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

[redheadedgal]

Well, if there was any possibility, however remote, that the victim might still be alive - even a person with blue-tinged extremities may be alive, I have seen it - I would think he was within his rights to at least check and see her condition beneath that duvet. He was law enforcement , after all.

But even if MK's door had been left open, and I was there alone, I would have approached her and wanted to see what her actual condition was.

i think my point was missed...

i did not fault him for checking on her. my point was he lied about doing it (in court IIRC).

what else did he do and not admit?

so he gets a pass for the lie but amanda is raked over the coals for even the slightest change in details told... smh.

 

[redheadedgal]

I won't get into a discussion about the other sites but I want it to be known that's your opinion and I feel the same way about IIP as you do about TJMK. Except they discuss people from the otherside and bad mouth anyone involved that doesn't believe them to be innocent down to reporters.

I don't care where someone went to school and where their from, I disagree with his opinion piece, was my point.

it is sad that anyone could really believe that all the snark, insults and character assassination of AK and RS that is posted on TJMK honors MK in any way. would you want a site like that in existence if you were the victim?

it's shameless. and appalling.

for me, to read that even brits are now finally seeing the truth about the "evidence", is amazing.

 

[Amber29]

it is sad that anyone could really believe that all the snark, insults and character assassination of AK and RS that is posted on TJMK honors MK in any way. would you want a site like that in existence if you were the victim?

it's shameless. and appalling.

for me, to read that even brits are now finally seeing the truth about the "evidence", is amazing.

It is sad that all the judges, attorneys, police, investigators, experts, and Italy's entire system is treated with such disrespect over 1 case. There is hate, snark, and insults that are equally shameless and appalling from both sides. Heaven forbid a reporter do a piece on the case that doesn't paint amanda in the right light, they will be shamed,berated and called every name under the sun.

It happens from both sides, it's a pity that some think only one side is guilty of it.

I'm sure there's more than one Brit that thinks AK is innocent as there are tons of Americans who belief our fellow American to be guilty.

 

[aa9511]

Just like the guy on TV. There were fibers and other traces but tested inconclusive.

Because it fell on top of things that were there before, like the computer.



What do you mean by this?


The footprints faded. I wrote about it recently.


Which are missing?



He wiped his hands.


Why not? He locked Meredith's room to delay the discovery of the murder.



There is no evidence he did it at the same time.




His footprint is evidence.


There is a lot of blood in the bathroom.




There are none. He stepped in blood later.


Now you're arguing with the evidence and not with me.



Because there was no stabbing outside. Let me facepalm already :facepalm:



How do you know that? I don't think there is evidence one way or the other.



How do you know he didn't?


I think that's what she did.



And it took me below a minute, go on

BTW Next time, paragraphs would be great

What fibers? I have not heard of any fibers being found.

I do not agree that the room was in such a state of disarray before, and that is why glass fell on top of things. That is not what Filomena said, it was her room. And one can also just look at the pictures and see that it is chaotic. It is easy for us to sit here and say how messy Filomena was, but she is the one who knows and she is the one who said the room was in disarray.

I mean exactly what I said....why is the murder scene only contained to Meredith's room? If Rudy was already home when Meredith walked in, I have gone over many scenrios in previous posts, where I maintain that the struggle would have began outside of Meredith's room. And thus there would have been signs of some sort of struggle happening outside of the room. There is none. Even if Rudy came in after Meredith was already home, he would have had to have known exactly where Meredith was, to get to her before she tried to see what was going on, as she would certainly have heard a window break. There are many things "off" in the lone-wolf scenario that I see about everything being contained to Meredith's room only. It seems to me that everything began and ended there.

Wouldn't Rudy have stepped in blood again getting back to the purse? There would also have been footprints facing the door where he locked it.

The footprint was determined as not to match Rudy, it is off in many categories.

He must have wiped them pretty good. While he was wiping them off, why didn't he just go ahead and wipe off that big palmprint of his on the wall?

Delay discovery of murder, ok so leaving a front door wide open doesn't counteract that? What if someone from the street had seen the open door and called police to have them go check it out?

The bathroom footrpint is not evidence that it was Rudy's.

"A lot of blood" - no, I disagree. There is not a lot of blood. There is a very small amount of blood, IMO.

"stepped in blood later"....I don't understand this. What do you mean later? The blood was in Meredith's room. Whenever he stepped in it, going from her room to the bathroom would have left a trail.

I'm not arguing with the evidence. Supporters of her innocence keep saying what is Amanda and RS motive? Well, to support the overkill, you need to narrow down Rudy's motive too. Was he waiting for Meredith to come home, with the specific intent of killing her? Did he do it because he just liked the gore and wanted to do it that way? Or was it more of a spontaneous thing where he needed to kill her so she couldn't report him for the rape? IN that case, even if he had the knife, he stiill could have killed her by strangling her and choking her. Also it does seem like overkill even if it was spontaneous - I would imagine he could have killed her in much fewer stabs since she was apparently not fighting back. So was the point to kill her to shut her up, or was the point that he wanted all the gore and he wanted to do it that way? Or was his intent just to commit the burglary, and then killing Meredith happened by "accident?" In that case, IMO, it is overkill. It seems to me like someone wanted Meredith to suffer, does it not seem that way to you? I have heard many different things from innocent side - sometimes burglary gone wrong, sometimes he was waiting to rape her, sometimes he was waiting to rape and kill her - burglary gone wrong and premeditated murder are two different things. So since Amanda and RS motive are constantly being brought up, what is the innocent side stance on this, I have not to this day heard of a firm stance or theory.

"no stabbing outside" - but if some struggle had happened outside of the room, why wouln't there be any signs whatsover outside of the room? Also, why wouldn't he just start restraining her and stabbing her wherever they crossed paths....why would he take her specifically back to her room to start the assault?

And again, the question of how did he restrain her and attack her at the same time? You say he didn't, so are you saying he delivered a fatal injury in the very beginning and then she died so there was no need to restrain her? But then why the other tens of stab wounds, on top of that?? If she was already to some point from the very beginning where he didn't even need to restrain her? I am not understanding what you mean.

 

[Harmony 2]

Got a link that shows the back patio from the ground level? I haven't been able to find a picture of it.

This photo is not from ground level but it shows that the balcony is visible from the road. At night headlights would illuminate it. imo

link

 

[aa9511]

Was any testing done, for fingerprints and such, on the windowsill in Filomena's room? Since it was deemed a "staged break in" would they bother with any testing? Glass is on top of things because of the glass falling onto them. For instance the rug beside the bed has pieces of glass on it from the window being broken. The clothes on the floor in front of the dresser may have glass on them from the glass being pushed onto the floor from the windowsill when RG climbed into the window. The murder scene was contained to only Meredith's room because that is where RG attacked her. Meredith was already in her room and was unable to leave because of the attack. RG had been in the downstairs cottage more than once to visit the boys, I feel sure that he would have noticed how the doors locked while there since he was interested in B&E. It is not an illogical guess to think that the upstairs cottage of the same building has the same type of locking system on the doors. What missing footprints? It is possible that RG stepped in blood with only one shoe. That one shoe is the one that left the footprints in the bedroom, hallway and out to the front door. There were two towels in the bedroom that had blood on them. It is possible that RG opened the bedroom door with a bloody hand, then stopped to wipe away the blood before shutting the door and leaving the room, hence no bloody handprints on the outside of the door or on the front door. Meredith's door being locked is going to prevent her from being found for a while. The key to Meredith's bedroom door, did anyone else have a key to fit it? The key to the cottage was one that all 4 of the women had so even if the cottage was locked there were 3 other people that could enter with their key. RG was much stronger than Meredith. RG had the element of suprise, not to mention a weapon. It would be relatively easy for him to restrain while attacking a smaller woman. After all, we have seen a smaller female with a weapon or two restrain and attack a larger male all by herself. There is evidence that RG was in the bathroom, the bathmat matches his footprint much closer than it does to RS. Perhaps there was no blood on RG's shoe/s at the time that he went to the bathroom. Perhaps he took his shoe of to get the blood off his pantleg and the bloody footprint is from blood mixed with water from cleaning up. The overkill could be for several reasons. Meredith fought back. Meredith wouldn't die. RG was in a rage and couldn't stop himself. And of course since we don't have the mind of a killer and the killer will never admit the truth himself, then we will never know the real reason behind the overkill. RG apparently loved using knives. This was not the first crime he committed in which a knife was a part of. Perhaps he simply preferred a knife instead because that was a sure fire way to know that a person was dead. Because Meredith was attacked in and never left her bedroom. RG had just killed someone. He knew the boys would not be home. He did not know if AK or Filomena would be home soon or not. He didn't steal anything from the room he broke into. In fact the only things taken appear to be cash, two phones that were dumped and the keys. It also appears that he was interested in only the cash since there were other items that he could have taken, but those items would need to be pawned or sold for money. The layout of the house, with two doors from the larger bathroom toilet area to the living room/kitchen area, would prevent anyone to see who was using the toilet. It is not known if RG had a flashlight with him or not. Since he went there to break in during the night one would expect for him to have a flashlight with him.

Thanks for your response. Many of these points I have addressed in my post right above this, responding to Katody. So instead of repeating them all, I am just going to refer you to that post. I do appreciate the reply.

One thing, regarding what you said about the taking of items, and he only took cash, phones, and key which key is not burglary-related, that is murder related. And IMO phones are also murder-related, since they were thrown away.

This goes into the last part of my post reply to Katody, about the innocence side motive for Rudy. Was it the burglary, or was it the murder? Because if it was burglary, based on the things he took, it does not seem like a burglary-motive to me. And if it was a burglary-motive, then it makes even less sense why he woudln't even check Amanda or Laura's room. And I know Katody says there is no evidence that he didn't check it - IMO yes it is, seeing the state of Filomena's room, the state of Meredith's room, and then comparing that with Laura and Amanda's rooms. Why would he not take a few extra seconds to quickly check those rooms? If his goal was burglary?

I realize that no one can think like Rudy and be able to determine exactly why he did each and every thing that he did, and what exactly his motives were. It is the same with Amanda and RS. Therefore, the constant line "no (known) motive" should not carry as much weight as I believe it does with the supporters of her innocence.

 

[aa9511]

Her own lamp was unreachable behind a mass of blood.
I think they were trying not to touch anything in the room unnecessarily, light switches included.

What? But I thought they trampled around and didn't care about evidence, they tossed stuff around here and there....that's part of the reason the cottage became so "contaminated?" Now all of a sudden they are the opposite and being so precise and neat about everything?

 

[aa9511]

For my part, I am very interested in what precisely is the evidence that convinces you beyond a reasonable doubt. I am very interested in exactly what evidence is convincing, and exactly what it says to you.

I am perfectly happy to answer questions on what I believe... Please ask away.

Of course, if you don't believe in the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, I guess the discussion would be moot. I would like to know that as well, however.

Thanks. I am interested in finding out the truth of what happened that night to Meredith.

Precisely the evidence....but in each and every point that we discuss, the "guilty" side usually gives their perspective, each of us respectively, and what they think and what the evidence means to them.

So I believe that is what we have been doing all along.

I am not getting this new, kind of, wave on sentiment that makes it seem like the supporters of her innocence do not know what evidence the supporters of her guilt are basing their opinions on. This is evidence that we have gone over and over again on this thread, and which both of the sides give their own perspectives on. I'm a little confused now.

 

[aa9511]

For some reason the thumbnail attachment is not working for me. So here is the photo that shows the "over head light" in Meredith's room. It is actually a light that is on the wall and not one that is on the ceiling.

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/PhotoGallery4.html

Thank you for that. I still think they would not have needed to get a lamp from Amanda's room to look at the scene in the daytime.

 

[aa9511]

I realize that you have already gotten some answer, but I would like to add:

1. There was very little in the way of forensics done in Filomena's room. It is my belief that they did not question the nature of the break-in until after the first arrests, and consequently did very little investigation.

2. I believe that if you view the video of the flat (I will try to look for it) you will see a drawer open in Laura's otherwise immaculate room. The broken window and murder account for most of the disorder -- no reason to find much in other rooms.

3. The towels which were ruined for testing by the way they were stored May have been used by Rudy to do a bit of cleaning off. Since they were rendered useless for testing, we will never know.

4. The front door was broken in that it would open by itself without the deadbolt being latched. No reason why Rudy would know that just locking it at the knob would not be sufficient.

Thank you.

But one drawer? Why would he go in and open one drawer? When we compare with what happened in Filomena's room? It does not make sense to me, I'm sorry. "the broken window and murder account for most of the disorder" - but doesn't this support a staged burglary? Was his motive burglary or was it murder?

I do not know why investigators do not just do some testing of things even if the first appearances are burglary or suicide or accident or something of the sort. This is an opinion on this case and also just in general. I have seen cases in the U.S. where they deem it suicide or something, don't do any forensics, and then later it's questioned whether murder or not. So I would think they would just move the standard to being that they do some basic level of testing for every case. I don't know, I realize it takes more manpower and money to do that, but God knows the government waste that happens in other areas, I guess that is something they just can't do??

 

[aa9511]

I'm sorry I'm on my phone and can't look atm. If one hasn't been linked by the time I get home. I will link one. Again I apologize

ETA I was able to
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=13&image_id=5489

OMG....compare that to the pic of the one he supposedly actually scaled! This pic looks like something even I could get up to the balcony with that!

 

[aa9511]

I don't know - I've only seen photographs, but every time I do I keep thinking how much easier it would be to climb over the roof and down into the window that way, instead of climbing up from the ground below.

That's a good point. Over the roof and down into that window by the patio/balcony, whatever it's called.

 

[Amber29]

This photo is not from ground level but it shows that the balcony is visible from the road. At night headlights would illuminate it. imo

link

Why would a person on a balcony alert a driver? It would take only seconds for him to climb through a window while standing on the balcony or walk through the doors with drivers being none the wiser.

A little different than hanging from a second story window. IMO

 

[aa9511]

we know battistelli lied about not entering the room and lifting up the duvet... http://www.king5.com/internal?st=print&id=59757357&path=/news/local




:facepalm:

crime scene preservation 101: don't touch anything

Yes, exactly. Yet we are supposed to believe that, I guess after the initial competence, they suddenly turned into incompetent slobs who contaminated everything and, in some people's opinion, turned the entire cottage into a forensic-evidence-no-value-zone.

 

[redheadedgal]

It is sad that all the judges, attorneys, police, investigators, experts, and Italy's entire system is treated with such disrespect over 1 case.

THIS should be respected???

--batestelli lying about entering the room/lifting the duvet
--ficarra's hitting amanda
--stepfanoni perjuring herself on the stand re: TMB testing/results and not changing gloves
--Polizia Scientifica hiding their data for peer review for years
--rinaldi's outrageous lies re: print measurements
--Polizia Scientifica not changing booties or gloves at the house
--bra clasp collection chaos (passed around w/ dirty gloves, put back on floor, collected 47 days later)
--Polizia Scienfica trying to lie about performing control tests
--PLE choosing a murder weapon out of thin air from a drawer full of knives @ RS, but never testing any from the cottage
--PLE spreading false evidence leaks to incite a witch hunt (picture w/ pink chemical in the bathroom, the harry potter book, bleach receipts, missing sweater, washing machine running, manipulated diary entries, cherry picked MySpace sentences, phony positive HIV test…)
--PLE destroying MK's, AK's and RS's computer hard drives
--PLE perjuring themselves about the garage clock running fast
--PLE refusing to testify for amanda’s defense about guede’s criminal acts in milan
--mignini not providing the recordings of amanda, raffaele, and patrick’s life-changing “interviews” after recording 39,000+ phone conversations, other interviews, and police holding room conversations and then giving conflicting excuses for why it wasn't done (budget, no time to press "record")
--mignini refusing amanda and raffaele legal counsel for days while he prepared for the hearing
--mignini refusing to test the pillow (semen) stain
--mignini changing the motive and modus operandi willy-nilly throughout the trial: pot fueled sex game gone wrong, satanic sex cult murder ritual, jealousy, robbery, no motive, amanda directed it from outside the room…
--mignini placing mentally ill/drug addicted “witnesses” on the stand to chase the time of death based on their testimony
--mignini ignoring exonerating evidence like the people with the broken down car next to the cottage who saw and heard nothing at the prosecution’s fantasy TOD, the store clerk who stated emphatically that amanda was not in the store that morning, the negative blood tests on luminol detected prints, the skype tap on guede when he said amanda and raffaele were not there, amanda’s nov. 7, 2007 note to police stating she was not involved and did not know who was
--nencini refusing to allow re-tests of evidence that both defense teams and the kercher's requested
--maresca lying in court about amanda's link to the MK fund

 

[redheadedgal]

]Yet we are supposed to believe that, I guess after the initial competence, they suddenly turned into incompetent slobs who contaminated everything and, in some people's opinion, turned the entire cottage into a forensic-evidence-no-value-zone.

what "initial competence"? batestelli did something he realized later he had to lie about. and it just went downhill from there...

(about that lamp: i wonder if meredith brought it into her room at some point... maybe she had a friend over to study and they needed the extra light after the sun went down. she was studying for tests that week. this possibility also backs up amanda's statement to mignini that she didn't know how the lamp got into MK's room).

 

[Katody]

I'm sorry I'm on my phone and can't look atm. If one hasn't been linked by the time I get home. I will link one. Again I apologize

ETA I was able to
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image_page.php?album_id=13&image_id=5489

Too bad there are no video demonstrations showing that other climbing routes were as easy and fast as Filomena's window.


Getting back to the clean up reconstruction for a moment. This is no longer clear to me, if you could please confirm:

Do you think the bathmat print was made by tracking blood from the murder room, and that trail was later cleaned up?

 

[Katody]

What fibers? I have not heard of any fibers being found.

Never too late to read the forensic report.

I do not agree that the room was in such a state of disarray before, and that is why glass fell on top of things. That is not what Filomena said, it was her room. And one can also just look at the pictures and see that it is chaotic. It is easy for us to sit here and say how messy Filomena was, but she is the one who knows and she is the one who said the room was in disarray.

You need to be more specific. What did Filomena say and which things in her room are disturbed and which are not? I've read her testimony and viewed the photos and I don't see what you're saying.

I mean exactly what I said....why is the murder scene only contained to Meredith's room? If Rudy was already home when Meredith walked in, I have gone over many scenrios in previous posts, where I maintain that the struggle would have began outside of Meredith's room. And thus there would have been signs of some sort of struggle happening outside of the room. There is none. Even if Rudy came in after Meredith was already home, he would have had to have known exactly where Meredith was, to get to her before she tried to see what was going on, as she would certainly have heard a window break. There are many things "off" in the lone-wolf scenario that I see about everything being contained to Meredith's room only. It seems to me that everything began and ended there.

There was no struggle outside. Guede walked quietly into her room and attacked by surprise.

Wouldn't Rudy have stepped in blood again getting back to the purse? There would also have been footprints facing the door where he locked it.

How do you know the keys were in the purse? I think he took them from the table, not stepping in blood.

The footprint was determined as not to match Rudy, it is off in many categories.

It matched Guede, as determined in court.

He must have wiped them pretty good. While he was wiping them off, why didn't he just go ahead and wipe off that big palmprint of his on the wall?

It was not a palmprint, and not his. Why would he?:facepalm:

Delay discovery of murder, ok so leaving a front door wide open doesn't counteract that? What if someone from the street had seen the open door and called police to have them go check it out?

He closed the door but it opened by itself. Locking it made little sense, after all he left break-in evidence behind him.

The bathroom footrpint is not evidence that it was Rudy's.

Yes it is

"A lot of blood" - no, I disagree. There is not a lot of blood. There is a very small amount of blood, IMO.

What can I say. You're not an expert.

"stepped in blood later"....I don't understand this. What do you mean later? The blood was in Meredith's room. Whenever he stepped in it, going from her room to the bathroom would have left a trail.

He stepped in blood when he returned from the bathroom. Simple.

I'm not arguing with the evidence. Supporters of her innocence keep saying what is Amanda and RS motive? Well, to support the overkill, you need to narrow down Rudy's motive too. Was he waiting for Meredith to come home, with the specific intent of killing her? Did he do it because he just liked the gore and wanted to do it that way? Or was it more of a spontaneous thing where he needed to kill her so she couldn't report him for the rape? IN that case, even if he had the knife, he stiill could have killed her by strangling her and choking her. Also it does seem like overkill even if it was spontaneous - I would imagine he could have killed her in much fewer stabs since she was apparently not fighting back. So was the point to kill her to shut her up, or was the point that he wanted all the gore and he wanted to do it that way? Or was his intent just to commit the burglary, and then killing Meredith happened by "accident?" In that case, IMO, it is overkill. It seems to me like someone wanted Meredith to suffer, does it not seem that way to you? I have heard many different things from innocent side - sometimes burglary gone wrong, sometimes he was waiting to rape her, sometimes he was waiting to rape and kill her - burglary gone wrong and premeditated murder are two different things. So since Amanda and RS motive are constantly being brought up, what is the innocent side stance on this, I have not to this day heard of a firm stance or theory.

He broke in, and Meredith walked on him in while he was on the toilet. Maybe he was on drugs, maybe he was just high on adrenalin, he took the opportunity to rape her (burglary gone rape, very common) and killed her in the process ( also typical).

"no stabbing outside" - but if some struggle had happened outside of the room, why wouln't there be any signs whatsover outside of the room? Also, why wouldn't he just start restraining her and stabbing her wherever they crossed paths....why would he take her specifically back to her room to start the assault?

There was no struggle outside. He sneaked on her in her room.

And again, the question of how did he restrain her and attack her at the same time? You say he didn't, so are you saying he delivered a fatal injury in the very beginning and then she died so there was no need to restrain her? But then why the other tens of stab wounds, on top of that?? If she was already to some point from the very beginning where he didn't even need to restrain her? I am not understanding what you mean.

You need to read up on the evidence. There were no "tens of stab wounds".

 

[Monzoo]

Thank you.

But one drawer? Why would he go in and open one drawer? When we compare with what happened in Filomena's room? It does not make sense to me, I'm sorry. "the broken window and murder account for most of the disorder" - but doesn't this support a staged burglary? Was his motive burglary or was it murder?

I do not know why investigators do not just do some testing of things even if the first appearances are burglary or suicide or accident or something of the sort. This is an opinion on this case and also just in general. I have seen cases in the U.S. where they deem it suicide or something, don't do any forensics, and then later it's questioned whether murder or not. So I would think they would just move the standard to being that they do some basic level of testing for every case. I don't know, I realize it takes more manpower and money to do that, but God knows the government waste that happens in other areas, I guess that is something they just can't do??

Have you ever been a victim of burglary, or known someone who has? I have seen a couple, and from what I have seen there is very little outward evidence of something amiss, other than the method of entrance. (In my area, there was a burglary ring getting in by pushing in window air conditioners.)

My opinion is that Rudy's original motive was burglary, which was abandoned after the murder.

I agree with you on the more investigating. For whatever reason, they did not do a lot of forensic investigation in this case, except where they saw blood.

 

[Monzoo]

Thanks. I am interested in finding out the truth of what happened that night to Meredith.

Precisely the evidence....but in each and every point that we discuss, the "guilty" side usually gives their perspective, each of us respectively, and what they think and what the evidence means to them.

So I believe that is what we have been doing all along.

I am not getting this new, kind of, wave on sentiment that makes it seem like the supporters of her innocence do not know what evidence the supporters of her guilt are basing their opinions on. This is evidence that we have gone over and over again on this thread, and which both of the sides give their own perspectives on. I'm a little confused now.

I guess I am trying to understand the perspective of someone who believes them guilty. As I see it, there are a few tenets of this belief that I am interested in exploring. Things like the "staged" break in.

What convinces you it was staged? Is there specific evidence that sways you, or is the fact that the prosecution asserts it good enough? If the current court rules that the break in was not staged, will you change your mind?