Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[RWVBWL]

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).

I concur, LondonJohn, excellant post, in my opinion

 

[LondonJohn]

Perhaps it all comes down to identifying with one over the other?

She is 'like them', so they can't imagine someone like little Jill over the road being a monster. He sounds sinister though, you could believe him getting up to anything.

Hmmmm. "Us" and "Them", eh?

 

[capealadin]

To Kevin: Rudi was brought back from Germany on the 19th of November. 17 days after the finding of Meredith. So his hand could only have been seen at least 17 days after the 2nd. Raffaele's own words from his prison diary. Inclding the fact that he said he did not trust Amanda, and that 90% of his second statement was a load of *rubbish*.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

I haven't been able to find anything more specific than defence experts stating that the wounds are compatible with the single knife that left a print on the sheets, so anything more detailed would be interesting.

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.

As stated before, the defence showed that the print was unlikely to be Solecito's and was perfectly compatible with Guede's foot.

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.

I think this is another instance of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: Rudy breaks into the building any old way, and then the people who think Knox is guilty try to thrust the onus of proof on to the people who think Knox is innocent to explain every single aspect of the evidence left behind.

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.

That's not my chain of reasoning, and I think I was quite explicit about it. My chain of reasoning goes: Copious DNA evidence and fingerprints show Rudy did it -------> Rudy is an opportunistic rapist and murderer --------> Rudy is not right in the head.

If Rudy was magically proved to be totally innocent tomorrow I'd happily retract the conclusion that he's not right in the head.

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

It depends what you mean by credible evidence. I consider eyewitness statements made by credible sources reported in the mainstream media credible evidence. Not conclusive evidence, but definitely credible. The Amanda-is-guilty crowd like to try to draw a line at a court conviction and deny that any evidence of his past behaviour other than a conviction counts, but I think that's a pretty silly post hoc move.

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.

There is independent evidence of Guede carrying a knife while committing crimes of entry and theft. It's not outside the realm of possibility that he did not carry a knife for day-to-day self-defence (or offence) purposes, but that he did carry a knife while he was committing crimes so he could kill, intimidate and/or opportunistically rape witnesses.

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.

I'm attributing that particular fantasy to someone whose DNA was found inside a raped and murdered woman. Sure, if it wasn't for the copious evidence that Guede raped and murdered someone I'd be perfectly happy to agree that Solecito seems like more the type to fantasise about doing that. However you're clearly putting the cart in front of the horse here.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi Fiona,
Re: "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."

Isn't there evidence that Rudy Guede went into the kitchen also? I recall something about Rudy saying that he was drinking out a juice carton or something like that from the refrigerator. Did he do so after the murder or before, I wonder?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

How about you give us a link, Bob, to support the specific claim that you actually made?

Or are you taking a page out of Fulcanelli's book, and pretending you have evidence which you do not have?

 

[capealadin]

LJ: You needed to read my whole post. I was replying to Mary as to a particular scenario she had brought up. I expressed an opinion as to why not just give a fatal cut, rather than take the chance of Meredith being able to finger him. I don't believe there was only one assailant. But that has been discussed on this thread ad infinatum, so I won't discuss it further, as other people here are better informed than I.

 

[Mary_H]

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.

I have yet to see anyone argue that. Fulcanelli kept insisting that was what I was arguing, but he was misrepresenting me. My argument was that Rudy could turn to face the door with his left foot pointing down the hall.

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

If I remember correctly, Fulcanelli was trying to portray the door-locking maneuver as something that, basically, would be physically impossible. I made a point to the effect that a basketball player is trained to stretch and contort his or her body in a variety of unusual ways to get around a guard who is essentially on top of him. I was not claiming that was necessary in the case of Rudy locking the door, but rather that it was false to claim the maneuver is humanly impossible.

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.

I believe it has been accepted that the police wiped up footprints from the area of the hallway in front of Meredith's bedroom door. If they didn't, then perhaps you would like to venture a guess as to where the print of Rudy's right foot went, since it was his left foor that was at the hinge end of the door in the hallway.

Did he step out of Meredith's room to the hinge end of the door in one stride, with his right foot in her room and his left foot in the hall? Because I just tried that one too, and it is quite a bit harder to pull off than the door-locking maneuver. Or, maybe he never had blood on his right shoe in the first place? That would certainly explain why we don't see his print in front of the bedroom door as he stopped to lock it.

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 )

One of the reasons things don't get resolved on this thread is because some people don't take the discussion seriously. The idea that some people would actually refuse to try the door-locking maneuver is mind-boggling to me. Who do they think they're fooling?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

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. Andmaybe 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

Actually, anything is possible in this case - I've never read so much about any other case in my life as I have with this one, the one thing I find really disturbing in this case is, whatever you read, you can find something that says the exact opposite somewhere else, it’s frustrating. Perhaps all cases are like this, I don’t know.

Basically, I’m inclined to think they’re all guilty, but I’m nowhere 100% sure, so I’m inclined to go with the courts, round one went against Amanda, we’ll see how two and three go.

Another thing is, Bruce Fisher and Fulcanelli are at exact opposites of the pole on this, yet both have some very good arguments for their respected sides. I suspect the truth lies somewhere in-between. I can only hope that we all find out some day what that truth really is, but I’m beginning to have my doubts so I’ll have to agree with whatever side is ahead after the final appeal.

 

[RWVBWL]

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.

Hi Mary H,
From what I recall reading, Miss Kercher had a 0.43 BAC, so she was probably a lil' buzzed that night. I recall reading that all of the girls and guys downstairs smoked pot. I wonder if, as a CCTV recording suggests, Rudy met up with Miss Kercher as she arrived home that night and asked if the boys were around, she said no, asked her if she wanted to blaze and smoke out, she did, and that was how he gained entrance into the apartment in the first place. As the rest of the evening unfolded, Rudy Guede became more turned on while chatting with Miss Kercher and then attacked her when she rebuffed his advances, if he was indeed the lone assailant...
Hmmm,
RWVBWL

 

[LondonJohn]

On the murder knife issue:

1) Am I right to believe that kitchen knife from RS's apartment (i.e. one of the two alleged murder weapons) wasn't already in the girls' house on the night of the murder? In other words, is it generally agreed that the knife was brought from RS's flat to the girls' flat at some point on the evening of the 1st November? If so, I find it hard to reconcile why this would have happened, since the generally-agreed view of the crime is that it was not premeditated. I know that it's suggested either that AK was encouraged to carry the knife by RS "for her own protection", or that the knife was brought to the girls' flat to be used as a "threatener" in a sex game. But neither of those theories make much rational sense to me.

2) If this kitchen knife WAS used in the murder - why wouldn't AK/RS simply throw it away (perhaps even after careful cleaning)? Even if they thought they'd cleaned it so thoroughly that they'd destroyed any evidence, why would they take the risk? I am guessing that one reason they might have felt it necessary to retain the knife might be that some third party knew of Raffaele's ownership of it. Perhaps, for example, RS's mother had bought it for him as a housewarming present. Its post-murder absence might therefore have aroused suspicion. Does anyone know how many other people knew what types and numbers of kitchen knives Raffaele owned? I can only assume that SOMEONE knew he owned that kitchen knife - otherwise I can't understand why AK/RS wouldn't have cleaned it thoroughly and thrown it away. And after all, if nobody knew that this specific knife was connected to Raffaele, then even if it was subsequently found in a dumpster or a ravine, it's unlikely that it could be linked to RS/AK (unless, of course, they'd left evidence of themselves on the knife).

 

[Fiona]

I haven't been able to find anything more specific than defence experts stating that the wounds are compatible with the single knife that left a print on the sheets, so anything more detailed would be interesting.

Perhaps you should read the reports of the testimony

As stated before, the defence showed that the print was unlikely to be Solecito's and was perfectly compatible with Guede's foot.

Perhaps you should read the reports of the evidence presented by both sides

I think this is another instance of the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy: Rudy breaks into the building any old way, and then the people who think Knox is guilty try to thrust the onus of proof on to the people who think Knox is innocent to explain every single aspect of the evidence left behind.

No. There is real doubt as to whether anybody broke in to the building. That is the point of this part of the debate.

That's not my chain of reasoning, and I think I was quite explicit about it. My chain of reasoning goes: Copious DNA evidence and fingerprints show Rudy did it -------> Rudy is an opportunistic rapist and murderer --------> Rudy is not right in the head.

There is certainly dna evidence to show that Guede was there: there is also dna evidence to show that Sollecito was there; and since Knox's DNA was also on the bra clasp that could be said to be evidence that she was there too: but it is in much smaller quantity as I understand it and so I am not sure if it is like the other profiles which were too partial to be attributed: this is a part I am not clear about. Originally I had thought there were two definite profiles: Kercher's and Sollecito's: and three traces which were female but could not be identified - it was suggested that these might be from the other 3 women in the house through sharing laundry: but it was only a suggestion. Later I learned that Vinci identified Knox's dna and I believe this was confirmed by another expert: but I am not sure how certain that identification is nor the quantity. I do not think the prosecution witnesses addressed this though I could be very wrong: there was a great deal of testimony we have no access to and if we have access to that I have missed it. In any case, you may choose not to accept that evidence (though I think it is a stretch to deny Sollecito's dna was there in sufficient quantity to exclude secondary transfer and I have still seen nothing bar one 2002 reference in support of tertiary transfer): but unless you deny it then all that you say of Guede is true of Sollecito and may be true of Knox as well. There is more evidence of Guede's presence: but that brings us back to Fulcanelli's point, I think

It depends what you mean by credible evidence. I consider eyewitness statements made by credible sources reported in the mainstream media credible evidence.

What are these credible sources? I presume you dismiss all that his foster mother said about him and all that comes from those who knew him well? Yet you accept the word of one witness about sexual harassment, though he did not harass Knox nor Kercher nor any of their friends (or at least none of them have claimed he did): and perhaps also the man who claimed he had broken into his house and threatened him with a knife? That man was apparently paid for his story and rightly or wrongly it was dismissed as incredible by the judge. So his credibility is at the very least in doubt. It is true that Guede had a knife in the school: a knife he picked up there. A knife he did not even show to the woman who found him there, and whom he did not threaten in any way, so far as I know.

Not conclusive evidence, but definitely credible. The Amanda-is-guilty crowd like to try to draw a line at a court conviction and deny that any evidence of his past behaviour other than a conviction counts, but I think that's a pretty silly post hoc move.

I do not think you have shown any credible evidence, Kevin. Not because I draw a line at a court conviction but because I do not think it exists. His past behaviour is not good evidence either way: but I have not dismissed it without looking at it. And I wonder if you have read all that is available, or only that which is negative? If you haven't I think that is a pretty silly move too

There is independent evidence of Guede carrying a knife while committing crimes of entry and theft.

No, there isn't. Not unless you have found some I do not know about yet. I would like to see it if you have

It's not outside the realm of possibility that he did not carry a knife for day-to-day self-defence (or offence) purposes, but that he did carry a knife while he was committing crimes so he could kill, intimidate and/or opportunistically rape witnesses.

There is no evidence for that at all: and quite a lot which suggests it is far from the truth

I'm attributing that particular fantasy to someone whose DNA was found inside a raped and murdered woman. Sure, if it wasn't for the copious evidence that Guede raped and murdered someone I'd be perfectly happy to agree that Solecito seems like more the type to fantasise about doing that. However you're clearly putting the cart in front of the horse here.

I think I have both a cart and a horse: but I think you lack one or the other

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Hi Mary H,
From what I recall reading, Miss Kercher had a 0.43 BAC, so she was probably a lil' buzzed that night. I recall reading that all of the girls and guys downstairs smoked pot. I wonder if, as a CCTV recording suggests, Rudy met up with Miss Kercher as she arrived home that night and asked if the boys were around, she said no, asked her if she wanted to blaze and smoke out, she did, and that was how he gained entrance into the apartment in the first place. As the rest of the evening unfolded, Rudy Guede became more turned on while chatting with Miss Kercher and then attacked her when she rebuffed his advances, if he was indeed the lone assailant...
Hmmm,
RWVBWL

I don't think thats too likely because of the broken window, if he didn't have time to lock the front door, I doubt he took time to break a window. I think if Rudy is the lone assailant, he came in thru the window, probally to use the bathroom, not to rob it.

 

[Mary_H]

Hi Mary H,
From what I recall reading, Miss Kercher had a 0.43 BAC, so she was probably a lil' buzzed that night. I recall reading that all of the girls and guys downstairs smoked pot. I wonder if, as a CCTV recording suggests, Rudy met up with Miss Kercher as she arrived home that night and asked if the boys were around, she said no, asked her if she wanted to blaze and smoke out, she did, and that was how he went gained entrance into the apartment in the first palce. As the rest of the evening unfolded, Rudy Guede became more turned on while chatting with Miss Kercher and then attacked her when she rebuffed his advances, if he was indeed the lone assailant...
Hmmm,
RWVBWL

Hi RW. I have always thought there is a strong likelihood that Rudy either met Meredith outside the house and went in with her, or that he knocked an she let him in. I have never pictured him asking if she wanted to smoke with him; I pictured him asking to use the bathroom. If her BAC was that high (probably from drinking wine at her friends' place), she probably just wanted to head to bed, I would think.

I am still not willing to attribute any sexual arousal to Rudy at this point. I will feel differently if they ever analyze the semen on the pillow case and it turns out to be his.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

On the murder knife issue:

1) Am I right to believe that kitchen knife from RS's apartment (i.e. one of the two alleged murder weapons) wasn't already in the girls' house on the night of the murder? In other words, is it generally agreed that the knife was brought from RS's flat to the girls' flat at some point on the evening of the 1st November? If so, I find it hard to reconcile why this would have happened, since the generally-agreed view of the crime is that it was not premeditated. I know that it's suggested either that AK was encouraged to carry the knife by RS "for her own protection", or that the knife was brought to the girls' flat to be used as a "threatener" in a sex game. But neither of those theories make much rational sense to me.

The "protection" argument seems a bit weird because knives carried for fighting with are typically either carried in a sheath, or are some kind of self-sheathing knife that folds or retracts the blade when not in use. Carrying an unsheathed kitchen knife around in your purse would be odd and bad for your purse, and kitchen knives don't typically come with sheaths for carrying them around in.

The theory that it was brought to threaten Amanda in a sex game makes a little more internal sense, although it too seems a bit odd since Solecito owned scarier knives if they wanted to bring a knife from his house, and presumably Amanda's house had knives if they just wanted to use an ordinary kitchen knife for some reason.

This isn't knock-down evidence of anything, of course, it's just the reason why I find the prosecution theory that the kitchen knife killed Meredith weird on its face.

 

[LondonJohn]

If you do not wish to engage in a discussion with Fulcanelli, then do not do so.

You're attempting to set yourself up so that your post cannot be refuted - from here, it's a simple "I already said I won't debate this with you, Fulcanelli" rather than having to actually respond to the content of his post.

Again, if you do not wish to engage with another poster, then do not do so - this is a silly little game you're playing, LJ.

1) It wasn't him I was referring to here

2) I don't appreciate the tone of your post ("silly little game"), and neither (I suspect) will others with objectivity.

3) I have a perfect right to make points. My post was NOT about why I won't engage with certain other posters. That was no more than a preface. My post was about re-stating my position and refuting certain counter-claims that I felt were either misrepresenting my position or illogical.

4) Anyone on this forum can comment on my posts - including the one in question here. In no way am I "attempting to set yourself up so that my post cannot be refuted". My post can be refuted by anyone at any time. And I'll be more than happy to listen to (and respond directly to) honest, civil and open-minded responses.

 

[Mary_H]

2) If this kitchen knife WAS used in the murder - why wouldn't AK/RS simply throw it away (perhaps even after careful cleaning)? Even if they thought they'd cleaned it so thoroughly that they'd destroyed any evidence, why would they take the risk? I am guessing that one reason they might have felt it necessary to retain the knife might be that some third party knew of Raffaele's ownership of it. Perhaps, for example, RS's mother had bought it for him as a housewarming present. Its post-murder absence might therefore have aroused suspicion. Does anyone know how many other people knew what types and numbers of kitchen knives Raffaele owned? I can only assume that SOMEONE knew he owned that kitchen knife - otherwise I can't understand why AK/RS wouldn't have cleaned it thoroughly and thrown it away. And after all, if nobody knew that this specific knife was connected to Raffaele, then even if it was subsequently found in a dumpster or a ravine, it's unlikely that it could be linked to RS/AK (unless, of course, they'd left evidence of themselves on the knife).

When I have asked this question in the past, I have always been told that Amanda and Raffaele purposely kept the knife as a way of smugly taunting the authorities -- that is, they wanted to show how smart they were that they could keep the murder weapon (for cooking and eating, no less), and still get away with murder. Genius, no?

 

[Fiona]

Have you been told that on this thread, MaryH? Because I have never heard of it so if you have it must have been within the last two weeks, I think?

 

[Mary_H]

Have you been told that on this thread, MaryH? Because I have never heard of it so if you have it must have been within the last two weeks, I think?

No, that was on other threads.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

When I have asked this question in the past, I have always been told that Amanda and Raffaele purposely kept the knife as a way of smugly taunting the authorities -- that is, they wanted to show how smart they were that they could keep the murder weapon (for cooking and eating, no less), and still get away with murder. Genius, no?

My thought is that it was not used in the murder at all, but used to cut the bra strap off and caused the cut on Meredith's back by where the strap was. Both knifes used in the murder were disposed of.
I should say, that that would be just one possibility.