Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#11

Status
Not open for further replies.

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 (including attached thumbnails), documents and facts or posts will be removed.
 
Bringing this over:

This post is from SMK:

Amber , did you read this part in the book? Where AK climbs out onto the ledge and holds onto the railing, and leans at a 45 degree angle to see in the window, poised dangerously above the gravel walkway far below - and Raffaele yells at her that she may fall and hurt herself?......It had struck me, intuitively, that she may have been checking to see if she'd left the lamp in the room. Also, she may have seen it and RS tried to kick in the door, before they realized it was a bad idea..... just speculation.....

That is very likely. Good thinking!

That would certainly account for trying to kick the door open.

One of them must have remembered the lamp at some point.
 
File-IPMK_crop.jpeg
link

75.jpg
link

Fpsbathroom.png
link

IMO it doesn't seem possible to hold on to the rail and look into Meredith's window. The width of the bathroom wall is in between the balcony and her window.
 
File-IPMK_crop.jpeg
link

75.jpg
link

Fpsbathroom.png
link

IMO it doesn't seem possible to hold on to the rail and look into Meredith's window. The width of the bathroom wall is in between the balcony and her window.

Thanks. Yes, from your diagrams I see that she likely wouldn't have been able to see anything.

But that doesn't mean that she didn't try.

In her own book, she herself says she tried to look into Meredith's room to see if she was in there.

It's one thing to lie about the reason, it's another to lie about the whole event ever happening.

To lie about the event happening would mean that she thought the lie would be beneficial to her.

What benefit would that lie have for her?

Why would she make it up if she didn't really try to look?

The other reason I can think of that she would lie about it (other than the lamp) would be to make it seem like she was really worried about Meredith and to given some oomph to her claim that she was worried about her (see, I really did try to look for her).
 
Bringing this over:

This post is from SMK:

Amber , did you read this part in the book? Where AK climbs out onto the ledge and holds onto the railing, and leans at a 45 degree angle to see in the window, poised dangerously above the gravel walkway far below - and Raffaele yells at her that she may fall and hurt herself?......It had struck me, intuitively, that she may have been checking to see if she'd left the lamp in the room. Also, she may have seen it and RS tried to kick in the door, before they realized it was a bad idea..... just speculation.....

That is very likely. Good thinking!

That would certainly account for trying to kick the door open.

One of them must have remembered the lamp at some point.

But, the door was locked, so whoever killed MK had the key. If it was them, they would just have entered. There is no need to peer through windows or kick doors down.

The fact that they could not get in means that they did not lock the door. RG did.
 
Amber, allow me to follow on what you wrote in the previous tread:

Yes but I've also said its possible they didn't step in blood during the attack as RG apparently was able to avoid it as well.
Does it mean you think it's possible the bathmat print is not a result of stepping in blood and there never was a trail of bloody footsteps leading to it from Meredith's room?
I'm not sure I understand how would the barefoot bathmat print be made. How do you envision it?

Yes I can see what you're saying but I've already said I don't know how that trace was left.
Obviously we can't know with 100% certainty. One explanation you proposed is that the luminol prints are residual, made during clean up, and not a result of stepping in blood. Interesting that the clean up was made barefoot.

I don't know about connecting the dots, we disagree completely. You think RG was the lone wolf and I don't. I don't actually feel like I have holes to fill in.
I'm trying to understand. I'm trying to visualize the scenario constructed from your point of view. I believe it can be done by connecting the known points of evidence and filling the unknowns with some common sense.
 
File-IPMK_crop.jpeg
link

75.jpg
link

Fpsbathroom.png
link

IMO it doesn't seem possible to hold on to the rail and look into Meredith's window. The width of the bathroom wall is in between the balcony and her window.

BBM - Either it is possible, or she lied about doing it because:

Knox states clearly in Waiting to be Heard p 69, that she does in fact do this:

"I'm going outside to see if I can look through her window from the terrace."

I climbed over the wrought-iron railing. With my feet on the narrow ledge, I held onto the rail with one hand and leaned over as far as I could, my body at a forty-five degree angle over the gravel walkway below.

Raffaele came out and shouted, "Amanda! Get down. You could fall!".

p 69, Waiting to be Heard; Harper Collins
 
But, the door was locked, so whoever killed MK had the key. If it was them, they would just have entered. There is no need to peer through windows or kick doors down.

The fact that they could not get in means that they did not lock the door. RG did.
Unless they had disposed of her keys. Or lost them.
 
Thanks. Yes, from your diagrams I see that she likely wouldn't have been able to see anything.

But that doesn't mean that she didn't try.

In her own book, she herself says she tried to look into Meredith's room to see if she was in there.

It's one thing to lie about the reason, it's another to lie about the whole event ever happening.

To lie about the event happening would mean that she thought the lie would be beneficial to her.

What benefit would that lie have for her?

Why would she make it up if she didn't really try to look?

The other reason I can think of that she would lie about it (other than the lamp) would be to make it seem like she was really worried about Meredith and to given some oomph to her claim that she was worried about her (see, I really did try to look for her).
I agree. Either it happened, or she lied about it happening for some reason (as you state, to appear panicked about MK).

See my post above where I quote from her book , verbatim, p 69.
 
But, the door was locked, so whoever killed MK had the key. If it was them, they would just have entered. There is no need to peer through windows or kick doors down.

The fact that they could not get in means that they did not lock the door. RG did.

Not if it was a last minute thing they remembered and the keys were long gone.
 
Amber, allow me to follow on what you wrote in the previous tread:


Does it mean you think it's possible the bathmat print is not a result of stepping in blood and there never was a trail of bloody footsteps leading to it from Meredith's room?
I'm not sure I understand how would the barefoot bathmat print be made. How do you envision it?


Obviously we can't know with 100% certainty. One explanation you proposed is that the luminol prints are residual, made during clean up, and not a result of stepping in blood. Interesting that the clean up was made barefoot.


I'm trying to understand. I'm trying to visualize the scenario constructed from your point of view. I believe it can be done by connecting the known points of evidence and filling the unknowns with some common sense.

No that's not what I said. I said I think it's possible they didn't step in blood during the attack.

I don't think it's interesting that the clean up is done barefoot.
 
Would Postal Police officer Batistelli really have gone into Amanda's room, gotten her lamp, used it to view the Kercher room, and failed to say anything? It is noted, though, that Knox's lamp was not really a piece of evidence in the trial. I suppose because nothing could be proven about the lamp, one way or the other.

ETA: Well, fwiw, Maresca still brought up the lamp this appeal trial.
 
BBM - Either it is possible, or she lied about doing it because:

Knox states clearly in Waiting to be Heard p 69, that she does in fact do this:

She wrote:
"I'm going outside to see if I can look through her window from the terrace."

I climbed over the wrought-iron railing. With my feet on the narrow ledge, I held onto the rail with one hand and leaned over as far as I could, my body at a forty-five degree angle over the gravel walkway below.

I think it's possible to stand on the narrow ledge, hold the rail with one hand and leaned over as far it's possible.

Nothing else was written in the book.

But in this position, it's impossible to have a look into the room of meridith, but i think it wasn't clear for Mrs. Knox at this time.
 
Would Postal Police officer Batistelli really have gone into Amanda's room, gotten her lamp, used it to view the Kercher room, and failed to say anything? It is noted, though, that Knox's lamp was not really a piece of evidence in the trial. I suppose because nothing could be proven about the lamp, one way or the other.

ETA: Well, fwiw, Maresca still brought up the lamp this appeal trial.

I think it's ridiculous to assume the officer placed the lamp there. It's clear to me the lamp was there when the door was opened. It's behind the door, turned over and the cord went under the door.

That was written by a known IIP poster and is no better than an opinion post on TJMK.
 
No that's not what I said. I said I think it's possible they didn't step in blood during the attack.
You mean they stepped in blood at some later time?

I don't think it's interesting that the clean up is done barefoot.
I think it's peculiar.
 
Would Postal Police officer Batistelli really have gone into Amanda's room, gotten her lamp, used it to view the Kercher room, and failed to say anything? It is noted, though, that Knox's lamp was not really a piece of evidence in the trial. I suppose because nothing could be proven about the lamp, one way or the other.

I don't think it was the postal cop, but it's probable one of the first responders brought the lamp and placed it to illuminate the footprints that were in that area.
 
I don't think it was the postal cop, but it's probable one of the first responders brought the lamp and placed it to illuminate the footprints that were in that area.
Well, why wouldn't they have simply said so in a report, clearing up the whole matter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
2,333
Total visitors
2,514

Forum statistics

Threads
589,962
Messages
17,928,403
Members
228,020
Latest member
DazzelleShafer
Back
Top