imagine if one of the other housemates had returned 15 minutes* (say) after he'd left - especially if the housemate was AK, whose room was right next door to Meredith's. Any of the returning housemates might reasonably have had a quick spin round the house to see who was in, and they would inevitably have made the grisly discovery through the open door. So let's suppose for a minute that the murder was committed at 11pm**, that Guede left the flat (leaving Meredith's door wide open) at 11.05pm, and that one of the girls returned at 11.20pm. This would have narrowed the time of death right down, and would also have given Guede no opportunity to create diversion through his post-murder clubbing activities. Police sirens would have been screaming through the Perugia air by midnight at the latest. All of this would be bad news for Guede.

So, let's now look at Scenario 2. In this scenario, Guede elects to close Meredith's door, but not to lock it. And again, let's suppose that a flatmate returns home some 15 minutes after Guede leaves the scene. Guede would most likely not have known whether Meredith had missed an appointment to meet up in a bar etc, and he would also not have known whether the girls were in the habit of opening the closed bedroom doors of their housemates (either to chat, or to borrow items such as hairdryers, makeup, books etc). So a returning housemate might very reasonably have opened Meredith's door (with or without knocking) - either to check whether she was in, or to borrow something from her room. And, of course, her body would then have been discovered in the same way as in "Scenario 1".

So, again, I'd argue that IF Guede were the sole assailant, it wouldn't take much depth of reasoning for him to conclude - as he was standing there with blood on his hands (literally) - that his best option was to lock Meredith's door. And yes, the fact that he left a large amount of forensic evidence of his presence DOES show a lack of appreciation of such evidence on his part. But the issue of locking the door goes far beyond even a rudimentary knowledge of DNA evidence, as I hope I've illustrated above.

* It bears repeating at this point that Guede would have had no idea whether a housemate might have returned 5 minutes after the crime, or 10 hours after the crime. He would have had no idea when anyone might return, so had to assume a worst-case scenario of a relatively early return.

** 11pm is a purely arbitrary time - I'm not suggesting that the murder WAS committed at that time, it's just used here to illustrate relative timings.

Hi LondonJohn,
Nice post with very possible reasoning, from my point of view...
RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

I’ve now read at least 3 different scenario’s to how Rudy could have locked the door all by himself. Bruce Fisher – Mary H and Katy did. And each one has said to try it their way, it works.
Well, you know, they are all possible, so is walking out the door, do a hand stand, remove your shoes, and with your right foot, pull the door closed. Now for the tricky part..........
OK, I’m not going any further, I hope you see what I’m getting at, heck, I think it was even on this site, I saw a monkey, doing a handstand on a goat, while walking on a tightrope.
Yes it is possible, but a murder was just committed, they guy who did it, if he locked that door, would not do it any different than anyone else on this planet.
Walk out a door, and then lock it just normally and see how easy it is, that’s the way Rudy would have done it too, now pay attention to your shoe steps, but that’s not what Rudy’s shoeprints indicate.
So he locked Meredith’s door, close Filomena’s door, but left the front door open. Sorry, but no way, I just don't see that happening.

I just did it again for the umpteenth time. I am 5'3" and it is a perfectly normal, comfortable stance for me to put my left foot at the hinge and my right foot right of center. A bedroom door is not very wide. Rudy is considerably taller and more lithe than I am; he would not have had any trouble at all locking the door, even if he stood only on his left leg to do it.

 

[LondonJohn]

Rudy did lock Meredith's door, and it was not to delay discovery. It was to prevent her from getting out of the room and calling for help. He took her cell phones for the same reason. That's why he threw them away instead of keeping them for his own use.

Meredith may have taken up to two hours to die from bleeding to death slowy. When Rudy left her, she was still alive. He would not have tried to help stanch the flow of her blood with towels if he thought she was dead.

When he left the cottage, he was in a panic-induced state of deep denial, wishfully thinking that everything would turn out okay if he behaved normally. It served his psychic purposes to believe Meredith would recover quickly from the attack, try and fail to get out of her room and wait until someone came in the morning to help her.

I'd disagree with you on this. While I'd agree - and it's supported by pathology - that Meredith would most likely not have been dead by the time the assailant(s) (WHOEVER he/she/they were) left the scene, I think it would have been clear to anybody in the room that Meredith was extremely unlikely to recover after receiving those wounds - and most certainly not without dramatic medical intervention. She would almost certainly have quickly lapsed into unconsciousness (mercifully minimising her suffering), and would obviously have been bleeding profusely. So it was more a question of "when", rather than "if" she was going to die.

I also think it extremely unlikely that Guede would have wished Meredith to recover (even if in a fantasy scenario), if he were the sole assailant. Any recovery by Meredith would have resulted in Guede inevitably being jailed for a very long time for sexual assault and attempted murder. I'd think that Meredith's death would be a "preferred" option for Guede at that point.

HOWEVER, this adds an extra dimension into why Guede would have elected to lock the door, under my belief that it was done primarily to deter discovery for as long as possible. If Meredith was still alive when Guede left the room (as is likely), then Guede's locking of the door would serve an extra, important, purpose: if a flatmate had returned shortly after Guede left (which he had to assume was a possibility), then any discovery of Meredith - still alive - might have led to urgent medical intervention that might conceivably have saved her life. Guede would then be in big trouble - for obvious reasons.

In addition, had Meredith not survived, but had nonetheless been revived to the extent that she could whisper or write, she could have named Guede as her killer. Either way, Guede had to minimise the chances of Meredith being found, and locking the door was the easiest way to do that (short of moving her from the house, which clearly wasn't a possibility).

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

To Kevin: I don't know if they were able to tell when Rudi's hand was cut, or how. He had fled to Germany so it was about 10 days before he was examined. As to the dna of the knife found in Raffaele's flat. Why did he say he had pricked Meredith?

I haven't seen this claim anywhere before: Evidence? Citation?

Why did Raffaele say Amanda must have taken it, and done something to Meredith?

As above.

However I could easily imagine Raffaele saying that if someone asked "How could Meredith's DNA possibly have gotten on to that knife blade?". Amanda taking the knife to her place and somehow bringing it in contact with Meredith is the only obvious way that could have happened without Raffaele's knowledge, if indeed it happened at all, which I think on balance it almost certainly didn't.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I'd disagree with you on this. While I'd agree - and it's supported by pathology - that Meredith would most likely not have been dead by the time the assailant(s) (WHOEVER he/she/they were), I think it would have been clear to anybody in the room that Meredith was extremely unlikely to recover after receiving those wounds - and most certainly not without dramatic medical intervention. She would almost certainly have quickly lapsed into unconsciousness (mercifully minimising her suffering), and would obviously have been bleeding profusely. So it was more a question of "if", rather than "when" she was going to die.

I also think it extremely unlikely that Guede would have wished Meredith to recover (even if in a fantasy scenario), if he were the sole assailant. Any recovery by Meredith would have resulted in Guede inevitably being jailed for a very long time for sexual assault and attempted murder. I'd think that Meredith's death would be a "preferred" option for Guede at that point.

HOWEVER, this adds an extra dimension into why Guede would have elected to lock the door, under my belief that it was done primarily to deter discovery for as long as possible. If Meredith was still alive when Guede left the room (as is likely), then Guede's locking of the door would serve an extra, important, purpose: if a flatmate had returned shortly after Guede left (which he had to assume was a possibility), then any discovery of Meredith - still alive - might have led to urgent medical intervention that might conceivably have saved her life. Guede would then be in big trouble - for obvious reasons.

In addition, had Meredith not survived, but had nonetheless been revived to the extent that she could whisper or write, she could have named Guede as her killer. Either way, Guede had to minimise the chances of Meredith being found, and locking the door was the easiest way to do that (short of moving her from the house, which clearly wasn't a possibility).

Amanda and Raffaele would have had the exact same motivation to close/lock Meredith's door and dispose of the phones. Therefore, this is, in and of itself, not a reason to attribute the door being locked to Rudy

 

[RWVBWL]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I haven't read the whole history here, but in case no one has mentioned it CBS's "48 Hours" devoted a full hour to the Amanda Knox case after a lengthy independent investigation. The woman was framed. The Italian prosecutor has a long history of bizarre behavior, including finding Satanic murder cults behind every tree, and was himself under indictment for misconduct when he tried Knox. At other times he tried to intimidate other Americans, including a well-known American author. Knox was interrogated for many hours without a lawyer, during which she says she was hit and threatened, and no recording or transcript of the interrogation exists; in other words, nobody knows what she said, only what the cops claim she said. Apart from all other issues, at the time of her interrogation she didn't speak Italian very well and some of her interrogators weren't fluent in English, so even if the cops weren't deliberately lying no one really knows who said what and what they meant. The Italian legal system is dramatically different from America's in many ways, to a defendant's detriment. CBS reporters proved that it was impossible for a "witness" to hear what she claimed she heard. Experts stated that the "murder weapon" couldn't have made the wounds that the prosecutor claimed. A prime suspect in the murder, a man with a record of violent crimes, fled Italy immediately after the murder and was captured on a train in Germany. He subsequently was convicted and sentenced to 30 years in prison. And that's just the beginning. Amanda Knox pretty clearly was a flaky, flighty coed at the time of the crime, and her attitude rubbed a lot of the locals the wrong way, but there is no substantial evidence that she had anything to do with any murder, let alone killing her roommate in their own home during some bizarre sex game, and plenty that she is innocent. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]First link (of six) to the "48 Hours" report (I can't post full link, but it would look like this:[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]w w w.youtube.com/watch?v=atWyYFIPYtM[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Numerous other reports from responsible media sources are also easy to find.


[/FONT]

Hi Bob001,
As I have not met you yet, greetings and welcome to JREF,
Nice post. I bet Fulcanneli will be here shortly to tell you that CBS is a Friend of Amanda's, so you can't believe anything that is reported by them...
RWVBWL

 

[Fiona]

The forensics are consistent with one or two knives. Ockham's Razor says that until evidence of a second knife arrives then one knife is a more conservative hypothesis.

Can you refresh my memory as to where this comes from? My recollection is that the evidence required a rather unusual scenario to make the wounds compatible with one knife, but you will have read the testimony more recently than I have.

Hang on, this is getting farcical. Rudy left a bloody footprint on the bathmat in the bathroom, so the claim that he left no evidence of his presence in the bathroom is nonsense. He had to have been in the bathroom after stabbing Meredith.

I have already asked you why you believe that was Guede's footprint in my previous post, so I have nothing else to add at present

So far nothing unusual for a dumb and disorganised housebreaker with a history of breaking into buildings by throwing a rock through the window. (I don't know what this talking point about glass on the ground is supposed to be about, the distribution of glass would be the same whether Rudy chucked the rock to break in or someone else chucked the rock to fake it).

Not quite. The question turns on the distribution of the glass because the lack of glass on the ground suggests that the window was broken from the inside: and this is supported by the lack of footprints on soft ground below the window and lack of marks on the wall from the alleged climb. Similarly it is at least curious that someone who was going to enter this way would not at least sweep the ledge clear of glass before clambering over it: and sustained no injuries despite the fact that he did not do this.

There's anecdotal evidence of Rudy harassing women before,

So far as I recall there is one person who made that statement and it was not supported by any of the other people who were acquainted with Guede: I do not think the person who made that allegation was called to testify. Nor do I think that what was suggested, even if true, comes anywhere near threatenng behaviour. A lot of young guys do not get the message they are being annoying. I do not think this is the kind of behaviour which qualifies as as "harassment" at least in the sense that has been implied upthread: behaviour which can be seen as an antecedent to rape. This part of the argument is one of the most disturbing parts of this whole debate. It seems to me that the path is again: Aimless --> unemployed----> petty criminal----> burglar---> rapist ----> murderer. I see nothing logical at all in presuming such a sequence: it seems a bit snobby to me, to be honest. What little evidence I have been able to find seems to show that petty criminals are somewhat less likely to murder than others unless there is a history of violence: but it is one study. I have not seen any others which touch on this issue directly, and in any case "epidemiology" is not very helpful in assessing the behaviour of particular individual so I am not sure how much it helps us. I raised it because it is at least one study: unlike the prejudice which seems to consign certain people to an underclass and then assume they are likely to do anything at all: while "middle class" people, on the same type of reasoning, would not.

and of Rudy carrying knives while breaking into buildings before.

There is no credible evidence for that at all, so far as I know. We do know that Sollecito routinely carried a knife, however.

I don't think it makes much sense for a perfectly normal person to just up and decide to rape and murder someone, but then again that's your straw man.

I agree, it does not make any sense.

I think the evidence says Rudy did it, and it follows from that conclusion that he was sick in the head long beforehand and he had almost certainly thought about using his knife on a woman while breaking into her house before.

The evidence says that Guede was there and that he participated in whatever happened that night. It also says that he did not act alone. It follows from that conclusion that all those who participated were sick in the head long beforehand, and they almost certainly thought about forming a group and murdering a woman before they actually put that into practise....except it doesn't really, does it? Your speculation makes little logical sense to me, Kevin_Lowe. It depends on the idea that Guede habitually carried a knife, if this attributed fantasy/plan is to hold water. But he didn't: Sollecito did. It is just as likely he thought about using a knife on a woman before this happened: it is a fantasy which is not out of keeping with his porn collection or his interest in knives. While many people fantasise and do not act, it is a stretch to attribute that particular fantasy to one who does not have a knife fetish, and dismiss the possibility it belonged rather to one who did.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I haven't seen this claim anywhere before: Evidence? Citation?



As above.

However I could easily imagine Raffaele saying that if someone asked "How could Meredith's DNA possibly have gotten on to that knife blade?". Amanda taking the knife to her place and somehow bringing it in contact with Meredith is the only obvious way that could have happened without Raffaele's knowledge, if indeed it happened at all, which I think on balance it almost certainly didn't.

How could that have happened if Amanda was indeed with Raffaele all night as they had asserted?

And, again, if you'd read this thread, you would have seen the discussion regarding Raffaele's story.

Basically, it's one thing to suggest plausible alternative scenarios, it's quite another entirely to fabricate a completely implausible story (lie) as to how the DNA could have found it's way to the knife.


"Maybe Amanda snuck out and gave the knife to the killer" = plausible (if we ignore that it destroys their alibis)

"I pricked Meredith's finger while cooking" = not plausible - in other words, a flat out lie.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

How could that have happened if Amanda was indeed with Raffaele all night as they had asserted?

And, again, if you'd read this thread, you would have seen the discussion regarding Raffaele's story.

Basically, it's one thing to suggest plausible alternative scenarios, it's quite another entirely to fabricate a completely implausible story (lie) as to how the DNA could have found it's way to the knife.


"Maybe Amanda snuck out and gave the knife to the killer" = plausible (if we ignore that it destroys their alibis)

"I pricked Meredith's finger while cooking" = not plausible - in other words, a flat out lie.

You quoted me asking for a citation, but I have to point out that you did not provide one. What is your source?

 

[Mary_H]

I'd disagree with you on this. While I'd agree - and it's supported by pathology - that Meredith would most likely not have been dead by the time the assailant(s) (WHOEVER he/she/they were), I think it would have been clear to anybody in the room that Meredith was extremely unlikely to recover after receiving those wounds - and most certainly not without dramatic medical intervention. She would almost certainly have quickly lapsed into unconsciousness (mercifully minimising her suffering), and would obviously have been bleeding profusely. So it was more a question of "if", rather than "when" she was going to die.

I also think it extremely unlikely that Guede would have wished Meredith to recover (even if in a fantasy scenario), if he were the sole assailant. Any recovery by Meredith would have resulted in Guede inevitably being jailed for a very long time for sexual assault and attempted murder. I'd think that Meredith's death would be a "preferred" option for Guede at that point.

HOWEVER, this adds an extra dimension into why Guede would have elected to lock the door, under my belief that it was done primarily to deter discovery for as long as possible. If Meredith was still alive when Guede left the room (as is likely), then Guede's locking of the door would serve an extra, important, purpose: if a flatmate had returned shortly after Guede left (which he had to assume was a possibility), then any discovery of Meredith - still alive - might have led to urgent medical intervention that might conceivably have saved her life. Guede would then be in big trouble - for obvious reasons.

In addition, had Meredith not survived, but had nonetheless been revived to the extent that she could whisper or write, she could have named Guede as her killer. Either way, Guede had to minimise the chances of Meredith being found, and locking the door was the easiest way to do that (short of moving her from the house, which clearly wasn't a possibility).

Your scenario is certainly plausible. (I want to give credit to capealadin, too, for earlier bringing up the objection that Rudy would not have wanted Meredith to be able to identify him.)

I'm not sure the possiblity of being identified by Meredith was really registering with Rudy, or causing him fear. Remember, there is evidence he had committed a series of previous crimes without any consequences. He might have gotten it into his irrational little head that he was immune to being caught, arrested or punished the way criminals usually are, especially if he really was a police informant.

I just don't want to believe that Rudy was so cold-blooded at that time that he wanted Meredith to die. It seems to me that [this wishful thinking] would have been at the forefront of his mind, not killing her to prevent himself from being caught.

 

[LondonJohn]

If it was just Rudi there, as you claim, he could have done the coup de grace in less time than it took to cut the bra. Which, btw, could have just been unsnapped. It would take someone inexperienced with girlfriends (Raffaele) and into rape and porn (Raffaele) to cut the bra.

But ANYONE could have done the "coup de grace". Why did an AK/RS/RG triumvirate not inflict one final, even more brutal, wound to ensure her immediate death? Because it's a fact that - under either scenario - nobody actually did inflict such a wound. Therefore, to argue that since Guede (acting alone) could have "finished her off", but chose not to do so, this is somehow indicative of the implausibility of this scenario, is to ignore the fact that it's equally implausible under the alternative AK/RS/RG scenario. And yet THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.

So why is it not implausible for an attacker to elect NOT to administer a final - and immediately fatal - wound to ensure Meredith's death (whether by Guede acting alone, or by an AK/RS/RG combo)? Well, there are a number of complex psychological reasons, I believe. The main one of these is that the attack was almost certainly carried out in some sort of frenzy (and one which, incidentally, is fairly strongly compatible with heightened sexual arousal - but this is peripheral to the main argument here).

When the frenzied attack was over (WHOEVER carried it out), the attacker would most likely have experienced strong, complex feelings of panic, remorse, self-loathing, and a strong drop in any sexual arousal that might have been present during the frenzy. In this mental state, the assailant would most likely have been very unwilling - or even unable - to bring himself (or herself) back to the heightened state necessary to plunge a knife into a fellow human being.

So I'd argue that one ought to take the issue of "why wasn't a final, fatal, wound inflicted?" out of the equation somewhat - regardless of who one believes was involved in the crime. I'd also argue that it's no more indicative of Guede's sole involvement (or not) than it is of AK/RS/RG's joint involvement.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

You quoted me asking for a citation, but I have to point out that you did not provide one. What is your source?

Raffaele's Prison Journal.


How about doing a bit more than just reading Wikipedia and thinking you're the expert on this case? You know, read this whole thread for starters.

 

[RWVBWL]

I’ve now read at least 3 different scenario’s to how Rudy could have locked the door all by himself. Bruce Fisher – Mary H and Katy did. And each one has said to try it their way, it works.
Well, you know, they are all possible, so is walking out the door, do a hand stand, remove your shoes, and with your right foot, pull the door closed. Now for the tricky part..........
OK, I’m not going any further, I hope you see what I’m getting at, heck, I think it was even on this site, I saw a monkey, doing a handstand on a goat, while walking on a tightrope.
Yes it is possible, but a murder was just committed, they guy who did it, if he locked that door, would not do it any different than anyone else on this planet.
Walk out a door, and then lock it just normally and see how easy it is, that’s the way Rudy would have done it too, now pay attention to your shoe steps, but that’s not what Rudy’s shoeprints indicate.
So he locked Meredith’s door, close Filomena’s door, but left the front door open. Sorry, but no way, I just don't see that happening.

Hi Sherlock Holmes,
I too can see your point, but maybe Rudy was simply having a hard time in the dark trying to lock that door when he was leaving, and heard someone in the vicinty and panicked.

Didn't Miss Alessandra Formica see someone running away that night? Though she stated in court it was not Rudy Guede who she saw that evening, maybe she was mistaken in her non-ID of him. I know I have been mistaken when shown photo's of a police line-up before.

But maybe Guede was there with someone else also, who ran out fast after stabbing Miss Kercher. There is speculation that this will be brought up by Raffaele Sollecito's lawyers at his appeal trial. And maybe Miss Formica did indeed see that guy.

Rudy, (who "LondonJohn" theorizes nicely above why he would want to lock Miss Kercher's door), being the last guy leaving the apartment, wanted to lock that front door also, but panicked when he heard the noise of a car or someone possibly walking nearby, and split from the scene fast, leaving the door unlocked.
Lots to ponder in this murder case...
Hmmm,
RWVBWL

 

[Mary_H]

What I find absolutely telling regarding the mental gymnastics to believe the "Lone Killer" theory is this:

The "Lone Wolf" theory involves some kind of turn-on similar to this: He broke in, was feeling sick, Meredith comes home, so he attacks her sexually (killing her before or after, whichever).

These same people who argue that this is what happened will turn around and claim that they don't believe the Prosecution theory that Amanda and Raffaele getting busy was a turn-on to Rudy because it's just "stupid" and "doesn't make any sense".

Duplicitous much?

I don't put much stock in calling this a sex crime. Meredith was assaulted sexually, yes, but she was assaulted other ways as well. Rudy doesn't have a history of rape, he has a history of breaking, entering and burglary.

More important -- especially for the judges' mistaken interpretation of the motive -- rape is not a crime of sex, it is a crime of violence. Some attackers might get aroused by violence, but it doesn't appear that was the case for Rudy. The evidence seems to show he opportunistically raped Meredith digitally after disabling her, not that he tried to engage in any sexual relations that she could respond to.

 

[Fiona]

One of us is badly confused: I thought the story was that Rudy locked the door while facing mostly towards it in a perfectly ordinary manner.

No. The debate arises from the fact that Guede's footprints go straight out of the room and down the hall and out the front door. There is no footprint which shows him turning to lock the door. So it has been argued that he did lock the door but he did so with his back to it. I do not find that plausible.

It was suggested that he could and did do this because he is a basketball player - I did not really follow that cos I do not see why basketball players should lock doors while facing away from them: but I am not american

Just before I went on holiday there was another proposal to explain this which I see MaryH has raised again: apparently the Perugia police double as house cleaners and they cleaned up this one vital piece of evidence while leaving all the prints which go straight out the door intact (I believe the set is not complete, but again that was just beginning to be discussed when I left and I am not sure where that ended up); but it is at least peculiar that there are footprints in blood from his shoe, all facing to the exit: and none showing he paused and turned to lock the door. If this has been resolved someone can perhaps direct me to the relevant post (I so much doubt it has been that I am not going to search - nothing gets resolved in this thread )

My understanding was that while the prosecution initially claimed to have positively identified the print as Raffaele's, the defence proved that it was unlikely to be Raffaele's since Raffaele's second toe didn't touch the ground, his foot being a bit of an odd shape.

The question of Raffaele's deformed toe was certainly raised. It does not seem to have cut much ice and since the prosecution expert measured his feet precisely I can only conclude that this argument was not accepted for a reason. Apart from that it is once again a subject of dispute. FOA posted what purported to be a demonstration that the print fitted Guede: Kermit posted a refutation showing that they had distorted the size in order to get that result. The latter seemed more plausible to me but I am no expert. What I can say is that there is absolutely no reason to accept the print was Guede's: you can decide it is not certain if you like: depends what you make of the evidence: but I think you should at least look at that evidence before coming to a conclusion.

The same "footprint expert" that claimed that the mat print was Raffaele's also claimed to have positively identified some luminol footprints as Raffaele's, which was questionable even in principle since luminol does not give high resolution and Raffaele's and Rudy's feet differed in size by only 3mm.

I have not seen any testimony to the effect that the expert claimed that the prints were definitely Sollecto's: my recollection is that he said they were compatible with his size and he may have said something about the shape: I can't recall. It is true that foot sizes do not differ in big increments: but for an expert I would imagine they are big enough: and he did take very detailed measurements

Those two pieces of evidence in particular look very much like the prosecution overselling highly ambiguous "evidence" as proof positive of their theory.

I disagree

 

[LondonJohn]

I have a couple of questions if I may. If nothing else they should break up the monotony of the back-and-forth.

1) Barring a compelling reason, should we not accept the word of expert forensic scientists?

These are people who are paid for their expertise to provide evidence that convicts criminals every single day, and when there is not a camera crew around they are not much second guessed (pressed by defense lawyers yes, doubted by laymen not so much).

2) Just how much of the 'she's innocent' comes down to a pretty American girl being tried by uppity foreign types from a second rate nation with a weirdo legal system?

Sorry if those lead the points a little, I didn't want to spam multiple posts just for a few thoughts of my own.

In my view, these are all very valid points. However, I would like to pick up on one of the things you said. This whole debate is about MUCH more that whether Amanda Knox (and Raffaele Sollecito) are innocent - in the sense that they didn't actually commit the crime. There are some here who strongly believe this to be the case - and these people obviously believe strongly, by extension, that Amanda and Raffaele were wrongly convicted.

However, there's another point of view, and one which is my default position. It's this: there is a possibility that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito might have actually been involved in the crimes, but that they were wrongly convicted. This position is not as bizarre as it might first appear. I believe that certain elements of forensic evidence might not withstand closer scrutiny on appeal, and that certain witness testimony might go the same way. And without those elements, there might not be enough evidence to convict to the exclusion of reasonable doubt. It's important to realise that it's possible to raise doubts about the strength of the conviction WITHOUT ever even making a judgement on whether Amanda or Raffaele were involved or not. And that's what I'm trying to do on this forum.

Although many posters here seem to think they know my position better then I myself do, I don't (and have never) made strong arguments in favour of AK/RS's actual non-involvement. What I HAVE done is try to show that alternative scenarios that don't involve them are both plausible and possible - and NOT NECESSARILY that I subscribe to these alternative scenarios as what actually happened. I have also tried to present arguments to suggest that there may be problems with various elements of evidence that helped convict the pair - without ever saying that they didn't do it.