1199 users online (217 members and 982 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 66 1 2 3 11 51 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 987
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9,462

    Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8

    Last edited by KateB; 05-24-2015 at 09:05 AM. Reason: repair url tags.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9,462

    Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#8


    Reminders:
    * if you have a problem with a post use the ALERT BUTTON (do not respond)

    * use thumbnails for graphic crime scene photos

    * copying and pasting verbatim from opinion sites or from blogs is not allowed

    * linking to forums is not allowed

    * treat opposing views respectfully
    -Refrain from personalizing, name calling, mocking, or posting broad negative characterizations of opposing views

    * add a link to all photos or facts
    .



    ***Please thank this post to indicate you have read the reminders above.***
    Last edited by Harmony 2; 12-14-2013 at 09:57 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952

    Question Just pondering....

    Just pondering something that Katody had said in reply to the idea that AK and RS wanted Filomena to discover the crime scene (and hence, phoned her):

    Supposing Knox and Sollecito are in some way culpable or involved.
    Or even suppose they are innocent and not involved.

    Supposing they leave early in the a.m. of Friday, from Sollecito's apartment, for their planned weekend away.

    1. Meredith's phones are never rung, so no Postal Police become aware of anything amiss.

    2. Late in the day, or the next day, Filomena arrives home at the cottage. Laura is away with boyfriend.

    3. F sees feces in toilet, hole in window, MK's door locked, phones police.

    4. Police come and see all, break down MK's door, discover murder.

    5. Laura, AK and RS are phoned-- the latter say they will return from their trip away soon or after the weekend.

    6. AK calls Mom and tells her what Filomena found while they were away.

    7. Guede makes his Skype call; at some point gets brought back.

    8. His bloody handprint, footprints are found; as is his DNA, on the victim's tampon and inside her.


    QUESTION: In this scenario, at what point do the police decide AK and RS were probably involved? Even if it comes to be believed that there were multiple attackers or a simulated burglary?

    Ergo, if they are innocent, no trouble is in the offing.

    If they are culpable/involved, they made a massive mistake to "discover" the scene.? * If guilty, what motivated them to want to discover the crime scene (those who do are always examined very closely and almost always suspect, at least initially).

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    259
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Just pondering something that Katody had said in reply to the idea that AK and RS wanted Filomena to discover the crime scene (and hence, phoned her):

    Supposing Knox and Sollecito are in some way culpable or involved.
    Or even suppose they are innocent and not involved.

    Supposing they leave early in the a.m. of Friday, from Sollecito's apartment, for their planned weekend away.

    1. Meredith's phones are never rung, so no Postal Police become aware of anything amiss.

    2. Late in the day, or the next day, Filomena arrives home at the cottage. Laura is away with boyfriend.

    3. F sees feces in toilet, hole in window, MK's door locked, phones police.

    4. Police come and see all, break down MK's door, discover murder.

    5. Laura, AK and RS are phoned-- the latter say they will return from their trip away soon or after the weekend.

    6. AK calls Mom and tells her what Filomena found while they were away.

    7. Guede makes his Skype call; at some point gets brought back.

    8. His bloody handprint, footprints are found; as is his DNA, on the victim's tampon and inside her.


    QUESTION: In this scenario, at what point do the police decide AK and RS were probably involved? Even if it comes to be believed that there were multiple attackers or a simulated burglary?

    Ergo, if they are innocent, no trouble is in the offing.

    If they are culpable/involved, they made a massive mistake to "discover" the scene.? * If guilty, what motivated them to want to discover the crime scene (those who do are always examined very closely and almost always suspect, at least initially).
    In my opinion Amanda's phone call to Filomena is prima facie evidence of a lack of any guilty knowledge on her part. If she is guilty the phone call makes no sense. No one has AFAIK made a convincing argument for why a guilty amanda would make that call.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by whoanellie View Post
    In my opinion Amanda's phone call to Filomena is prima facie evidence of a lack of any guilty knowledge on her part. If she is guilty the phone call makes no sense. No one has AFAIK made a convincing argument for why a guilty amanda would make that call.
    I guess what has been said is that a guilty AK and RS wanted Filomena as a witness to their discovery, and to call the police, because they wanted to observe the reactions. If so, it was a massive error in judgement on their part.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    I guess what has been said is that a guilty AK and RS wanted Filomena as a witness to their discovery, and to call the police, because they wanted to observe the reactions. If so, it was a massive error in judgement on their part.
    I think they wanted to somewhat control the scene but have others there as well.

    It may not make sense to some but criminals make mistakes and use poor judgement. I've used this example before but jodi arais left a camera at the scene that placed her there with time stamps, instead of just taking it and getting rid of it with murder weapon and clothes. Makes no sense to me but I'm not a murderer either. I don't think it's possible to think of everything and to know what others are going to think.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    I wonder where one could find statistics or theories about criminals who want to be at the crime scene when police are there, to "control the scene" as has been said of Knox and Sollecito. I suppose the husband who kills his wife, stages a burglary , and then phones 911 is an example, although you could say he perhaps felt no one else would have been there to discover the scene for him.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    I think they wanted to somewhat control the scene but have others there as well.

    It may not make sense to some but criminals make mistakes and use poor judgement. I've used this example before but jodi arais left a camera at the scene that placed her there with time stamps, instead of just taking it and getting rid of it with murder weapon and clothes. Makes no sense to me but I'm not a murderer either. I don't think it's possible to think of everything and to know what others are going to think.
    Was it supposed that Arias had left the camera on purpose, or was it a mistake she made (ie forgot to take it)?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Was it supposed that Arias had left the camera on purpose, or was it a mistake she made (ie forgot to take it)?
    Well she took the time to delete the pics so I think she thought it was safe to leave. IMO she washed it with the thought that others would think it was an accident with the bedding.

    Why not just take the memory card from it, instead of deleting the incriminating pics?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    I think they wanted to somewhat control the scene but have others there as well.

    It may not make sense to some but criminals make mistakes and use poor judgement. I've used this example before but jodi arais left a camera at the scene that placed her there with time stamps, instead of just taking it and getting rid of it with murder weapon and clothes. Makes no sense to me but I'm not a murderer either. I don't think it's possible to think of everything and to know what others are going to think.
    Wanted to add: I guess the husband (Scott Peterson ) or parents who engage in a search for their "missing" wife or child whom they have murdered, would be an example. They do not , maybe, want to be "conspicuous by their absence"?


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    Well she took the time to delete the pics so I think she thought it was safe to leave. IMO she washed it with the thought that others would think it was an accident with the bedding.

    Why not just take the memory card from it, instead of deleting the incriminating pics?
    Either she was not sophisticated enough to understand that deletion is not enough, or in her haste she forgot the memory card. Or meant to take the camera and forgot. Or subconsciously wanted to be caught......

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,308
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Either she was not sophisticated enough to understand that deletion is not enough, or in her haste she forgot the memory card. Or meant to take the camera and forgot. Or subconsciously wanted to be caught......
    Tbh I didn't know that deleted photos could be recovered, especially after being washed.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952

    Another question, loose end

    Another question and loose end (although maybe this was covered) is if AK and RS knew Sollecito's footprint was on the bathmat, (for those who think it is his print and not Guede's) why not clean it off with water or throw away the bathmat or launder it in the washing machine? Why show it to the Postal Police? (or was the theory that the PP surprised them and they had no time to get rid of it?) Because re this whole subject of clean ups, usually criminals make the place TOO spotless ( I've seen a few true cases on tv where the police became suspicious because the home or basement or garage were immaculate and sparkling clean, as if there had been a clean-up). All just grist for the mill while I await others to begin posting about their own different issues.....

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    7,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Amber29 View Post
    Tbh I didn't know that deleted photos could be recovered, especially after being washed.
    I guess I've watched too many true crime things , as I would be ultra paranoid that the pics could still be recovered. I would want to dispose of the camera or smash it into thousands of pieces and throw them in a lake.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Land of Ago
    Posts
    15,651
    Quote Originally Posted by SMK View Post
    Was it supposed that Arias had left the camera on purpose, or was it a mistake she made (ie forgot to take it)?
    Theories abound on that question, I personally think she left it intentionally (not enough other things in that washer load to hide it from her notice, check the pic of the inside of the washer), along with another camera memory card found in the bottom of the washer that has yet to be discussed by LE/prosecution, which does not fit T's Sony camera.

    Sorry for the verbosity, I could talk all day long about that case. lol

Page 1 of 66 1 2 3 11 51 ... 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