Guede already talked and he accused the other 2. I wonder at what point the support for especially Knox will ever end? Would a confession by her ex-bf do it, or yet another confession by herself? <modsnip>. Some of those <modsnip> were accepted by the illegal appeal trial court, but rejected by the SC. Why not wait for the SC report and see what exactly went wrong during the appeal trial? The anti-Italian attitude is rather ugly. Galati was clearly not wasting his time!
Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*
- Thread starter wasnt_me
- Start date
- Status
I mentioned a confession from Guede about what actually happened that night, not a story in which he has nothing to do with the crime, or for that matter, a story in which nothing sheds light on what actually happened. He is sheltered by the spotlight on the other two defendants.
If people just gave up their support for a perceived injustice, people like Michael Morton, imprisoned for 25 years until evidence was re-reviewed by competent investigators, would have languished forever in prison for a crime they didn't commit. Either you can understand that people get wrongly imprisoned and people will support them in various ways until they are freed or you don't. But constantly questioning why, when the answer is so obvious, is odd to me.
Of course a confession would help. Don't hold your breath though.
Not sure what you're saying here abut suggesting we just wait. Are you saying we who support their innocence can't express our opinions until the report comes out, but you can freely discuss it? I'm sure your response to this will be no, but that's certainly what's implied by the above comment.
Knox used both bathrooms in the cottage on the morning that she found the front door wide open. She showered in the bathroom that had so much blood in the sink that Knox thought someone had her menstrual period in the sink. When asked to explain her mixed DNA with that blood, she claimed that an ear piercing was bleeding - even though there was no blood the day before (when she already had her pierced ears). She used the blow dryer on her hair in the other bathroom, apparently standing next to the toilet that was unflushed.
Maybe it's normal for Knox and some others to blow dry their hair next to a full toilet, but it strikes me as by no means normal. I also don't think it's normal to shower in a house after finding the front door open. I also think it's weird to shower in a room with blood.
Regarding evidence, Meredith's DNA is on the blade of a knife that is considered to be one of the two knives used in the attack. Knox's DNA was on the handle of that knife. Is that not significant?
Footwarrior
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 2,236
- Reaction score
- 1,036
Guede didn't talk. The Prosecutor read a statement he attributed to Guede.
trillian
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 1
Show me all the blood in the sink. I recall a few droplets.
Show me where Amanda's DNA mixed with Merediths blood means anything when Amanda used that bathroom. If you think it is Amanda's blood, where is it from on her body? Some cut no one ever found? Her nose? What does it tell us?
The front door was broken and didnt stay closed if it wasnt locked. My first thought on finding a broken door open in a house I share with 3 other people is not "OMG something criminal happened here!" Maybe some concern, but that's it.
Merediths friends testified that Amanda often didn't flush her own toilet. Is this false then? Because if I don't do it for myself, why would I flush someone elses. Besides, flushing makes some fecal matter spray up in the air. I may leave it there too!! Gross.
The DNA on the knife was not reliable. It was not blood. No blood was found on the knife. The prosecution didn't want to open the knife to look for blood inside the handle.
The attack is consistent with a single knife used.
No blood was found in the footprints either. How did Amanda manage to clean off the blood that went into the grout of the tile? She must be so amazing to have cleared it all up at a microscopic level without touching anything of the known killers bloody footprints.
Or maybe she wasn't involved in any murder.
Ok, you are right. He didn't 'talk'. He wrote it. Guede declared under oath that he wrote that statement and that it was 'absolutely true'.
We've seen the blood in the sink, it's barely visible.
She actually didn't say the blood in the sink was from her ear. Re-read her testimony.
Standing next to an un-flushed toilet... Suspicious? If you recall, the roommates testified to her having a habit of not flushing before the murder.
Showering in a house when the door is left open, but you have three roommates... that might scare the bejeesus out of you, but I think most 20 year old girls would not be terrified by an open front door, considering there are far more likely explanations other than a break-in/murder, the biggest reason being that the door was faulty and would open by itself unless locked.
Footwarrior
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2011
- Messages
- 2,236
- Reaction score
- 1,036
Requiring us to believe that Guede writes in the rather odd style of the Italian legal profession.
This was a prosecutorial trick that would not be allowed in US courts. Guede's so called statement became part of the evidence, with the accused having no opportunity to confront and question the witness.
Apparently the people that really hate Amanda want to protect Rudy Guede. Rudy who claimed to have had a secret date with Meredith that ended up with her dead, his handprint next to her body, his DNA inside the victim and him leaving the country. Who first told the authorities the story of a busy haired man who ran in and killed Meredith while he was sitting on the toilet listening to his iPod.
Knox testified that there was no blood in the bathroom the night before, and that she saw the blood in the bathroom after finding the front door of the cottage wide open. We have all seen the bloody bare foot print on the bathmat, so there was clearly more than a drop, or two, of blood. In addition to having all of the trial evidence available online, I can easily show you this blood:
In Seattle, if someone returns home to find the front door wide open, a bloody foot print in the bathroom, blood in the sink and a bedroom door locked, it is not normal to ignore it all and take a shower ... no matter what anyone says about doors needing to be deadbolted in order to remain closed. It simply doesn't make sense.
Meredith's DNA was found on the knife blade and, today, it is reliable. We'll have to wait for the next appeal to better understand whether that evidence will continue to be accepted by the court.
Who had a habit of not flushing the toilet?
If it was Knox that had a habit of not flushing the toilet, does that mean that she's also the type of woman that will blow dry her hair next to an unflushed toilet used by Guede when he had an upset stomach? Please tell me that no one is attempting to demonstrate that this is normal behavior.
Are you suggesting someone else wrote it? He lied under oath and his lawyers lied also? The prosecutor was in this as well? I have to admit that this is new to me.
He would never lie? A popular point which has been mentioned several times over at PMF is the notion that defendants in Italy are "encouraged to lie" on the stand. Whether that's true or not I don't know. But that line of thinking, if applied to the lovebirds, should also apply to Guede.
BBM
That's just like Knox, who told authorities that the black man murdered Meredith while she stood in the kitchen with her fingers stuck in her ears to block the screams.
Knox had a habit of not flushing, which if your remember was used by the prosecution to demonstrate tension between Amanda and Meredith. Unfortunately, it negates the idea that her not flushing someone else's toilet after the murder is unusual.
Guede was called as a witness.
Both statements have strong evidence of being imagined by law enforcement officials, and neither is true.
trillian
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 128
- Reaction score
- 1
So there was a dark stain on the mat in a bathroom she shares. And?
Eventually she did become concerned enough to call around and notify the police. They came. Is this not normal?
Why is it relevant if she called immediately when she had little concern or an hour later when she was more concerned?
Surely if she was taking time to clean up as thoroughly as she did her own bloody footprints while removing any trace in the grout and avoiding all of Guedes markings, she would have discarded that bathmat!!
It is also amazing if it's true that she was able to exactly copy Guede's MO to a tee but made the odd choice of going outside to find a rock and then coming back inside to throw it.
Or maybe it was all Guede's doing.
Then we can put him in line with all the other witnesses who gave conflicting stories.
He refused to speak or read the statement himself. Apparently he was unable to understand all the words written.
Knox testified that there was no blood in the bathroom the night before, and that she saw the blood in the bathroom after finding the front door of the cottage wide open. We have all seen the bloody bare foot print on the bathmat, so there was clearly more than a drop, or two, of blood. In addition to having all of the trial evidence available online, I can easily show you this blood:
In Seattle, if someone returns home to find the front door wide open, a bloody foot print in the bathroom, blood in the sink and a bedroom door locked, it is not normal to ignore it all and take a shower ... no matter what anyone says about doors needing to be deadbolted in order to remain closed. It simply doesn't make sense.
Meredith's DNA was found on the knife blade and, today, it is reliable. We'll have to wait for the next appeal to better understand whether that evidence will continue to be accepted by the court.
Given that you believe the bloody footprint was made by Raf, how does that fit in to the notion that she must have noticed it but is lying?
- Status