1477 users online (308 members and 1169 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 66 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 985
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    That would make sense if AK and RS had no reason to be in that house. But they did, before and after the murder.

    People can live in a house. A murder can take place leaving Suspect A's blood. The people who live there return to the house. Are we now to suppose they participated in the murder too bc they were in the house and left evidence before and after the murder? Of course not. Otherwise merely having a murder being committed in your own house would out you in jail for murder

    There is one or two scenario people who believe connect the dots and explains the murder putting blame on AK. There are other equally plausible scenarios where the evidence is disputed or suggests AK and RS were simply in the house
    Bc prosecution has to prove that there is no reasonable alternative, they have to eliminate the possibility of alternative scenarios. They did not do that.
    It's not simply a matter of them just living there. It's that they lied about where they were that night. They lied about what they were doing that night. They lied about what they were doing that morning. They lied about how the cottage was found. They lied about everything.

    Do people who live in a house automatically lie about living in that house? Do they lie and say, no we weren't at our house at that time, we were actually at another house. Did Amanda say, "Becaues see, even though this is my house and I live here, and i'm going to use that for my "DNA everywehre" argument, actually I was at another house." Even though there is evidence they are lying about that fact?

    IMO, they were lying about their alibi. And like I said, they were lying about what they were doing that night. And what theywere doing in the morning. And how they found the cottage, "her home."
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Just some thoughts I wanted to set down:

    I actually think it's a plus for Crini to have set forth a motive which was NOT premeditated; NOT a planned prank or hazing or sex game. An impromptu, unexpected altercation (perhaps begun earlier in the day: I keep thinking of the statement analysis where Knox said they said goodbye to Meredith after lunch, 'nothing out of the ordinary', actually indicating that something unexpected had probably occurred, such as an unexpected, sharp criticism or fight) which escalated, perhaps in stages, to homicide.

    Leaving aside innocence and the lone wolf theory, (and I always leave that door open as a possibility, the door being more closed with indications of a simulation and clean up) if you want to bring Guede, Knox, and Sollecito together, I think it makes more sense that Knox and Guede had an altercation with Meredith, and that Sollecito was brought in later - maybe even only for the clean-up. Knox and Meredith arguing (as Guede already suggested) and then Guede being drawn in (maybe an insult about the unflushed toilet really would be the last straw for him).

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Just some thoughts I wanted to set down:

    I actually think it's a plus for Crini to have set forth a motive which was NOT premeditated; NOT a planned prank or hazing or sex game. An impromptu, unexpected altercation (perhaps begun earlier in the day: I keep thinking of the statement analysis where Knox said they said goodbye to Meredith after lunch, 'nothing out of the ordinary', actually indicating that something unexpected had probably occurred, such as an unexpected, sharp criticism or fight) which escalated, perhaps in stages, to homicide.

    Leaving aside innocence and the lone wolf theory, (and I always leave that door open as a possibility, the door being more closed with indications of a simulation and clean up) if you want to bring Guede, Knox, and Sollecito together, I think it makes more sense that Knox and Guede had an altercation with Meredith, and that Sollecito was brought in later - maybe even only for the clean-up. Knox and Meredith arguing (as Guede already suggested) and then Guede being drawn in (maybe an insult about the unflushed toilet really would be the last straw for him).
    The issue I have with that is that I believe RS would have already ratted out Rudy and Amanda if his involvement was less than theirs. IMO. I believe his involvement was equal to theirs, that's why he didn't rat out.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    I noticed that in relation to the luminol prints, blood is allegedly absent and again same thing with Meredith's DNA on the knife.

    Where does the information about no blood in the luminol prints come from, and why does the prosecutor claim that the prints could only have been made with blood?
    It is disputed whether the luminol shows up blood or cleaning products. But I don't think it is disputed that even if blood, it is not MK's DNA. So the blood would have had to be some unknown person which does not make any sense.

    Quite frankly, they have to prove it is MK's blood not just blood in general unless one thinks AK was somehow bleeding from her feet.

    http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,930
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Just some thoughts I wanted to set down:

    I actually think it's a plus for Crini to have set forth a motive which was NOT premeditated; NOT a planned prank or hazing or sex game. An impromptu, unexpected altercation (perhaps begun earlier in the day: I keep thinking of the statement analysis where Knox said they said goodbye to Meredith after lunch, 'nothing out of the ordinary', actually indicating that something unexpected had probably occurred, such as an unexpected, sharp criticism or fight) which escalated, perhaps in stages, to homicide.

    Leaving aside innocence and the lone wolf theory, (and I always leave that door open as a possibility, the door being more closed with indications of a simulation and clean up) if you want to bring Guede, Knox, and Sollecito together, I think it makes more sense that Knox and Guede had an altercation with Meredith, and that Sollecito was brought in later - maybe even only for the clean-up. Knox and Meredith arguing (as Guede already suggested) and then Guede being drawn in (maybe an insult about the unflushed toilet really would be the last straw for him).
    The prosecutor firmly connects Sollecito to Knox throughout the evening of the murder.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post
    The issue I have with that is that I believe RS would have already ratted out Rudy and Amanda if his involvement was less than theirs. IMO. I believe his involvement was equal to theirs, that's why he didn't rat out.
    Similarly, I think if RS had no involvement he would have ratted them out as well and made money in the tabloids. His not ratting could similarly indicate there is no ratting to be done bc no crime

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    It is disputed whether the luminol shows up blood or cleaning products. But I don't think it is disputed that even if blood, it is not MK's DNA. So the blood would have had to be some unknown person which does not make any sense.

    Quite frankly, they have to prove it is MK's blood not just blood in general unless one thinks AK was somehow bleeding from her feet.

    http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html
    So, in the blog, is the opinion that there is no DNA so it is not blood?
    I didn't see the reference for the opinion.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Just some thoughts I wanted to set down:

    I actually think it's a plus for Crini to have set forth a motive which was NOT premeditated; NOT a planned prank or hazing or sex game. An impromptu, unexpected altercation (perhaps begun earlier in the day: I keep thinking of the statement analysis where Knox said they said goodbye to Meredith after lunch, 'nothing out of the ordinary', actually indicating that something unexpected had probably occurred, such as an unexpected, sharp criticism or fight) which escalated, perhaps in stages, to homicide.

    Leaving aside innocence and the lone wolf theory, (and I always leave that door open as a possibility, the door being more closed with indications of a simulation and clean up) if you want to bring Guede, Knox, and Sollecito together, I think it makes more sense that Knox and Guede had an altercation with Meredith, and that Sollecito was brought in later - maybe even only for the clean-up. Knox and Meredith arguing (as Guede already suggested) and then Guede being drawn in (maybe an insult about the unflushed toilet really would be the last straw for him).
    This new motive also questions why RS and especially RG would get themselves involved in a toilet fight. Nor why MK would bring it up that night. And it is still perplexing why Mk would not have flushed the toilet - did she want to keep the specimen to settle once and for all whose DNA it was? Was she going to send it out for DNA testing to prove it was AK?

    Better motive would be they were making noise and MK complained.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    So, in the blog, is the opinion that there is no DNA so it is not blood?
    I didn't see the reference for the opinion.
    No,,DNA is separate from blood. You can still have DNA and yet have no blood and vice versa. It is disputed whether it is blood or cleaning products that is lighting up the luminol

    You can accept the prosecution case that it is blood, but there is no evidence that it is MK blood. I assume such a test would not be in dispute and would not be a matter of opinion

    It is either MK DNA or it is. not, that is not an opinion. That reference states that the the luminol prints tested negative for MK DNA. If there is a reference somewhere else that says that the blood in luminol was tested and tested positive for MK DNA please post.

    But as I said, I think it would be a very easy routine test to say whether or not it was MK DNA in whatever was in that luminol print. Such a bloody mess would have clear results (no low copy stuff)

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    This new motive also questions why RS and especially RG would get themselves involved in a toilet fight. Nor why MK would bring it up that night. And it is still perplexing why Mk would not have flushed the toilet - did she want to keep the specimen to settle once and for all whose DNA it was? Was she going to send it out for DNA testing to prove it was AK?

    Better motive would be they were making noise and MK complained.
    My understanding is that the conflict started because Meredith was at home to study, and Knox had brought a drug party to the house - another inconsiderate invasion in the home.

    Machiavelli ‏@Machiavelli_Aki now
    Meredith was the one triggering an argument because of the 'inpolite' invasion and behavior. She accused Knox


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    Similarly, I think if RS had no involvement he would have ratted them out as well and made money in the tabloids. His not ratting could similarly indicate there is no ratting to be done bc no crime
    Or that he was enmeshed (sp?) deeply in the crime, that's why no ratting out.
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,930
    Quote Originally Posted by Yellow View Post
    No,,DNA is separate from blood. You can still have DNA and yet have no blood and vice versa. It is disputed whether it is blood or cleaning products that is lighting up the luminol

    You can accept the prosecution case that it is blood, but there is no evidence that it is MK blood. I assume such a test would not be in dispute and would not be a matter of opinion

    It is either MK DNA or it is. not, that is not an opinion. That reference states that the the luminol prints tested negative for MK DNA. If there is a reference somewhere else that says that the blood in luminol was tested and tested positive for MK DNA please post.

    But as I said, I think it would be a very easy routine test to say whether or not it was MK DNA in whatever was in that luminol print. Such a bloody mess would have clear results (no low copy stuff)
    So it is blood, but there's no proof that the blood came from Meredith?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6,639
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    So it is blood, but there's no proof that the blood came from Meredith?


    It's like SMK said, every time I feel like I've got a grasp on this case, something else comes up!
    Now my philosophy is that it's never okay to kill someone. -- Convicted Murderer Jodi Arias

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    26,930
    Quote Originally Posted by aa9511 View Post


    It's like SMK said, every time I feel like I've got a grasp on this case, something else comes up!
    I still don't completely understand. The prosecutor says that it is blood related to the murder. The blog said that there is no DNA so it is not Meredith's blood. If I understand that correctly, then I get the impression that it is really splitting hairs to claim that the prints are not from blood, but instead from high iron content in the water - which we haven't heard about, or from bleach residue left days earlier - and prior to several uses of the shower. The reason that Meredith did not leave the same residue or iron stains, even though she used the same shower, is because hypothetically she wore shoes after stepping out of the shower.

    It seems like the blogger is really stretching to distance Knox from the bloody luminol foot prints.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    954
    Quote Originally Posted by otto View Post
    So it is blood, but there's no proof that the blood came from Meredith?
    Yes that is my understanding but it is probably not blood. That is why the defense says the prosecutions argument is illogical1) either it is blood and does not match MK which makes no sense ; 2) the defense story that the luminol is cleaning products makes more sense given that it is not MK DNA; or 3) AK used bleach on it killing MK DNA, yet that does not make sense either bc it tested negative for blood

    They did the test for blood, not the luminol test, the textra-whatever test that is extremely sensitive for blood. That test was negative for blood.

    None of the luminol prints tested positive for MK DNA nor did they test positive for blood under the more sensitive tetra test

    I am not sure if prosecutor claims that DNA is MK or just assumes that without testing OR they claim the DNA was killed bc of bleach.

Page 5 of 66 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 943
    Last Post: 01-31-2014, 10:01 AM
  2. Replies: 1026
    Last Post: 01-12-2014, 08:07 AM
  3. Replies: 1064
    Last Post: 01-05-2014, 12:29 AM
  4. Replies: 1013
    Last Post: 12-19-2013, 05:30 AM
  5. Replies: 1011
    Last Post: 11-12-2013, 12:34 AM

Tags for this Thread