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

Discussion in 'Amanda Knox' started by Harmony 2, Dec 7, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Harmony 2

    Harmony 2 Administrator Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Messages:
    9,932
    Likes Received:
    1,327
    Trophy Points:
    113

    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.***
     
  2. Loading...


  3. Harmony 2

    Harmony 2 Administrator Staff Member Administrator Moderator

    Messages:
    9,932
    Likes Received:
    1,327
    Trophy Points:
    113
  4. SMK

    SMK New Member

    Messages:
    7,952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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).
     
  5. whoanellie

    whoanellie Member

    Messages:
    278
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    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.
     
  6. SMK

    SMK New Member

    Messages:
    7,952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  7. Amber29

    Amber29 New Member

    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  8. SMK

    SMK New Member

    Messages:
    7,952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  9. SMK

    SMK New Member

    Messages:
    7,952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Was it supposed that Arias had left the camera on purpose, or was it a mistake she made (ie forgot to take it)?
     
  10. Amber29

    Amber29 New Member

    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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?
     
  11. SMK

    SMK New Member

    Messages:
    7,952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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"?
     
  12. SMK

    SMK New Member

    Messages:
    7,952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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......
     
  13. Amber29

    Amber29 New Member

    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Tbh I didn't know that deleted photos could be recovered, especially after being washed.
     
  14. SMK

    SMK New Member

    Messages:
    7,952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.....
     
  15. SMK

    SMK New Member

    Messages:
    7,952
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    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.
     
  16. geevee

    geevee Registered Stickie

    Messages:
    15,757
    Likes Received:
    465
    Trophy Points:
    83
    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
     
  17. Amber29

    Amber29 New Member

    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Except in the moment of a murder who knows how things play out in the minds of the criminal. Even a pre planned crime, not everything cannot be thought of. IMO they think they've thought of everything but that's impossible.
     
  18. geevee

    geevee Registered Stickie

    Messages:
    15,757
    Likes Received:
    465
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Yes, leaving the mat with an identifiable bloody footprint (when we know she saw it when using the bathroom for her shower) makes zero sense if you're culpable and know the police are coming.
     
  19. Amber29

    Amber29 New Member

    Messages:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I agree except she never describes it as a "footprint" so Imo they didn't think it would be identified.

    She also claims to use this bloody bathmat to scoot to her room. Which is completely unbelievable!
     
  20. aa9511

    aa9511 New Member

    Messages:
    6,639
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

    I'm trying to bring this quote over here, but I don't think I can? Anyway, I'm responding to a few posts from last thread, so I'll just posts the links.

    I didn't say I believed Rudy or his story. That's why I want him to demonstrate climbing the wall!
    I think the point was that, legally, of course that's not possible.
    I still think they should have gotten him to do it himself, instead of hiring the climber guy or some lawyer trying it.
    IMO, the "video" is totally useless, b/c they would have to find someone with Rudy's exact height, muscular structure, build, strength, etc., etc..
    As we see from the video, the climber guy looks to be much less physical/muscular than Rudy and so, while I still don't think it's possible for Rudy to climb it especially if he was on drugs, I can't tell either way with this video because it's useless. The guy is completely different build and height than Rudy. And he is a climber, but when he is trying to get up on the sill, you can tell his arms are not that muscular.
    So my point was....it makes a lot more sense to just have Rudy demonstrate it himself, to show if it's possible or not! LOL...makes complete sense to me!
    I still don't think Rudy did it based on other things as well, such as glass undisturbed on Windowsill, there would have been evidence of him climbing through the window, IMO.
    But still, I don't know about the wall, it does not seem likely to me, but I don't know and I don't know what his physical strength was like, etc..
     
  21. aa9511

    aa9511 New Member

    Messages:
    6,639
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Amanda Knox tried for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Italy *NEW TRIAL*#7

    Katody, in the pics you posted, one can see that he is literally holding on to the windowsill by his fingers. Technically, that means he has to pull up his ENTIRE BODYWEIGHT just by his fingers. Not possible, at least with this guy.

    I don't know what it would be like with a taller guy with more strength.

    That's why this whole video is completely useless. It does not show us anything either way.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice