The recent 48 Hours mystery show once again attempted to lend credibility to the virtually laughable lone wolf theory. Despite its inaccuracies it seems fairly clear that the friends and family of Amanda Knox in all likelihood encouraged the 48 Hours show to air before the presentation of the crucial DNA evidence shortly to be discussed in court. Timing is after all everything and it may have been the last time anyone would actually take the show seriously, especially considering the main theme of the show boiled down to the simply ludicrous suggestion that Amanda Knox is somehow a victim in this case and the lone wolf theory is still a credible and valid scenario for what happened that night. For those of you who are still unaware of precisely what that means, it is the idea that Rudy Guede scaled a virtually un-climbable wall and crawled in through a window of the cottage in order to sexually assault and murder Meredith Kercher.
Many following the case long ago dismissed the theory as fantasy, even Guede himself who in his statements to police and diaries admits he was not the only person in the cottage that night. Yet we must also consider that this is virtually the only scenario that the defence can now use to exonerate Amanda and Raffaele as they both strenuously deny any involvement in Meredith’s murder. Despite the physical evidence suggesting their possible role, copious amounts of physical evidence of Guede’s involvement was found at the crime scene and a smaller amount of evidence leading to the defendants. The defence maintain this is the result of contamination and the abundance of his fingerprints and DNA suggests Guede and Guede alone killed Meredith. The prosecution allege that both Amanda and Raffaele were present in the cottage the night Meredith was killed and that once Guede had fled, a well organised and methodical clean up took place to conceal any physical evidence linking them to the crime scene. Unsurprisingly plenty of Guede’s DNA and fingerprints were left for investigators to find.
I discussed the lone wolf theory a few months ago, but as I have often found with this case, new information, ideas and personal reflection often encourages me to revisit important areas in more detail or with a slightly different perspective. I have decided to take a fresh look at this theory and explain why it is completely at odds with current psychology research and how evidence available about the set up and implementation of the crime further discredit this theory as a possibility. I have decided to write this at what is possibly the most crucial part of the trial proceeding so far: The presentation of the physical evidence linking Amanda and Raffaele to the murder of Meredith Kercher.
The Organised vs. Disorganised Offender
Although the definition of homicide is reasonably clear cut, the definition of sexual homicide is much more ambiguous. There are several clear differences seen in sexual murders: Firstly the idea that killing itself is sexually arousing, secondly that the murder is carried out in order to cover up a sexual crime and finally that the offence is a homicide that has some sexual component, but in which the exact motivational dynamics remain unclear (Schlesinger, 2007). The latter seems to be the most likely scenario in this case, despite the definition being slight ambiguous it does seem clear that the murder of Meredith Kercher was a sex related homicide, possibly with a rape/sodomy motivation.
According to ‘The Handbook of Psychological Approaches with Violent Offenders’, the organised vs. disorganised crime scene characterisation of sexual homicide offenders provides a useful insight into these types of crime (Ressler et al, 1986). Clues left at the crime scene can often indicate possible personality characteristics or clues about those involved, as can the nature of the offence, the way it was planned and executed.
The organised offender
Crimes committed by an organised offender are often carefully planned and executed, there is often evidence suggesting the offender brought with them items necessary to commit the crime (such as rope or tape to bind and silence the victim), especially those that might ensure they are able to fulfil certain needs or fantasies through the act of committing the crime. There is often evidence of careful planning and as a result these offenders are usually harder to catch as they are careful about leaving trace evidence behind.
The disorganised offender
A disorganised offender on the other hand often leaves a chaotic scene behind with evidence suggesting a spontaneous or unplanned attack with very little prior planning or pre preparation. The staging of a crime scene often occurs as a direct result of a spontaneous disorganised offence and is usually spotted by investigating officers as the resulting scene is conflicted and full of red flags. By their very nature, organised offenders have no need to stage a scene as theoretically they perceive to have prepared sufficiently to avoid detection in other ways. Disorganised offenders will often stage a crime scene to cover the spontaneity of the act and the inevitable fear of being caught.
The murder of Meredith Kercher
The evidence available so far indicates that this was a disorganised offence. The crime scene photos that have been released show a messy and chaotic scene, clothes all over the floor and blood everywhere. Evidence of staging also indicates a disorganised offence as does the alleged clean up attempt. Despite the evidence suggesting a certain amount of premeditation with the murder weapon having been taken from Raffaele’s apartment to the cottage, there is no way of proving that the intention was to kill Meredith with this knife therefore we cannot necessarily conclude this was an organised offence based solely on this information. Similarly, injuries sustained by the victim also suggest she was forcibly held and that some attempt was made to silence her, yet if we are to conclude this was an organised offence, surely the offender would have brought something with which to bind and/or gag the victim?
This does not seem to be the case but rather a spontaneous group attack that resulted in a violent and chaotic murder with a subsequent panicked attempt at concealing the truth about what had happened. This leads me to conclude that the murder of Meredith Kercher is an example of a disorganised sexual homicide. None of the group had any history of violence which can in part be explained by a group dynamic. Unsurprisingly, research indicates that 64% of first time violent sexual homicides can be classified as disorganised.
Further Confusion
Despite certain pieces of evidence suggesting that this was a disorganised offence, there are elements of the crime that do not fit this conclusion. Meredith was almost certainly sexually assaulted whilst she was still alive, an attempt was made to restrain her and evidence from a break down truck driver suggests that Raffaele’s Audi may have been in the driveway of the cottage that night. Sexual assault on a live victim, evidence of restraint and evidence suggesting an offender may have driven to the scene of the crime are all associated with organised offenders. This coupled with the suggestion that the murder weapon may have been taken to the crime scene rather confuses a possible classification of a disorganised offence
As I have said many times with these types of theory and research based pieces, no theory is ever perfect especially one as reductionist as the organised/disorganised offender. This theory has been criticised for these reasons in the past. Despite this, many profilers and police officers find these sorts of classifications useful and can usually see evidence pointing to one type or another.
I believe this theory is perhaps too simplistic as it does not take into account the involvement of one or more persons in a violent sexual homicide. The slight confusion we have already seen in typology and classification of violence, added to this new confusion about whether this was an organised or disorganised offence only serves to encourage my belief that several motives, ideas and schemas about ‘how to humiliate/wind-up/hurt Meredith’ may have come into play that night. I have already suggested the possibility that there may have been a sadist in the room as well as very different motives for each of the individuals involved. The idea that certain elements of the crime are organised whilst others are disorganised not only encourages the idea that more than one person was involved but also suggests that at least one group member was firmly out of the loop.
The Blitz Attack
If Rudy Guede really had been a lone wolf killer, apart from the evidence suggesting that the break in was staged, he would almost certainly be a disorganised offender. Aside from the abundance of his DNA and fingerprints left at the scene, there are certain things we would expect to see from a lone disorganised offender that do not seem to be evident in this case.
Firstly, disorganised offenders often feel inadequate and their attacks are usually sexual in nature. These types of assailants, especially those with the intention of sexually assaulting or raping the victim, will often approach the victim from behind and due to the spontaneous nature of these offences they will usually initiate what’s known as a blitz attack. The blitz attack is primarily concerned with ensuring the victim is unable to resist or fight usually because the offender doubts their own ability to subdue the victim. The most common method of ensuring compliance is to render the victim unconscious. Unfortunately due to the amount of force employed when administering blows to (often) the head, the victim usually suffers horrendous blunt force injuries which more often than not result in serious injury or death. Meredith had no such injuries and any injuries she did sustain came much later than the initial attack.
If we are to conclude that Rudy Guede was a typical lone, first time, disorganised killer we can surely conclude he would have participated in this style of ambush, after all in one study 82% of young offenders who engaged in sexual attacks of this nature did so by initiating a blitz attack on their victims. Similarly the lone wolf theory suggests that Guede climbed through a window in order to access Meredith when he could quite easily have knocked on the door and pounced or at least chosen a method of entry that was easier and less noisy. If we are to accept the lone wolf theory as credible then we must also accept that by climbing through the window, Rudy Guede was aiming to surprise Meredith by initiating an attack to subdue, sexually assault and kill her yet the evidence suggests no such blitz attack ever took place and that the victim was very much conscious throughout most if not all of her ordeal.
The injuries sustained by Meredith are concrete, unchangeable and unchallengeable. These injuries cannot be manipulated or denied to suit. Meredith sustained defensive knife injuries to her hands in what the medical examiner likely concluded was an attempt to fight off an attack from a person standing in front of her brandishing a knife. Victims of disorganised offenders especially those that adopt the element of surprise (as the lone wolf theory suggests by insinuating Rudy climbed through the window), very rarely have defensive injuries suggesting a struggle, Meredith had several including various bruises.
Similarly research about these types of offenders indicates they often mutilate the victim by cutting or slashing the breasts, face, abdomen and genital area. Meredith sustained no post mortem mutilation. These types of offenders will often sexually assault or rape the victim after death, the medical examiner has stated he believes Meredith was in all likelihood sexually assaulted before she was seriously injured and later killed, this itself indicates some kind of restraint would have been necessary,yet this type of behaviour is not associated with disorganised offenders. The victims of certain sexual homicides often suffer injuries consistent with those found on Meredith’s body, injuries such as evidence of manual strangulation and those consistent with overkill, yet the injuries sustained by the victim do not fit the current theory of what we would expect to find in a lone, first time disorganised offender like Rudy Guede also he had no history of violence.
The crime reconstruction and evidence from injuries sustained by the victim suggests she was ambushed rather than blitzed. This in itself could suggest a planned attack, a sudden burst of ‘group’ anger or an escalation of a previously planned event.
I have previously spoken about how three people with no history of violence could easily be just as, if not more violent than a single individual with a history of violence. I still maintain that Rudy Guede would be extremely unlikely to commit this sort of violent offence alone and without provocation or consultation with anyone else. The same questions remain, why did he choose Meredith? How did he know she would be alone?
These are all questions that are never likely to be answered. This theory quite simply does not fit. It will never fit because it didn’t actually happen and insinuating that it did not only makes the 48 hours show and everyone associated with it look incredibly stupid, it also attempts to challenge an awful lot of literature and an awful lot of people, much smarter and more knowledgeable than I that will tell you exactly the same thing. Rudy Guede has not, will not and will never be proven a lone wolf killer.
A Toilet Break?
If we are to believe that Rudy Guede was a lone wolf, so overcome by lust for Meredith he broke into her house in order to rape and or kill her then we’d have almost certainly seen further evidence of sexual activity. So far the sexual assault Meredith suffered seemed to have been abandoned at some point, a point I believe Rudy ‘bottled it’ and, possibly due to excitement, fear or drugs, headed for the toilet. These sorts of actions in a lone offender do not make sense. Something spooked him that’s for sure and if he had been a lone offender there is absolutely no way he’d have left his victim in a position to escape or alert the police by going to the toilet in the middle of the attack.
Rudy admits to being at the cottage the night Meredith was killed and maintains he was on the toilet after eating a spicy Kebab when someone came into the house and stabbed Meredith. He claims to have tried to help her and then became scared and ran away. I don’t need to tell you that most of this story is what one judge accurately described as a ‘highly improbable fantasy’ yet his faeces was found in the toilet the next day indicating that he had at some point gone to the toilet. Some people believe that Rudy Guede’s version of events, despite being absurd do actually have some basis in truth as he has the awful habit of attempting to explain away things he knows the investigating officers can incriminate him with.
Like the faeces he left in the toilet for example. Rudy’s own version of events actually explains that he rushed off the toilet, had a confrontation with the killer and tried to help Meredith by stemming the flow of blood with towels, allegedly two blood soaked towels were found at the crime scene. With this in mind we could consider that Rudy became overly excited or scared during the attack, resulting in the need to visit the toilet, we could also suggest he was in the toilet before Meredith was killed. It seems highly likely that as the faeces was found in the toilet and Rudy attempted to explain it that he actually used the bathroom before Meredith was killed and certainly before he fled the cottage, after all I doubt he would hang around to use the loo after the piercing scream and the resulting knife wound, as Brian S explains in his theory, probably caused them all to flee. If the lone wolf theory is to be believed, doesn’t it seem a bit odd that Guede would be sat on the loo whilst the victim was left to her own devices? I think a far more likely scenario is that Guede was not alone in the cottage that night, Amanda and Raffaele were ‘taking care of Meredith’ while he dashed to the loo.
The Neck
I am still struggling to understand exactly how all three came to be present in the cottage that night and the exact sequence of events that led to the attack on Meredith. Arnold Layne recently put forward an excellent possible scenario as did Brian S, both can be found on TJMK.
Some evidence such as the knife and possibly Raffaele’s car in the driveway suggests an element of planning, yet other factors suggest it was anything but, as the crime itself seems rather disorganised. There certainly seem to be a number of fantasies coming through, specifically hinting at one or more of those involved gaining some kind of enjoyment in watching the victim suffer and, due to the nature of the injuries some possible fantasies linked to the victims neck.
Meredith sustained several neck injuries consistent with being manually strangled, cut with a knife before being fatally stabbed. The crime reconstruction has one of the defendants holding Meredith from behind, the other to the side holding her head up and exposing the neck with the third member of the group attacking with the knife.
So what is this apparent fascination with the neck? If they’d wanted to ensure the victim did not scream why not attempt to use a rudimentary gag such as a cloth or a sock? Though many have suggested that the neck injuries were specifically inflicted to ensure the victim didn’t scream it could (and this is where it gets pretty distressing) also be suggested that the attackers wanted to hear poor Meredith plead and beg for her life, they probably hadn’t counted on her screaming.
Any sex related homicide will usually reveal something that has a special kind of significance for the killer. I believe this may have been Meredith’s neck. They could have silenced her in any number of ways yet I believe they chose not to and underestimated her capacity to scream, it was in all likelihood her final scream, heard by a witness, that may have encouraged the fatal ‘panic blow’. It could be suggested that as this was possibly a panic blow, that the offenders had not yet finished ‘playing’ with Meredith, her final scream may have sadly sealed her fate but also ensured her suffering was not prolonged further.
Before she was fatally injured the medical examiner also determined that Meredith had been strangled. This attempt was clearly unsuccessful. According to this report:
“Only eleven pounds of pressure placed on both carotid arteries for ten seconds is necessary to cause unconsciousness.4 How-ever, if pressure is released immediately, consciousness will be regained within ten seconds. To completely close off the trachea, three times as much pressure (33 lbs.) is required. Brain death will occur in 4 to 5 minutes, if strangulation persists”
As Meredith was still very much alive when she was stabbed it could be suggested that whoever tried to strangle her, could not complete the act or believed they already had. Strangulation is more closely associated with sexual homicide than other injuries present. Most offenders who engage in strangulation apply the wrong type of pressure, use an incorrect and not yet perfected ‘technique’ especially if they are using their hands, I can imagine it’s very difficult to strangle someone if you don’t know what you are doing and especially if they are kicking and resisting. Meredith may have temporarily lost conscious, regained it and attempted to break free. This may have been the critical moment when the assailants decided to fatally injure her with the knife but not before she was taunted viciously.
Evidence available about the manner in which Meredith died suggests not only a vicious group attack but an apparent fascination with a specific area of her body upon which she sustained injuries above and beyond what was necessary to subdue or kill. This apparent fascination with Meredith’s neck could indicate the role of certain fantasies or schemas about ‘how to kill someone’. It seems odd that the assailants specifically chose to focus on her neck, after all stab wounds to the heart or abdomen are just as fatal. What was it about Meredith’s neck that provoked the injuries she sustained? I’m afraid we will never know but it is an important point to consider especially if we are to conclude that sexual fantasy may have played a role in her death.
The Two Stages of the Motive
If we consider that the murder itself was not premeditated we could also consider the motive in two different stages, this is not to suggest they are not inextricably linked as they inevitably are, however it’s a lot harder to consider the motive for the murder when attempting to understand not only the complex group dynamic but the crime as a whole. The initial motive for the attack on Meredith is still unclear. It may seem difficult to separate these two but when we do it becomes a little easier to understand.
At some stage and for whatever reason Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede ended up at 7 Via Della Pergola. They may have been high, they may have been sober or they may have intended to scare Meredith, initiate a group sex activity, even commit an act of violence. Though it may seem ridiculous to suggest this is unimportant, it really is the case. The crime scene evidence suggests the involvement of all three and though clarity and closure for the family would be ideal I fear we will never really know how or why this attack started. So it follows that we must study the trail of evidence left both at the crime scene and on the victim’s body itself. The evidence put forward so far suggests that if the plan was not to kill Meredith that night that the motive of the group may have suddenly changed at a critical point.
At one point the motive of the group changed and although the motive for the initial attack seems unclear, the motive for the later stage of the attack is not. At one point it changed from the sexual assault, argument or game, to killing Meredith.
This became the primary motive of one or all members of the group, why else would Meredith have been so viciously strangled? Why did this not kill her? Why was the attempt at strangulation abandoned in favour of the more intrusive method which caused the injury she sustained to the neck that later caused her death? Why were the group so determined to kill Meredith Kercher?
That part at least is probably easily explainable. She knew them, she could identify them and the attack had already gone so far they knew that letting her get out alive would almost certainly mean serving a long jail sentence. They decided to silence her forever. They cut her throat, took her mobile phones, locked her in her bedroom and left her to die. Later having realised the chaos and incriminating evidence left behind, two of them returned to begin the clean-up and staging of the crime scene, the other went to dance the night away.
This is why, with the evidence available so far that I believe the right people are on trial for their role in the senseless and brutal murder of Meredith Kercher. If any of you are coming here for the first time having watched the 48 hours show I implore you to seek out more information. The show barely touched the surface of how brutal and cruel the murder of poor Meredith actually was and hopefully with the aid of a little psychology theory I have successfully achieved my objective of showing how, aside from merely the physical evidence suggesting it is in fact an impossible scenario, the lone wolf theory has no credibility and doesn’t make any sense in the real world.
April 30, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Hey guys, I’m glad to say I have finally calmed down I hope you will excuse my little outburst yesterday.
This post was literally exhausting to write and it’s probably just as exhausting to read. The research and reading for these kinds of posts is extensive though always enjoyable, it’s never a bad idea to brush up on your theory or at least check it before you plonk it up on the web for all to see (a mistake I made to my own detriment yesterday afternoon)
Any questions or ideas are as always welcome
April 30, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Whilst well-written this post has been one of the hardest for me to read to date and I constantly fought between holding back tears and trying not to gag. My heart aches for Meredith and her family and no matter how many times we discuss the points from a merely technical point of view it is still so difficult to think of the suffering incurred by this one evenings events.
As you may have noticed from your last piece I am sick and tired of the lone wolf theory being given any form of credit and would highly recommend TJMK and their powerpoint presentation on the broken window as a starting point. Not to mention Micheli’s report on why the lone wolf theory is bull.
Just wondering MR, could peer pressure and saving face have any input in the group theory? When I picture myself as a fly on the wall I see the participants each trying to show they are not scared, that they won’t be the one to back down? If you go back to your theory of Amanda as the leader I see the difficulty of both men possibly thinking its going too far but not wanting to be the one to say they were scared when the girl of the group may not have seemed this way? And visa versa when no one was telling her to stop or challenging her suggestions Amanda may’ve thought she had to keep going to ‘save face’.
My thinking is when there are more in a group it is much harder to suggest you don’t feel comfortable with the way things are going. Plus the higher number of people the harder it is to find a common ground to all turn to each other and say shall we stop, for fear of being the odd one out.
Once Guede had had enough, seen it through as far as he wanted, he then left the other two to it.
With this idea of ‘not being the first to crack’ I can explain their continued silence on that night- Both men thinking if a girl can hold her tongue then I as a man should be able to. Amanda thinking I’m not gona be the girl who cracks and cries and tells on everyone. If the boys can manage it- I can.
I may be off track completely of course. I just put myself in Amanda’s shoes and imagine being questioned over and over- I would crack and sing like a bird but we know she has been bought up to be very competitive and a tom-boy. Apart form the Amnesia vein, which I also like, is this something you would look into Miss R?
April 30, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Ginny, While awaiting Miss Rep’s reply to your interesting questions regarding this fascinating – albeit upsetting – post, I would like to say what I had remarked previously, a month or so ago, on a different post on this same blog: That your idea of “saving face” within the group dynamic is a sound one. In the famous Clutter murder of 1957 (in which Dick Hickcock and Perry Smith murdered an entire Kansas family in cold blood) the forensic psychologist concluded ( and the killer agreed) that the murders were done to “save face”. Also, the the group dynamic had caused them to do that which neither would have done alone.
April 30, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Hey guys, interesting questions
This is probably the first and only time I will make such a comment, not least because I do not wish to offend anyone; but I sincerely hope everyone that reads this post has this sort of reaction to it, to truly understand and empathise not with Amanda but with Meredith who really matters.
It was incredibly hard to write but thanks for persevering as what is written here, though it may not be exactly what happened is, I believe important in understanding what Meredith suffered, what her family continue to suffer and what the members of the jury have recently been confronted with: The literal horror of Meredith Kercher’s death. Somebody somewhere described it as hell on earth and I don’t think they are too far wrong.
So, questions…
Ginny: Peer pressure and ‘saving face’ could well have had an impact on what happened that night. I believe that if one them crumbles, especially AK or RS, they all will, but only if they have exhausted any appeals. You see, the truth is flexible for these three they will use it if and only if lying no longer benefits them, the truth is a bargaining chip and one they don’t intend to use until much later. It will be very interesting to see as Brian has recently pointed out on PMF, the prosecution setting AK and RS on each other in the dock, who is the better liar? Unfortunately both of them are for want of a better word, chronically shit liars.
With the regard to the murder itself I think, considering there was almost certainly a dominant person in the room that night that they encouraged or at least gave the impression of saving face yet with the sadistic element of the crime I find it hard to believe at least one of them didn’t enjoy it. If someone like AK saw RS enjoying himself she’d be more likely to go along with what he wanted her to do and vice versa. RG almost certainly bottled it, I think, despite the enormity of his crime and the sheet disgust I feel at what he has done, that Rudy Guede was and continues to be deeply traumatised by what he saw that night. Despite this he is being typically selfish and considering only his appeal, his appeal will fail and only then will he face what he has done, we may find he will lose face at some point. I’d be willing to bet RS squirming in the dock would not be a pretty sight, but Buongiorno would never let that happen. The most likely to lose face first Ginny is probably Amanda Knox, her lawyers have all but given up on her and might as well let her family take over her legal representation. Amanda will be crucified under cross examination.
You are absolutely right about finding it harder to express your discomfort when in a group and most people find themselves going along with all sorts of things they never thought they’d do alone often things like taking drugs or skinny dipping but some engage in acts of violence they can’t later explain. There is always a ringleader and they are usually the least likely to lose face, simply because they don’t want to risk losing the respect of the ‘sheep’. Who do you think was the leader of the pack? I know who I’d put money on.
SMK thanks for that reference and a good call, saving face is an important factor to consider when looking at this crime.
April 30, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Miss R: I think that when considering Ginny’s question regarding this very issue of “saving face”, the reason that Hickcock and Smith came so strongly to mind, was the psychological dynamic. Of course with the tragic Kercher case, we can only conjecture, but as you have done so thorough and fine a job at analysis throughout, I saw this parallel: In the Kansas Clutter case, Hickcock was the “male”, while Smith was considered by both to be effeminate, a dreamer and a lover of females. Yet it was Perry Smith who sought to “save face”, the outcome being the famous line out of the mouth of Hickcock, from Capote’s book and film: ” It was Perry; I couldn’t stop him; he killed them all.” In my mind, although one must always be cautious when conjecturing, I can at least tentatively imagine Guede or Sollicitto oneday uttering “It was Amanda; we couldn’t stop her”. In a murder with more than one agent, it is very common – I have garnered from my readings, in any case – that the “soft” one suddenly shocks the harder one, with an outburst of anger and violence. All so much grist for the mill in this utterly tragic and sorrowful tale. . .
April 30, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Hi Miss R and thanks for another well- researched piece. I hope you don’t mind me not responding directly to it but I’d like to raise an issue which I think is fundamental to understanding the legal side of the case and it follows on from what Ginny and SMK have written. A question that has puzzled me for almost a year and a half is why didn’t RG collaborate with the police. To understand my confusion one needs a little knowledge of Italy and how it works. I’ve written extensively about this elsewhere so I’ll keep this brief.
Italy is the best first-world country to be a criminal. There are ninety-odd convicted criminals in parliament and that number would be much higher if the politicians had not conducted a systematic attack on the Italian judiciary. They have introduced a whole series of new laws which were specifically designed to help criminals, slow down court cases and drastically reduce the power of public prosecutors. RG could easily have benifited from some of these laws but for some bizzare reason, ‘chose’ not to. Meo Ponte recently described his defence as suicidal just as I have sustained for over a year. Here’s the deal;
The outcome of RG’s trial was never in doubt because of the overwhelming evidence against him; the fingerprints, the dna on the victim’s body, the bloody hand-print, the faeces in the toilet, the sudden trip to Germany, the lies etc. In open-and-shut cases like this, a good defece lawyer advises their client to take the rito and to collaborate with the prosecutor and judge. They recommend the former because it gives the suspect an automatic third off the sentence and the latter because it allows them another two reductions in the sentence. It really isn’t easy to get life (reduced to thirty) in the rito. If he behaves himself in prison, he’ll be out in around fifteen years, but he could have been out much sooner had he told the police what happened instead of lying. The trial of the other two would also have been a foregone conclusion and the Kercher family would have had somekind of closure. I don’t understand why he would want to spend longer in prison; shame, fear, bad legal advice?
There’s no logic to his defence and that’s why I’ve never understood it. That said, I’ve been here long enough to know that logic rarely helps you to understand these things. Other forces are at play.
April 30, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Sorry for the double comment but I’ve just read what you wrote Miss R. RG wasn’t ‘selfish’ when he spoke to the police or ‘decided’ not to speak at his trial. He made his situation worse and sacrificed himself. Why would he do that?
April 30, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Hey Damiano,
No worries on the double comment.
Thanks for the interesting background information. With regard to your question especially considering the context in which Rudy and his legal representative made their decision I’d have to agree something is a bit odd.
Is it possible that he just had bad legal representation? After all his lawyers I believe cost a fraction of what AK and RS’s families must be spending. Yet considering the idea of saving face it does seem to fit with the idea that Rudy is in some way ‘sacrificing’ himself. Do you think it could be an act of guilt? I’m not convinced, Rudy had the opportunity to help himself so many times and he seems to have passed on the option which then begs the question, if you don’t bother taking the legal advantages you are entitled to at trial why bother taking the appeal seriously? I haven’t seen any evidence suggesting that Rudy feels guilty about what he did to Meredith.
I’m afraid I can only agree with the assertion that something is amiss here.
April 30, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Miss Represented: Just wanted to add a couple of quick items here, while they are on my mind, ( and in the midst of a slew of editing work!)–I have read that the fact that RG did not “help himself” by implicating the other two ( until mentioning them briefly some time later) is being viewed by many in the U.S. as further proof of a lone wolf theory ( he casts about, here and there, to pin blame as it suits him). I think it may moreso be some kind of odd loyalty, or an ill-conceived belief that one day all might be cleared, if he just holds out. It is odd. Also, your section on “The Neck”: I just chanced to see something from MSNBC news archive about a YouTube video of Guede, playing at Dracula and speaking of biting necks, sucking blood. One might speculate that he had been more involved in the initial planning or pre-history, and that speaking of the two others would point back to that. It is a tangled and complex case, for certain, with so many layers that it is difficult to keep the ground from shifting beneath…
April 30, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Hi SMK, I think the majority of US media outlets still supporting the lone wolf theory probably do so out of a weird sense of loyalty. It’s much easier to blame the young black foreigner than it is to consider the actual case against Amanda Knox. US media outlets have a lot to answer for and I have seriously considered the idea that they may have overblown the whole ‘good girl caught up in a terrible situation’ thing simply because it sells papers, gets hits and encourages people to get mad. It’s irresponsible and sloppy reporting. Take for example the idea that Guede is a drug dealer, I for one came into the case thinking this was a fact it wasn’t until much later that I realised it was entirely made up, Rudy had never been convicted for anything let alone being a bona fide drug dealer!
I think many people in the US believe whatever they want to believe about Rudy simply because it’s easier than confronting the possible truth about Amanda and what more terrifying a truth than a young well educated, pretty and to all intents and purposes rounded American woman taking part in the vicious sexual assault and murder of her British housemate? People don’t want to face that, they don’t want to believe it because it opposes everything they believe in especially with regard to their own children. American parents don’t want to hear that in some cases, no matter how hard you try, no matter what you give them and what kind of education they have, some kids go off the rails, some of them do something bad and some might *shock horror*be held accountable for it. It could be for these reasons that it’s easier to blame somebody else’s kid, the ‘drifter’ the ‘loner’ and the ‘drug dealer’ because this is after all the only sort of person that would commit a violent sexual offence. In some ways Rudy has been demonised more than Amanda and mostly by the MSM.
I too had considered the Dracula video and do not doubt that if Rudy has a penchant for vampires that he may have used his ideas and fantasies to play along with the ‘game’, he feels no remorse for his actions except perhaps to pity his own predicament. It seems he too objectified poor Meredith and is now paying the price.
April 30, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Thank you for your critique: You have American media and people down quite accurately indeed! Yes, there is no doubt that the US media loves a good story, especially if they can make it seem as though “one of their own” is being treated unfairly by the Europeans. No doubt they take the attitude ( in the public) “If a black guy was caught and with evidence, why look any further; why look at a sweet young girl?”. It does seem as though poor Meredith became the target of 3 out of control individuals, who used her as a screen for their twisted fantasies to be played on. I would imagine if they could have covered it up wholly, disposed of her so that she would simply be listed as “Missing” for years, none of them would be much bothered, and go their merry ways. I think that may be the only Providential aspect to poor Meredith’s case: No one is “walking away”, as has happened with so many others….PS Your *shock horror* as to the thought of these kids being “held accountable” is right on target, for certain!
April 30, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Hi SMK, I agree, had Meredith’s murder been committed by a very organised offender or group of offenders the real identity of her killer/s may have never been discovered. I can only imagine how different things could have been.
Imagine if Amanda and Raffaele had let Filomena discover the break in and call the police, their alibi would have looked pretty convincing, assuming of course that the two of them could stop smiling and laughing long enough to give the police their version of events.
Then imagine as you quite rightly suggest that they had moved Meredith’s body and possibly buried it, the chances are she may never have been found.
Some people have suggested that the quilt may have been used in an attempt to move Meredith. I for one believe it is more likely that one of the assailants couldn’t bear to look at her. I don’t exactly think it’s a coincidence that a certain lady couldn’t even look at the crime scene video shown in court recently, footage of a crime she had intially boasted about being the first to see, not to mention describing in vivid detail how the victim had f*****g bled to death. What a natural charmer she is.
April 30, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Every time I read about Meredith defending herself (even though I know the outcome) I feel myself thinking: Go Meredith, fight fight fight, as if this time she will get away.
April 30, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Shirley: Yes, I can relate, and always wish something would have “told” her not to go home that night, to stay with her friends.
Miss R: Yes, you are right about AK. And her behavior in covering her face at the video in court, does point back to covering her for the same reason. It is true, had they been out in a rural area, they may have been able to bury poor Meredith, and she would have joined the ranks of the thousands of young girls who “go missing” and are never found. And your idea of having let F. make the discovery , keeping their alibis intact, might have happened. Some poetic justice, at least, that this did not….
April 30, 2009 at 9:39 pm
MR,
I wondered why it is you say this:
“… her lawyers have all but given up on her and might as well let her family take over her legal representation. Amanda will be crucified under cross examination.”
I can see that you might have come to this conclusion simply from the fact that she has been allowed to exhibit such “damning” behaviours in court—-or rather, putting it another way, has not been instructed and encouraged to present more sympathetic behaviours in court.
Or, is there something else that’s known about her defense that indicates they’ve given up on her?
Such great, though at times distressing, posts here. Thank you
all.
dd
April 30, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Hi Didi,
From what I have read and the recent accusation made in court by Amanda that has landed her in more hot water, it does not seem that Amanda’s lawyers have any control over their client at all. This coupled with the suggestion that they have been embarrassed at the smear campaign aimed at discrediting Mignini, leads me to conclude that things could probably be going better for Amanda Knox.
There is still a great deal left to be heard and I am prepared to stand corrected, especially seeing as how the defence have not yet presented their case, yet it seems to me that Amanda’s lawyers aren’t really representing the best interests of their client.
Amanda has been shown to crumble under pressure especially when those questioning her are smarter and are attempting to get at the truth, this is why I believe she will fall to bits if she is cross examined.
April 30, 2009 at 10:10 pm
“… I believe she will fall to bits if she is cross examined.”
I’d hate to be seen as the kind of person who could actually be gratified by anything like that happening, so I won’t say it!
Thanks for reply,
dd
May 1, 2009 at 12:54 am
In general, not necessarily this case, is it possible a crime is premeditated and disorganized – or so poorly organized to be close enough – at the same time?
May 1, 2009 at 12:57 am
Miss R, et al
When I look at Guede I see a scared boy, abandoned by his parents, without a home base (though his adoptive caretaker tried to give him stability). It makes me think of codependency, of people who want to trust but can’t, and of repeat offenders who are truly more “at home” when institutionalised ( as with users who keep ending up back in rehab,or criminals who reoffend after seemingly straightening up, because it’s easier to be looked after by the system and fed three square meals a day.) Maybe he feels this is what he deserves. At least he doesn’t have to break into school buildings to spend a night out of the weather, clutching a knife for protection from unseen demons?
As sick as his involvement surely was, it’s the other two who bother me more. Sollecito has no respect for anyone ( a chip off the old block), and it’s little wonder he never got to first base with anyone before Knox, as any normal woman would leg it at the first opportunity, if they were shown a shiny knife collection on the first date! She, on the other hand, was seemingly intrigued. (The Heathers meets Kalifornia?) Se brought him out of his shell, all right. An entry at The Eclectic Chapbook site discusses The Manga “handles” of Guede and Sollecito. Loverboy apparently fancies himself The Devil Man”, shy and pushed about until he meets a girl who brings out his fightin’ side. I wonder What Knox’s “handle” would be? And as to the Neck question, don’t forget Raf’s vampire manga bedside lit. Who suggested Meredith dress as a vampire for Halloween– couldn’t have been Knox, could it? I think that RS sees most women as insects. It is Knox who is most despicable, in offering up her peer, her own housemate, as a sacrifice to the evening’s lust and bloodlust. I would have vomited for days at the sight of so much blood, but then I see the victim as a valued, precious being.
May 1, 2009 at 2:26 am
“But before you come to any conclusions
Try walking in my shoes
Try walking in my shoes
You’ll stumble in my footsteps.”
Depeche Mode (Martin Gore) 1993
The Shoes of a Murderess
It is a bit dangerous, but I suggest that to understand the motives behind a murder, one needs to suspend their own values and limits; climb into the murderer’s shoes and feel what they felt and feel. I wish to propose a hypothesis, derived from attempting to climb into her shoes, that Ak47, overwrought with narcissistic hurt and envy, minutely planned this murder beforehand. I propose that the murder was highly organized in its conception, but became disorganized in its commission, due to the naivety and inexperience of the participants.
Ak47 wanted MK to be severely punished. In Ak47’s view and as self-justification, MK deserved to be humiliated for ignoring her and not valuing her as highly as she once did. Perceiving her as another superior being during their few weeks together, Ak47 viewed MK’s defection from her circle, and return to her mediocre friends and less wild ways, as hypocrisy that had to be punished. In the week before the murder, Ak47 intoxicated herself with first playful, then adamant thoughts of revenge, planning the perfect crime, and securing a MK-smitten patsy to take the rap: RG. Data supporting this hypothesis includes the observations that little of RG’s DNA and fingerprints were cleaned up from the murder scene, whereas the crime scene was virtually devoid of AK’s DNA and fingerprints. And remember RG’s testimony that after the murder, the perpetrator told him something to this effect: Run black man, you’re the one that will be blamed for this murder. I suggest that AK47 said that to RG, and that she scared the shit out of him that night with the ardor of her attacks. He ran. Ak47 is the original author of the lone wolf theory. In my opinion, she planned all along for us to believe that the lustful black tramp murdered MK. No one would suspect someone as charming, intelligent, and as fetching as her to have anything to do with this murder, especially as horrendously as it was wrought that night.
But alas, actual murder is much more complicated and messy than murder fantasies. Being an American, she had probably seen dozens of murders on TV that are surgically neat and clean, and naively planned for that. Actual murder, however, is incredibly messy with blood spurting out everywhere like a broken sink faucet. Real people don’t stay in one place while getting murdered like they do on TV; they run around defending themselves and become hysterical with incredible bursts of strength. AK47 didn’t plan on this, and also having to afterward do an extensive clean-up of the crime scene. Her puppy, RS, became unnerved and didn’t want to use his car to get rid of the body the way she had planned because of all the blood. RS was fast losing composure and Ak47 knew she would have to control him with all her charms, or they were sunk. And then there was another aspect that Ak47 failed to appreciate beforehand: the emotional effect upon herself of killing another living person, who was actually a wonderful caring woman that didn’t deserve her fate. After the high of committing the murder she had so fantasized about, she felt lost and hollow inside. Many murderers experience this emptiness. This hollow feeling, which she could only assuage by closeness and affection, greatly influenced her subsequent strange behavior, immediately making the police suspicious of her and RS. The only way she could survive intact was to block out, as best as she could, all details of the night and her horrible actions. Amnesia.
The slow, deliberate Italian Justice System is a perfect tool for punishing a murderess. Rather than quick American trial justice, this justice system slowly and methodically draws out all the horrid details of a murder. The murderess has a week, to many weeks, between trial sessions to stew about what the upcoming witnesses might testify to, and the fear that more facts, some known only to her, will be revealed that will expose her as the hideous creature she was that night. As it continues on, this trial will become unbearable for Ak47.
(Good news comrades, I think tomorrow I am finally going to receive a cool job offer after being out of work for months. So my blogging days may be coming to a close. Thanks to all of you and especially Miss R for reading and commenting on my ramblings about this sad case, which will probably, and ultimately, end or ruin 4 young lives. What a waste.)
May 1, 2009 at 2:53 am
Greggy: I find the above well-written and highly convincing. I had always believed this to have begun as a spiteful or mean “prank” which escalated to murder, but your post illuminates that it might have been fully premeditated, by at least one of the principals. And that Murphy’s Law took over. It is another view of it, for sure. For some reason, I always had the idea that somehow AK felt that Meredith would “go along” with the “game”, and became humiliated and enraged when she (rightly) refused. But in your scenario, this had already occurred days or weeks prior; and hence, a murder planned. That is an interesting idea, also: That he acting all amorous with RS after the police came was an attempt to re-bond with someone she had perhaps disgusted the night before, with her actions. Good luck with your new employment!
May 1, 2009 at 8:18 am
Morning guys,
Hi Curious and welcome. I think the distinction within the framework of the theory is pretty clear. An organised offender, i.e. one that brings with them things they will require to commit the act of murder and consider how they will avoid detection is very different from the offender than hastily decides to attack. The theory doesn’t really give much leeway and confusion can arise when it appears that a murder has been utterly chaotic yet there is evidence of pre-planning and preparation. An organised murder is by its very nature premeditated but unfortunately organised offenders especially when they become serial offenders can sometimes get sloppy and arrogant, this leaves them open to detection and eventually apprehension by law enforcement officers. Just look at Dennis Rader the infamous BTK, one of the most controlled and organised offenders I have ever studied in detail, the guy was the model of a supremely organised psychopathic offender and he avoided detection for over 20 years. Unfortunately his cat and mouse game with police was his undoing, he got a little sloppy and they caught him. His confession was utterly shocking.
Mimi welcome to you to, I too see Guede as slightly lost though it does seem he had plenty of friends and associates in Perugia. I don’t think he had anyone looking out for him though he certainly had a role to play in that. His father left him in the care of another family who tried their hardest to get him motivated, get him working or some qualifications but in the end they gave up calling him a ‘tremendous liar’ whose only motivation was to sit around and play video games all day.
I think Guede had no real sense of loyalty to anyone, even himself at times. It seems he was behind on his rent and always short of money. Guede definitely displayed a lack of responsibility or ambition in life and was perhaps a little too easily led; this may certainly have played a part in his decision to take part in the attack on Meredith and may ultimately have led to the apparent attempt at stitching him up. I too read Button’s efforts to track down their online alter ego’s, very interesting and if we consider that there may have been an element of fantasy involved in what happened that night, this could also be extremely revealing.
Raffaele Sollecito is a deeply dangerous young man; he does at times scare the living daylights out of me. He is a total control freak and very cold. I often wonder what the bright and breezy Amanda Knox saw in him, possibly a little Harry Potter she could twist around her little finger or a kindred spirit that she could be herself around. To be honest I think RS sees most people as insects unless of course they are useful in some way at which point they become useful insects.
Greggy, interesting and insightful as always and congratulations on the new job!
I agree with your assessment that if this was actually a premeditated murder that they would have used certain schemas derived possibly from clean and crisp murder shows like Dexter believing that murder really was as easy as it looked on the TV and that the police are all incompetent muppets who sit around all day doing seven fifths of five eights of f**k all. I mean the arrogance, the sheet arrogance of assuming that they’d actually get away with not only lying but attempting to point the finger of blame entirely at Rudy is literally stunning. TV, like the media has a lot to answer for.
The idea that Knox was traumatised by what had happened and wanted to seek comfort from RS is not something I had considered but it does seem a likely scenario, it could also be that she was worried about what would happen and the likelihood of getting caught and wanted some reassurance from RS. If it was the latter it would appear that RS was in fact the cool calm cat in all of this and that his lack of emotion and empathy went, to a certain extent unnoticed, as people focused entirely on Knox.
With regard to the slow justice system it certainly will make both of them squirm and I have no doubt that Rudy was relieved to get it all over and done with.
SMK it could still have been a prank or a game yet the prosecution I believe have charged them with premeditated murder. I expect as many people do that there are more than a few surprises left to come out at trial.
May 1, 2009 at 10:58 am
Hi people. Just a few thoughts.
I’m not sure why you regretted your last post. Was it because the owner’s lawyer denied that she would be ‘selling tickets’? Do you think the journalists got in there for free? Maybe they did, I have no idea. I’d be very surprised if she was to turn down the inevitable handsome offer that the Vespa will make. If this was the reason, I’d hold your horses if I were you. Everybody is cashing in.
They haven’t been charged with premeditated murder and so cannot be found guilty of that.
I’m sure AK and RS are delighted that nothing RG has said will play a part in their trial, particularly AK. RS was never really mentioned by RG, apart from the ridiculous ‘AF’ business which would never have worried his defence anyway. These things were ‘sistemato’ a long time ago. An interesting point which has generally been overlooked is that RG in one of his later interrogations gave a description of the man who supposedly attacked him. This was after tapped conversations of RS’s people revealed their fury that the police weren’t going after the drug addict seen in Piazza Grimana the morning after the murder arguing with his girlfriend on the phone. (This man was checked out by the police and eliminated from their enquiries early on in the investigation.) The description he gave seemed to be of this man. The jacket was the same, the hair colour was the same, the head-gear was the same. These were the only details he gave, apart from the southern accent which I suspect would also fit. Why, at such a late stage, would he describe a man who the police have already decided had nothing to do with it? The conduct of a suspect after the crime is taken into consideration when the judge passes sentence. RG made his situation worse and others’ much better. Again, why would he decide to do that? Bad legal advice is one thing but I think this is something else.
I read recently in a couple of papers that the bloody footprint on the bathmat isn’t RS’s but RG’s. Has anybody got any more details on that? Do we know if a prosecution witness said that in court or was it a defence lawyer talking to the press after a hearing? If true, that would perhaps be worse news for the prosecutor than Toto changing his times and the woman who said it definitely wasn’t RG who bumped into her. Like I say though, I don’t know whether it is true.
Miss R, with regard to your previous post, I agree with you when you say that people who want to profit from this murder or make a name for themselves are scum. I’d also like to add that for me, that counts across the board.
Personally, I’ve always had qualms about following this case so closely though and have never been able to resolve this issue. Lots of people are making and will make money off this brutal murder. They are able to do this because many people have a morbid fascination with it. I’d never bought one of the crappy local rags until Meredith was killed. I’d never clicked on their websites either. We are the people who enable others to make money. We are the people who will buy the books about the case or search for the translations, who visit the sites, who give publicity to these people, who search for the videos and photos of the crime scene. (I don’t do the last two things, partly because I’m squeamish.) I see hypocrisy in both what I and others do. Justice has nothing to do with the blogosphere and what people write there.
One last thing and then I’ll shut up.
Good luck with the new job Greggy.
May 1, 2009 at 3:27 pm
Hi Miss
I discovered your website today and I’m quite fascinated by this story. Is there any possibility to follow the court sessions on TV or Internet? Are you from Italy?
For me, there’s something that is really rare. If the crime was committed by AK, RS and RG being all together present, why RG never mentionned the other two? Now, that he’ll stay in prison for 30 years, why should he protect the other two? I do not want to prove anybody’s innocence, it’s just incredible for me, that RG assume the alone responsability of what happened this night…
Hope you answer me soon…
Greetings
May 1, 2009 at 5:00 pm
Hi,
as far as i know (read), rudy guede changed its story several times. The last version, though, included AK and RS in the crime scene. He said they have been present.
Greetings
May 1, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Hi loquitoalex,
Rudy Guede isn’t protecting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. He claims that he saw both of them at the cottage and that they were responsible for Meredith’s murder.
Incidentally, the forensic evidence corroborates Guede’s claim that Knox and Sollecito were present at the cottage that evening. Amanda Knox also admitted she was present when Meredith was killed in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November.
May 1, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Hey Damiano,
I thought that they were being charged with transporting a weapon and that was somehow linked to the murder charges? In my book that’s about as close to premeditated as you get especially as the prosecution have tried to prove they planned something. Oh well, my mistake.
To be honest I had no verifiable source that this was actually what she was doing, I don’t exactly count the Sun or the article as a valid source. I have heard that it may not be so far from the truth and highly doubt the journalists got in for free but without confirmation I should really back down on that one. With regard to Rudy’s defence, I have no idea what’s going on and I’m not the most knowledgeable on law, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see what happens. I’m expecting lots of surprises over the next few weeks.
Loquitoalex and Snack welcome,
Loquitoalex, there is no way to follow the trial on the TV as I believe cameras are banned in the courtroom though there is some pretty extensive media coverage of it in the news. I’m not from Italy which does limit me a little bit in terms of not being able to read the more detailed Italian newspapers.
I don’t think Rudy really knows what he is doing but I agree there is something odd about his reluctance to talk about what happened. Maybe he is too traumatised to talk or maybe he’s holding back the truth until he knows there is no other card to play. I wouldn’t underestimate Rudy Guede, I’m fairly sure he can be just as manipulative and cunning as the other two, the only difference is he doesn’t have anyone to hide behind.
Snack, Rudy did indeed change his story several times. He’s pretty cunning though not as smart as Sollecito. That boy gives me the creeps *shivers*
May 1, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Miss R. They have been charged with the illegal transportation of a weapon but not pre-meditated murder. ‘concorso in omicidio volontario’ is the charge. About the tickets, all the local press reported that. We’ll see if Vespa’s Porta a Porta get the super-exclusive.
Harry Rag wrote,
‘Rudy Guede isn’t protecting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’
I’m not sure what makes you say that Harry. Nothing he has said can be used in AK and RS’s trial. In legal terms, it’s as if he didn’t exist. This is likely to be the case for a whole series of other things which are often spoken about on the net and explains many misunderstandings about the court proceedings. Also, he has never said he saw RS. As I explained earlier, the description he gave seemed to be of the random bloke seen in the piazza following the murder.
May 1, 2009 at 6:23 pm
How could AK and RS only clean up their DNA and leave Guede’s behind? This would be impossible considering the epic struggle the prosecution claims took place. Also invisible to the naked eye. I have not seen the 48 show, the media is very misleading in this case.
May 1, 2009 at 7:13 pm
Hi Jim and welcome,
I’m not an expert in the field of DNA or crime scene investigation so it would be hard for me to answer that question directly, but as it stands the prosecution believe there was some sort of clean up.
After the murder a number of witnesses saw Rudy Guede in town, dancing. Evidence from the crime scene suggests that Meredith’s body was moved after she died. Rudy could not have done it, someone else did. Raffaele’s DNA was found on a bra clasp in Meredith’s room a room he claims to have never been in. A recent officer has ruled out contamination. At this stage we are still waiting to hear the crucial DNA evidence so it would be too early to rule out anything at this stage. Some have suggested that AK and RS may have stripped off to do the clean up, luminol showed up footprints in the hallway which indicates someone stepped in blood and cleaned it up. There are also multiple traces of Knox’s blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in the bathroom.
Though we cannot at this stage say a cleanup is certain it is being taken seriously, I believe both defendants lawyers will have a hard time convincing the jury otherwise.
Congrats on avoiding the 48 hours show it really is bad.
May 1, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Hi Damian,
There was clearly a pact of silence between Knox, Sollecito and Guede at first. Guede did not mention Knox or Sollecito, and Knox accused Diya Lumumba of killing Meredith, despite knowing full well that he wasn’t even there. They were definitely protecting each other.
However, once it became apparent that Knox’s and Sollecito’s lawyers were blaming Guede for Meredith’s murder, the pact of silence was broken. Rudy Guede then claimed that Amanda Knox was present and indicated to the investigators that Raffaele Sollecito was also there.
Rudy Guede wrote a letter to his lawyer on 28 March 2009 in which he made it clear that Knox and Sollecito were responsible for Meredith’s murder:
“I think that I have spoken clearly to the investigators and judges that have heard me, of what had happened and what I have heard and seen the night of November 2 …”
“…This trial process is not mine, process in which I think is about time that the people, who until now have always lied and continue to do so, admit the evil they have done and continue to do for Meredith and me…”
I know that nothing Rudy Guede has said can be used against in Knox’s and Sollecito’s trial. The point I was making was that he isn’t protecting them as he has publicly implicated both of them.
May 1, 2009 at 9:01 pm
Thank you Damiano for your precise comments on this case. Miss R your repeated comments about Rudy being traumatized or maybe he’s holding back the truth, I believe he is holding back a lot of the truth. Do you believe him when he stated there was consensual sex? That is what he wants everyone to believe. He doesn’t know what telling the truth means. He makes it up as he goes along and changes his story according to what the press release in the papers. Traumatized? I think he is guilty of traumatizing Meredith. You give Rudy the benefit of the doubt always. I am not 100% sure the role the others played but to make Rudy out to be victimized by the other 2 is wrong. Give him a little more credit.
May 1, 2009 at 9:15 pm
Hi Harry. I take your point but it’s not clear to me that you understand what is going on. You say he has ‘publicly implicated both of them’. This is completely irrelevant. It means absolutely nothing. Do you think it was his call to write that letter? If he’d wanted to implicate them he would have testified at their trial. If he’d wanted to be out of prison when he was still in his early thirties, he would have told the police what happened and spoken at his own trial. A jurisprudence student in his first year knows that. Even if you know nothing of Italian law, all you have to do is open the penal code and find the two relevant laws. I realise his ‘defence’ seem to have fooled the majority of people who are following this case on the net but this doesn’t interest me and I’m sure it doesn’t interest RG or the Kercher family either. If he’d looked out for himself, the whole thing would be over. The Kercher’s would have been able to find somekind of closure for their terrible loss a year ago instead of having to put up with years of Italian justice, salacious articles, people using their daughter’s horrific murder to make money and a name for themselves and a whole myriad of folk coming up with alternative scenarios for how Meredith was killed. (all in her name of course, and in the name of justice.)
RG’s lawyers get paid when they go on TV programmes. They are making a name for themselves, putting their faces around. Do you know anything about who they are or what they did before this case? They are often in the papers too and regularly have some crappy letter or poems, supposedly written by their client, to offer to the rags. It just goes on and on. They love acting all big with the Americans too, threatening lawsuits and the like(Note they don’t do this to RS’s lawyers when they say exactly the same thing). The masses then lap it up; ‘Yeah, they’re great! Really defending their man. If I’m ever in trouble in Italy, I know who to call.’ etc. Ma per favore. This is all superficial crap which has absolutely no bearing on the trial. Their defence of RG was suicidal and never made any sense whatsoever. If he’d been defended well, this would all be over by now and RG’s sentence would have been considerably shorter.
With regard to the so-called breaking of the pact of silence because RS’s lawyers tried to lay the blame on RG, I take it your source for that is RG’s ‘defence’ team. In light of the facts, can I ask why you believe that? They are empty words Harry and nothing more. If there was a pact and it was broken, RG would have told the truth to the police, to Micheli and to the court of assize. He didn’t do any of the above.
Sorry if my tone here seems a bit harsh but all this has been obvious to me for a year and I have problems understanding why, despite everything, it isn’t clear to others. These people have been torn to shreds on public television here, even Micheli took the piss out of them in his ruling and I remember Ghirga also made harsh comments about them during the preliminary hearing. The thing that angers me the most though, is the added pain these people have caused to the Kercher family.
Don’t believe the hype Harry.
May 1, 2009 at 9:29 pm
“Raffaele Sollecito is a deeply dangerous young man; he does at times scare the living daylights out of me. He is a total control freak and very cold.
To be honest I think RS sees most people as insects unless of course they are useful in some way at which point they become useful insects.”
Hi MR,
If you have the time, could you tell me very briefly what has made you feel this way about Raffaele’s character?–I mean, from what he’s done, written, presented in court, or whatever. I understand a lot of people react to him this way (as above someone, also says “arrogant”).
I ask not because I want to disagree, but because my intuitive sense is that he’s more numb, withdrawn, insecure, submissive, childlike, indulged, lost. He could still be dangerous with those traits— but cold, controlling, arrogant and disdainful project a much stronger, more adult and executive personality than I’ve picked up.
But it’s often been the case that I just haven’t discovered the right information to have a complete picture–and he certainly is still vague and enigmatic to me.
(Insects as in as an entomologist or as in disdain?)
Thanks,
dd
May 1, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I noticed Didi’s comment above, and I am of the same mind: Not trying to be disagreeable, but sincerely perplexed, as I also had seen RS as sort of a “dweeb” or nerd; shy, withdrawn, lost, abstracted: And the type to have his “dark fantasies” to bolster his very weak persona, but never to act them out, until he had the serious misfortune of encountering an Amanda. I had always seen both RS and RG as two misfit males who found themselves drawn in by Amanda, who was the catalyst that sparked all off, and turned a dark fantasy into an horrific reality of monstrous proportions. If you have time ( and only if you have time!) Miss R, I like Didi wonder if I have missed something that RS said or did to make you view him as you described ( which to me sounds like Amanda moreso). Many thanks.
May 1, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Dear Damiano,
This post, as well as some of your others, seems like a fresh breeze of probable truth to me. However, you must remember two things:
1) Many of us don’t live in Italy and know little of its history, current events, legal system, cultural differences and the kind of general insider and idiomatic awareness
that only a native or very involved and interested outsider would know, and
2) We have been discouraged from criticizing Italy, any thing Italian and especially the methods by which this investigation and trial have been conducted. This is because we are “compensating” for a group of people supporting the defense who have been quite dishonest, misleading and xenophobic (or jingoistic, seeing it another way) about the Italians’ procedure and involvement. In compensating, we go overboard and don’t question anything. It’s OK and appropriate for you to criticize Mignini and acknowledge the ways in which he has been suspect in the past, but some of us feel wrong to do that.
Please know I very much appreciate and welcome your informed input–it’s hard to come by–and that I also sympathize with people who are trying to give the Italians the “benefit of the doubt.” After all, the murder took place in Italy, not the U.S., and they are shouldering the responsibility and cost.
Didi
May 2, 2009 at 12:19 am
Uh oh, SMK! By responding to Damiano I leapfrogged and now my “above” isn’t the above that you are referring to in your “above.”
(Everyone follow that? Didn’t think so…)
You’re referring to topic #21 “above”.
May 2, 2009 at 12:27 am
Didi: Not to worry. I hope Miss R isn’t annoyed that I repeated your same question, but it was striking, because my own view of RS was much the same as yours. Perhaps you and I have fallen too much for his “Harry Potter” look!
May 2, 2009 at 1:00 am
I do have personal experience of how much ones “interpretation” of another person’s image can change, often quite suddenly, when new information comes along and we see them them as if through “new eyes.”
(I imagine that seeing a photo of Amanda for the first time, in relation to winning a prize for best college poet for example, I wouldn’t have noticed the manic gleam in her eyes that I see now.)
So I was wondering if Miss Represented, and others, knew things that changed their view of Harry…I mean Raffaele.
May 2, 2009 at 3:16 am
i am new to this case, i have been following it for about a month, but have read everything i could find. my question is what happened to the theory that RG was with MK who noticed her rent money was missing and called AK to get to the bottom of the missing money? it seems to me the perfect scenario, Meredith accuses amanda of stealing her money, Amanda and Raffael decide to scare Meredith to forget it, RG was making out with MK, didn’t have a condom, so sex was finished manually then he ran to the loo because he was sick. maybe he just felt that since the judge called him a liar that he couldn’t cooperate.
May 2, 2009 at 3:49 am
Miss Represented, you certainly gave me an education on sex crime, but I didn’t see anything about the disorganized offender, who either gets or finds the victim drunk, then attempts to get intimate without consent. One of the news reports described Meredith’s blood alcohol as so high she could have passed out. Guede could have gained entry because he was recognized as a friend of one of the men living on the lower level. The choking manoeuver could have been his response to her resistance. That would certainly have allowed her the opportunity to fight back and receive injuries catalogued.
As I see it, the keystone to the arch of evidence is Meredith’s aborted call at 2213. Was she just recovering consciousness after choking or was she just feeling endangered? I don’t know, but suspect the former. One of the expert commentators opined that the stab wounds to the neck came after the choking. Hurrying off the loo without flushing it would be the reasonable thing to do if the victim you thought were either dead or unconscious could be heard stirring. Could he have acted to keep her from talking? Or could he have acted with pre-meditation, knowing what had happened before he arrived would shift the blame to Knox & Sollicito. Formica’s testimony places Guede on the run before 2230, making the stabbing occur in that short window.
Meanwhile the two in the dock had been observed wandering about the parking plazza while keeping an eye on the gated entrance by a witness who kept track of the time. Testimony has been given that there were heated conversations between them [at least I assume that’s why the prosecution called the witness]. This testimony is not descriptive of the kind that would lead up to some sex game. It’s more like hide and seek. Only Knox and Sollecito can tell us why they were there and what they were doing. We won’t know if they will until they testify.
I can understand how the police came up with their initial scenario, but I suspect that when it blew up in their face with the falsely accused barkeep, they did that very human thing of burrowing down the same tunnel looking primarily for evidence to confirm the initial judgment, rather than starting over. Given the tenor of publicity and the fast running emotions, I can understand why the defendants would hunker down with their blown alibi.
I suspect that this case is one of a series of highly improbable interlocking events brought about by poor judgment on the part of the three defendants. I am not convinced of Amanda’s & Sollecito’s guilt of murder at this time.
May 2, 2009 at 10:47 am
Hi miss represented,
can you tell me why lie detectors
are not used in criminal trials?
Are they not accurate and reliable
enough? Is it too difficult to
calibrate them in a courtroom (individual perspiration, blood pressure,body heat….)?
May 2, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Hi Mami and Didi and thank you both for your kind words.
Didi, After reading your comment I went back to read mine. I realise my tone may have seemed a bit abrupt and I hope Harry didn’t take offence. I stand by what I said though; if RG saw the other two there that night he is protecting them. It’s as simple as that. Since this is to his own detriment and the others’ benefit, it’s not easy to see the logic in this decision of ‘his’.
I realise most people following the case don’t know much about Italy and have tried to provide background information. I still believe that the endemic corruption and nepotism in this country could help the two suspects, just as they have helped thousands before them. I’ve also always made it clear that this case is being treated in an exemplary way by Italian standards because of all the international attention.
I think your second point is a pretty fair assessment of the state of affairs. The two ‘sides’ have been polarized for a long time, for what it’s worth. (Sorry to generalise. I’m not talking about everybody)I don’t think one would exist without the other and I believe they are almost as ridiculous as each other. On one side, there are those who say there is a great conspiracy against the two suspects while on the other people say that the Italian justice system is excellent, run by some of the best trained professionals in the world and extremely thorough. Any Italian lawyer, prosecutor or judge will tell you that both positions bear no relationship to reality. I’d like to reiterate though, that this is perhaps the best first-world country in the world to be a criminal.
Another reason I went back to read my comment was to see where I may have confused you. I noticed that I had written ‘they’ ‘them’ and ‘these people’. Sorry about that. I wasn’t talking about Mignini. In fact, I’ve generally completely avoided talking about Mignini except for his involvement in the Narducci case. I’ve expressed my firm opinion that anybody who thinks just one person was involved in his death or the monster of Florence killings is either ignorant, has a screw loose, is a conspiracy-theorist nut or has a vested interest.
Anyway, thanks for your comment Didi.
Hello Barry. Meredith wasn’t drunk when she was murdered and that’s a fact. Apparently, the blood sample had been stored incorrectly. The initial test was accurate, not the one made months later. For a couple of possible explanations of that, see above. Also, every paper in the land said Formica categorically excluded the possibility of that man being RG. I believe that came as a surprise to the prosecution and ‘some’ of the lawyers. I might be wrong though.
May 2, 2009 at 5:32 pm
Hi Damiano,
No, you didn’t bring up Mignini. I’m sorry if I made it seem like you did. I only did so myself because he has often been a focus in that “polarized” view that’s out there about Italian justice and crime investigation.
I’m sorry the whole thing about Monster of Florence, Narducci and Mignini has sullied public opinion about the handling of the Meredith Kercher murder trial (via our CBS’s 48 Hrs. if you heard of that production), although it’s a very small group I’m sure that knows anything about all that.
When our minds begin to confuse fact and fiction, truth goes out the window–and when money gets involved you can’t hope for objectivity. (Now that Tom Cruise wants to make a film of Doug Preston’s book that vision will be available to the whole world.)
Anyway, thanks again for shedding some light on what’s behind the scenes. And I agree with you, as much as I can figure, about RG and his seemingly self-destructive defense.
dd
May 2, 2009 at 6:26 pm
The modern lie detector are extemely accurate and are used by many large companies and govenment agencies as part of their selection process. The UK govenment is about to begin using them as part of the monitoring of sex offenders in the community.
The problem with their use in court is that they go against the prsumption of innocence. Guilt or innocence is for a jury to decide not a machine.
The evidence of a lie detector is not admissable in court but if I were on trial for a crime I had not commited I would want one just to prove to my defence and supporters that I was not guilty. So I’m supprised that Amanda has not taken one for the folks back home.
I have read that the latest computerised lie detectors are almost impossible to cheat but almost is not 100 percent and so it must be possible in some circumstances to beat the machine.
May 3, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Dear Greggy,
Just wanted to say good luck on your cool new job and thank you for your exceptional input here (and at PMF). We may never know if there’s any truth to the scenario as you’ve envisioned it, but your writing is quite compelling in any case. Hope you can still say current with the case and share your thoughts…
dd
May 3, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Damiano, if they can’t keep track of a blood alcohol test, can you trust their DNA results?
May 4, 2009 at 10:00 am
Barry, the court will decide. If there’s still confusion about the forensic evidence after the prosecution and defence experts’ testimony, the judge will call his expert and he/she will have the final word. That’s where this case will be decided. If the luminol prints were made in blood and are compatible with the two suspects, or Meredith’s dna was on the knife found at RS’s flat, or RS and AK’s dna was on the bra-clasp and there was no contamination, then I think the two suspects will be in all kinds of trouble. We’ll see.
May 4, 2009 at 2:17 pm
very very very speculatively written.
There’s a lot of ‘almost certainlys’ in this piece, which is about a trial in which a young person’s life is hanging by a thread… the trial is not a chance for ‘web journalists’ to play perry mason.
A person is presumed innocent until found guilty…
So far, Guede is the only one with any real evidence against him in the murder. By real, I mean conclusive.
It’s possible that a young girl on student holiday from seattle, and her student boyfriend murdered the girl’s roommate, and the kitchen knife found all the way over at his apartment was the weapon used… Let’s ignore that there’s another man’s bloody handprint on the wall there. (A man with a history of using knives against people.) It’s possible this scenario is true.. We all know drug dealing drifters who dont mention the others accused, with criminal pasts, couldnt possibly act alone… There must have been 2 students involved also(?)
It’s also possible that Knox was a suspect very early on, simply for being a person at a certain place at a certain time. She 100 percent made some really unwise choices during the interrogation process, but this does not make her a murderer. It just makes her a naive young girl… and probably a scared and confused one at that…
It could have all started very simply with the discovery of a suspicious text:
She sent a message that was not in correct italian. She said something that translates into: ‘I will see you more later’ (ci vediamo piu tarde) NOT “see you later.” (ci vediamo doppo)
This is very important to understand the different way it is interpreted.
The italians read it as “I will see you later on” (as in this evening.) It’s highly possible that THEY were speculating something suspicious between Lumumba and Knox because of the text message that said ‘see you more later’ not ‘see you later.’
hence, her pointing her finger at lumumba.
Forensic evidence was already indicating there was a black man involved. Amanda has a key to the place, she sent a message to her employer, ‘we’ll see each other later on (tonight)’ … and that man also happens to be black.
This aroused suspicion, and if someone believes a person is guilty it automatically puts them on the defense.
Amanda, a young girl, has already indicated she is not so in touch with reality, or the graveness of her own situation. This should be cause to alarm that she’s flaky, that what she says is likely gong to be said with naivete..
this does not conclude with “three people murdered meredith.”
Maybe this is why you are having trouble finding their motives…
May 4, 2009 at 2:37 pm
Just a footnote:
I mean to say that while the majority may think all 3 involved, it is also very very possible:
1) that the police knew there was a black man involved (because of the forensics)
2) They saw the messages between knox and lumumba that read: ‘Dont come to work” with a response: “ok, see you MORE LATER.” (tonight)
3) Amanda wanted to help and (naively) took responsibility for this role, by automatically assuming he was the killer becausethe police were questioning her about him… And because they were trying to understand what was going on between her and lumumba (since she could get him into the apartment) she naively put her head on the chopping block by volunteering herself as the source of knowledge. (remember how the friends said she seemed proud of finding the body.)
Her behavior is undoubtedly strange, but human behavior itself is strange, and not always understandable… but there is still no undisputable forensic EVIDENCE that outweighs Guede being the only one involved.
May 4, 2009 at 4:20 pm
RG’s defense strategy. This is pure supposition, I know nothing of RG’s trial and nothing of Italian law. Maybe Damiano can say whether this makes sense.
RG’s defense would be difficult in any court. So he takes the quick road, but does not cooperate because he does not want to admit guilt. Maybe there is still a way out. If RS and AK are convicted, he can appeal and have a second go. He can lessen or deny his involvement. If the couple are convicted there will still be a lot of questions unanswered and RG’s appeal may be heard. After the current trial is over all the cards of AK and RS will be on the table and he can mount a better defense.
If the couple are aquitted there will be outrage (I would hope, if the evidence is as damning as it seems), and again RG might have his acquittal heard.
May 4, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Hi Guys,
I’ve been away from the computer this weekend as I haven’t been overly well and am usually quite busy on the weekend. Bank holiday has been a bit of a washout, as it often is in the UK every year.
Thanks for the interesting comments and welcome to those that are commenting for the first time.
Shust, please go and read some more before making sweeping statements that are neither accurate nor sensible. Thanks for leaving your two cents but I do appreciate people leaving comments that are at least corroborate by the evidence we have so far. Amanda and Raffaele are not on trial because of some mean old puffed up prosecutor and the evidence against them seems to have more than justified Micheli’s decision to bring both to trial for the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher. Though I always welcome new commenters I also feel that this conversation will inevitably go nowhere which if I may forgiven for saying, is often precisely the point.
The conversation seems to have blossomed without me and I feel it would be rude to interject give my own two cents at this point.
I’m not sure what is happening to the comments but it seems they now allow you to comment to individual comments a bit confusing.
Anyone know what bits of the forensic evidence is up first and a question that has been bugging me for ages. What happened to Meredith’s keys?
May 4, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Thanks for reading my comment, but I have been keeping up with this case daily since the morning the murder was reported, so telling me to ‘go read more’ is just a deflection from my comments… I would argue that you should read more because you’ve mentioned before that Guede had no history of violence before this event… Which isnt true at all. According to news articles at the time of his arrest, he pulled a KNIFE on someone before. I’d say this is important information to know for a ‘web blogger’ interested in “true justice.”
And for the most part I have been/was leaning towards Knox and Sollecito being guilty, by the way… But I’m still waiting to hear anything conclusive except ‘Amanda behaved weird.’ God, what a scary witch hunting world it will be if this is grounds for prosecution.
The TRIAL has yet to present any damning evidence against them. Would you not agree??
Kokomani’s testimony?
A motive of satanic rituals?
Cartwheels at the police station?
Teenagers kissing?
Weird behavior, okay, yes.. But evidence???
Not. At. All…
Perhaps there’s DNA evidence, but the reliability is questionable. Guede is everywhere in that apartment. Where’s the other 2?
Guede’s refusal to testify because he’s scared he’ll be called a liar? (his changing account ended with him deciding that the other 2 were there.. ..They were never mentioned when he was first arrested….uhhh… alarms should be going off here)
So far, there has been no conclusive evidence put forth that these 2 were involved..
There’s only speculation that there was even more than one attacker. NO PROOF.
This is very important in any case where a person is concerned with the truth. Your blog is highly speculative. Speculating that THREE PEOPLE, (two of them who hadn’t known each other 3 months, the other, a drug dealing drifter who used knives on people before..) were ALL there collectively to specifically humiliate the victim, you’re speculative of this, and you’re speculative of their motivations, group dynamics, etc.
Speculation is just a distant relative of gossip and rumour, which I would argue is what has kept this case alive and prospering among ‘web journalists.’
If a person wants to believe they did it, then that person can only speculate, and will subjectively build a case to support the theory they came up with first. (it might even include satanic rituals.) Hard evidence, on the other hand is undisputable.. There’s no opportunity to write blogs speculating on whether or not hard evidence is true. This may be why Guede has no blogs arguing if he did it or not. We can all agree he probably did. So…. why are knox and Sollecito involved? Deductive logic takes us back to the Lumumba (forensic evidence of a black man) and the link to Knox (incorrect Italian message ‘i’ll see you later’ as in, tonight)
Since Lumumba is innocent, now all you have to go on for Knox (and even more for RS) is speculative, which is all that you are doing.
“Amanda and Raffaele are not on trial because of some mean old puffed up prosecutor and the evidence against them seems to have more than justified Micheli’s decision to bring both to trial for the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher.”
When did I say anything about that?
The only conclusive evidence against them that I’ve seen is their alibis, meaning their inconsistencies on where they were and what they were doing the night she was killed.
Were all three involved? Possibly. I respect your opinion, but your blog suggests that you’ve already tried and convicted them, and are not interested in true justice, but in the ‘fact that all three did it’ and now you need to ‘figure out how’ by theorizing like this is a Perry Mason tv show.
May 4, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Hi Shust,
Thanks for your clarification.
You wrote: “I would argue that you should read more because you’ve mentioned before that Guede had no history of violence before this event… Which isnt true at all. According to news articles at the time of his arrest, he pulled a KNIFE on someone before. I’d say this is important information to know for a ‘web blogger’ interested in “true justice.”
There has been a great deal of discussion regarding Guede’s supposed ‘history of violence’ yet it still remains that Rudy has no prior convictions for a violent offence. Rudy claims he had a knife in the nursery to protect himself from thieves and the incident you may be referring to with regard to Christian, I have read that Christian couldn’t actually identify Rudy and no charges were brought against him. It would be unfair to classify Rudy as a man with a history of violence as this simply is not true. No witnesses have come forward to state this is the case and this so called ‘fact’ remains, to this day an unsubstantiated media rumour. As is the supposed ‘fact’ that Rudy is a drug dealer.
You wrote: “And for the most part I have been/was leaning towards Knox and Sollecito being guilty, by the way… But I’m still waiting to hear anything conclusive except ‘Amanda behaved weird.’ God, what a scary witch hunting world it will be if this is grounds for prosecution.”
These are not grounds for prosecution and I would be seriously worried if I thought that this case was based entirely on Amanda behaving weird. As it stands there are over 20 pieces of forensic evidence linking Amanda and Raffaele to the murder of Meredith Kercher and though behavioural evidence alone cannot ensure someone stands trial, it does provide a useful insight for investigators. The police cottoned on to the odd behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele long before they had any sniff of Rudy Guede. Investigators are trained to look for suspicious behaviour, Amanda and Raffaele’s behaviour was extremely suspicious and not to mention callous. I’m not saying that kissing and hugging your boyfriend in the police station is a criminal offence but considering the circumstances it was strange and inappropriate behaviour that was noted by not only investigators but those close to Meredith.
You wrote: “The TRIAL has yet to present any damning evidence against them. Would you not agree??”
In a way I agree, simply because the DNA and forensic evidence has not yet been presented. This evidence will be crucial in ascertaining any individual level of involvement and I will reserve making any further comment on this issue until this part of the trial has been concluded. Kokomani’s testimony was utterly bizarre and I think he was perhaps a little too scatty to be put on the stand, nevertheless he claims he saw the breakdown truck and his phone was pinged in the vicinity. Kokomani probably saw something important that night its just a shame he can’t really express what precisely it was. The motive for satanic rituals has not been presented at trial, it was deemed silly by Micheli and has now been left alone. The cartwheels were a bit of a surprise and further suggestive that Amanda was behaving strangely. The trial has been conducted in chronological order so many people criticising have latched on to the behavioural evidence and assumed that’s all Mignini has, this couldn’t be further from the truth. I have been criticised for focusing too much on the behavioural evidence but I’m a psychologist and that’s what I’m trained to do. DNA evidence, though crucial and important is not my area.
The other two were to all intents and purposes ‘absent’ aside from a few bits of DNA that were accidentally ‘left behind’, please explain how Raffaele’s DNA ended up on Meredith’s bra clasp in a room he claims he never went in. DNA as one witness quite rightly noted is not like ‘pollen’ it doesn’t fly around the room and deposit itself in incriminating places. Amanda’s DNA was on the handle of the knife found in Raffaele’s apartment and the victim’s was on the tip. Meredith had never been to Raffaele’s apartment and when confronted with this evidence Raffaele made up a BS story about pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking. Telling indeed.
Of course my blog is speculative and I never claimed it was ‘the truth’ but extensive reading and research into this area only serves to encourage my belief that this was anything but a ‘lone wolf’ killer.
You wrote: “Were all three involved? Possibly. I respect your opinion, but your blog suggests that you’ve already tried and convicted them, and are not interested in true justice, but in the ‘fact that all three did it’ and now you need to ‘figure out how’ by theorizing like this is a Perry Mason tv show.”
I see no reason in debating this with you further as it seems you have already made up your mind about me and my blog. My blog will not influence the trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito one iota so why do you care whether I think they are guilty? In case you have forgotten, a young woman was brutally murdered and I for one think that the right people are on trial. Amanda Knox is not a victim, Amanda Knox has irreparably damaged her own credibility and she has lied.
In my experience, innocent people don’t lie.
May 4, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Time will tell what the trial brings, and I’m glad you agree with me that thus far there is no damning evidence against them. I’m also sorry that you think Kokomani is a credible witness, who just ‘couldnt clarify himself.’ You let him off so easy! Hmmm… psychologist, indeed…
Kokomani can have trouble ‘clarifying himself,’ he can ‘start rumours’ but you reject a ‘psychological analysis’ as to why Knox couldnt ‘clarify herself’ other than she can only be ‘lying because she was involved’… Everybody’s a psychologist these days, and you dont even need to be in the same room with the person!
And Kokomani can make a vague accusation, but then be ‘confused’ when he tries to back it up, which is essentially nothing other than him pointing a finger at someone who’s already accused.
But any accusation against Guede wielding knives and dealing drugs? Oh that’s just rumour. Let’s forget again that the girl was murdered with a knife and his hand prints on the wall… His use of knives is just rumour………..
I’m interested to hear more about these ’20 pieces of forensic evidence.’ When you look at the phillip markoff case, there’s conclusive evidence that the suspect is guilty, and only with a few pieces of physical evidence! …Knox has 20 pieces against her! Why are they still on trial???!! This trial should have ended weeks ago with evidence like that!
I look forward to when these 20 pieces are listed somewhere in all the news reports…
In this case there’s more evidence that the police at the beginning were looking for ‘a relationship of multiple attackers.’ The relationship was Lumumba and Amanda.
However, Lumumba was found innocent, this was a major blow to the case they **already thought they had solved.** The only relationship that’s proven to exist beforehand at this point is between knox and Sollecito. There’s no link between them and Guede, and there’s absolutely no understable motive for the attack. No motive. Therefore, you must rely soley on the evidence.
The evidence is that Guede is all over the apartment.
He even admitted to being there, but never gave any indication there were others involved, until he found out there were other suspects. This doesnt seem odd to you? Why in God’s name would he cover for them, if he is in dire need of a scapegoat? Especially cover for some girl who’s only been in Perugia for 3 months or so, and who has nothing on him the police dont already know. Alarm bells would be going off in your head if the media hadnt rushed to convict her so quickly.
Shouldnt he implicate by name the others to take the weight off of him, help the case, and get more leniency? He’s ALREADY ADMITTED HE WAS THERE. A logical decision at that point on the chessboard is to POINT the finger. He didn’t. Until… he knew they were accused.
He couldnt testify it beforehand, because
1) He didnt know they were supspects.
2) He was scared of being called a liar again.
He didnt want to cooperate because it didnt want to be caleld a liar again…. ahem…. This is a coward’s way of admitting “I made up the story about the other 2 once i found out you wanted them.” He couldnt stand trial and testify his claim… Okay… and you’re busy trying to ‘figure out’ how did all three do it?? .
Amanda has certainly destroyed her credibility, and this is why I think you should look closer and ask yourself if you are rushing to judgements based on her poor character choices. Liars are not the same things as murderers. Being the psychologist that you are, I’m sure you are aware that people can lie for many reasons.
I’m just looking at the evidence, this is how I will make my ‘conclusions’ as you called them in an earlier post.
May 4, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Shust, I’d like you to take a deep breath count to ten and calm down, you sound very loaded and accusatory. My qualifications and credentials will not be listed here and attacks on my profession are unfounded and rude.
Kokomani saw the breakdown truck and his phone was pinged in the vicinity of the cottage, these are on the record and it doesn’t sound like the guy was particularly sober that night. I’m not trying to give him excuses.
Guede has no convictions for possession of drugs, dealing drugs or violence. Guede has no history of violence. Amanda’s camp love to proclaim how she is an innocent lamb with no history of violence and no convictions. Let’s do Guede the same courtesy shall we? Otherwise you risk looking like a hypocrite.
The DNA evidence will shortly be presented in court and I too am anxious to hear all about it, just like you. Until then I suggest you refrain from invalidating its significance. This is not the Phillip Markoff case.
People lie for all sorts of reasons but they should still be held accountable for them but I guess Amanda’s different huh? Her lies don’t matter.
*sighs*
May 4, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Hi Shust,
Amanda Knox admitted that she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have given multiple alibis and lied repeatedly. They still don’t have a credible alibi for the night of the murder. They both lied to the police from the very beginning when the postal police unexpectedly turned up at the cottage.
There isn’t an innocent explanation for Knox’s and Sollecito’s numerous lies. They both gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies, but huge, whopping lies.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito will be found guilty of murdering Meredith on the strength the forensic evidence alone.
Patrizia Stefanoni is quite unequivocal about the double DNA knife. She states it is Meredith’s DNA on the blade. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the scientific police in Rome, has provided independent confirmation that this forensic finding is accurate and reliable.
It should be noted that the double DNA knife had been cleaned with bleach and DNA was still extracted from a microscopic groove near the tip of the blade, which means the knife must have been saturated with Meredith’s DNA.
The other forensic evidence is just as damning:
There are at least three instances of Amanda Knox’s blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in the bathroom at the cottage. This will be very difficult for the defence lawyers to explain away. Perhaps, Knox had a bloody earring and maybe a drop landed on a drop of Meredith’s blood, but in three different places?
An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Patrizia Stefanoni and Dr. Renato Biondo have categorically excluded the possibility of contamination. This key piece of forensic evidence won’t be considered in a vacuum, but will be placed into context. Meredith’s bra was removed quite some time after she had been killed.
It makes no sense for Rudy Guede to have gone go back to the cottage to alter the crime scene in order to mislead investigators. Judge Paolo Micheli rightly concluded that the only person who had an interest in tampering with the crime scene, including staging the break in, was Amanda Knox.
Incidentally, Raffaele Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Francesco Vinci, claimed that he had found Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra.
The bloody footprints at the crime scene also implicate Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Knox’s footprint was set in Meredith’s blood in the hallway outside Meredith’s room. Another bloody footprint in the hallway and the one on the blue bathmat in the bathroom have been attributed to Sollecito. It’s blatantly obvious that the two bloody footprints, which match Sollecito’s foot size, are not Rudy Guede’s.
May 4, 2009 at 9:27 pm
Shust said; “She said something that translates into: ‘I will see you more later’ (ci vediamo piu tarde)(sic.d) NOT “see you later.” (ci vediamo doppo) (sic.d)”
I don’t think this is relevant but these two Italian phrases mean the same thing.
Shust said “Guede’s refusal to testify because he’s scared he’ll be called a liar?” I think his lawyers (sorry, RG, cough, cough)in fact said that there was no point in him testifying because Micheli (and the prosecutors) had said he was a liar. I’m with you on this. It’s nonsense. He did lie and is a liar. It would have been better for him if he had told the truth.
Shust said; “you’ve mentioned before that Guede had no history of violence before this event… Which isnt true at all. According to news articles at the time of his arrest, he pulled a KNIFE on someone before.” As Miss R suggested, I guess you’re talking about Christian.(??) This witness was always a bit suspect to me. Micheli also cast doubt on what this man said and didn’t include his testimony when he found RG guilty and sentenced him to thirty years in prison. (A just decision in my opinion.)
Shust said; ” But I’m still waiting to hear anything conclusive except ‘Amanda behaved weird.” Me too. I think some of the witnesses have cast considerable doubt on their alibis though, even if some of the ‘key’ ones seem to have sprung some disappointing surprises on the prosecution. The forensic evidence will be decisive.
Hi philc. In Italy, there is always a series of trials. AK and RS for example will have three. The decision at the the end of this ‘first grade’ trial will not be definitive. It will become so only after the appeal (second grade) and then that will have to be confirmed by the high court (third grade). If you take the shortened trial, your appeal is much more limited than it would be if you opt for the full trial. I’d like to point out that the three are accused of ‘concorso in omicidio’. Basically, this means that they are suspected of taking somekind of active role in a series of events which led to somebody’s death. (In order to be acquitted, if they initially participated, they would have had to have intervened in order to interrupt this series of actions) In terms of the law, whoever dealt the fatal blow is not considered in anyway ‘more guilty’ than the others. With all the evidence against RG, I don’t quite see how he could ‘lessen’ his involvement. That said, sentences are often changed at appeal, often for reasons which are difficult to understand. His trial however was largely based on the ‘file’. This won’t change much in his appeal. I think what you suggest might be more probable in a ‘processo di revisione’ which would happen after the appeal if new and important evidence comes to light. I’d have to read up a bit in order to answer your question better.
(OT/ If anyone is following the news, they might have a better understanding of some of my views on Italy. This news has not been reported on Italian TV and since nobody reads the papers here, it’s as if it doesn’t exist. Things here stopped surprising me a while ago but the fact that Silvio’s wife saying her husband ‘frequents under-age girls’ was not reported on national TV, kind of made me pause for thought. Sorry for going OT. No need to respond to this here but I would urge you to read up on it elsewhere.)
May 4, 2009 at 9:28 pm
I appreciate your concern for my wellbeing. I counted to ten, thanks for the advice.
“Kokomani saw the breakdown truck and his phone was pinged in the vicinity of the cottage, these are on the record and it doesn’t sound like the guy was particularly sober that night.”
Well Lumumba’s phone was also ‘pinged’ in the area that night… according to some reports at the beginning of the trial.
This is not conclusive of anything other than Lumumba might have been in the area that night… of course.
That this albanian guy was also maybe not sober makes me wonder why he’s even pulled as a witness. Doesnt it make you wonder?
It looks like they are reaching for straws to find a connection between the 3, since it emerged that Guede was most certainly involved, and they’d already announced Sollecito and Knox as suspects (just like Lumumba was!), then these 3 people must have killed meredith.
“Guede has no convictions for possession of drugs, dealing drugs or violence. Guede has no history of violence.”
Actually there was an accusation when he was apprehended that Guede pulled a knife on someone in the past. I havent seen much else from it, likely because he took the fast track trial. Regardless, it’s his bloody handprint is on the wall, and I find this to be evident of violent tendencies. Writing a story about rape indicates fantasy, as does collecting comics, but not an indication of violent tendencies.
” Amanda’s camp love to proclaim how she is an innocent lamb with no history of violence and no convictions. Let’s do Guede the same courtesy shall we? Otherwise you risk looking like a hypocrite.”
How does me pointing to the evidence that Guede is a violent person make me a hypocrite?
“The DNA evidence will shortly be presented in court and I too am anxious to hear all about it, just like you. Until then I suggest you refrain from invalidating its significance.”
Umm, I’m just commenting on your speculative blog that’s already validating your conviction before the trial is over…
“People lie for all sorts of reasons but they should still be held accountable for them but I guess Amanda’s different huh?”
Not at all. A person should be held responsible for their lies, the same way a murderer should. Don’t confuse the two. Knox and Sollecito are not on trial for lying, they are on trial for murder. It’s very possible they changed their story in order to satisfy the interogators, but this doesnt mean they had something to hide.
Although Knox’s confession is profoundly incriminating, it doesnt read like someone who’s evading a crime or admitting to it. It reads like someone who thinks she is helping the police, but it appears to be in a very very naive, fantastical, and immature way. But perhaps I just dont understand psychology.
This may not be the Markoff case, but maybe there were also 3 people involved in that brutal murder? Since , you know, he’s the only one who left any evidence.
May 4, 2009 at 9:36 pm
“I don’t think this is relevant but these two Italian phrases mean the same thing.”
They dont mean the same thing. “piu tarde” isnt the common expression, it can indicate a specific time. “doppo” means ‘after’ but in italian its used the same way we use “see you later” in english.
“As Miss R suggested, I guess you’re talking about Christian.(??) This witness was always a bit suspect to me.”
Possibly, but it is an accusation that seems quite relevant. Again, it’s his bloody handprint on the wall.
May 4, 2009 at 9:42 pm
What i meant is that by using the phrase ‘piu tarde’ instead of ‘doppo’, it’s possible the police believed the 2 had a meeting planned that evening since also, Lumumba said ‘you dont have to come to work tonight.’
and so she wrote: ‘Ci vediamo piu tarde…’
This isnt the way italians typically say ‘see you later’ in general time.
Italians would typically say ‘ci vediamo doppo’ if they meant tomorrow, or next week, or whenever…
combined with the evidence it was a black man involved, and his message about not coming to work that night could certainly have aroused suspicion, since knox was also the first at the scene of the crime.
such pressure could very lead to the kind of interrogation in which an impressionable and naive young person might incriminate themselves out of fear or any other trauma induced emotion.
May 4, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Hi Harry Rag..
Yes I agree on some of your points. Knox definitely dug herself deep, and Sollecito seems to have as well. Throughout most of this, I have suspected all three as playing a part. However, since the trial began, I haven’t seen anything that is conclusive.
Some of the DNA evidence against the two of them seems shaky, and the letter she wrote that puts her at the crime scene also states that lumumba was there.
So what makes her letter so credible then?
Logic dictates that if you use her letter as ‘basis of truth to make a conclusion’ then what she writes in that letter will all be true.
But if Lumumba is found innocent, and she indicates him and her being at the apartment, and you state that she told the truth, then the whole basis of your logic is unusable.
Therefore, we can reason that it’s more possible that she is not telling the truth in her letter, since there’s no possibility that these two proposed realities can coexist.
Furthermore, we cannot use her letter as any indication of what happened. And we cannot use her stories as any indication of her whereabouts. This doesnt make her a murderer, it makes her unreliable. All the more reason to discredit any of her personal statements.
There’s no provable motive. So what’s left?
This forensic evidence. But is this conclusive? The suspect lived in the same apartment as the victim.
And how is it ‘blatantly obvious’ that the footprint doesnt belong to Guede?
I’m interested in seeing how the case plays out with the evidence, because everything else i’ve been reading on these blogs is overly speculative.
May 4, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Shust, Like I said, it’s not relevant but you’ve got that wrong. You said; “They dont mean the same thing. “piu tarde” isnt the common expression, it can indicate a specific time. “doppo” means ‘after’ but in italian its used the same way we use “see you later” in english.” The fact that you’ve written three Italian words and got two of them wromg might indicate that you’re not quite sure what you’re saying and that you don’t speak Italian. What you say is both wrong and irrelevant. I sense you might not believe me but I’m leaving it there, for what it’s worth.
Ciao.
May 4, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Hi Shust,
When Amanda Knox found out that Raffaele Sollecito was no longer providing with her an alibi, she very tellingly didn’t dispute Sollecito’s claim that she wasn’t at his apartment, but admitted she was at the cottage. That is what is very significant about her handwritten note to the police.
Amanda Knox, like Rudy Guede, changed her story to fit new facts. The police knew that Knox wasn’t at Sollecito’s apartment on the night of the murder. Knox acknowledged that this was true, but then lied in order to protect herself and falsely accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith.
The preliminary judge, Claudia Matteini, noted that there were elements of truth in Knox’s statement.
A couple of witnesses have corroborated what Knox wrote in her letter. Knox claimed that she went to Piazza Grimana and Antonio Curatolo claims he saw there too. Knox wrote about blocking her ears when she heard Meredith screaming. Nara Capezzali described how she heard a “blood curdling” scream on the night of the murder. Rudy Guede claims Amanda Knox was at the cottage. There are also 7 separate pieces of forensic evidence that also place Knox at the crime scene that evening.
The forensic evidence against Knox and Sollecito isn’t shaky. On the contrary, Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the scientific police, provided independent confirmation that the forensic findings are accurate and reliable.
All the bloody footprints were measured by the scientific police. There were two bare bloody footprints that clearly weren’t Guede’s or Knox’s. You should check out Kermit’s excellent powerpoint presentation about the footprints on TJMK.
May 4, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Miss Represented, the TV news carried an item with Amanda’s father saying that the reason his daughter did splits and a cartwheel was at the behest of a policeman with whom she was talking about her interest in gymnastics.
Regarding Amanda fingering Lumumba, I can’t help but conclude that this wasn’t something that she freely gave up, but it was extracted during a 14 hour interragatory marathon without counsel. You don’t have to waterboard to get people to give you what you want, evn though it isn’t true.
Was the window too Meredith’s room broken out or in?
May 4, 2009 at 11:31 pm
Damiano
Why do you believe Rudy has poor representation ? What mistakes have they made in the case? If someone has had a criminal record in Italy are they allowed to use it against them or bring it up in court?
May 4, 2009 at 11:45 pm
Hi Barry,
Amanda Knox was questioned for approximately 3 hours. However, I’m pleased that you didn’t claim that Amanda Knox was beaten or questioned without an interpreter. It seems those two myths have finally been put to bed.
Six witnesses, including three interpreters, have testified under oath that Amanda Knox voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith. Amanda Knox didn’t retract her false and malicious accusation the whole time Diya Lumumba was in prison.
I’d be very careful about quoting Curt Knox. He’s hardly an objective or reliable source of information.
May 5, 2009 at 12:19 am
I just asked a few of my friends who go to Stanford for psychology whether they thought you were a real psychologist. They think you’re lying. I’m still not sure.
May 5, 2009 at 12:36 am
Hi Harold,
Did your “friends” who go to Stanford explain why they thought Miss Represented was lying. Did they read all of Miss Represented’s articles and get back to you with specific details that proved that she was lying? The fact that you haven’t provided any proof to support their opinion is very telling.
I look forward to reading the evidence to back up their claims. However, I won’t hold my breath.
May 5, 2009 at 12:40 am
I have known my fair share of psychologists; many of them less astute and far less articulate than Miss R. Also, her postings have been very thorough, very probing, and even if she had no credentials whatever – which is clearly not the case – I would have found them illuminating and informative. There is really no reason for this kind of bickering, is there?
May 5, 2009 at 12:55 am
If you want I can ask them to post here why. Can’t promise they will. We all went to Stanford for undergrad together and they were psychology majors and they both stayed to get their masters. I emailed them two posts I found somewhat dubious today. Here is what one wrote back, copied and pasted from my email:
“Hey man. I seriously doubt it. Basic elementary understanding at best. Just my two cents. Sounds like she just googled stuff. You coming down this summer?”
Could be just Stanford snobbery. Who knows?
May 5, 2009 at 1:15 am
hi miss r., hi damiano, hi shust,
The homeless witness (curatolo)
testified that he has spotted
ak and rs in piazza grimania during
the night of the murder – if his testimony was correct – where was rg? Why until now nobody cared about his whereabouts? By the way: the italian words are spelled “dopo” and “più tardi”
May 5, 2009 at 2:02 am
Miss Represented,
know that you have fans that look forward to your blog.
May 5, 2009 at 3:48 am
No 14 hour interrogatory — it is not true — she waited for Sollecito, her alibi was lost on the way, as in the other room Sollecito admitted that it was rubbish, and she had to explain this to the police, she created the Lumumba-story, to gain time — I think she knew exactly, because she was there, that it was Guede — it was a three hour talk turned into interrogation, after she lost her alibi — she voluntarily accompanied Sollecito to the station — learn your facts please, Barry T.
May 5, 2009 at 3:51 am
Harold, I am sorry, this “Hey man” guy seems not to be a “psychology major” either — the style of the letter is so sloppy and silly, anybody can write a letter like this — you coming down this summer?
May 5, 2009 at 3:53 am
Shust simply — judged by the unnecessary length of his/her letters, and the mechanically repeated, rather abstract arguments — is a troll
May 5, 2009 at 3:56 am
Shust seems to be a troll also judged by the many telling dots at the end of his/her phrases — these dots meaning, suggesting things, trying to ironize about serious things — it is a shame especially here at this blog, where Miss Represented is really trying her best to give explanations to things we can only guess (at this stage, at least).
May 5, 2009 at 4:17 am
Oh to have been a fly on the wall for this conversation. Probably went something like this;
Mauro Bacci (medical examiner): “We no longer have a murder weapon.”
Giuliano Migini (prosecutor): What the hell are you talking about, we have Sollecito’s knife.
Mauro Bacci: “The results came back, Sollecito’s knife doesn’t fit the wounds, well two of the three of them anyway”
Giuliano Migini: “That’s impossible, we have the murder weapon.”
Mauro Bacci:”It’s not the murder weapon.”
Giuliano Migini: “Yes it is! There … there … there must have been two knives then”
Mauro Bacci: “The killer didn’t need two knives, all three wounds are compatible with a flip-knife. The murderer only needed one knife.”
Giuliano Migini: “The murderer needed two knives, we need two knives.”
An ever-changing prosecution case, should get interesting.
May 5, 2009 at 4:39 am
Well, I’ll just have to live with that. Usually when sending emails I don’t expect a friend to write to me like I’m his college professor. I doubt he realized he was going to be graded on his professionalism in an email to a friend. Anyways, whoever runs this blog should get used to it. If you’re going to write on a high profile case and hold yourself out as a psychologist, you should actually be a psychologist. If the author wants to sue me, so be it. Here is my email: Harold125923@gmail.com. I’ll be happy to ask him for more detail and will gladly forward you whatever he writes (from his Stanford email address).
May 5, 2009 at 6:45 am
Hi Harold,
I didn’t expect your friends to support their opinion that Miss Represented is lying. The only person who is bluffing on this blog is you. I cringed when I read your “friend’s” e-mail. He(you) sounded like a character out of Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure. I feel embarrassed for you. You come across as a silly teenager trying to act grown up rather than a graduate in his 20s.
May 5, 2009 at 7:46 am
Well Harry, I can’t say I care what you think anyways. You seem like a very angry person. You might want to use google so you can diagnose whatever makes you so mad. I’m sorry you don’t like the way young americans speak, but you should really get over it. I feel sorry for you. Anyways, it’s obvious that this author got her information from google:
http://tinyurl.com/d3sl4a
You see Harry, most “experts” aren’t limited to whatever full text books are available on google. They have access to journals, periodicals, peers, and their education in order to gather information. Pseudo-psychologists truly make me cringe. It’s hard to post credentials when you don’t have any. I’m done posting here.
May 5, 2009 at 7:54 am
Hi Harold,
I know who you are, you’ve posted here under three different names and only once have you been ‘nice’. Congratulations at locating the reference I posted in the article online and I suspect you are not the first to go out and check it for yourself as I hope many do. I have subscriptions to many journals and there would be no point posting links to full articles I read online as without an (expensive) journal subscription my readers would not be able to verify my sources as the full articles would not be available. Needless to say you are so determined to ‘catch me out’ why do you have such a problem with this blog?
I see no reason why I should validate your obvious agenda and issue with me and my work by posting my name and credentials, perhaps you could start with yours?
Now stop being a bully and bugger off.
May 5, 2009 at 8:36 am
Harold
Why not try discussing the case instead of being so aggressive? You don’t come across as an academic in any sense at all with this approach, just like a rather over-negative board stalker. Go and lie down in a darkened room…
May 5, 2009 at 8:39 am
‘I see no reason why I should validate your obvious agenda and issue with me and my work by posting my name and credentials, perhaps you could start with yours?’
Quite.
‘Now stop being a bully and bugger off.’
HERE HERE!
May 5, 2009 at 8:51 am
It might be relevant. After all, this is a murder case and everything is relevant in a murder case.. This miscommunicated text could be relevant in understanding the order of events that lead to knox being a suspect.
“The fact that you’ve written three Italian words and got two of them wromg might indicate that you’re not quite sure what you’re saying and that you don’t speak Italian. ”
Allora, persona che non mi conosci, parlo italiano bene, grazie, e queste parole non sono lo stesso, va bene? “ci vediamo piu tarde” significa “more later” o ‘later on’ … L’uso di ‘doppo’ é qualcosa molte diferenza, come lo ho detto in inglese: “see you later” in generale… In inglese non dici “see you later on,” oppure ‘see you more later’ a meno che vuoi dire una volta specifica. Quindi, c’e un possibilita che c’era confusione e poi sospetto…. Parlo abbaztanza bene per te?
Cosa ho detto no e sbagliato in italiano, ma grazie per il tuo tentativo.
May 5, 2009 at 8:54 am
Thanks for that info. I’m still following the forensic evidence leads, being the skeptic that I am, I’m still looking for more conclusive information.. do you have a link to that power point presentation?
May 5, 2009 at 9:00 am
or maybe a fairy or dwarf or evil goblin? Wasting time to pull insults out of fairy tales has given me reason to ignore any more posts by you.
May 5, 2009 at 9:01 am
Thanks Bard, I was quite surprised when I woke up this morning and saw all these comments essentially attacking the blog for seemingly no good reason at all and quite delighted that so many stepped in and defended it, thanks to all.
This is not the first time we have seen ‘Harold’ and indeed there are a few others that post under several names thinking I am none the wiser. I’d like to politely request that people leaving comments choose a handle and stick to it, as it can be quite exhausting debating with a commenter who has several alter egos.
I am quite sure that Harold knows a psychologist. But the fact that he had to state this person was from Stanford university does indicate somewhat that he is bluffing, not that it really matters of course because he was simply trying to bate me into revealing more about myself by using the old ‘academic arrogance’ trick. He hoped that by attempting to ‘expose’ what he perceived as my ‘bogus’ credentials that I would be baited into telling him more about myself. Sorry to burst your bubble Harold but I’m not that cocky.
As for the mystery Stanford ‘expert’ let’s call him ‘Professor Know-it-all’, I’d seriously doubt the veracity of his claims. I’m fairly sure that if Harold did in fact have important academic friends at Stanford he wouldn’t be hanging around my blog making a tit of himself.
May 5, 2009 at 9:03 am
yes that’s correct, i have a bad habit of mispelling dopo. and dont have the time to change back and forth between english and italian keyboard for più. thanks for noting…
May 5, 2009 at 1:18 pm
I have not yet taken a position on this case. Although there exists media leaks that indicate DNA evidence against AK and RS, but these have not all been presented yet to my knowledge. The reason I am still on the fence in this case is I have yet to see a smoking gun.
I could see where there would be no DNA in the bedroom if the body was moved, but to only have Guede’s DNA on the body itself is a problem. DNA on the victim to me is a deal maker or breaker. I do not have the in depth psychological background to support the mind set or motive behind why someone would commit this crime. I am trying to remain as objective as possible because the media is guilty of sensationalism on both sides. Again, DNA on the victim herself to me is paramount in this case, if three people were involved in this murder, there would be more than Guede’s DNA on the victim. Also, in regards to the witness who claimed to have heard three people running in different directions, lets think about that for a moment. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone can actually distinguish three separate people running in different directions, especially after that amount of time to come forward. It’s likely that this witness had her memories influenced by the media’s coverage of the prosecutor’s theory.
Again, I am only trying to raise important questions while remaining neutral.
The mixed blood however is hard to ignore, but has this come out as evidence in the trial yet? Thanks and I really do enjoy your blog, especially the “sadist in the room”, I really support theories based on primal instincts in all events and actions of our lives.
May 5, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Miss R,
Thanks for your very interesting article.
My comments are based on what I have read from many sources, so I cannot confirm any truth.
I just want to comment on the three defendants connected to this case.
Guede was there. He confessed, he was convicted to 30 years. Why did he confess? Convicted to 30 years means, he could be released after a long time in prison. If he had been convicted to life, Italy´s life could mean life.
Guede being silent means, he has probably followed the advice of his excellent defence Biscotti. They are appealing, only one wrong word, could nail him to be the lonely wolf.
Sollecito, walking around with a knife, crying, he´s just a virgin, is a person whose personality, could have changed, after mother´s death. Knife is often connected to abuse of a child.
About Knox, she is clearly, a patient. Her jealousy of her mother´s toy boy has caused her mental problems.
Merdith being sexy and serious about her studies, was for Amanda a second shock after mother´s toy boy.
As a conclusion, I believe that Guede was not cleaning the house after the killing of Meredith, he was so nervous, he went dancing. So there are other suspected too.
Amanda´s story about having a shower in a house, with blood and broken windows? Must have been high in the morning as well.
Sollecito, calling her sister!!! Ha,ha,ha. 25 years ýoung and doesn´t know emergency calls. IT companies, have lost nothing.
May 5, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Hi Christina in Finland and welcome, thanks for your comment.
Considering what another poster Damiano recently said about Guede not taking all the legal advantages he could have it does seem that Biscotti may have a plan of sorts. I think it would be wise for Guede to keep quiet until the trial is over but then again I’m not a lawyer so it may be the wrong advice.
I have come across a great deal of people that are conflicted about Raffaele possibly because he has floppy hair, glasses and looks a lot younger than he actually is, this coupled with the recent admission that he was a virgin before he met Amanda could lead some to believe that he was in some way led astray by Amanda. I think Raffaele has a dark side too and no amount of playing up to the cutesy Harry Potter has convinced me so far.
I think you are absolutely right, Guede could not have been cleaning the cottage that night because he was seen by several witnesses in town dancing. As Micheli reasoned, who else would have the will or motivation but Amanda Knox? Amanda’s story was precisely that, a story and I’m fairly sure it caused a few raised eyebrows.
Sollecito wanted to put off calling the police for as long as possible and I think this indicates that the plan may not have been for him or Amanda to do it, but Filomena.
May 5, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Professional Credentials Necessary for a Good Crime Buff
What is all this malarkey about having to have professional credentials to speak your mind about a senseless murder? Our titan, Ralph Waldo Emerson, summed it up well:
“Every man I meet is in some way my superior; in that, I can learn from him.”
For some of you, the sad murder of MK has deeply affected you, and this is perhaps the first murder case you have closely followed. I should alert you, however, that the longer you spend analyzing this case, the more you risk freshly hatched fireflies soaring down new pathways, and a colorful quilted patchwork becoming pronounced in your mind. Once justice for MK has been accomplished, you may seek further stimulation of these novel thought processes. For some of us posting here, this sad murder is one of a series of murders we have followed over the years because we have succumbed, and been transformed into, one of those strange entities euphemistically referred to as a Crime Buff (sometimes called murder addicts, assassination whores, etc.). From my observations, there doesn’t seem to be a gender preference, formal education requirement, or chronological age, to become a good crime buff. It is an equal opportunity. One only needs to have an acute hunger to know what happened during a crime, and to ardently consider and try to understand why the crime occurred.
May 5, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Fantastic – after getting more & more angry reading the crap put forth by Shust & Harold this last comment re Harold making a tit of himself made me laugh out loud – a welcome diversion.
I’ve never been to this blog or posted before but have been following the case closely. I can’t believe the delusionary ramblings of some people – Amanda’s footprint in Meredith’s blood is constantly ignored by the halfwits whilst the bloody handprint of Rudy is mentioned repeatedly. Interesting to note that whilst Rudy did not previously have a criminal record, Amanda did!
DNA evidence is factual & not for us to interpret, please recognise it exists instead of conveniently ignoring it in your rants trollboys.
However the psychology behind this case is for us all to freely discuss and on my first visit here I am very impressed. Please keep up the good work Miss Represented.
It’s correct that AK and RS can’t be convicted on strange behaviour alone but I’m sure most of us would agree the police were right to be concerned about the couple found mopping the house whilst their (her) flatmate was missing, her bedroom door locked & her bathroom full of blood (although this didn’t deter Amanda from taking a shower).
Can I suggest as a final point that even if people disagree with the host of this blog or it’s guests, they put forth their opinions constructively and try to remember their manners. The personal attacks I’ve seen here and on other blogs/sites are unacceptable and inappropriate.
May 5, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Thanks to those who respond to my comments.
Indeed, no need to agree.
This case, due to the posting of Miss R´s on the horrible death of Meredith´s, was for me an awake call of the pain of the family of MK.
I have always posted only on the defendants, now I try to focus on Meredith and her family. A family having to have to read details about own daughter, being raped, almost strangled, held down by a Mr.XXGay,and the 3rd wolf with a knife. OMG, picking her.
The Kerchers are a strong family. I have no feelings toward Knox´s mother or her toy boy. The only who recently has got some kind of respect in my eyes, is Curt Knox. He at least seems to care. Recently he even expressed sorrow about MKs death.
What did the toy boy achieved by the brief encounter with Perugia LE? He just escaped, probably on the advice of Knox´s defendants.
May 5, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I am not sure what “qualifications” has to do with anything here. It seems to be a distraction. No one here is on the jury or is a judge so what does it really matter. Its only people’s opinions and thoughts being expressed.
May 5, 2009 at 3:00 pm
P.S.
If I am Christina Helsinki or Christina Kari, I am the same. Just not so used to hide myself. So Christina Helsinki, is better. You all then will realize that what is happening outside Finland, has the same value for us.
May 5, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Hi guys,
Greggy thanks as always for your intelligent and succinct viewpoint it is always appreciated.
Christina Helsinki, I too feel deeply for the Kercher family and they have been unbelievably strong throughout this whole ordeal. I recently saw a picture of Curt Knox outside the house leaning on the fence and looking quite literally devastated I could not help feeling sorry for him, though he still has his daughter John and Arline Kercher have lost their daughter forever.
Notreadytomakenice, you are absolutely right, qualifications serve no purpose here other than for the purposes of dick measuring which some of you may have noticed I have no interest in.
May 5, 2009 at 3:10 pm
What an exhausting read!! For once and for all lets just say we each are allowed our own opinions.
Shust- if you are so angered by what you read here just don’t come here. Just as I don’t go to Franks blog because I cannot understand his point of view on the case maybe you should stay away from Miss R’s. The point you make over and over again about the text has never been an issue here to make us believe Amanda’s guilt so you can go on about misinterpretting and spelling til you are blue in the face but its a moot point. One question I do have is what forensic evidence pointed to a black man being there in the days after the murder? I wasn’t aware there was such a thing as ‘black evidence’, although I may be wrong.
May I suggest people looking for evidence etc go to TJMK rather than here as, as Miss R states, she is not a forensic expert but is looking at the murder from a pyschological perspective.
I look forward to your next post Miss R- and yes the bank holiday was a wash out, but how nice was Saturday??!!!
May 5, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Sorry I put my first ever post in the wrong place – I’ll get the hang of it. Excellent, respectful & informative site. Thank you.
May 5, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Hi Brown Eyed Girl
I don’t think you did actually but welcome! WordPress seems to be doing this new thing whereby comments are being posted underneath other comments and slightly breaking up the flow of the discussion. Thanks for your comment and the message of support, Harold made me laugh too he really was being a twit.
Hey Ginny, agreed, opinions are one thing but insults are another and Harold & Shust seemed to be full of them. The bank holiday was a bit of a washout especially in the west country (as it often is).
May 5, 2009 at 3:57 pm
I have not yet taken a position on this case. Although there exists media leaks that indicate DNA evidence against AK and RS, but these have not all been presented yet to my knowledge. The reason I am still on the fence in this case is I have yet to see a smoking gun.
I could see where there would be no DNA in the bedroom if the body was moved, but to only have Guede’s DNA on the body itself is a problem. DNA on the victim to me is a deal maker or breaker. I do not have the in depth psychological background to support the mind set or motive behind why someone would commit this crime. I am trying to remain as objective as possible because the media is guilty of sensationalism on both sides. Again, DNA on the victim herself to me is paramount in this case, if three people were involved in this murder, there would be more than Guede’s DNA on the victim. Also, in regards to the witness who claimed to have heard three people running in different directions, lets think about that for a moment. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone can actually distinguish three separate people running in different directions, especially after that amount of time to come forward. It’s likely that this witness had her memories influenced by the media’s coverage of the prosecutor’s theory.
Again, I am only trying to raise important questions while remaining neutral.
The mixed blood however is hard to ignore, but has this come out as evidence in the trial yet? Thanks and I really do enjoy your blog, especially the “sadist in the room”, I really support theories based on primal instincts in all events and actions of our lives
May 5, 2009 at 5:19 pm
From Harold:
“If you want I can ask them to post here why. Can’t promise they will. We all went to Stanford for undergrad together and they were psychology majors and they both stayed to get their masters. I emailed them two posts I found somewhat dubious today. Here is what one wrote back, copied and pasted from my email:
“Hey man. I seriously doubt it. Basic elementary understanding at best. Just my two cents. Sounds like she just googled stuff. You coming down this summer?”
Could be just Stanford snobbery. Who knows?”
Not that I want Harold to return or anything, but I’m just catching up on all the posts here. Miss Represented, you should be VERY WORRIED that two graduate students in PSYCHOLOGY at STANFORD think you are “lying” about your credentials. I’m sure that as GRADUATE STUDENTS IN PSYCHOLOGY at STANFORD they must be extremely well trained in assessing the validity of anyone’s credentials in PSYCHOLOGY, a subject they have studied for at least a couple of years at the undergraduate level. They have naturally been exposed to the entire field of psychology and have spent much time in the company of practitioners, whether clinical psychologists, university professors who teach psychology, practicing psychotherapists, psychiatrists, Freudian and Jungian analysts… and I am just skimming the surface here.
Why, I studied some psychology in college myself and I can tell you for sure that by the age of 21 I had learned enough to be able to make snap judgements about most things and people. With the benefit of hindsight, I thought it was because of my age and not my extensive knowledge of all things related to psychology, the study of. But Harold and his Stanford buddies have made me do a serious rethink.
And like I say, be very worried Ms. R.:D
May 5, 2009 at 5:30 pm
i dont remember ever bringing my emotions into this. try to be objective.
i only made the point about the text more than once because people responded to it,,,, naturally. I dont know where you found your crystal ball that tells you I am blue in the face, but someone at the magic shop duped you. Try to get back on track. Regardless, I’m not trying to convince anyone of Amanda’s guilt. I wouldnt pretend to be so certain she was involved or not.
” she is not a forensic expert but is looking at the murder from a pyschological perspective.”
“she” is certainly not an expert in either of these areas. “she” is a web blogger speculating… And that’s okay.
May 5, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Why do ‘you two’ keep brown nosing each other? It’s almost like narcissus, staring at himself in the mirror. Hmm…
May 5, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Shust – don’t be so bloody rude. It’s unnecessary and unpleasant.
Just to clarify – I have posted for the first time today on a site I have visited for the first time today. (Your rantings and inaccuracies prompted me to do this). To suggest therefore that I “keep” doing something is ludicrous.
For info I have never “brown nosed” anybody in my life. Nor have I ever tolerated anybody’s bullying or lying. I don’t take kindly to people making offensive comments from the safety of sitting behind a computer screen, I think it’s a cowardly practice.
Your personal attacks and insults are unnecessary and frankly tedious. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and if it’s not the same as yours – live with it. Vive la difference!
Make your comments about the case or the items being discussed but keep your personal insults to yourself. I commented broadly and at no point made a personal attack on you.
I didn’t for example call you a complete arsehole, that would have been terribly rude.
May 5, 2009 at 6:17 pm
sometimes blogs turn into childish BS that loose focus of the topic at hand, good job people.
May 5, 2009 at 6:17 pm
lose
May 5, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I agree, heartily, and would like to thank Miss R for having illuminated RS’s character a bit more for me. I was missing his “dark side” and seeing too much of the “Harry Potter persona” as depicted in the American media. And upon further reflection, were he as “lost” and innocent as all that, it is unlikely that he would have been moved to participate in any way in such a crime.
May 5, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Hi Jim – it takes quite a lot of courage after following the case for months to finally join in the discussions. I didn’t expect to be subjected to childish comments from a total stranger – I was taken aback & stood up for myself. Apologies if I’ve offended anyone other than Shust. I’ll go back to being a silent follower as I don’t like being judged by people I don’t know.
Ginny your posts here and elsewhere are virtually word for word what I would write & your compassion always shines through.
Miss R I would like to know your thoughts on the odd behaviour given by AK’s own admission – such as why anybody would take a shower in a house that looks like it’s been burgled, in a bathroom with blood in it, and why they wouldn’t immediately flush the toilet in annoyance at somebody else’s apparent inconsideration (seems the evidence of Rudy’s presence was left deliberately). Apologies if this has been covered already.
I’ll continue to read the blog and follow the comments and desperately hope the truth comes out soon and that justice is done for lovely Meredith.
May 5, 2009 at 6:36 pm
I was speaking about all of the comments, not just the one where you defend yourself
May 5, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Hi, Brown Eyed Girl: Just so you know, my agreement with Jim – and I assumed he meant this as well – was with all the nonsense that had come prior. I did not blame you one bit for defending yourself, and becoming irritable. I was beginning to feel a bit the same! ( It is a shame you had to arrive when this was going on; I’ve been following this blog site for many, many weeks, and had never encounter these tiffs before, as most are very polite and thoughtful. ) Your comments are great; hope you do NOT remain silent! And welcome aboard…
May 5, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Jim
What about the bloody shoeprint size 36 to 38? I think you have not followed the information, yes from the media. As far as I have understood, the real damning information, based on forensics, is just coming. DNA of Sollecito on MK´s bra and Knox´s DNA on a knife with MK´s on the blade will be very significant. In the State of Washington, somebody could face DP, without a chance to accuse LE for contamination of DNA!
May 5, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Hi Brown Eyed Girl, you haven’t offended me that’s for sure, I like you do not appreciate rudeness, please continue to comment here. Thank you for joining in the discussion. My thoughts on Amanda’s odd behaviour…
First thing that struck me especially in the email sent to her family and friends was the way she ‘walked them through’what she ‘found’ almost as if she were trying to validate her ‘discovery’ in some way. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to take a shower when they had arrived home and found the front door open, blood in the bathroom etc especially seeing as how she could have showered as RS’s place. Then the faeces in the toilet, I like you would have been rather peeved at that and probably flushed it straight away but I also would have thought ‘hang on a minute my house mate Meredith is NOT the sort of person that would leave that floating in the toilet’, alarm bells would have rung the minute I walked into that house and I would have got out and called the police. I’m sure Amanda knew the faeces was there and that the window was broken. Most of her email and version of events is, I believe a poor attempt at explaining the things that she ‘found’.
Skep, that was very funny and echoes my thoughts completely! What a muppet, an F for effect and maybe a C for effort, poor Harold, he needs to try harder next time.
Shust, please play nicely.
May 5, 2009 at 7:05 pm
I meant no harm, just wanted to keep the convo on track
May 5, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Thanks for the warm welcome Miss R & SMK. Jim I meant no harm either – sorry just a bit over sensitive being a newbie! I’ve seen this a lot on other sites where an interesting exchange gets going & one of the bickering FOA egomaniacs piles in & their whole raison d’etre is to derail the discussions so I won’t give in so easily now!
Miss R I too think the e-mail is weird & reads like a carefully constructed play. I would be too upset to talk about it let alone e-mail 23 people with my version of events.
I’ve been following & haunted by this case for ages. In the 90′s I dropped out of a French degree (despite having done 2 years of it) when I went to France for my exchange year and it was a diabolical mess. The arrangements for the course were awful & the accommodation was down to me alone which was 3 times the cost of UK student accom so my only options were very seedy. When I returned & campaigned for better arrangements as I believed sending girls of 21 to major cities in a foreign country alone was at best scary and at worst dangerous I was told it was a sink or swim situation and I wasn’t strong enough. I was furious & spurred on to pursue the case with the VP of the Uni & eventually won. There aren’t enough halls or enough English speakers for the foreign exchange inductions so most of my friends lived in hovels for a fortune and hated it, others were really well placed & had a ball. Even before the dreadful night, Meredith lived in a house where the door didn’t lock properly & undesirables lived in the park opposite. Why wasn’t she living with the other English students from Leeds, and why do these schemes not include a guaranteed place in a halls of residence where there is security – the year abroad should be treated like the Fresher year here where ideally you get priority on safe accommodation. I know this wouldn’t change anything for the Kerchers but it incenses me to see a lot of the same mistakes still happening all these years later.
I also had a weird, jealous, promiscuous housemate at uni – similar to the one Ginny described earlier. We started as new best mates but differences quickly became apparent. She was from a privileged background, well educated & her family adored her but she was often worried about AIDS & pregnancy but not even sure who or how many she’d been with in a few days. If I gently made any effort to advise on some of the things she was doing to put herself in danger she’d turn very nasty & accuse me of judging her and of being holier than thou. Things came to a head when we were no longer in halls with our own locked rooms and security guards & we lived in a shared house & she brought guys home all the time. One night another flatmate had to use a rape alarm to get my attention to get one of the bloke’s mates (massive rugby player) out of her room and 3 of us had to lure him out of the house to pretend to go & see his car then we locked up & rang for help. We had it out with her but she couldn’t recognise that her behaviour was selfish & she was furious, branded us all as prudes, moved out a week later and never spoke to any of us again. Sorry this is long winded but it struck such a chord with me that AK told people MK was a kind friend & advised her on men & things & I think she resented it and the advice drove her up the wall and she saw MK as a goody twoshoes (spelling?) who was getting in the way of her wild year away from home.
Weird things that niggle me are did anyone see her when she claims to have walked in broad daylight from her house to RS flat with a mop to clean his flooded floor? I would notice that. She claims to have washed & dried her hair before raising the alarm and always looks very well groomed in court and pre-Italy photo’s yet she looks like she’s been dragged through a hedge backwards in the photo’s outside the house just after Meredith was found.
Sorry it’s so long.
May 5, 2009 at 8:16 pm
I’ve never really followed the logic that if you do not like what you are reading here than go away, go to Frank’s blog. Or the idea of writing opposing thoughts and having people say go elsewhere. If people with differing ideas only deal with blogs that reflect their opinion than it seems to me to be preaching to the choir, and this goes for both sides of the debate. What is the harm in throwing out points for debate, requesting further clarification etc. Why does it seem whenever their is an opposing opinion the gut reaction is to say “go away”.
May 5, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Thanks for that post, Brown eyed girl: That is very enlightening, and makes one see clearly how these problems with living abroad, and the conflict of character with diverse types of students, carries the potential to turn into something deadly. The girl who branded you all “prudes” no doubt was bothered also by the idea that you might just be correct, and some inner conflict of hers may have been sparked. In Amanda’s case, this took a terrible twist.
May 5, 2009 at 8:21 pm
PS I think the business of “go away” was NOT from differing opinions, but from personal attacks and general nastiness and being confrontational. I would agree that differing opinions are always welcome for the most part, here and elsewhere. SMK ( my gmail would not work in log in, for some reason, so am posted under a different account–not meaning to switch identities on anyone!)
May 5, 2009 at 8:22 pm
Hi Martin. You raise an interesting point. I think RG’s whereabouts before the murder is very important. I also believe that nobody knows for sure where he was. What we do know however is that he lied about this. He said that he went to his friend’s house but his friend said this wasn’t true. (You’d have thought his lawyers would have checked this out, wouldn’t you?)
With regard to Toto’s testimony, if it’s true, I still think it’s more likely that he’s talking about the 31st. This would fit with lots of people being about, the painted faces and costumes, the buses going off to the discos, the lack of rain, etc. In fact, the prosecutor believes that somekind of plan was hatched for that night. I think this theory is based on both the messages exchanged between AK and Meredith and Toto’s testimony. Here’s what La Nazione reported on 20/10/2008;
“Meredith could have died on the evening of Oct 31st because that night was favourable for a ‘sexual rite’ in accordance with the traditions of Halloween. For this reason, according to the police, Amanda, who is believed to be both the instigator of the crime and the person who carried it out, was looking for Meredith and sent her numerous sms messages. At 7 pm, Meredith responded to her flatmate, “…I have to go to a friend’s house for dinner.” The student from Seattle persisted, “What are you doing tonight? Do you want to meet up? Have you got a costume?” She then said that she was going to Le Chic “maybe we’ll see each other.”
However, the house wasn’t free – the young Italian women were having dinner there – and Meredith spent the whole evening with her English friends. “Amanda (and Raffaele) tried to meet Meredith on the evening of Halloween and this explains their position of observation on the steps near via della Pergola overlooking the house, as described by Curatolo,” says the public prosecution.”
Obviously, the court will pass judgement but for me, it makes more sense that he was talking about the night before the murder.
Hi Mami. With regard to RG’s lawyers, I wouldn’t add much to what I wrote in this thread (comments 6,7,22,30.), apart from the fact that Micheli’s report was a devastating indictment of his defence. Oh yeah, one other thing; maybe he received good legal advice and then chose to ignore it. This sometimes happens and for me would be the only possible saving grace for his lawyers. If true though, why would RG want to spend more time than needed in prison? Also, would his crack team still be able to pedal his crap poetry/letters and make TV appearances if their man had told the truth and admitted his guilt?
May 5, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Greggy,
Very well said. It’s something I’ve mused on lately (being previously virginal in this genre of obsession) and I believe it’s also something that needed to be said in regard to our rights to free speech. I hardly think the regular participants on this particular forum [Sorry, Miss R!! It’s really your blog, not our forum!) tend to be abusive in their use of free speech when compared to some of the drop ins who want to berate us about it.
So, thanks.
dd
May 5, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Hi Brown Eyed Girl, thanks for the interesting story.
When I was in my first year of uni I made friends with these three girls, two of them were slightly overweight and dowdy the other was tall, slim and very attractive (but didn’t know it). Within weeks they became the best of friends and I soon joined them as a kind of fourth wheel.
It did seem that they really didn’t get on with another girl on their corridor who was tall, slim and pretty like Meg and they used to look down on her for what they perceived were her faults , like opening her door wearing only a bra and a pair of pants, farting and burping loudly and smoking weed in her room. I became intrigued by this girl and her wacky sense of humour, she was so much more interesting than them we ended up becoming very good friends but they absolutely hated her and resented me for giving her a chance, they thought she was a promiscuous and lazy waste of space, I thought she was great and she didn’t care what they thought about her, she had friends and most of what they said about her wasn’t true anyway.
I think having someone to support her and stick up for her really helped and she wasn’t promiscuous at all but someone spread it around. I don’t think Amanda really had many friends in Perugia and probably even less that were female, if Meredith really was making her feel bad about her behaviour, loneliness and a lack of a stable influence or support network may well have exacerbated things and then we throw the seemingly disturbed Raffaele into the mix….
May 5, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I don’t know much about computers and the like, but may I suugest people write their comments in the box at the bottom of the thread instaed of clicking on ‘reply’ to a specific comment? It might make things a bit easier to follow.
May 5, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Damiano: I think you are correct.
May 5, 2009 at 8:40 pm
I’ll second that, it is getting a bit confusing, the problem I have is from the wordpress admin panel, clicking on ‘reply’ to a comment (which you have to do if you want to make one internally) means it goes under the comment you clicked ‘reply’ to.
May 5, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Hello, first time posting. I have been following the case for about a month. I am anxiously awaiting the DNA evidence to come out, hopefully this weekend. One question I have: Did RG, AK & RS lock the door and run after the initial scream, if so, how did RS & AK get back into the room to move the body and do staging.
I apologize if this has been brought up, maybe why MR is wondering what happened to MK keys.
Very informative site on the physiological aspects of this case. Thank you.
May 5, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Hi Pacific NW girl and welcome, I too am awaiting the DNA evidence and expect to see one or two surprises!
I’m not sure if there will ever be a way to answer your question for sure, simply because the only people that could tell us are so far refusing to say a word.
I would like to know what happened to Meredith’s keys and suspect that either AK or RS took them when they locked/unlocked the room with Meredith inside it.
May 5, 2009 at 10:12 pm
If AK and RS were responsible I would suspect that the keys and other incriminating evidence like blood stained clothing, shoes, Meredith’s credit cards etc were dumped somewhere between the crime scene and Raffs flat.
If I was trying to hide such items I would bin bag them and hide them half way down some unsuspecting persons bin. Of course there are a million and one places that they could have been dumped or buried.
May 5, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Jim, I think you will find this those most polite and ‘on topic’ site about the case anywhere online! Have a look at previous threads.
MR – You’re cool.
May 5, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Hi miss represented!
Since one week now I am looking for all kind of informations about this case, reading all articles I find on the net and finally I’ve seen the US-documentary “italian girl – american nightmare”. Let you know that I am from Switzerland. I am not blinded by US-documentaries, but neither I trust in “Berlusconi”‘s state system…
It is a really complexe case and I find it very difficult to figure out the truth. On the one side, you have this young american girl, who actuates very unemotionally and cold after the murder, but who was very estimated in the US and acted there like everybody’s darling. Europe and Perugia seemed to let her realize her fantasies and libertyness…
On the other side, you have this Mignini, who is neither a person you could trust blindly. The episode with Preston and also that he is accused of abuse of power.
Let me put some facts and please confirm or correct them!
1. Mignini got Amanda to change her version of what happened that night, after insisting that the sms she had written to Lumumba meant they would see each other again this evening/night. And this because Mignini was convinced that Amanda, Lumumba and Raffaele had planned to realize this orgy. Then, when Lumumba got innocent, they got Guede and he would replace place for place Lumumba’s role in the version of Mignini.
2. Guede was accused of rape and murder, but the only thing that got proved about him was that he had sex with Meredith. They found his DNA also in the bathroom and in the blood. And therefore he got 30 years.
3. Amanda/Rafaele didn’t know Guede or barely knew him. There is no phone contact or e-mail contact that connect them together.
So, that’s all for today. I’ll come back tomorrow with more questions.
Thanks for answering and have a nice day.
May 5, 2009 at 10:43 pm
The only thing which always bothered me about fact #1, is that when Lumumba was arrested – and before his was cleared – the police had insisted that his cell phone proved he was not at the bar as he claimed, but in the vicinity of Meredith’s cottage. Of course, once he was cleared, the police dropped this whole line. But I find it VERY worrisome; very worrisome indeed, as it reveals that the police were lying ( as they would never have let Lumumba go, has he truly been tracked as they claimed. If they lied to the media, they might have also lied to Amanda. And that bothers me, a lot. It is a messy fact.
May 5, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Loquitoalex,
1. Mignini wasn’t conducting the interrogation. He was called after Knox accused P.Lumumba and confessed of being present when he raped and killed Meredith. As for the “coercion” claims, they are merely coming from the FOA front and have been dismissed by Knox’s own defense.
2. Guede has been found guilty of sexually asaulting and killing Meredith together with two other people that are currently on trial and may -or may not-be found guilty of the same charges, plus theft and staging (AK&RS) and slander (AK). Guede is currently serving a 30 years sentence for the charges he was found guilty of i.e. sexual assault and murder.
3. Knox knew Guede well. They have met before at least in two occasions as reported by several witnesses. Know herself has admitted that she knew Guede.
I think your questions would be best answered by reading Judge Micheli sentence, available on the internet also in English.
And FYI, Berlusconi has nothing to do with the Perugia murder.
May 5, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Kovalinsky,
The police did not lie. Lumumba’s phone was picked up in the vicinity of Via della Pergola because of its proximity to the bar. Perugia is a small town and it has a few number of towers.
May 5, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Ah, I see! Thank you for that, as it had always bothered me. Now I understand, and feel better knowing that the police did not lie. Thanks again for clearing that up.
May 5, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Hi Nicki
Thanks for answering. I know that Berlusconi has nothing to do with Perugia, but as you might know, Berlusconi does control all the italian country, not only politically and the medias, but also the justice. If italian justice would work correctly, he would be in prison right now and not leading his country for the third time. Therefore, let me doubt about the italian justice… That does not mean that the perugia trial is concerned, you’re right. But just one last point: the media coverage of this trial seems to be that big in Italy, that this could serve Berlusconi to deviate public’s attention to this popular trial, away from Berlusconi’s missing trials. You understand me?
May 5, 2009 at 11:16 pm
Hi loquitoalex,
I’ll answer your questions:
1. Mignini wasn’t there when Amanda Knox first accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith. Six witnesses, including three police interpreters, have testifed that Amanda Knox voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith.
She wasn’t asked to change her version of what happened that night or asked to envision what might have happened. Knox denied that she had received a text message from Lumumba and she was told to tell the truth, which is not the same thing as being asked to change her version of events.
2. Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on a vaginal swab. It couldn’t be determined whether the sexual assault was genital or manual. Rudy Guede was convicted of sexually assaulting and murdering Meredith last year, so it was proven in an Italian court of law that Rudy sexually assaulted Meredith.
Please don’t write that Rudy Guede had sex with Meredith because that insinuates that the sexual activity was consensual, which is deeply offensive to Meredith and her poor family. Meredith didn’t consent to any of the horrors that were inflicted upon her that night.
Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede have both admitted that they knew each other. Rudy Guede and the boys in the apartment downstairs have testified that Knox turned up alone to smoke cannabis with them.
Fabrizio Giofreddi testified at the trial that he saw Meredith, Knox, Sollecito and Guede coming from the driveway of the cottage on 30 October.
There are 23 separate pieces of forensic evidence that place Knox, Sollecito and Guede at the cottage on the night of the murder.
There is a very good reason why there weren’t any text messages or phone calls between Gude, and Knox and Sollecito. Guede had his mobile taken off him. However, it is possible to communicate with people without using technology.
Rudy Guede’s DNA wasn’t found in the bathroom or in Meredith’s blood.
Do you have any evidence to support your opinion that Mignini can’t be trusted? I hope you’re not basing your opinion on what you heard on the shockingly biased CBS documentary that was full of inaccuracies.
May 5, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Hi Harry Rag
Thanks for the informations. I’ll go through the sentence of judge micheli, because from your answers and Nikki’s answers I don’t see how they proved that Guede murdered Meredith. If we assume that he was raping her while in the meantime Amanda was handling the knife and murdered Meredith, this does not make of Guede a murderer, but a raper. Now, I’ll go to sleep… It’s late. Tanks anyway!
May 6, 2009 at 12:02 am
Harry, I was under the impression that Rudy’s DNA was found in the bathroom toilet. I am not surprised that forensic evidence place Knox and Sollecito in the cottage she lived there. Who took Rudy’s phone from him? I am interested to hear how he lost his phone. Thanks
May 6, 2009 at 12:14 am
Loquito–
I think I read that all three are held accountable for the murder because they were all there and did nothing to stop it–this is something in Italian law. Am I right about that, Miss R?
Forgive me if this has been brought up elsewhere (though I think I read everything!), but has anyone considered the possibility that Amanda (or Raffaele) told Rudy that Meredith had some sort of rape fantasy and she (M) wanted him to participate? That to me would explain him freaking out when she was actually mortally injured– but this is probably too wild of a theory. I just don’t get why he would run off and not help clean up evidence that he was there (flush the damn toilet for one!). Just stupidity?
May 6, 2009 at 2:26 am
the only thing you leave out of consideration, when Toto saw the two, is that next day there were police cars all over the place — so the memory has fixed it — his memory, and also the lady’s memory, who heard the scream — the next day there was the police, the next day — and things that didn’t seem significant at the time of their perception, became significant
May 6, 2009 at 2:27 am
No, I think, replying right there where the comment is, makes it more lively and clear — at least for me.
May 6, 2009 at 2:32 am
loquitoalex — the thing is, she changed her version of events, because Raffaele gave up on her, and no longer furnished her with an alibi — and that is when she came up with Lumumba –
May 6, 2009 at 7:29 am
Yes, this is true. Patrick himself even explained at one point how that had happened. The police thought the signal was coming from nearer the cottage. (I recall the term “bounced” in regard to the signal’s misplacement.) So easy to go wrong!
Didi
May 6, 2009 at 7:55 am
Hi Mousygirl, welcome
I think that is right but for some reason (just to make things even more confusing) I heard that if Amanda and Raffaele are found not guilty then that doesn’t really interfere with Rudy’s verdict even though they are all held accountable for complicity in the same murder and doing nothing to prevent the death of Meredith Kercher. I could be wrong, Damiano?
Arnold Layne has written an excellent post on TJMK discussing if Guede was some sort of fall guy for whatever was planned that night and I for one am inclined to believe this scenario over Guede randomly bumping into Knox and Sollecito that evening. I think it’s highly likely that Guede was told something along the lines of ‘Meredith really fancies you and I’ve set you up with her, come to the house at 8:30 ish’. For me personally, if Rudy had known about the sexual assault and/or rape he would have been more ‘prepared’ for it and there may have been more sexual activity noted by the medical examiner, I think the sexual assault and knives freaked him out big time.
Why didn’t he flush the toilet, probably forgot in his panic that he’d left it floating in the loo. Probably wasn’t the first time he’d forgotten to flush but yeah I’d have to agree, pretty stupid.
May 6, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Hi Nikki
I went through the justice news of the truejustice-Website. It’s very convincing. The behaviour of AK and RS is quite strange. They lie all the time and call the police, after the police appear. It doesn’t look good for them. I’m looking forward when they will have to declare on the trial. Wondering what strategy they’ll have each other.
I have still two points that are weak.
- It is proven that AK and RS are lying and have no alibi. It is also proven that they were in the house. But I’d like a heavy evidence that they were definitively involved in the crime.
- Rudy Guede’s behaviour is still very strange for me. First he runs away without flushing the toilets, then he goes to a disco as if nothing had happened, and finally he flees to Germany. And, – as I already posted here – , if it was a murder by the three of them, why is he still lying about the facts, now that he was jailed for 30 years. I still hope he will testify in this trial against AK and RS.
@ Harry Rag: Well, I saw the CBS documentary, where they voluntary omit facts that charge AK. About Mignini they tell the story of Preston and about the charges against Mignini. If that would be pure invention, that could cost the producer their job, couldn’t it? You know, not mention certain facts is one thing, but affirm things against a person which are not true at all… that’s quite heavy. So, tell me: there are no charges against Mignini at all???
May 6, 2009 at 3:55 pm
This is a good point. There is so much speculation that has turned into conviction so fastcand then gobbled up by the public, that if the forensics had not pointed at Guede’s involvement instead of Lumumba, it’s most that Lumumba would be on trial.
And then people would be speculating about how Lumumba, Knox, and Sollecito hatched their ‘ruthless plan.’
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks all this reasoning that is only speculative and not in the least bit conclusive is worrisome.
May 6, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Yes, but the point is that the police lead turned out to be false. Their evidence was contradicted by the hard evidence on Guede.
Therefore, if the forensics had not turned up on Guede, they’d still be following the Lumumba lead, and likely he would be on trial.
So it comes back to this part of the investigation as being very critical. Were the police already suspicious of Lumumba and Knox because:
1) she was at the crime scene first
2) the text messages they exchanged that were misinterpreted as ‘see you later (tonight)?’
3) their theories and general and warranted suspicions.
And did this suspicion lead to tactics that frightened her into saying what they wanted to hear?
I agree with anyone who says she dug a grave for herself, but anyone interested in justice should be interested in justice for the accused as well as the victim.
Dont forget, one innocent man was already almost brought to trial…
May 6, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Shust,
I’m sorry but I completely disagree. If you honestly think that Lumumba would be on trial if they had not found the DNA evidence linking Rudy Guede to the murder of Meredith Kercher then I’m afraid you are a hopeless case. Lumumba was cleared and released by the police as they had no DNA evidence linking him to the murder. You conveniently forget that Amanda could at any time have exhonerated him, she chose not to but instead used him like an emergency credit card.
Suggesting that the Italian judicial system is so backward that it would prosecute a man armed only with a text message and a mobile phone signal despite the him having a cast iron alibi and nothing physical linking to the crime simly because there was no other man to blame is bigoted in the extreme. I suggest you evaluate your reasoning and facts with regard to this case as I take serious issue with posters such as yourself making wild accusations and presenting them as FACT.
Patrick Lumumba’s life has been damaged by these ridiculous accusations and it is simply unfair to make the suggestion that the police would have brought him to trial with no physical evidence.
Your talking points are showing Shust
May 6, 2009 at 4:13 pm
No Shust they would NOT still be following the lead on Lumumba because he never went in the house
There would be no finger prints, no DNA, no semen, saliva, hairs ANYTHING
Plus he has an alibi, you simply cannot state this as fact.
May 6, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Why did the police let Lumumba go Shust?
Why not charge him with complicity too? Because Amanda deliberately led them down the wrong path and they arrested Lumumba, when it became clear he had nothing to do with Meredith’s murder they released him.
What part of that do you not understand?
May 6, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Thank you for keeping the discussion so diplomatic by being overly sugary to anyone who agrees with you and telling anyone who doesnt they are a hopeless case and complimenting people who ask diplomacy but then call people half wits.
If the judge thought that Lumumba had enough evidence on him, they most CERTAINLY would have brought him to trial… Testimony, lack of alibi, cell phone pings, etc could have been used against him, the same way ‘odd behavior’, possible DNA, possible this, possible that has brought Knox and Sollecito to trial.
“You conveniently forget that Amanda could at any time have exhonerated him, she chose not to but instead used him like an emergency credit card.”
I didnt forget anything, and certainly not conveniently.
She said these statements and then said, ‘but they seem more unreal to me then me being at my boyfriend’s’
WHY?
Why point a finger and then say “But it doesnt seem real to me.”
both “emergency credit card” and coercion have equal weight as to why she may have said this.
“Suggesting that the Italian judicial system is so backward that it would prosecute a man armed only with a text message”
I never suggested anything about the italian judicial system.
If the judge believes enough evidence is brought onto someone, then the judge moves the case to trial. I thought you might recognize this. Knox and Sollecito have not been convicted yet. (except in some web blogs)
“I suggest you evaluate your reasoning and facts with regard to this case as I take serious issue with posters such as yourself making wild accusations and presenting them as FACT.”
Take a deep breath, count to ten, log on as someone else, compliment yourself, then come back as yourself and let’s talk about the issue.
“Patrick Lumumba’s life has been damaged by these ridiculous accusations and it is simply unfair to make the suggestion that the police would have brought him to trial with no physical evidence.”
There is absolutely NOTHING unfair about the suggestion that this could have been a possibility!!!!!
What’s unfair about it exactly??
If the judge had decided he was suspicious enough they would have continued. Instead, the fingerprints linked Guede!! They even didnt believe Lumumba’s alibi. He was arrested, REMEMBER?
“Your talking points are showing Shust”
Good, thank you.
May 6, 2009 at 4:40 pm
Shust,
Your comment irked me because by suggesting that Lumumba would be on trial if Rudy had not been apprehended also suggests that the police would have proceeded without further evidence. He was arrested because Amanda implicated him, the police can’t just ignore these ‘confessions’ and do what they like.
You wrote: “Why point a finger and then say “But it doesnt seem real to me.”
You missed out the part where Amanda decided she’d stand by her original statement to police. Why would she do this? She wasn’t stoned or drunk or tired, she decided to keep Lumumba exactly where she wanted him. No amount of sugar coating can change the fact that she implicated an innocent man in a murder investigation in a flagrant attempt to get herself off the hook.
You wrote “Patrick Lumumba’s life has been damaged by these ridiculous accusations and it is simply unfair to make the suggestion that the police would have brought him to trial with no physical evidence.”
There is absolutely NOTHING unfair about the suggestion that this could have been a possibility!!!!!
What’s unfair about it exactly??”
If you can’t grasp that I’m not sure I can help you.
Besides, what does this have to do with the post I have written all these comments are cleverly designed to go off topic and irk other readers into debating your moot points further. May I suggest Candace or Frank’s blogs. I feel I have given you rather more of my time than I normally would.
May 6, 2009 at 5:46 pm
There’s that go away to “Candace or Frank’s blogs” phrase again. What is wrong with civil debate? Why try and chase away someone with an opposing opinion? To be fair to everyone involved, in particular Meredith, I believe people should have an open mind and debate the points and not say go away to someone who might differ.
May 6, 2009 at 5:51 pm
I have been debating the same moot points with the same individual now for two days, doesn’t it dawn on you that people might like the discussion to centre around the post that was actually written? Which is why this comment section is here, it’s not a drawing board to scribble all over because you have nothing better to do.
Frank’s and Candace’s blogs are always discussing these issues I was merely suggesting an environment Shust might be more ‘comfortable’ in.
It was not ‘debate’ it was tedious but we all know that’s the point don’t we?
May 6, 2009 at 5:53 pm
there was no coercion — she simply had lost her alibi, because Sollecito said, she was not with him — so she had to find a new version — then came Lumumba in the picture –
May 6, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Miss Represented
Please don’t let this blog become hijacked into another obnoxious shouting match by this poster. He clearly has issues that are better addressed elsewhere. You are always polite to posters, those who share your views, or those disagree with you, as anyone will see if they look at other threads on this site. This is a peaceable place and the hostility on display here makes me suspect the usual suspects are behind Shust’s identity. I think you have given him MORE than enough time.
Thanks
Bard
May 6, 2009 at 5:55 pm
“Your comment irked me because by suggesting that Lumumba would be on trial if Rudy had not been apprehended also suggests that the police would have proceeded without further evidence. ”
Of course it’s possible. It’s very possible, and also very likely that he would have gone to trial if Knox’s statements couldnt be contested. There’s plenty of instances in which a person goes to trial based on witnesses.
“You missed out the part where Amanda decided she’d stand by her original statement to police.”
I didnt ‘miss out’ that part. Being the psychologist that you are, I’m sure you could analytically break this statement down into the paraphrase:
“I stand by my statements, but I don’t believe them.”
And then algorythmically conclude that either:
a) her statement is true and she just doesnt believe it.
b) her statement isnt true, and that’s why she doesnt believe it.
The answer, of course, is b)
Because Lumumba wasnt there.
So therefore, she made a false confession, anyway you cut it. Then, logically, you must break it down further.
Why did would she implicate herself, but not name the right guy??
In other words, why did she sacrifice herself, but save Guede?
“No amount of sugar coating can change the fact that she implicated an innocent man in a murder investigation in a flagrant attempt to get herself off the hook.”
There is no sugar coating in my statements. She implicated the wrong person and herself. If she had implicated Guede and herself, then yes, there is no reason for me to question your convictions.
“If you can’t grasp that I’m not sure I can help you”
There is absolutely nothing unfair about seeking the truth. Quite the opposite, in fact. I imagine this is why you ‘cannot help me’ in understanding your point.
The rest of your post doesnt make any sense. I guess you just want people to compliment and agree with you.
May 6, 2009 at 5:56 pm
dear Miss R — try to ignore the guy — he is inventing things all the time, gliding around the facts, not even trying to add them up — now taking this aspect, now that, it is no use to fight with him — he is here to provoke you into banning him. And he is so boring.
May 6, 2009 at 5:57 pm
I am talking about Shust, of course.
May 6, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Miss R, Hi again! Hi also to all others discussing this case.
I think, that Meredith was too much for Amanda. Lumumba had got enough of Amanda s behaviour at his bar Le Chic. He thought that Meredith was a more suitable person to help him in his bar. Meredith, behaving like, lets say a family girl annoyed Amanda. Therefore she invited Guede, to humiliate Meredith.
Simply, Amanda was so jealous of Meredith, that she started to act before she started to think.
Guede, a drug dealer, was an important person for Knox and Sollecito. Who knows how much money they owed him?
May 6, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Shust doesn’t seem to understand the state of mind of chronic liars like AK, who has not uttered a true word since she is implied — I don’t know what happened there, but one thing is sure, she doesn’t tell the truth, not for one moment did she tell the truth — until she opens her mouth and tells what happened with her that night, I don’t beleive anything she says — look at the typical drive of Shust: making very reduced statements, never taking into consideration the full aspects of this case — and waiting for the defence to destroy — as he thinks — the DNA evidence — that is his anticipation, he already is gleefully waiting for that moment — but it won’t happen –
May 6, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Hi MR,
I think we probably have yanked your comments board off topic a number of times here. Maybe you’ll have to find a way to close the comments capability on any one topic at some point for the sake of sanity. (I’m a great one to say that, tacking on yet another comment here myself.)
In that regard I would like to say that we all tend to get on the defensive about our own particular beliefs and I’m sure it is really not welcome to feel persecuted on your own blog site. However, if we get too defensive we may tend to throw the baby out with the bath–if that’s the metaphor I want. E.g., if we believe 9/10ths of something we therefore have to believe also the 1/10 that may not be proved or true or compelling. I find myself in that position a lot, stating my beliefs and going too far.
I, for instance, do remember feeling concerned, when Lumumba was cleared because his alibi was solidified and Guede was discovered, and wondering what would have happened if the alibi and Guede hadn’t transpired. Yes, there wasn’t any evidence in the cottage of Lumumba’s involvement, but I still worried about his vulnerability in the hands of the police. I don’t think that was because it was Italy—we all have heard about the wrongly accused incarcerated elsewhere, for instance in the U.S.
I’m saying this in regard to Shust’s comment “Testimony, lack of alibi, cell phone pings, etc could have been used against him…”
I think what he’s saying is that if Lumumba might be wrongly detained then we have to accept that Amanda could also be. The problem is that many of us have noted all the evidence against Amanda and therefore have significant doubts of her innocence. We don’t need to give her benefit of the doubt because of Lumumba’s situation–it isn’t logical.
I guess what I think is that I can 1) believe Amanda is guilty based on what I think I know, but that I don’t necessarily have to 2) have total faith in Italian Justice, or 3) think Mignini is totally honorable. We need to have the freedom and space in which to be rational and see the whole, complex truth in any situation, not be pressured into accepting any complete scenario.
Hope you followed that. It all makes for an interesting discussion–but it’s like herding cats, I know.
May 6, 2009 at 6:16 pm
“Your comment irked me because by suggesting that Lumumba would be on trial if Rudy had not been apprehended also suggests that the police would have proceeded without further evidence. ”
Shust wrote:
“Of course it’s possible. It’s very possible, and also very likely that he would have gone to trial if Knox’s statements couldnt be contested. There’s plenty of instances in which a person goes to trial based on witnesses.”
You seem to forget that 26 or 27 people came forward with an alibi for Patrick Lumumba, who was in fact tending bar on the night in question. In addition, it was quickly established that there was no forensic evidence linking him to the cottage or the murder. It is not only unlikely that he would be on trial, it is out of the question.
May 6, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Shust, I think your wasting your time here. It is quite apparent that most posters here have already made up their mind on the guilt of RS and AK and do not seem willing to discuss anything other than complimenting each other on their latest theories. The presumption of guilt before most of the evidence has been presented is concerning to say the least.
May 6, 2009 at 6:23 pm
“Shust doesn’t seem to understand the state of mind of chronic liars like AK, who has not uttered a true word since she is implied ”
I would never pretend to understand the state of mind of someone who’s roommate was murdered and was being implicated in that murder.
“look at the typical drive of Shust:”
Why dont we NOT look at ‘typical drives’ of anybody and analyze the series of events??
“making very reduced statements, never taking into consideration the full aspects of this case”
I’m so sorry I havent had time to write about every single detail yet, but we’re getting there.
” and waiting for the defence to destroy — as he thinks — the DNA evidence ”
Please tell me where you buy your crystal ball that looks into people’s brains and tells you what they are thinking!
“that is his anticipation, he already is gleefully waiting for that moment — but it won’t happen –”
Why dont you just compliment yourself instead of attacking me, I’m sure it would serve you better. Go back to my statements and try once again to discuss the issue.
May 6, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Not ready wrote:
“There’s that go away to “Candace or Frank’s blogs” phrase again. What is wrong with civil debate? Why try and chase away someone with an opposing opinion? To be fair to everyone involved, in particular Meredith, I believe people should have an open mind and debate the points and not say go away to someone who might differ.”
There is no problem with civil debate but it is simply rude to ignore the post MR wrote – which is clearly researched and well thought out – and bring in talking points which, as MR and others brought here because they are interested in discussing these aspects of the case have been politely telling you, are best addressed elsewhere, where people are interested in those specific points. Under the guise of civil debate, you are in fact trying to hijack her blog and prevent people from discussing what they came to discuss. I am constantly amazed that she and other posters are as patient and polite as they have been. It is to MR’s credit.
May 6, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Shust wrote:
“If the judge thought that Lumumba had enough evidence on him, they most CERTAINLY would have brought him to trial… Testimony, lack of alibi, cell phone pings, etc could have been used against him, the same way ‘odd behavior’, possible DNA, possible this, possible that has brought Knox and Sollecito to trial.”
26 people coming forward is not “lack of alibi”. You don’t know what you are talking about. And there was no possible DNA in the case of Lumumba.
It may not be worth bringing this to your attention, though, because it looks like you are impervious to the facts and have just come to make trouble.
May 6, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Not ready to make nice wrote:
“Shust, I think your wasting your time here. It is quite apparent that most posters here have already made up their mind on the guilt of RS and AK and do not seem willing to discuss anything other than complimenting each other on their latest theories. The presumption of guilt before most of the evidence has been presented is concerning to say the least.”
It may be apparent to you, but it is not apparent to me that most of the people here are operating under the presumption of guilt. In any case, presumption of innocence is a legal concept. If Miss Represented or others who are not in the courtroom feel that the two suspects on trial may have been involved, they have the right to that opinion.
Personally, I have not made up my mind about anything but this: the weak and twisted arguments being put forth by the US-based ‘Free Amanda Knox’ movement are so lame that anyone with the ability to read and grasp the facts is right to question the motives and arguments as presented. I am not convinced of Amanda Knox’s guilt by any means, but I am absolutely convinced that if these are the strongest arguments for innocence that exist, then things are not looking good for Knox. That is my opinion and I am entitled to express it.
I have no desire to convince anyone that my view is the right one. And maybe that’s the difference between you (and possibly Shust) and most of the others I read here. They are interested in having a conversation and are not lobbying for a cause. Moreover, they are too smart to be taken in by this kind of lobbying.
May 6, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I don’t think she really “implicated” herself in any rational way. She broke down, totally lost it, made statements that “implied” she was there, yes, with her hands over her ears.
I think out of this same hysteria came her crazy accusation of Lumumba, “He’s bad, he’s bad!” She didn’t “save” Guede–she just had enough self-saving consciousness not to mention him, because she knew he could tell them all about what she had done. Raffaele also, in a letter to his father, said, No, he wasn’t so happy they’d found Guede because he was afraid he’d say some rubbish about him (about Sollecito). Neither of them wanted Guede to testify.
Amanda possibly couldn’t keep herself from exploding out her accusation of Lumumba, because he may have been the person who drove her to lash out at Meredith, her anger at his rejection of her and acceptance of Meredith at work.
I’m saying I don’t know how much logic applies as Amanda was in a state of hysteria. When she regained control she changed her story.
May 6, 2009 at 7:32 pm
“I don’t think she really “implicated” herself in any rational way. She broke down, totally lost it, made statements that “implied” she was there, yes, with her hands over her ears.”
Yes I agree with that. It neither looks like she is admitting guilt or running from it. To me it looks like she is just being very naive and fantastical, either to get out of there, or take the responsibility of ‘helping the police.’ It looks to me like they wanted her to say something, to point a finger, and she did, but also she said ‘i didnt do it.’
The critical thing with this is that she fingered both the wrong guy and also herself. One important thing to remember is that she is being told Rafaelle is not backing up her alibi and they are telling her she’s going to jail for 30 years and they have proof she was there. (they didnt)
This is the critical time to say ‘guede did it.’ It’s too late to give the wrong guy, because she’s already caught if she is truly guilty.
“Raffaele also, in a letter to his father, said, No, he wasn’t so happy they’d found Guede because he was afraid he’d say some rubbish about him (about Sollecito).”
That’s interesting for sure.. But do you have a link to this? It makes sense that they’d be afraid Guede would say some rubbish about them.. Obviously, he would be pointing a finger at them, regardless if they were there or not.. It doesnt implicate them in anyway that they dont want Guede to testify.
“Amanda possibly couldn’t keep herself from exploding out her accusation of Lumumba, because he may have been the person who drove her to lash out at Meredith, her anger at his rejection of her and acceptance of Meredith at work.”
this is something I considered long ago as well. It’s definitely possible, but first you’d have to prove that she lashed out at Meredith. Anything else is overly speculative and getting into rumor territory… Because you’d just be coming up with a theory then looking for reasons to believe it.
“I’m saying I don’t know how much logic applies as Amanda was in a state of hysteria. When she regained control she changed her story.”
Not necessarily. Her story stayed the same until she was told Rafaelle wasn’t supporting it and that she was facing jail for 30 years if she didnt give them an answer, and they were going to prove that she was there.
At this point any frightened mind is going to come up with the best survival scenario they can muster. It’s quite possible that the police told Rafaelle they had proof Amanda was involved, and Rafaelle simply wanted to distance himself from the girl he only knew 2 weeks… and so he changed his story. This is not so difficult to believe possible.
In any case, if she was truly involved, then she sacrificed herself, but protected Guede. However you look at it, that would be the choice she made. So the question is why would anyone do that?
May 6, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Shust wrote: That’s interesting for sure.. But do you have a link to this? It makes sense that they’d be afraid Guede would say some rubbish about them.. Obviously, he would be pointing a finger at them, regardless if they were there or not.. It doesnt implicate them in anyway that they dont want Guede to testify.
You can find this comment on the PMF ‘In their own words section’.
I’m not really following your logic here. Why would it make sense that Rudy would say rubbish about them if they weren’t even there? Why would he even think to mention them if he was a lone wolf? He never even knew them according to the FOA. He could have fingered just about anybody in Perugia according to your logic. Rudy would have no reason to point the finger at AK and RS unless of course he knew they were there.
And there’s still that little issue of the alibi, or lack therof.
May 6, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Wow. Some extremely large chips seemingly superglued onto some people’s shoulders! Get over yourselves, and focus on the accused; plenty enough overblown ego in Knox and Sollecitto (and this is without looking at the parent generation).
There is quirky behaviour, and there is dangerous behaviour. Amanda Knox was revealed, before arriving in Perugia, to be out of control when it came to intoxicating substances. She couldn’t stop at getting high, or feeling good. She was a danger to herself, and potentially a danger to others. If rocks thrown from her flat windows during her UW orgy had resulted in a vehicular homicide, she would be behind bars (the other kind) in King county, and Meredith would never have had the misfortune of meeting her. She is representative of the sort of sheltered Xenophobe who can travel to a bustling foreign city, known for the vast pallette of internationals passing through it, yet remain the only important person,from the only true and right culture, there. She “pegged” Solle as Harry Potter, and so he became, in her mind. She collected people in jars. She may have been charmed at first by Meredith’s “exotic” heritage, as she was impressed by Filomena’s(or was it Laura’s?) piercings. The movie that was rolling in her head, as I’m sure it still is, has her as the star of her world, and when other, minor characters in it began to ad lib, and not follow her script, she threw a fit. Terrified of Lumumba? Why work for him, then. Why not afraid to walk the streets alone? Because she knew she was the biggest bastard in the valley.
As to blood evidence, faeces, fingerprints: unless she pierced her ears with an awl, I doubt the blood on the taps came from her ears. Why flush after Guede when she was known not to flush her own waste ( I made this, I was here!) She had wiped evidence of her own presence not just from Meredith’s room, but from the entire flat, as her prints were found on one glass only, in a house where she had lived for weeks.
No, I don’t know her, but like several others commenting on this much appreciated site, I have lived/ worked with/ encountered and dated my fair share of disturbed individuals. I have witnessed Jeckyll and Hyde transformations, been threatened and assaulted. I also can testify that living around sick people can make you sick, yourself. I have to restrict how much of my time I dedicate to this case, as I have wound up rather shaky on a few occasions, but I feel determined to keep a watch on its developments, especially as the doubters and deniers somehow persist!
May 6, 2009 at 7:45 pm
If one stops poking a stick through the bars of the bear’s cage, and leave him be, the bear will eventually calm down and go to sleep.
If you wish the Amandroids to return to their planet, please stop responding to their posts.
They crave attention, just like their monolith.
May 6, 2009 at 8:10 pm
“You can find this comment on the PMF ‘In their own words section’”
I dont know what that is but maybe I can find the link myself.
“Why would it make sense that Rudy would say rubbish about them if they weren’t even there? ”
It would make sense for anybody on trial to find a scapegoat. Whether or not they were there, it makes complete sense that the guilty person would try to take some of the guilt off of himself and assign it to the ones being prosecuted.
“Why would he even think to mention them if he was a lone wolf?”
He wouldn’t, and he didn’t. Until much later down the road. He DID implicate someone else, saying it was some Italian man. Never mentioned a woman, until he found out knox was on trial. But then he wouldnt testify.. Why on Earth not? This doesnt seem strange to you that he said they were there, but then he refused to testify this? He’s already been found guilty……
“He never even knew them according to the FOA. ”
I dont know who that is or why you are agreeing with me, but you’re right, it’s not been proven that they were acquaintances in any way.
“He could have fingered just about anybody in Perugia according to your logic.”
I’m not following your point. It’s not my logic, it’s just logic simply put. That Knox and Sollecito didnt want Guede to testify does not necessarily make them guilty, because of course, if he wanted to, he could point his finger at them. The fact that he DIDNT testify is more critical than them ‘not wanting him to.’ If you were on trial, you wouldnt want anybody who claimed you were a murderer to testify against you… but…. he didnt even do that.
“Rudy would have no reason to point the finger at AK and RS unless of course he knew they were there.”
He has every reason in the world to find a scapegoat. He’s been found guilty and that’s his chance to uncover the truth. The problem is he couldnt face cross examination. He even said it, that he didnt want to be called a liar again.
“And there’s still that little issue of the alibi, or lack therof.”
They had an alibi, and the alibi is that they were together. This is why what happened in the interrogation is very critical to the direction of the investigation until now. It’s quite possible that Sollecito changed his story simply because the police said they had proof Knox was guilty and he wanted to distance himself from her. Hence, Knox saying in her letter ‘I dont know why he’s doing this since he was always so gentle before.’
The little issue of the alibi is not that they didnt have one, but that it changed. So the question is, why did it change?
Either they truly were guilty or they were frightened into saying what the police wanted to hear..
May 6, 2009 at 8:35 pm
Correction: I was remembering Raffaele’s words about Guede as being in a letter to Papa, but instead it’s in his prison diary and he is mentioning Papa and he didn’t say “rubbish” he said “strange things”:
“Nov 20 2007 —
Today finally they have taken the real murderer of this
story from beyond belief. It is an Ivorian of 22 years, they have found him in Germany. Papa I saw happy and smiling, but I for the moment am not calm 100% because I fear that he will invent strange things.”
May 6, 2009 at 8:37 pm
That sounds as though he wants whoever reads it to believe he did not know Guede, and that he is preparing them for what might have been uttered. But was not, inexplicably, until later.
May 6, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Sorry, WordPress has reverted to an old user name, damn.
Should be signed Didi. (I’m not coming in under new alias…)
May 6, 2009 at 8:58 pm
“they would NOT still be following the lead on Lumumba because he never went in the house etc. etc. etc.”
I wasnt born yesterday. You have missed my point entirely. Suspects have been brought to trial based on witness testimony alone. therefore it’s possible for me to say what I did. What part of this do you not understand?
May 6, 2009 at 9:03 pm
arrr.. yes, but my point is that the police would be following this lead. For a long time they didnt believe any alibi, they were going on their theory of knox and lumumba, based on the text message, the phone pings in the area, and possibly forensic hunches. THIS is my point. That it’s possible they already had their theory and were trying to draw it to a conclusion,. This was interrupted with Guede’s fingerprint match combines with the likelihood lumumba wasnt involved.
May 6, 2009 at 9:04 pm
arrr.. yes, but my point is that the police would be following this lead. For a long time they didnt believe any alibi, they were going on their theory of knox and lumumba, based on the text message, the phone pings in the area, and possibly forensic hunches. THIS is my point. That it’s possible they already had their theory and were trying to draw it to a conclusion,. This was interrupted with Guede’s fingerprint match combines with the likelihood lumumba wasnt involved.
Hence, my statement (repeated): “very likely that he would have gone to trial if Knox’s statements couldnt be contested. ”
I never “seemed to forget” anything. Read more critically, please.
May 6, 2009 at 9:08 pm
good point. I feel like I’m getting silly putty on my hands everytime I get into a discussion. So far it has been virtually impossible to have a intelligent debate here.
May 6, 2009 at 9:12 pm
I’m so sorry that my comments are so troubling to you!
“26 people coming forward is not “lack of alibi”. You don’t know what you are talking about. And there was no possible DNA in the case of Lumumba.”
What in the world are you talking about?
Try to read critically if you want to discuss something with me. The point is that the police were looking to draw the case to a close, and they were certain that knox and lumumba were linked. Okay>? I’m not going to reiterate this again and again and again.
May 6, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Thanks for that.. But it doesnt say that ‘they werent happy guede was found.’
It says that his father may be happy, but he isnt one hundred percent calm because he’s afraid guede might invent things…
Sorry, but I dont think this supports your earlier statement that ‘knox and sollecito didnt like that guede had been apprehended.’
May 6, 2009 at 9:28 pm
But why would he be scared that Guede would invent things about HIM, Raff, if he was not there and had no involvement?
Another comment I saw RS made somewhere is
‘If I am in all this trouble it is because of Amanda’
Could anyone remind me where this is from, phone call or diary? I read it somewhere, can’t recall where.
May 6, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Hi there,
I am neither a psychologist nor a lawyer nor a law enforcement officer. Even before meredith’s brutal murder, i have never been
interested in criminal cases (not
even watching csi on tv like my
ex wife). What i wanted to say is that for lack of means and experience i am unable to conclude
wether the defendants are guilty or
innocent. There is one aspect of this trial though that strikes me as extremely strange: If the prosecution’s case is as solid as
published in various blogs, why did it take them almost 14 months to prepare for the trial? In case of an acquittal, the defendants will have lost two years of their life
(assuming that the trial will last
until october).
Many people criticize the personality, ethics and behaviour of
the defendants without ever having met them, they entirely rely on second or third hand information published in the internet. Some
bloggers also make fun of ak’s sex life. As I said before – i don’t know wether she killed poor meredith
or not, but she is still a young
woman (innocent until proven guilty)
and it’s not fair to destroy her dignity.
May 7, 2009 at 12:27 am
Shust says: (oh, it is not a theory, no, it is not fiction, no!): “It’s quite possible that the police told Rafaelle they had proof Amanda was involved, and Rafaelle simply wanted to distance himself from the girl he only knew 2 weeks…” — there he goes again: they told him Amanda was “involved” — but if Amanda was with him all night, how could she be involved? Raffaele simply gave up on one point, that she was with him all night. And from that moment on the rules of the game changed. Because their lies were exposed.
May 7, 2009 at 12:31 am
In reply to Martin
Fourteen months may seem a long time to prepare a case but I’m sure the Italian judiciary are aware that this is a high profile case.
The collection and testing of forensic evidence takes time unlike the tv show CSI were sample results come through before the ad break, DNA testing can take up to six weeks the results were then peer reviewed by experts who are at the top of their game.Every element of the case requires it’s own time scale to collate and report on.
Then add on the preparation of the report which then has to be read and reviewed by all the judges concerned.It all takes time. Fourteen months may seem excessive for AK and RS but they have put themselves in this position by their behaviour and inability to tell the truth, the conflicting alibis and false accusations added to the investigation time but that was a delay they created themselves.
We should also be aware that this case is not about the accused it is about the victim and justice for her and her family, the accused have sat in jail for fourteen months but that is fourteen months longer than Meredith Kercher has had.
May 7, 2009 at 1:41 am
I think, it does support it — they are (he is) not calm about the “Ivorian”? why on earth? — and what does this phrase mean: “the real murderer of this story” — which story: this is a contorted way of putting things, very much resembling Knox’s way of getting around things, not speaking clearly.
May 7, 2009 at 2:06 am
After reading here and about, just more questions. Was money one of the motives? Will the trial evidence show that someone tried to vicously coerce Meredith Kercher to give her ATM or credit card access codes? Was Rudy partly a fall guy? If so, was someone else also played? and is that premeditation? Were the crimes so premeditated and depraved that the perps, whoever he/she/they are, will never speak of them?
May 7, 2009 at 2:54 am
If they didn’t think there was cause for worry in what he knew about then, they both should have been thrilled that the real killer had been found, case closed; but Amanda hadn’t fingered him and Sollecito was worried.
But really, this is elementary knowledge.
And maybe we should give Miss Represented her column back…:)
May 7, 2009 at 3:30 am
(Didi: I am having the same WordPress revert problem as you; should say “SMK” but is using my gmail user name, and I as well am not attempting to create a new identity! )
I think this post by Miss Rep is not simply throwing some ideas out; it seems to me to be a painstaking and thorough analysis of why the “lone wolf” theory does not have the ring of truth. In my student days, studying philosophical jurisprudence, there was something called “the judgment intuitive”: That is, the judge uses his intuition, about “things not adding up”. There are many signs of a group attack. Add to this, those little facts that seem to “stick in the mind”: Raffaele and Amanda described by the postal police as seeming “surprised and embarrassed” with the mop there. Saying they had already called the police, when they had not. The break in showing signs of having been staged. The discrepancies in the alibis. The body having been moved.
Clearly, there is cause for doubt. No one can be certain, but too many of these little things become a mountain of unsettled thoughts.
May 7, 2009 at 7:10 am
“But really, this is elementary knowledge.”
Not necessarily, you’re attaching alterior meaning to it…
Saying ‘I’m afraid this person is going to make things up about me’ means only that… It certainly would have been more cunning or wise for him to say “I’m so happy, this is great now we will be free.” But what he said isn’t incriminating at all…
May 7, 2009 at 7:21 am
you can speak to me in 1st person, dont be afraid, babe.
And you can stop putting words into my mouth while you’re at it, it just makes your points look weak.
“if Amanda was with him all night, how could she be involved? Raffaele simply gave up on one point, that she was with him all night. ”
Please try to think further through my comments instead of stopping on each point without thinking through them. This would keep me from coming back and further explaining them.
Again, their alibi was “we were together.”
If the police said “ok you were together, but we have proof she was at the cottage.”
“You have PROOF?”
“YES… So, you were together then at the cottage.”
It would certainly scare him.
“No, no, I wasnt with her at the cottage.”
All the police would have to say then is “is it possible she left you during the night?” and soon a ‘possibly’ turns into his ‘statement.’
At the point he’s being told they have reason to believe she was there, obviously the guy is going to distance himself from her.
These are 20 year old kids, it’s not so strange to imagine them being very scared when confronted with police who are trained to believe everyone is a suspect.
“And from that moment on the rules of the game changed. Because their lies were exposed.”
Possibly, but certainly not definitively. You have to look at all the possible scenarios and them reasonably… The problem with this case is that these 2 were already hung by the lynch mob of popular opinion.
May 7, 2009 at 7:23 am
Likely he wrote it in in Italian, and that is a translation. It isnt a clear sentence in English, but if you can find his Italian statement we can analyze it properly.
May 7, 2009 at 9:50 am
Hi Shust,
Maybe you could go look for it seeing as you are so interested in knowing exactly what it says. Please don’t call any more of my readers ‘babe’ it makes you sound like a drunk trucker. Feel free to share with us whatever you find and then we can talk about it.
May 7, 2009 at 9:56 am
Hi Guys, just a quick note to let you know that I have figured out how to turn off the threaded comments. Hooorah!
I know some of you liked them as it allows you to give a more direct answer to whoever you were replying to, but it does make following the discussion more difficult and I find it breaks up the flow of conversation.
The good old “username wrote: ‘quote’” technique should suffice methinks.
Happy commenting
May 7, 2009 at 10:53 am
ok dear
May 7, 2009 at 11:11 am
And by the way, love, i am only commenting on the fact someone said ‘it’s not clearly written’ . Likely that’s because it was written in Italian. If anyone can find the original words then feel free to share, but I have no reason to look for it.
May 7, 2009 at 11:45 am
Miss Represented
I don’t believe in censoring people but personally I am finding Shust’s posts offensive in tone to contributors. It is not necessary to speak to people in this manner. I feel like he has barged into a perfectly respectable polite gathering and is attempting to upset people by being gratuitously rude. I would hate to see this forum being hijacked by the ‘angry mob’. He’s not even adding to the debate.
Anyone else?
Bard
p.s Martin, Michael has answered your question in some detail over on PMF where you asked it also.
May 7, 2009 at 12:04 pm
When have I been any more rude than anybody else here? Apparently, being rude here means “disagreeing”. I prefer to call people affectionately than “halfwit” and “lost cause.”
I can understand that anyone who has spent\wasted\dedicated an enormous amount of time to ‘theorizing’ will be emotional, but I am entitled to my opinion. And if someone is respectful to me, then they get a respectful answer, naturally.
Maybe log on as someone else and let’s talk about the issue without accusing me of ‘disagreeing’, I mean nonsense. Or just get angry at anyone who comes on here and disagrees with your points.
May 7, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Where I come from Shust calling people ‘babe’, ‘love’ and ‘dear’ is disrespectful. Especially when you have been asked not to and then you compound it. You sound very immature, which is probably why people are dismissive of you. It is human nature.
May 7, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Also if you put your points in a less aggressive manner, without letting your agenda shine through quite so brightly, you will find people will actually enjoy debating with you. That is my experience on this board and PMF. It’s all about manners I think. If people storm into a debate in an aggressive manner they annoy people from the off. If they are respectful (see Martin, above) then nobody minds in the slightest.
May 7, 2009 at 12:36 pm
where i come from, calling people ‘love’ and ‘dear’ and ‘babe’ is endearing. Also where I come from,calling people ‘halfwit’ and ‘a lost cause’ is disrespectful. Let’s just say we have a miscommunication of culture then.
May 7, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Shust,
I am the owner, moderator and administrator of this blog. This happens to be the first time I have ever had to use that ‘right’, I don’t care where you come from or what your culture finds endearing, I happen to find the words ‘love’ ‘babe’ and ‘dear’ to be completely out of sync with the readers and posters of this blog. I am by no means a feminist and I feel I have been patient with you, I can see that you realise I find it irritating and are now making a point of doing it. This is not acceptable, I think you’ll find Bard is coming with me on that one.
May 7, 2009 at 12:45 pm
maybe you and bard are the same person, then, friend. Because these are just pet names that people call each other and for some reason both you ‘both’ have suddenly looked for another excuse to make a mountain out of a molehill because someone disagrees with you.
try to get back on topic, amigo.
May 7, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Miss Represented
I’ve heard enough. You?
Bard
May 7, 2009 at 12:52 pm
I certainly have, bud.
May 7, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Yarp
May 7, 2009 at 12:57 pm
One of the skills of being a parent is to learn to ignore the inane comments and tantrums of your child for attention, lest you spoil them, and carry on conversations with other adults at gatherings. Usually after being ignored for awhile, the child will run off to play with their toys.
May 7, 2009 at 1:00 pm
If we are going to go completely off topic and talk about ourselves to disrupt the conversation lets do it in style
I like the film Hot Fuzz.
My favourite meal is sausage and mash with onion gravy.
I enjoy light, refreshing and non fizzy West Country ciders.
I detest peas.
My favourite book is American Psycho by Bret Easton Ellis.
My psychology department was recently voted the 4th best in the UK under Oxford, Cambridge and University College London.
Purple is my favourite colour.
I like listening to Electro music and enjoy a rave now and then.
Radiohead are my favourite band.
And so on and so on….
You see Shust, nobody really wants to hear about you or me or any gripes you might have, the only objective you have is to disrupt the conversation, make it go off topic and prevent people from talking about the case.
This is the last interaction I will have with you and I suggest everyone do the same.
[ edit to add ] Touche Greggy!
May 7, 2009 at 1:05 pm
yes, thanks!! Please get back on topic…
May 7, 2009 at 1:09 pm
yes, thank you, enough with the silliness.. let’s get back on topic, people
May 7, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I have just posted this on TJMK and thought it may make a point from which to start from to get ‘back on topic’.
I am tempted on leaning towards an idea about Amanda’s theft of Meredith’s money as an attempt to stir things up and get a reaction out of Meredith. Once Meredith saw her money was missing and the obvious culprit being either Amanda or one of the vagabonds Amanda had brought to the house she would have been angry and may have actually said something to Amanda. Once confronted Amanda then has an excuse to lash out or threaten Meredith and start the ball rolling toward Mez’s death. It would be harder to attack a person out of the blue compared to if they confront you.
Of course this is merely speculation but if I am annoyed at someone I usually do something to wind them up and make them snap at me first so then I am fired up to have it out with them- its much harder to just walk in a room and start a row, almost justified.
This would also account for the knife being close at hand;
Amanda: “I dare her to say anything to me about the money. If she tries to have a go just wait til she sees what I’ve brought along, that’ll soon bring her down a peg or two”
Added: I just want to say my rows are usually along a much calmer vein than this, i.e Situation: Boyfriend didn’t text all last night.
Me (to start the row) I eat his chocolate bar while he’s in the toilet.
Boyfriend: Why would you do that? thats just mean and selfish.
Me: Me mean and selfish???! What about you not texting all night?? How could you? I think if anything I’m entitled to your crisps too!!
N.B For the record this situation is merely hypothetical, no real names or likenesses were used in this example.
May 7, 2009 at 3:20 pm
GINNY: I think you have hit the nail on the head. I had intuitvely sensed something such as this transpiring. It is believable as a scenario, in a situation in which resentment had been slowly building on both sides, and Amanda’s feelings and imaginings of slights and rebuffs may have reached a point which was unbearable to repress any further.
May 7, 2009 at 3:37 pm
“I had intuitvely sensed something such as this transpiring.”
But this is just speculating about possibly why someone who hasnt been convicted would do it. Using this line of reasoning we could say anyone who had tensions with kercher could have done it. There’s no evidence that she was murdered out of premeditation.
The original blog calls ‘the lone wolf theory’ ‘laughable’ but the fact of the matter is the same person who said ‘its possible more than one person did it’, is also the same person who when cross examines also said ‘it’s possible only one person did it.’
We have to look at all the facts, not just believe what we want to because it is sensational.
Knox has stated in her testimony in court that there was an insistence from the police on her text message to patrick. Although she’s ruined her credibility, it would make sense, since there’s absolutely no reason for her to sacrifice herself but protect guede.
May 7, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Shust: Your point is extremely well taken. I do take it seriously, as far as it goes. I think what bolsters intuition here is the facts such as Amanda and Sollecito being surprised and at a loss at the unexpected arrival, early on the scene, of the postal police. Also the strong sense the police had of the scene being staged, and the body having been moved and arranged. Without these facts, I would feel less confident about speculating, which is all one can do, with the help of facts. SMK
May 7, 2009 at 4:12 pm
ok, fair enough, and thanks for engaging in this manner. There’s many number of variables in your scenario, that it’s hard to use intuition in a reliable way.
First we’d have to prove that the murder was premeditated or that the tensions were so intense that it opened a possible motive to murder. There’s been no one who came forward to give any evidence that supports that the 2 of them were at each others throats enough and this rising tension is why she would kill her roommate.
The fact that there may have been a staging and the overall sloppiness points to 2 things in my mind:
Guede’s guilt, and that it was not premeditated.
That the police were there at the same time as the 2 of them only makes them seem suspicious, and this is a starting point for more suspicion. Therefore, I think it’s wiser to be even more critical of our suspicion, lest we jump the gun and hang 2 innocent people.
So, you’d have to ask yourself WHY even put Knox and Sollecito there? If Guede is all over the place, it’s virtually impossible to see how he is not involved, when and how did knox and sollecito become ‘guilty’ so to speak.
There is still no conclusive evidence that they were there. All we have are witnesses and changing alibis (none of the witnesses knew any of the defendants personally) who are making vague claims that ‘it was knox’ they saw at different places other than inside the apartment. One of them (Kokomani) is such a disturbing witness, that it’s hard to take the prosecution seriously for even relying on his testimony. And their changing alibis, while unwise choices, could also be explained very reasonably if the police already believed their theory and were trying to draw it to a close.
The simple of fact in that case is still that it’s hard to believe that she would name the wrong guy (lumumba) and also say “I dont believe what I’m telling you” if she wasnt frightened into saying it. This is further backed up by the fact that in order for her to be both guilty and accuse Lumumba, it means she sacrificed herself but protected Guede… And this makes less sense than her ‘plan to rob and kill her roommate.’
May 7, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Shust,
Oh – LOOK!! Something shiny over at Frank’s!
May 7, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Yes, there is a gaping contradiction, and one must doubt intuition, even when it seems counter-intuitive to do so. My sense had always been that this was a long-smoldering anger, built more upon narcissistic injury , and owing to inward causes, than to an out and out fight between room mates. There is no “proof” although there are telling signs. But there are holes in the theory, no doubt of it. They give us stern pause. Something is wrong with Guede not having told about them from the start. If it was he who stage the scene, he would have to have done so quickly, and right before fleeing. It is possible that RS and AK “look” guilty, and as you say, this leads down a path where they are deemed so. I still “sense” that they are, and can bolster it. But there are a few worrisome holes: I would hate to be on the jury.
May 7, 2009 at 4:23 pm
Why would the police wish to frame two innocent people if they have a murderer? I can understand framing people if no one else was around to save face as a police force, but to want to put away two more for a crime they have someone for?
Also why do you think Guede would stage a crime scene? He ran away soon after and didn’t clear up his hand and finger prints- if we follow your opinion then this would be very odd behaviour.
Also I disagree that you need evidence Amanda and Meredith were at each others throats, many murders have taken place without people being seen to be visibly at breaking point with one another, which is why many people here discuss the idea that maybe Amanda felt Meredith saw herself as better than her, when in fact Meredith was just getting on with her life.
Maybe Amanda was frightened into naming Lumumba but can you please explain what you mean by sacrificing herself and saving Guede?
May 7, 2009 at 4:35 pm
Ginny, When you say, “maybe Amanda felt Meredith saw herself as better than her, when in fact Meredith was just getting on with her life”—THAT to me, is the crux of it, and how these strange murders often occur. Albeit, one can not prove it. But there are many facts pointing to just such a scenario, with some gaping points. I have a hard time seeing Guede as the stager of the scene as well. Interested in hearing Shust’s response.
May 7, 2009 at 4:48 pm
“Why would the police wish to frame two innocent people if they have a murderer”
I dont think they were framing her. They started to believe early on that there was knox and lumumba were connected to it, and then they got sollecito to go back on his original alibi… Using that, they went to knox and said ‘sollecito isnt supporting you’ then they told her she was going to jail. Then they insisted (knox’s words) on the text message exchanges between her and lumumba. (a message that sounds like ‘see you later tonight’) She apparently thought ‘they think lumumba did it.’ So she told them what they wanted to hear.
Therefore, they thought they were correct in this lead. But when it was evident lumumba wasnt involved and guede most certainly was, it REALLY throws an elephant in the room. Wouldn’t you agree?
Now, they have a false confession from Knox. Her confession is not a confession at all, but a massive clue into the interrogation.
Of course, the thing to do now in that position is say this girl is a liar, she obviously did it. But it was WRONG information that simoultaneously admits ‘she was there’ but doesnt implicate the right ‘other person.’ Why on Earth would anyone do that? She could be a naive, immature girl who had no idea what she was getting into, thinking she was helping the police, and frightened that if she didn’t she would be locked away.
“Also why do you think Guede would stage a crime scene?”
First you have to prove it was staged. (it’s very possible) If you an prove that, then you could reason that, in his state of hysteria could have thrown a brick through the window on his way out, and stuck to his claim that ‘some other italian man did it.’
“Also I disagree that you need evidence Amanda and Meredith were at each others throats, many murders have taken place without people being seen to be visibly at breaking point with one another”
Sure, but now we’d be relying on rumor and hearsay to support our theory. It isnt fair to Kercher or the accused to pretend to know such things. Someone would have to come forward and say there were very dangerous tensions between the two of them before I would put that at the top of my suspicions. People get in arguments all the time, but that doesnt mean the person who argued was the murderer.
“Maybe Amanda was frightened into naming Lumumba but can you please explain what you mean by sacrificing herself and saving Guede?”‘
Sure. I mean that in order for her to be guilty and write that letter, she’d be admitting her involvement on some level, but by naming Lumumba instead of Guede, she would be protecting the killer.
Why name the wrong guy while you are ‘admitting’ to being involved in a crime? The police already told her they had proof she was there. Now is the time to name the right guy. She didn’t.
She even says something like ‘i know i am incriminating myself, but i can’t remember’
In other words she would be sacrificing herself, while Guede is free and Lumumba shares the same fate with her. Why drag down the wrong guy AND yourself, if you know that Guede did it?? Why didnt she say “I heard Guede and Meredith and I covered my ears.” There’s no reason to protect him if she’s already being told she’s going to prison for 30 years.
May 7, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I’m a bleeding heart liberal, but I do think Mr. Shust is a pain and has really over stayed his welcome. It ruins any hope for discussion if he pops up like whack-a-mole into anyone’s train of thought, and always aggressively as a bully, my way or no way. You are not just a self-obsessed bully, pushing the forum only in your own direction, you’re a lazy bully too, because you haven’t done any real study of all the findings in this case.
Such remarks go on forever in the posts above, much stronger, but as I don’t have enough time or patience to collect them all, I note such as these:
—-I’m not going to reiterate this again and again and again.
—-don’t be afraid, “babe.” (vomit)
—-And you can stop putting words into my mouth while you’re at it, it just makes your points look weak.
—-Please try to think further through my comments instead of stopping on each point without thinking through them.
—-When have I been any more rude than anybody else here?
Well, the truth is you’re much ruder than anyone else here, you just don’t recognize it or just how irritating and wearisome it is getting. I think you should go where you’re wanted–where you can find folks who can discuss things in your own exalted manner and leave us poor fools in peace.
May 7, 2009 at 5:34 pm
” I have a hard time seeing Guede as the stager of the scene as well.”
This is a good point. Is it more plausible that all three, Knox, guede, and sollecito would plan to murder her roommate very sloppily or elicit a violent sex game that killed her… then they somehow erased all traces of themselves except guede, and knox would implicate herself, frame the wrong guy, and protect the right guy, despite that they cleaned up all evidence except for the right guy…
or…
is it more plausible that Guede broke into the apartment, was caught by meredith, he attacked or tried to silence her, and ended up killing her by accident, and then fled, leaving traces of himself all over the place.
and the police were simply wrong about knox and sollecito.
Which is more plausible?
May 7, 2009 at 5:38 pm
didi, if we just try to stay on topic and in a respectful way and there won’t be any problems. I’m here to discuss the issue like everybody else, and i match the tone of the people who i am discussing it with.
May 7, 2009 at 5:48 pm
My compliments to everyone (well almost everyone) for putting aside the name calling and getting back to a reasonable discussion.
shust you have obviously done your homework.
I believe the case against AK and RS hinges on two pieces of evidence. The knife and the bra clasp. The bra clasp is obviously in question because it was not in a controlled environment for 6 weeks. We will see how that plays out in court when the defense presents their case. The knife, in my opinion anyway, seems to have become a non-issue. All three wounds were compatible with a flip-knife, yet the “murder weapon” is, at best, compatible with only one wound. I believe the prosecution is grasping at straws with their two knife theory. It seems to again be a case of attempting to fit the evidence to a pre-determined scenario rather than re-constructing the events based on the evidence.
May 7, 2009 at 5:52 pm
I have always found when I am exploring or defending a theory, that to err on the side of impeccability is best. Thus, I have no problem in imagining the case as wholly different than I have been assuming. I have a strong “sense” that AK and RS were involved. But then, the framework was laid by the Italian theory. There is some possibility that this “lit up ” RS and AK, for me, personally. I can say that in my own family, back in the 1980s, there was an entry and rape (thankfully, the family member was not killed). There was some attempt, on the part of the person, to stage a break in (because he had been doing painting and wall papering, and had access to a key). One never knows. I for one think Miss R has done an excellent job with all her analysis and theorizing. Most excellent. I am also prepared to explore all sides, as there are a few troublesome points which cannot be explained away. I hope that something can bring all firmly to light in the course of the trial. This is an interesting blog, and it does justice to the victim, while not in my opinion going out of bounds with regard to the accused. SMK
May 7, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Shust,
I think you need to recognize to some extent that this is MR’s blog. She puts a great deal of thought and effort into this site. She’s written numerous essays here from every perspective on the trial with research and care as to her presentation. It isn’t easy—-it’s both hard, painstaking work and it makes her vulnerable to people who might want to bring her down–people who act like they’re breaking into someone’s house and trashing the furniture. Sure she’s an adult and she’s made the choice, but she deserves some respect.
It’s not the same as posting a comment, with no real accountability, just letting your own idiosyncratic thoughts fly–you don’t need to care how they’re received, you can just drop out (or stay and insult the site-host and other posters).
Also, the posters do need respect also, you included—-as you say above. That means being brief as you can, not taking over the space, giving everyone a chance and an ear, being clear, informed and open to other ideas and progressing the conversation. That way it’s enjoyable; when it gets to be like a food fight in the Jr. High cafeteria, the intelligent folks just leave. At its best, a murder mystery solution forum can be stimulating.
A far as matching the tone, the tone seemed OK to me not long ago.
May 7, 2009 at 6:23 pm
Hi notreadytomakenice,
There was an abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp. It would have taken considerable contact to leave such an amount of DNA. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Alberto Intini have categorically excluded the possibility of contamination.
It doesn’t make any difference that the bra clasp wasn’t found until 6 weeks later. Sollecito didn’t enter the room during this time and the scientific police wore protective clothing. There is no innocent explanation for an abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA being on a small piece of Meredith’s underwear. His DNA wasn’t found anywhere else in the cottage.
This key piece of forensic evidence won’t be considered in a vacuum, but will be placed into context. Meredith’s bra was removed quite some time after she had been killed.
It makes no sense for Rudy Guede to have gone go back to the cottage to alter the crime scene in order to mislead the investigators. Judge Paolo Micheli rightly concluded that the only person who had an interest in tampering with the crime scene, including staging the break in, was Amanda Knox.
The bra evidence will help convict Guede.
Patrizia Stefanoni is quite unequivocal about the double DNA knife. She states it is Meredith’s DNA on the blade. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the scientific police in Rome, has provided independent confirmation that this forensic finding is accurate and reliable.
It should be noted that the double DNA knife had been cleaned with bleach and DNA was still extracted from a microscopic groove near the tip of the blade, which means the knife must have been saturated with Meredith’s DNA.
Patrizia Stefanoni is la creme de la creme when it comes to forensic scientists not just in Italy, but in the world. She is an internationally renowned forensic expert who specialises in identifying the victims of disasters when the authorities are unable to do so. She helped identify the victims of the Tsunami. The judges and jury will trust her professional judgement.
May 7, 2009 at 6:29 pm
SMK,
Totally OT here, I apologize. Just wanted to tell SMK how to correct her name error at WordPress. Go into your page (Dashboard), choose Profile, delete and add in name you want (SMK?) under “Nickname”. Below that is a pull down selector, choose the SMK option, then go to bottom and push “update.” SMK should come up as Username now.
May 7, 2009 at 6:31 pm
THANKS so very much for that, Didi. It has been driving me crazy. I really appreciate it! SMK
May 7, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Yes, Didi; that did the trick; thanks SO much. Yes, I had forgotten about the DNA, the bra clasp, and the fact that Meredith’s bra had been removed after her death. These do seem to point once again to a staging by others; would you not agree, Shust? It is always so difficult when defending ANY theory; as one little rip, and the whole fabric is torn asunder. And it seems to apply equally, to all the various ideas as to what occurred. I know when I read the Judge’s Italian report – which had been translated – I felt he had some compelling reasons to have decided as he did. Yet there is always margin for some human error, although it is less likely, the more forensic evidence.
May 7, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Didi said:
“Shust,
I think you need to recognize to some extent that this is MR’s blog.”
Hmmm.. interesting. Ownership issues. Care to discuss?
Shust, I support you. Devils advocate you may be, but you’re right about one thing: this is one hell of a speculative blog.
May 7, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I think all intellectual blogs can benefit both from respecting the blog owner’s style and substance, and working with a foil or devil’s advocate, as it were, for sharpening perception. So long as all are respectful, I am certain all can get along without further ado.
May 7, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Kathy,
Remember first that I, a commenter, said that, not Miss Represented.
I felt I did explain what I meant,: not calling it “ownership,” just calling for a bit of respect for the fact of what MR has produced here on her own time without gain. I am totally for the concept of Devil’s Advocate when it’s a matter of straightforwardly presenting an idea in conflict with the general viewpoint–that can stimulate discussion and allow for some revelations.
Yes, this is one hell of a speculative blog, which is interesting for some of us. We do try and support our ideas. What we don’t want to support is bullying. It’s a drag. And no, don’t want to discuss ownership, it’s not the topic really.
May 7, 2009 at 8:28 pm
P.S.
I know of a number of interesting blogs, on this murder case as well as other topics, that were shut down finally, just because the “editors, moderators, administrators, behind the scenes work-doers,” whatever you want to call them—-NOT owners—- ultimately couldn’t put up with the hassles and bad energy being created by the squabbling posters in comments. It’s a real loss.
So saying that, I must shut up for awhile here.
May 7, 2009 at 9:07 pm
The Intangible Ak47
Judges and juries usually make up their mind about a defendant’s guilt based on tangible (e.g., DNA pattern analysis) and intangible evidence (e.g., inexplicable guilty-like behavior). In this murder case, we have heard little of the tangible DNA evidence yet. The DNA evidence may be stronger or far weaker than what has been reported. There is, however, an intangible, inexplicable event strongly linking Ak47 to this murder: her shower at the bloody crime scene. I am certain many of the commentators on this forum well-know the usual behavior of women from years of experience, because they are either fine women, or were raised with sisters that they are close to, or have had long-term ladyfriends. Sorry guys, girlie magazines and on-line porn does not give you this qualification! If you understand and can predict feminine behavior, as well as any of us can, then I ask you: what innocent woman would have ever taken a shower in that bloody bathroom? At the first sight of it, nearly every woman I have ever known would have run from the house in horror and immediately called the police. I suggest that the only type of woman who would ever take a shower in that bathroom would be a woman who had seen a lot of blood recently and had become insensitive to its effect, or was herself daubed with blood. I expect this intangible evidence implicating Ak47 to be discussed mightily during the jury’s deliberations later this year.
There is a link below to pictures of the crime scene showing the shower (not for the squeamish). It is from the Daily Mail, January 16th, 2008 online edition.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-508528/Chilling-pictures-Meredith-murder-scene-reveal-apartment-bloodbath-horror.html
May 7, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Greggy, .That photo was taken after the police sprayed the bathroom with luminol. That is not what Amanda or the postal police saw in the bathroom when they entered the cottage.
May 7, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Luminol reacts with the iron in blood to produce a blue color.
May 7, 2009 at 10:44 pm
I believe also that Luminol shows up only with no lighting on, in the room. It is usually a bluish green luminous look which appears in the dark, at least from what I have read.
May 8, 2009 at 7:23 am
Hi Greggy!
You’re right, there very few and weak tangible evidence that AK and RS were involved in the crime. For me, there is no tangible evidence at all that can serve to jail them.
As fot the intangible evidence, if you read the reports on the TJMK page, it sounds very convincing, the behaviour of the two and also witnesses’ declarations.
There are two intangible evidence that are very interesting in my opinion. The bathroom is one of them. If Amanda did found the bathroom blooded like we see it in the picture of the dailymail, than yes, you’re right, no normal woman would shower there. As I don’t know how it works with luminol, I don’t know what to conclude.
The other intangible evidence that is strange for me, is the fact that Guede didn’t flush the toilet. Why didn’t he do it? He says he was there and finally heard Meredith fighting and shouting and so I went quickly to help her. That sounds plausible. Because if he was involved in the crime together with the others, why and when should he have gone to use the bathroom and not flush the toilet? It is nearly impossible that he went to the bathroom after Meredith’s scream. After her scream all involved people surely ran away afraid to get caught. So, when did he go to the toilets? During the sex game? During the rape? Impossible, because Meredith would have escaped. Or did he go before all the “game” began and just forgot to flush? Possible, but strange. So there are just two possibilities, he went to bathroom before the crime took place and forgot to flush (maybe not for the first time in his life, like children often forget…), or he went to the bathroom after having sex with Meredith and then the other criminals came and murdered Meredith and like he told he came to save her. If this last version is the correct one, then it was irresponsible to jail Guede for rape AND murder.
I still maintain that Guede can have a central function in the trial against AK and RS. There are many things that are unclear with this man and his “relations” to AK and RS. Why didn’t he accuse AK and RS from the beginning? Why AK did first protect him, accusing an other man (Lubumba)? Could be part of her strategy: she and RS went back, cleaned their DNA and then accuse an other man, just to “prove”: Look, I was not there… Don’t know this Guede. Could be, but for me it is still a mystery, how AK and RS could clean off almost all their DNA’s, and voluntary let Guede’s DNA. I can’t imagine one of them just looking at the crime to then know, where to clean off. the crime wasn’t premeditated, so maybe or probably at the beginning, they didn’t even plan to murder, but just to frighten and rape Meredith, and then excited by the scene or upsetted by Meredith’s fighting they killed her. Therefor, it was quite impossible to clean off all the DNA of just the people and voluntary let the DNA of the third person.
Waiting for any comments on this.
May 8, 2009 at 7:40 am
About Rudy’s not flushing the toilet — he did the same thing once before, he was in the house, and the Italian boys tell this episode, about Rudy not flushing the toilet — it was a custom with him, it seems, although in this case panic may have played a role as well
May 8, 2009 at 8:27 am
Thank you Shust for offering answers to my queries- however when I asked why would they frame two innocent people you can only serve to provide an answer to Amanda and her ‘confession’ re Lumumba. If this is the polices main lead and reason to keep Amanda in custody, why was Raff also implicated and imprisoned? As far as I can remember she makes no mention of Raff being around when she is in the kitchen covering her ears, and the fact that Raff no longer gave her an alibi, according to the police, would surely clear his name and put her deep in it? However the police did detain them both and they are both on trial so I must conclude they had more reason to suspect the both of them from this early point, other than the statement she gave to police under duress.
loquitoalex, We have discussed the toilet issue here before and the way I see it in my mind is that it is very possible for him to have gone to the toilet that night that fits with many pieces of this puzzle. We know Rudy was the one to have attempted some form of sexual contct with Meredith, we also know no semen was found so it is a possibility he was unable to continue through to the end (thank God). It has therefore been theorized here before (forgive me but I can’t remember who by) that Rudy had gone there lured by the idea Meredith would be up for it by AK and RS, then got carried away with their plan of humiliating her but couldn’t consumate the idea, if you will, as the whole violence was a bit more than he’d expected. He then leaves to go to the toilet, leaving AK and RS to restrain and do Goodness knows what and does his business. It is then possible he was either still in the bathroom or had come out (not flushing as Hungarian says may have been habit with him), and MK lets out her warning scream. AK then reacts and stabs her and Rudy runs. I have read that murder in Italy is not just the person who strikes the fatal blow but can include those around who did not prevent the fatal blow from happening, therefore making Rudy guilty of both.
Again coming back to the staging of the crime scene and clear up, those Devil’s advocates please answer this query, why , if Rudy did stage the scene and no one else, would he clean up some bloody footprints (never mind the different sizes) and leave others?
I’m not sure about something, maybe someone here can answer, but weren’t the hand print etc that belonged to Rudy left in blood? It would be hard to clean you r own and your boyfriends finger prints and leave only RG’s if they were all invisible to the naked eye, surely it would be quite easy to wipe all surfaces down and just leave the obvious bloody finger prints? Would this not answer how AK and RS could clean their own marks away and leave RGs?
May 8, 2009 at 8:28 am
“Judge Paolo Micheli rightly concluded that the only person who had an interest in tampering with the crime scene, including staging the break in, was Amanda Knox.”
Orrr…. The prosecution. I’m not necessarily accusing them of tampering with the evidence, but they would have a motive for doing it. Does anyone know how easy it is to plant DNA on something? It’s just a thought, not an accusation.
I think Greggy raises an interesting point, thanks for linking the photos. That bathroom is certainly a difficult place to take a shower in, but… on the other hand, this is also a girl who didnt flush the toilet on occasions.
It is very bizarre, though, that someone could take a shower with that much blood in the room.
May 8, 2009 at 8:55 am
Hi Shust, and everyone, just rejoining the conversation.
I think the idea that the prosecution could have planted evidence is a little far fetched. Why would they so desperately want to frame Amanda and Raffaele? Amanda and Raffaele’s ‘supporters’ have at times been criticized for giving the impression that everyone involved in the collection, testing and presentation of the evidence against them is part of a conspiracy to stitch them up them rather than just report what they found. If any ‘framing’ is going on, why did they not ‘find’ any of Patrick Lumumba’s DNA in Meredith’s room? It would have been equally easy to stitch him up too after all they didn’t want to look stupid by admitting they’d caught the wrong man. Forensic experts in Italy have to follow procedures and protocols just like the do in the rest of Europe and the US and I can imagine the Italian experts in their field have been slightly offended by some of the unfounded criticism of their work.
The picture that Greggy linked to of the bathroom wasn’t actually how Amanda would have seen it, I believe that picture was taken after they had sprayed a chemical substance in the bathroom that was pink. I could be completely wrong as forensics is not my area but I’m fairly sure Amanda didn’t find the bathroom in that state on the day Meredith’s body was found and anyone showering in that state would either need to be very blind or very brave.
May 8, 2009 at 9:40 am
Hi Kathy I forgot to say welcome
Kathy wrote: “Hmmm.. interesting. Ownership issues. Care to discuss?
Shust, I support you. Devils advocate you may be, but you’re right about one thing: this is one hell of a speculative blog.”
It’s not so much ownership issues as having to moderate. I’m not at the computer as often as I’d like to be and I’m responsible for the comments written here, I like people to be free and express themselves but when it’s obvious that an individual is having a sly dig or ignorning a request to stop doing something I do take issue.
Arriving on this blog and announcing your support for a poster is great but arriving without saying hi or attempting to join in the conversation and instead moaning about how speculative this blog is, is akin to arriving at somebody’s house unnanounced without saying hello and proceeding to tell the owner how crap you think the curtains are.
Just sayin’
May 8, 2009 at 12:12 pm
“I think the idea that the prosecution could have planted evidence is a little far fetched.”
Usually, I’d agree with you if it was a prosecutor with a clean background and the evidence was found on their first search. That they went back a second time and found it is interesting. This prosecutor is under investigation for overstepping his bounds already for other cases. And we know that it is physically plausible, since the place has been broken into several times since the murder.
The motive of course would be that this trial wil define his career, therefore he better find something that supports his theories. Bringing the likes of Kokomani as his witness is bizarre. the guy’s in jail for beating his girlfriend, and his story is full of holes. I dont think a reasonable prosecutor would have taken him seriously, in fear of becoming a mockery.
That Knox wouldnt have seen the bathroom this way makes it more believable she would take a shower if she thought any blood was from a menstrual emergency and the roommate would returning be like she said. But that much blood that’s seen in the photo would be impossible to ignore.
May 8, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Hi Shust!
I agree with you that Kokomani’story is not convincing at all. It doesn’t make sense nor does it match with the other witnesses. I also have my doubts about Mignini. I can’t understand that a prosecutor who is under investigation for overstepping his bounds is not suspended until the investigation against him is closed. This does not make any sense to me.
Miss represented: It’s obvious, they did’t find any DNA of Lumumba, cause he wasn’t there. It was Guede. But, remember that the police got the name of Lumumba, after insisting Knox to explain about her SMS contact with Lumumba. They must have several suspicious about Lumumba to arrest him and retain him during 2 weeks, not just 2 days, 2 weeks!!! All this behaviour is very unprofessional!
May 8, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Shust, Hmmm I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one, if you think this of Mignini, I’d be interested to know what you make of his co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi. She seems smart and capable and will be presenting the DNA evidence over the next few weeks. If Mignini were suspended the case would continue regardless.
I think as Mignini is also the Public Minister in Perugia (a bit like a district attorney) he has already made quite a name for himself, I hardly think he’d go to the extreme length of planting DNA evidence to bolster his already formidable reputation. Mignini is well known for caring deeply about justice for both the victims of crime and their families. Douglas Preston is not exactly a reliable source on Mignini and I get the distinct impression that he has a rather large bee in his bonnet.
Isn’t it about time people let this go? It isn’t directly case related and people do make mistakes. Preston is only using his ‘experience’ to sell more books and serve up his own ‘justice’ for Mignini which only makes him look like a big baby. I for one am quite happy to let the Italians deal with their own justice system and reprimand Mignini if they so wish. To be honest I’ve always thought, if the Italian people think he is the best man for the job, who are we to argue?
Kokomani is certifiably nuts and despite him having seen the breakdown truck and his phone being pinged in the area of the cottage I think it was a mistake to put him on the stand. I don’t think he was ever the ‘super witness’ he was made out to be.
May 8, 2009 at 2:04 pm
“To be honest I’ve always thought, if the Italian people think he is the best man for the job, who are we to argue?”
I don’t agree with this, because Italian people also think Berlusconi is best man to govern Italy. A man who manipulates the justice, changes laws to evite trials and jail.
Also american thought Bush was the man to govern 8 years the USA. For both Berlusconi and Bush we are free to say that there would be much better alternative…
To come back to Mignini: A person who is under investigation in regard to his job should be suspended of his job till the judgement, not only in Italy, but in the whole world!
May 8, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Hi Loquitoalex.
Have you ever made a mistake in your job? Have you ever done something you might have done differently in hindsight? I am of course assuming that Mignini would do anything differently with regard to Spezzi and Preston as in reality he probably wouldn’t, they were both being cocky little s**ts anyway and they’re still trying to get everyone to feel sorry for them. Years later.
People change and people deserve a second chance. Mignini is not Bush or Berlusconi he’s a prosecutor who happens to be dealing with another couple of cocky little s**ts. There is no proof that Mignini has altered any evidence whatsoever, there is no proof that Preston isn’t making a mountain out of a mole hill and trying to sell more books off the back of the ‘crazy megalomaniac prosecutor’.
And still people ignore poor Manuela Comodi, she must be an extraordinary lady if she’s entrusted by Mignini to handle the most important part of the trial.
May 8, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Hi miss represented!
The Preston episode does not influence my opinion. I just think that a prosecutor who is investigated for overstepping his bounce, should not exerce till all haven been cleared about it.
Further, I don’t think, that the prosecution is cheating with the forensic evidences. They have so few. The only thing I pointed out is her behaviour about Lumumba and then the simple replacement of Lumumba by Guede.
May 8, 2009 at 3:10 pm
“I’d be interested to know what you make of his co-prosecutor Manuela Comodi. She seems smart and capable and will be presenting the DNA evidence over the next few weeks. If Mignini were suspended the case would continue regardless.”
To be honest, in my opinion, speaking about the other co-prosecutor is totally irrelevant to what we were discussing, it is just a rehashing of things people have said when anyone questions Mignini’s integrity, and he could very well act alone, regardless of how much you believe in her.
My point is that a man who is under investigations for tampering with previous investigations would be a man I would be suspicious about tampering with the current one.
Again, and I hate to keep repeating myself, but the point was ‘why would anyone tamper with the evidence, and who would do such a thing?’
And I repeat, the prosecution would have a motive, and it’s plausible in this case, because of the prosecutor’s questionable (at best) integrity coupled with the fact that the clasp was found 6 weeks later, and there has already been several break ins. The conclusion is that the clasp is not 100 percent reliable unless someone can prove that it was virtually impossible to transfer any DNA onto that clasp.
May 8, 2009 at 3:11 pm
I don’t think in a complex murder case anyone would ‘simply’ replace one person for another.
We are not talking about a third world country here. I’m sure there is corruption in Italian law in places but when it is such a high profile case involving a young girl from America and a young girl from England, two countries that I’m sure are up there at the top of legal proceedings, I doubt Italy would simply replace one suspect for another without reasonable cause.
May 8, 2009 at 3:24 pm
Of course it is virtually impossible, what are you assuming they did, took it to Raff while he was sleeping and pressed it into his hands?
The DNA on the clasp comes from considerable pressure, which is why they call it an abundance of RS DNA (unlike the knife which had so little there was only enough for one test), I’m not sure if its even possible to plant DNA as in wipe something that has his DNA on to something you want to find his DNA on, but the amount of DNA found on the bra clasp is so much that it is only possible to achieve if considerable pressure was applied by the suspect. That is why the bra clasp is such a vital piece of evidence, coupled with the proof the bra was removed sometime after death.
May 8, 2009 at 3:24 pm
hi loquitoalex
yes, for me there are also many troubling things on the side of the law. I keep starting over from the beginning and every time I run into the ‘internal affairs’ with this case. I dont know if the crime scene was tainted, and that is the least troubling for me.
It looks to me like they were convinced Lumumba and Knox were involved from very early on, and pretty much had the noose around their necks until they couldnt prove Lumumba was there, and it was obvious Guede was.
So then, you just keep coming back to Knox’s ‘confession’ and changing alibis. To me, this is the ONLY thing that really points the finger at them at this point in the investigation. But once you start looking into that, there’s too many odd things about it. She implicates herself, but says ‘i dont believe it.’ She is neither runnign from guilt ‘I am completely innocent’ or admitting it ‘I did it, and here’s how, and what happened.’ She had ‘visions’ of the guy they wanted to arrest after they told her she would go to jail for 30 years if she didnt cooperate. And… She was wrong about the killer. She named herself and the wrong guy. Again, why would anybody protect the killer but implicate themself in a murder?
And then we go to the prosecutors, who are pulling a guy like kokamani as a witness, and evidence that was found 6 weeks after the murder. None, absolutely none, of the witnesses knew Knox and Sollecito other than to say ‘i’ve seen them before.’ This is unreliable for sure.
You wouldnt use that line in a defense would you? “Knox was dancing at Red Room that night.” “how do you know, is she an acquaintance of yours?” “No, I know it was her because she has blue eyes and pale skin. I saw a girl there that looked like that, and with a guy, so it must be these two.” This would surely not hold up as a witness for the defense. The fact that these 2 were hung by public opinion (and still are) is damning, and it’s sad that these ‘superwitnesses’ are being taken seriously by anybody.
One of them is a homeless guy who saw ‘a couple’, and another is in jail for beating his girlfriend, and the other says he knows it was her because she has blue eyes and pale skin.
May 8, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“the amount of DNA found on the bra clasp is so much that it is only possible to achieve if considerable pressure was applied by the suspect. ”
This is possible, and I agree that this is the easiest to believe, but I also remain skeptic based on my previous reasonings regarding the shady prosecutor, the length of time before the evidence suddenly ‘appeared’, the break ins, and the strange way knox ‘confessed’…
May 8, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Which is why we now come to the physical evidence as everyone knows eye witnesses are mainly unreliable.
Also Shust, maybe you missed it but in an earlier reply to you I questioned how you explain Raff’s involvement in the ‘framing of the two innocents’ if everything is based on Amanda’s forced confession?
By the way, are you called Shust because you were so annoying as a child everyone kept saying SSSSHHHHHHHHHST, so you assumed it was your name???
May 8, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Hi Shust,
I suggest you do some background reading into the case because you’re embarrassing yourself with your ignorant and inaccurate comments.
Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox both lied to the police from the very beginning when they weren’t suspects. They certainly weren’t put under any pressure or played off against each other.
Sollecito admitted that he hadn’t called the police before the postal police arrived at the cottage. He admitted that he had lied to the police and blamed Knox for his lies.
Amanda Knox voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith. She was asked if she was sure and she replied that she was. She didn’t retract her false and malicious accusation the whole time Diya Lumumba was in prison.
Knox and Sollecito have both given triple alibis and lied repeatedly. There is no innocent explanation for their numerous lies. They are exactly where they should be: in the slammer. They WILL be convicted of murdering Meredith and be given life sentences. They will probably transferred to a secure mental institution at some point. I don’t think they will ever be released from prison.
May 8, 2009 at 9:11 pm
I am quite sick of Shust, he is both offensive and ignorant. Ignore, ignore, ignore his main objective is to disrupt and offend.
May 8, 2009 at 9:47 pm
“Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox both lied to the police from the very beginning when they weren’t suspects. They certainly weren’t put under any pressure or played off against each other.”
I didnt realize you were there to confirm there was no pressure on them.. That is absolutely ludicrous to suggest there was no pressure put on them. Absolutely ludicrous..
Knox said it herself in court that they were pressuring her about the text message, and it makes sense, because the text message did exist, they were looking for cell phone pings and the fact that Lumumba wasnt there.
“Sollecito admitted that he hadn’t called the police before the postal police arrived at the cottage. He admitted that he had lied to the police and blamed Knox for his lies.”
No, he said he was going along with knox. I agree, he changed his story several times, I never said he didnt. He changed his story once the police started suggesting that knox was involved in the murder.
“Amanda Knox voluntarily accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith.”
Where’s your proof of this??
“She didn’t retract her false and malicious accusation the whole time Diya Lumumba was in prison.”
That’s because she was in prison too at that point, remember?? How’s she going to retract it when she’s being arrested?
In her written statement before they arrested her she says “I stand by my statements, but they seem more unreal to me” In other words, she didnt believe what she was writing. Why in God’s name would she write the letter in the way that she did? She accused the wrong man, putting herself at the crime scene, sacrificing herself and protecting guede (of she was really there)… THEN… according to some of you, they somehow cleaned up the crime scene, erasing an enormous amount of forensics, EXCEPT for what points to the guy who was undisputably there. So, she implicated the wrong guy, protected the right guy, sacrificed herself, then cleaned up everybody except for the right guy.
“There is no innocent explanation for their numerous lies.”
No, there is certainly not. There is definitely something VERY wrong with it.
“They WILL be convicted of murdering Meredith and be given life sentences. They will probably transferred to a secure mental institution at some point. I don’t think they will ever be released from prison.”
Well, why are they even having a trial. They should just call you in, since your crystal ball tells you everything, including how ignorant I am. I wish I could think critically like you.
May 8, 2009 at 9:50 pm
“I am quite sick of Shust, he is both offensive and ignorant. Ignore, ignore, ignore his main objective is to disrupt and offend.”
Yes, it’s okay for people to attack me, but anyone who agrees with you has complete freedom to be rude. How ironic that the person who understands ‘group mentality’ can be involved int the group persecution of one individual who disagrees. I was discussing the issue, and if someone puts out an insult, I do not turn the other cheek. I am sooo sorry that my opinion ‘offends’ you. Why dont you tell us again how the lone wolf theory is ‘laughable’, despite the fact that the same guy who said 3 people might have killed kercher is the same guy who said ‘one person also could have done it.’ ? Excuse me for reading your blog.
May 8, 2009 at 10:10 pm
You are so boring, Shust. Please, enough.
May 8, 2009 at 10:12 pm
You are not simply reading — and you don’t have an opinion Shust — you have an aim — to destroy the dialogue that exists here — nothing interests you, not even Knox, only this little thing — so please, stop.
May 8, 2009 at 10:27 pm
“you are you are you are, you are you are you are…”
I know what I’m doing, no one’s Jedi mind tricks are going to convince me otherwise.
People are here discussing a murder trial, and that’s exactly what I am doing. But I am not surprised of the group mentality I’m experiencing here, since so many of you are only interested in popular opinion. Personally, I can stand the group persecution of you fantasists, but I only hope the accused will get a fair trial. The kinds of fantasies I’ve seen written on this blog simply are not fair to them or the victim.
May 8, 2009 at 10:50 pm
You are not discussing anything. You are only disrupting. That is your very simple aim. One can see through it from the very first moment. Not listening to anybody, just mimicking it. Like a troll does. Please stop.
May 8, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Back home from the Laura Pausini concert! It was great! Some italian feelings! As since one week I’am reading all possible infos about this case, I had many thoughts for the poor Merdetith and also for Amanda during the concert. Two young girls attracted by this Bella Italia… I love Italia too… why had it to end this way for these young ladies…
Just wanted to share my feelings with you out there
May 8, 2009 at 11:08 pm
That does seem a horrible waste of Bella Italia. That so beauteous a place as Perugia would wind up a place of murder and death and devastation. Nothing but loss, with no silver lining for anyone. One wishes some fate had been at work, and curtailed it all.
May 8, 2009 at 11:17 pm
“You are not discussing anything. You are only disrupting. That is your very simple aim.”
You know how I know that to be true? Ninety percent of your comments are about me. None of them are about the case. Move along, elf goblin, fairy, bridgetroll, or whatever names you kids are calling each other nowadays.
May 8, 2009 at 11:18 pm
“You are not discussing anything. You are only disrupting. That is your very simple aim.”
You know how I know that to be true? Ninety percent of your comments are about me. None of them are about the case. All of my comments are about the case, except for when the discussion is disrupted by you and one or 2 others. Move along, elf goblin, fairy, bridgetroll, or whatever names you kids are calling each other nowadays.
May 8, 2009 at 11:20 pm
perugia is a fantastic little fairy tale town, with the best chocolate in the world, and a great little museum of music. Lovely people there, It’s a total shame that this case has put a stigma on it.
May 8, 2009 at 11:28 pm
Shust, don’t be ridiculous, none of your comments are on the case — they are all about you — so I must comment on you — stop, please — commonplaces about Perugia, one can find in any book — what a bore Shust — please, stop
May 8, 2009 at 11:28 pm
So true. But paradoxically, the very charm and fairy tale-like setting may have set expectations, which going unmet, spiraled into something sinister. It is clear that someone lost control, in any case. This case often reminds me of Patricia Highsmith’s novel, The Talented Mr. Ripley. Ripley found Mongebello a fairytale, then got humiliated, then committed murder. That is a haunting book.
May 8, 2009 at 11:32 pm
The niveau of your comment about Perugia is about the same niveau as your comments on this tragic case — all on the surface — but you can still disrupt here the dialogue that is unfolding — and that is your true and visible aim — Miss Represented is a very fine person, but she lost, after dozens of attempts to be fair to you, she lost her patience — so, what else do you desire?
May 8, 2009 at 11:49 pm
Interesting, I have never read that book, but I know about the story. Ripley was humiliated, and lost control, then took over the identity of the guy he killed… Anyway, it’s definitely a tragedy that has destroyed Perugia’s reputation as a quaint and romantic college town, and it’s just sad all around, as Italy is full of the most hospitable and warm people I’ve ever met… would hate to ever see that change.
May 8, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Yes, in a sense, some of the fine psychoanalysis that I have read from Miss Represented seemed to parallel Highsmith’s uncanny intuition. I have never been to Perugia, but can see from newsclips that it is lovely. I had viewed AK, potentially and theoretically, as a sort of Ripley, whom Highsmith described as having both a need for people, and a chilling distance from them. Very complex. I have not seen anything new in the trial news; and wondered have they taken a break?
May 8, 2009 at 11:59 pm
hmmm. I wouldnt pretend to know enough about knox’s psyche to compare it to a fictional character. But I’ve read a lot of people doing are doing that here and elsewhere. This isnt respectful to the victim or the accused, as I’m sure the victim would want the right people locked away for the right reasons.
May 9, 2009 at 12:09 am
True enough: There always exists a danger when doing an analysis of a subject who is not known, and there is a fine line between theorizing and then going down a slippery slope into mere fantasy; this would do no justice to either victim or accused. But when one has examined certain facts, it is not altogether unreasonable to engage in some supposition. It is almost natural. (for example, the case of the McCanns. One reads certain facts. One’s opinion begins to shift.) Even the presumption of innocence, in the United States, can wind up doing a disservice to police and prosecution, who are after all indicting the accused, precisely on the opposite presupposition!
May 9, 2009 at 3:02 am
I’ve been saddened to see how this blog has been hijacked over the last couple of days. This blog was for the disscusion of the psychological implications of the known and accepted evidence, by accepted I mean the evidence that the prosecution are using in this case. If anyone cannot accept the evidence and would rather discuss the possibility of a pan European conspiracy against the accused then there are at least two other blog’s that you can use.
MR has postulated a number of theories that are both well researched and valid given the known evidence. I accept that most of the contributors here feel that AK and RF are the ones responsible and are looking at a choice of either mad or bad but we also know that nothing we contribute has any effect on the outcome of the case. If that was the case I’m sure the defence would be looking towards a plea of diminished responsibility.
This blog is unusual as it looks primarily at the non physical evidence first and only uses the physical evidence to back it up. I for one find the exploration of the state of mind and motivation of the two accused more interesting than the physical evidence.
I can look at physical evidence like the bra clasp with Raff’s DNA on it, how did it get there. Perhaps it floated through the air and by some random chance landed on it, not likely . Maybe it is as his father suggested because Amanda borrowed Meredith’s bra, unlikely as she was a different size and although I’m sure there are young women who would lend an intimate garment to a friend, I don’t believe that they had that sort of relationship and given Amanda’s self confessed sexual track record it’s even less likely that Meredith would allow Amanda to use her bra ( I’m sure female contributors will back me on this ). Unless raff had a penchant for fondling women’s underwear in which case I would expect to find his DNA on more than one item of underwear. I find it more probable that the DNA got there while Raff was cutting the bra of Meredith’s body.
Personally I find the behavioural traits and verbal interactions most telling. I feel that Amanda admitted too much knowledge of the crime to the police and to Meredith’s friends, her inability to tell the truth, her conflicting alibis and the accusation of Patrick were significant indicators of involvement. In my experience it is not what you say it is how you say it and sometimes what you don’t say is just as important. Having viewed eyes for lies blog I would love to say I picked up on all the points she identified but she left me for dead, I’ll definitely be visiting that site again.
I do have considerable experience working with people with drug dependency problems, mental health issues and currently young offender’s though sadly I lack friends at Stanford, I was however taught by a professor who was on the staff at the Tavistock clinic in London (does this count as a credential).
Having looked at a couple of the other blog’s They seem to be populated by people who fall into two categories, the ones who get off on being annoying and those who genuinely feel that what they say will have some bearing on the outcome of the trial. Niether has any more value that the other. This is the internet after all not real life.
I hope MR keeps up the great work she has been doing, I find it both thought provoking and enjoyable if some people don’t like it I would suggest they go elsewhere and don’t let the door catch your arse on the way out.
I would not object to being called babe by a stranger, as a 48yr old married man with three children that’s as good as it gets these days, as long as the person calling me babe does not mind me referring to them as a total knobend.
May 9, 2009 at 3:17 am
Why do most contributors to this blog continually try and chase away and insult people who have a different opinion than theirs.
May 9, 2009 at 3:47 am
I think chase away is a bit strong, this blog has an agenda st by MR and we discuss the various aspects of the psychological aspects of the case based on the accepted evidence.
Those with what you refer to as having a different opinion seem to have their own agenda which is to disrupt the flow of discourse.
Shusht was asked polity then firmly not to use the term babe but has continued to do so, this may be acceptable on other blogs but is not welcome here, had shusht been able to contribute anything of value I’m sure we would have listened but that has not been the case.
I’m confident that some of the people who have tried to disrupt this blog are also posting on other blogs under different names and have come here to create the sort of confrontational and toxic atmosphere they enjoy,
I’m too tired to be polite so I will just say if you want to behave like a prick get your coat your taxi is waiting outside.
May 9, 2009 at 4:11 am
Tony– I’ll back you up on the bra-sharing issue. =) Never ever have I ever shared a bra with anyone. And I’ve lived with many many female roommates over the years, some of them my dearest friends. For one, everyone is a different size, needs a different fit. Maybe if they were sisters? But definitely not roommates who didn’t get along all that well.
I find the argument that prosecution planted evidence completely ridiculous. I read Doug Preston’s book (actually, for the most part, a riveting read, though I think they were somewhat in the wrong for poking around where they oughtn’t) and I don’t recall any accusation against Mignini of planting evidence. Just coming up with wild theories. If they just wanted to look good, they would have been satisfied with just Guede.
May 9, 2009 at 7:03 am
notreadytomakenice — it is only one person, Shust, who is continually making derisive comments, feigning ignorance of the facts, when he meets an uncomfortable argument. I can’t chase him away, I don’t have the power, but I have to tell him, his tactics is boring and very transparent. Sorry. Otherwise I rarely speak — I am a reader of Miss Represented’s very cautious and meticulous arguments. But Shust is just playing with MR and the whole blog — and enjoying it. I haven’t read anything significant from him till now. Sorry again. The contamination argument — you can only accept that if you accept, that the prosecution framed AK and RS — and for me this logic is far fetched in this case. If I say it is possible (everything is possible)it is not a real argument in this case, as it is very complex — and circumstancial and psychological and foresincal evidence twine together –so the simplifying arguments of Shust like people is simply nauseating. Sorry again.
May 9, 2009 at 8:39 am
Tony, in my defense, because otherwise I’m not engaging with those who attack me:
I appreciate your clever method of pretending to be fair and objective, while slipping into indirect backhanded insults when you can.
I said at the beginning, that I respected the blogger’s opinion, but I also disagreed. I was told I didnt understand the case. Then, I (and very importantly, other posters) were simply told every time we had a point that differed to “go to so-and-so’s” blog because we werent welcome here. WE, now. People who disagreed and belonged on ‘so-and-so’s blog’.
Others are calling anybody who disagrees ‘half-wit’ ‘lost cause’ ‘etc. etc.’ dont get mentioned. The moment I say anything in defense of myself you people swarm on it like flies. It’s amazing really. I’ve learned quite a lot about ‘group think’ by participating in this, and it’s the first blog on this case I’ve wasted my time on.
I called someone babe in a lighthearted defense of someone who was attacking me without writing directly to me (kind of like you!) I thought it was amazing and absolutely fascinating that another person got offended at this, and rushed to the defense. I mean, to put a pet name at the end of a sentence is so vile, wouldnt you agree, amigo? It’s just a word, and I’m not going to apologize for that, telling people to not call someone a pet name is silly, I thought it was just so amazing that this person let’s someone on their side of the fence attack others, but anyone who adds a moniker onto their sentence gets gets spoke to like this is a playground and one of the children’s feelings will be scarred for life by such a word. Anyone who disagrees is ‘not allowed’ to say ‘babe, dear, love, amigo, friend’.. ALL are affectionate terms. “knobhead”, “halfwit” “ignorant” and “lost cause” are not. hmmmm, it must be okay to use these words, right, knobhead?
May 9, 2009 at 8:59 am
Shust, you are taking over the conversation and alienating people here. Nobody wants to discuss the case with you because you are too aggresive and bossy. This is a place where people can discuss the psychology of the case, you don’t seem interested in discussing anything other than yourself and hurling petty insults at people. Please try and be nice to other posters here otherwise I will have no choice but to start moderating with a little more ‘brute force’, thankfully I have very rarely had to use the ‘delete’ key. I hope you catch my drift, if you don’t you will be the first person I will ever have banned.
May 9, 2009 at 9:09 am
miss represented, in case you didnt notice i WAS discussing this case, and OTHERS are interrupting it to make attacks, not me. Just read through and see for yourself. Unfortunately, much earlier posts arent in chronological order, but you can see in the more recent ones. You delete something I wrote in defense of myself, but the person who attacks me goes scott free. Again, for about the fiftieth time, I’m discussing the issue. Anyone who attacks me wil lget a defense. If you are going to moderate, please be objective and fair. After all, I was linked here from a website that has ‘true justice’ in the name… justice means fairness, and dare I say it, this blog is not fair in more ways than one. People who take the time to read your theories and disagree have the same right to voice their opinions as those who agree and compliment you over and over.
“Please try and be nice to other posters ”
Yes, obviously it’s me who is being abusive, and not the others. I was in the middle of a really nice debate, last night. Just read through and see how I all of a sudden became the abusive one.
Your objectivity is yeally really really amazing.
May 9, 2009 at 9:30 am
Okay Shust, I understand why you might feel a little hard done by, but it remains to be seen that before your ‘arrival’ the atmosphere was a lot less hostile here. I am a calm and patient person and do try to be fair but I do feel that your tone is aggresive and have recieved several emails from posters here who are concerned that my blog is being hijaked and are convinced you are nothing more than a troll.
Let’s leave the discussion about this issue here and hopefully we can get back to discussing the psychology behind the murder of Meredith Kercher.
BTW: I was actually interested in what you thought about Manuela Comodi.
May 9, 2009 at 3:58 pm
Keep up the good work, Miss R and good faith posters. I have found a strategy for dealing with hostile trollery that works for me here: I just skip the posts written by Shust. These comments might be readable if they were not so aggressive in tone. It not only makes the give and take of a discussion impossible, it also totally negates any force that Shust’s arguments might otherwise have.
May 9, 2009 at 4:51 pm
I agree with skep, I have found the scroll button on my mouse very useful in the last few day’s
May 9, 2009 at 5:36 pm
This site used to be one of the best reads alongside TJMK-
After todays findings in court, maybe shust will realise that its very difficult to explain away naked bloody footprints- and hit the road.
MR- your doing a grand job! I cant wait for Mays post.
Can anybody tell me anything on the cat with bleedin ear and the break in downstairs?
Greggy- you crack me up
May 9, 2009 at 6:38 pm
“Let’s leave the discussion about this issue here …” It’s fine with me, but as you can see in the above poster, it’s not me who is trying to throw the discussion off course, and never has been.
“I was actually interested in what you thought about Manuela Comodi.”
I dont know much about her, but I imagine she’s an effective prosecutor. Mignini, however, strikes me as someone who is capable and likely to abuse his power.
May 9, 2009 at 6:50 pm
The psychological theorizing on this blog site has been done with much precision. It is profound, sublime, and above all, human and believable. When I have read certain facts, such as the bloody footprint matching Amanda’s shoe size being found at the scene, I become confident that the theory has underpinnings of solid fact.
However, I must confess that I do not like what I have read of Mignini. It is extraordinarily bothersome to me. It makes him appear as a stain on the whole case. Perhaps certain online articles have been biased against him. His belief in satanic ritual to the point of having arrested and jailed some innocent persons makes him seem as though he is given to mania. I begin to think of the McMartin trial in the US, and in what manner a prosecutor’s fantasy trumped reality. But then, I look back at the facts: For all that, he may have followed an error which led to truth. In any case, I would rest easier if someone else had been put in command of the case. I also would be interested in hearing more of Manuela Comodi.
May 9, 2009 at 6:57 pm
Here is an interesting and fairly balanced piece on Mignini, in case anyone missed it (as Frank Sfarzo is considered to be pro-Amanda’s innocence in his perspective):
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/02/master-of-suspect.html
I was glad to read it as it temporized my own view, which has been more like SMK’s: I’d rather he weren’t the PM. I read Monster of Florence, which I took with a huge grain of salt, but something rang true about what was said about Mignini’s manipulativeness. But Frank knows Italy, I don’t.
May 9, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Didi: Thank you for that link, most appreciated! I did look at the piece, and I think I grasp more of Mignini’s cultural background and stance now; together with his long history in Perugia. He is classical, and has contempt for drugs. On the one hand, it may have made him rabidly attack Knox and Solecitto. On the other hand, he may have a penetrating gaze into what dark elements their drug use brought to the fore in them. In this sense, he may well be within the bounds of Nietzsche’s theory of “how an error and a lie, led me to the truth”. Very enlightening. Not conclusive, but none the less, enlightening! Thanks again, Didi.
May 9, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Hi to everyone!
I have to apologize for my poor english, but I’m hopefull you will understand my writings.
When I was searching deeper information about the murder-case this weekend,
today in the morning, I stumbled about this blog and the falsification of the lone-wolf-theory by Miss Represented, which I found very inspiring.
Yesterday, after reading the whole evening different views and lots of details, I was beginning to recreate my own theories about this case, that is very sad, but also somehow interesting.
(I will not longer bore you with off-topic-statements, only let me add, that I am relatively new in this, till now I don’t know very much about it, maybe the most I learned yesterday and today, even if I already read sporadically articles about it since January this year.)
The falsification of the lone-wolf-theorie made me think nearly the whole afternoon,
maybe because yesterday I came to the conclusion that it is highly implausible that this three people made a plan together.
But this was just an intuitive conclusion by me, basing on things I read (by trying to sort out rumours and false information).
The approuch of Miss Represented is much more scientific and well-informed, that I had to dust myself off and try again.
So I have a little analytical approuch in development, which I will try to explain.
Before I do so, I want to say something to the lone-wolf-theory:
“The so called lone wolf theory suggests Guede had the motivation or capability to scale a very high wall, smash a window and climb through without cutting himself in order to rape and kill Meredith Kercher.”
This seems to me a very stupid theory, too.
And – in regard to the “diorganised / organised offender” – I also do not think that
RG surprised his victim.
But this doesn’t mean automatically that he could not have done it alone, I think.
Maybe he met Meredith on her way home, maybe he told her he is going to visit Amanda, maybe Meredith knew him enough to be not too suspicious and let him into the house.
After finding Amanda was not there he maybe became cheekily, than flashy to Meredith.
Maybe initially it was not too seriously, but than it become more severe, and after he didn’t want to leave the house the situation turned more and more violent and was finally escalating …
But – at this moment right now – I do not know much about Rudy’s and Meredith’s character, I do not know if such a scene could have been happened.
What regards my “little analytical approuch in development”, is as follows:
We have three suspects and one victim.
That allows only the following constellations:
1. All three did it.
2. Two of them did it.
2.a) The third person knows about it.
2.b) The third person knows nothing about it.
3. Only one person did it.
3.a) The other two know about it.
3.b) The other two know nothing about it.
3.c) One of the other two knows about it.
4. Another, unknown person, was involved (in every single above constellation).
5. Another, unknown person, did it alone.
Did I miss one or more possible variations?
It would be helpfull, if one can exclude already at this level some constellations.
I would say, 4. and 5. are very unlikely, because no DNA or fingerprints of unknown persons were found.
Am I right?
And so I have in mind to collect the different theories, relate them to this constellations, think about other possible scenarios, relate them, too
- and try to falsificate them with the facts, that remain facts, after they had been discussed and judged in the trial of Knox and Sollecito.
That was my decision today, how to proceed to get closer to the truth.
Hope, my comment wasn’t an imposition.
Have a nice sunday – thanks for this much good material,
the good articles of Miss Represented and the many deep comments
(a lot of work for me to do, to read all this carefully, the next days)!
May 10, 2009 at 12:25 am
Hi again Miss R and thank you for the above essay, like all your works I find them edifying.
It was mentioned above about Guede not flushing the toilet and why – ( I never thought I would find myself discussing peoples toilet habits on the internet but nevermind) but I think one has to look at why Knox never flushed the toilet after discovering the said faeces.
Instead she moves in there and dries her hair (according to her account that is).
This is strange behaviour to me and suggests an ulterior motive, especially when she apparently blabbed repeatedly to all and sundry about “shit” being in the toilet bowl.
The pink stuff in the Daily Mail images is I think fingerprint media/dust but also again, strange behaviour in taking a shower with bloodstains( did the Police say there was an 11inch smear on the wall in there?) which anyone would notice after just walking in to the house through a supposedly open door, missing Filomena’s broken window that she would have to walk past to get to the open street door and then not bothering about Filomena’s room door or trying it (so therefore never saw the broken window from the inside) after supposedly calling out and checking if anyone was home.
Strange indeed if one is to believe this individual and her “best truth” she can think of.
May 10, 2009 at 12:30 am
That is a very good point, above. If one came home to find the toilet unflushed, and was at that juncture not knowledgeable about any crime having been committed, one would immediately want to flush it. (Just as when one goes into a public restroom, and has to use a stall in that condition: The first instinct would be to flush it.) It does appear that AK was preserving the evidence of what she knew already , and full well, was a crime scene.
May 10, 2009 at 2:40 am
Has it been discussed that maybe the lack of fingerprints on or near the body could be that the perps wore gloves? It’s very obvious there was a cleanup to remove evidence in other parts of the house. Also, I read somewhere that Amanda said that she took a shower in her bathroom the morning the body was discovered and still NO FINGERPRINTS OF HERS TO BE FOUND IN THIS HOUSE!! hmmm Her stories just don’t add up.
May 10, 2009 at 9:31 am
“still NO FINGERPRINTS OF HERS TO BE FOUND IN THIS HOUSE!!”
Yes but takign a shower doesnt mean you are going to leave fingerprints, especially identifiable ones. It’s odd that only one fingerprint of hers was found, but it’s also stranger that she would somehow be capable of selectively removing only her fingerprints, and leave everybody else’s? Don’t you agree?
Also, there were no footprints of hers found in the room where the murder took place. There’s one unidentifiable footprint (on a pillow, mind you)… The rest of the footprints are guede’s. How on earth did she clean up her own footprints, and selectively leave guede’s?
And as for the toilet flushing, it’s been reported that knox didnt even flush the toilet when she used it, so it isnt that remarkable that she didnt flush it when she saw feces in it. the girl didnt have a good reputation for hygiene, so i think we have to look elsewhere for indications of her culpability.
And I’ve still not seen anything conclusive.
May 10, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Well, yes, I can concede all of that. But, (and am not being confrontational, really just trying to grasp things) what of the idea that the body had been moved, and the bra removed hours after death? The judge said that as Guede was gone, who else would have access and motive to do this, except a guilty Amanda? I think he said that this was what forced him to view her truly as a suspect.
May 10, 2009 at 1:31 pm
“what of the idea that the body had been moved, and the bra removed hours after death?”
Dont worry, I dont take it as confrontational, but thanks. I’m just as interested in these questions as you are.. In regards to that, my take on it is this:
It is not provable that the murderer left the crime scene immediately after the stabbing, first of all. So, it’s just as possible that the perpetrator/s moved her before they left, and even before she died. It’s also not provable that the body was moved to ‘frame guede’, although it seems likely that the body was indeed moved.
We dont know what happened during the attack, but just because there is the possibility that someone came back hours later, it doesnt mean they came back to ‘frame someone.’ I say this because:
It’s just as likely that if someone ran away immediately after the sight of the blood, they could have just as reasonably come back to see if she indeed died. In a state of horror, they could just as easily have moved her as a result of this inspection. Furthermore, they not only moved her, they covered her. This is very important.
The fact that someone covered her in a duvet points to many possibilities into the psyche of the person who did it, which all lead to the choice to ‘cover’ and all the associations of this word. This would be the choice of someone who’s trying to ‘cover a shame’, not necessarily the choice of a brutal premeditating serial killer who had planned out a murder and now wants to frame somebody. Obviously, if you are the kind of person who sweeps something under a rug after you broke it, you are not only avoiding responsibility, you are acknowledging it as an accident.
In terms of moving the body, it would also mean there is physical evidence of the person who moved her. It’s very difficult for me to believe that knox and sollecito could erase their fingerprints and footprints but leave guede’s…
Especially the footprints, since they would have to somehow be able to meticulously work some real cleanup magic on that by distinguishing every little mark and then erase it without contaminating evidence on Guede.
The only fingerprint was the bloody one of Guede, and this would only mean that if they were involved, they never had any blood on their hands, since if they did have blood on their hands, and they did do a cleanup, they would have had to remove all the fingerprints that had blood on them.
Therefore, they either didnt get any blood on their hands (during their furious 3 person assault on meredith) or they somehow miraculously erased all the bloody marks they made, but left Guede’s.
It’s more plausible for me to believe that Guede broke into the apartment and was caught by Meredith after her return from dinner and attacked her than the scenarios I have been reading. However, on the surface of everything I read, it looks like Knox and Sollecito are guilty of something. But when I start breaking it down into rationales, none of the accusations have really held up enough to be conclusive.
Therefore, they are innocent until you can prove their guilt.
May 10, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Yes, it is all very perplexing. I had thought that it was conclusive that it had been done hours later. I never thought they had tried to frame Guede but had tried to make it look perhaps like a random break in. I thought they perhaps had tried to wipe away ALL traces, and had left a few by accident. It they appear even to you to be guilty of something, this is likely why they are in the situation they are in today. I never saw them as premeditating, but as foolishly staging a scenario which escalated. I think my approach has always been psychological. I was looking at the a priori thinking, the psychological causation which might have caused such an incident to run afoul. I thought they had assumed and hoped Guede would never be caught, and that the police would think it was a stranger who broke in, and that the case would remain unsolved, and that it would eventually all die down. In the early 20s you have odd thinking: you cannot imagine that the world is as organized and thorough as it is. That was always my sense of it. They just wanted it all to “go away”. But no, this cannot be proven 100%; there is always some margin for error. But in the US, the FBI is known to solve things precisely from the psychological angle. thanks;
May 10, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Addendum: The presumption of innocence is paradoxical: After all, people are taken into custody, and indicted, without proof, daily, on the presumption that they might be guilty. If all are really presumed innocent, no one could be held pre-trial.
May 10, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Feet.
http://tinyurl.com/r6ttt8
May 10, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Yes, I had considered most of your proposals as well earlier when I was leaning towards their guilt. It all comes down to the fact that they are on trial, and this is why we are trying to figure out ‘why, and how these 3 did it.’ If it was just Guede on trial we wouldnt be hesitating, as all the evidence points to him. So, then it comes down to when, why, and how did they become suspects. They were suspicious before, but we dont know what elicited these first suspicions. After all, they were the first on the scene, and they were ‘discovered’ by postal police.
But once we take steps backwards, we also find that it’s quite possible only one person did it, unless there is undisputable proof otherwise. And so far, in my opinion it just isn’t good enough, and this is not just considering a margin for error.
There’s just as much of an argument that the police made an error during their early suspicions of these 2. After all, they even arrested the wrong guy, and used a text message to contribute in getting the girl to falsely accuse that he did it. At that point her fate is sealed, and it’s very easy to rush to judgement. But, again, the ‘confession’ is 100 percent false.
Even the ‘expert’ who claimed 3 people might have done it also said it was possible only 1 did it, when he was cross examined.
So there’s a lot of spectacle that has every finger pointing at three, but it’s still only spectacle, and therefore, we start convincing ourselves of these psychological ‘scenarios’, and this is dangerous to both reason and justice, because we can’t pretend to know these things unless we first know they did it.
The judge brought these 2 to trial because the prosecution posed a scenario that was believable enough to be given the opportunity for dispute. And I agree, there is enough on these 2 to bring them to trial. But I am not convinced they did it, because the rationales they’ve put forth aren’t sustainable, and because they were very quick to call this ‘case closed’ when they had lumumba and knox and sollecito arrested.
” The presumption of innocence is paradoxical: After all, people are taken into custody, and indicted, without proof, daily, on the presumption that they might be guilty.”
i agree, and I dont presume they are innocent. I say, they are innocent until you prove to me they are guilty.
So far, there is enough reasonable doubt, tons of spectacle (footprints OUTSIDE of the murder room), and a plausible scenario and evidence that only one person did it, for me
to say no one has proven they are guilty, not by a long shot.
May 10, 2009 at 2:36 pm
“I thought they had assumed and hoped Guede would never be caught, and that the police would think it was a stranger who broke in, and that the case would remain unsolved, and that it would eventually all die down.”
Okay, yes, but if this is true, then how did they erase their own fingerprints and footprints in the murder room, but leave Guede’s?
Either
a) they were framing him
b) they weren’t there
If the answer is a)
Then there would be more evidence that they were there, unless somebody wants to be so bold as to claim they ‘cleaned it all up except for guede.’ and a possible bra clasp that is still a bit shaky considering all that surrounds this piece of evidence.
May 10, 2009 at 2:37 pm
First principle of jurisprudence is that the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt lies with the prosecutor. Thus it is with reason and the ethics of reason. On a psychological and human level, intuition comes into play, and a prior reasoning (i.e., “What would someone have been thinking, to act in this manner”?) becomes a strong force. For me, it is more believable that AK and RS were involved, even supposing Mignini is having a bout of mania. Of course, were I in their shoes and innocent, I would be appalled and furious that someone were saying this. But it seems that they aroused sufficient suspicion, at too many points. Similar to the McCann case: More likely that the parents are covering up an accident, than that an abduction occurred, and odd behavior and indescrepancies bolsters this mightily. But it is speculation, but as one treads reverently and takes it seriously, this is not rashness. Blogs do not sway the course of the defense or the trial.
May 10, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Oh, I thought that there were some of their prints left, as well as Guede’s. I think their main hope would be that NO ONE of the 3 would ever be accused or even suspected.
May 10, 2009 at 2:43 pm
Hello again,
and sorry for the lack of knowledge in this murder-case!
Asking me – like everyone here – how and why this happened,
I came forth a good piece since my yesterday posting, when I discovered on
http://www.trujustice.org the essential statements of the Micheli report, good PowerPoints,
a clear-logical-stringent time-line (how it could have happen) and some other scenarios.
My impression of this judge is, that he is a very correct working man, who seems to be a real expert in his business.
He did an extraordinary good job until now, and will do it further.
I have no more doubts, that it will not happen that innocent people could be misjudged in this court,
even if the prosecutor Mignini may be a slightly mad man – which is not proven.
Back to the possible constellation:
1. All three did it.
2. Two of them did it.
2.a) The third person knows about it.
2.b) The third person knows nothing about it.
3. Only one person did it.
3.a) The other two know about it.
3.b) The other two know nothing about it.
3.c) One of the other two knows about it.
4. Another, unknown person, was involved (in every single above constellation).
5. Another, unknown person, did it alone.
I exclude 4. and 5., because DNA and other traces of other people than the three exist,
but this people are known and have good alibis.
Since the Micheli report and the footprints-proof, that was presented yesterday in court,
I exclude also 2.b),3.b) and 3.c).
(as long as the footprint-proof maybe refuted – I don’t believe this will happen)
So there are only 3 constellations left.
3.a) is the weakest of them.
It seems to be proven, that at least one person came back to move the body of Meredith, rearranging the scene, cut off her bra, cleaning tracks (instead this of Rudy) and staged a break in Filomenas room.
Because of the footprints it must have been Amanda and Raffaele both.
Why should they do this, when they only knew about what has happened and were not involved themselves?
And how could they know where to find their own traces to clean up and where the traces of Rudy were, that should not be removed?
Because fingerprints – as these footprints, made visible by luminol – and DNA is invisible with the naked eye, it must have been no easy job (and maybe only possible to get a good result, if you exactly know where you have to clean).
I cannot exclude yet 3.a), but I think it won’t last very long.
And now some speculations:
Patrick Lumumba sent the SMS, telling that Amanda didn’t have to come to work,
just 2 hours before Meredith died. Too short time for a plan by three people, I think.
They were smoking marihuana, they said.
Could it be possible, that Rudy (supposed drug-dealer), living a few hundred meters away from Raffaele, came on a visit, brought with him the drugs and all three consumed them?
Maybe other drugs than marihuana?
Then all three left to the home of Amanda for further partying, undisturbed?
Switching off the handys because of the drug-abuse?
In Amanda’s home the three were partying, maybe getting into an orgy, when Meredith came back home, maybe starting complaining, maybe shocked about what she was finding?
And then the other three try to get her into it, but she resisted – and then everything escaleted?
Or Amanda needed more money for drugs and Meredith refused?
And I have so many more ideas …
Many puzzle-pieces seem to fit together now.
But before further wild-speculation, I will study the Micheli report, to know better about all the details, that are known until now – http://www.penale.it/stampa.asp?idpag=750 .
Maybe there is a certain portion of racism and arrogance in both Amanda and Raffaele,
and they were speculating that a court would rather believe them than a black man and a vagrant .
But this vagrant Antonio, his observations and the timeline, he offers, seem to be undoubtful.
What a pity.
Only three days ago, I was thinking and feeling a big miscarriage of justice was on the way
to be committed in italy.
After all I learned in the last two days, this a very unlikely.
If they are innocent, they will be acquitted.
It they are guilty – and the evidence is enough – they will get what they deserve.
Sorry for too long posting – I will try to make it shorter in the future!
May 10, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Another thought: When you are in the early 20s, and screwed up, you want to be able to escape accountability, even to yourself. If you try to sway the police, and they will not buy it, the indignation is such as ” But we piped for you, and you would not dance”. Mignini may be the father appearing on their horizon. But this again is viewing all through the psychological lens, which seems quite reliable in theses areas. Imagine if AK and RS were friends of yours: How they might take extreme advantage of your willingness to believe them, until you could prove them. One finds with narcissistic friends , that one must begin to “trust the gut”.
May 10, 2009 at 3:19 pm
While blogs may not sway the course of the defense, public opinion and fears of backlash could possibly affect decisions in the trial, and blogs are an agent in this opinion, therefore it’s a fair place to maintain reason.
I agree with what you are saying in regards to using intuition if the suspicion is sufficient. In this case we would be talking about behavior. but let’s take a look at the behavior that is so often repeated as being so suspicious:
1) ‘kissing’, not crying
2) pride at finding the body
3) changing alibis
4) buying underwear and kissing
5) sexual deviancy such as promiscuity, etc.
6) collecting comic books and knives.
7) nicknames
In order to save time and energy, I’m going to dismiss 4, 5, 6, 7 as ridiculous, because these behaviors are subjective and do not imply any suspicions of anything other than what they are. However, I am including them because these three things have created a cult of personality around these 2 and have unveiled a real viciousness in the public consciousness that reminds me of witch trials. Therefore, these 2 already have a lot going against them, publicly, based on 4 absolutely ridiculous attributions to suspicion that spiral out into more rumor and psychological ‘guesswork.’
Then we have the first 3. ‘kissing not crying’ and other ‘weird behavior’ reported by friends of meredith has always been that she behaved in a cold way. People who do not react with emotions are numb to their emotions, and this can be attributed to trauma. The emotions or the reality of the situation can hit a person much later, or even not at all. The mind is perfectly capable of repressing things it doesnt want to accept as real, be in a state of denial, or, the person can be very strong emotionally, have other ways of expressing them, or just immature emotionally, or even culturally conditioned to behave otherwise.
Therefore to persecute someone for not showing emotion is merely spectacle, and only adds to public opinion, but not a list of evidence.
2) pride at finding the body
This is pretty much the same as number 1. This was reported by a friend of meredith (not knox), so first of all, it is very subjective. She said something along the lines of ‘i was there, i can tell you the details.’ This isnt suspicious behavior, but it was reported as being that. Obviously, moments like this are going to arouse emotions, even if you dont express them through crying. Even if she was proud, it only shows evidence of a 20 year old who is looking for validation.
3) Changing Alibis
In my opinion, this is truly the one and only thing regarding your statement about qualifiable ‘sufficient suspicious behavior’ these 2 have against them.
But as I wrote earlier, there is strong reason to believe pressure was put on them that lead to this. It’s possible they changed their alibis because the were really there, but the rest of the logic doesnt add up. Why would knox sacrifice herself, but protect guede? She puts herself at the crime scene, but doesnt name the only guy we have conclusive evidence against. Instead, she names the guy they are pressuring her about regarding a text message sent to him to ‘meet later.’ So, she in essence protects the killer but implicates herself, instead of saying ‘i wasnt there, i have no idea.. or, i was there, and this guy guede did it.’
When you realize that they have also told her sollecito isnt buying her alibi, it’s really easy to unravel these events. They told her
1) Sollecito’s not supporting your alibi
2) we have proof you were there
3) you are going away to jail for 30 years
‘Now, amanda, tell us about this text message that says you will meet lumumba later.’
She supposes they want to arrest him, so she agrees to help ‘yes i stand by my statements, yes he’s evil, he did it’ because she doesnt want to go to jail, and now sollecito’s not backing her, so she’s in survival mode. The problem is, the police were wrong, lumumba wasnt there…
So, it’s a false confession, 100 percent. She even says ‘I stand by my statements, but they seem unreal to me.’ Quite a psychological clue if you ask me, since it is a blatant contradiction within itself.
So then, you just unravel it backwards and can conclude that they also told Sollecito they have proof knox was there, and since he’s given an alibi that they were together, he doesnt want to get implicated too. So he says ‘i told you a bunch of rubbish because i was just going along with what she says. The truth is, it’s possible amanda left that night, but i was there in my flat.’
Then, based on the fact that knox’s confession was not a confession at all, but a total bunch of inaccuracies, you can very reasonable posit a scenario that doesnt make her suspcious at all, but simply a scared person who wanted to give the police what they wanted to hear.
So, in conclusion, we can only conclude that there’s only one thing suspicious about their behavior, and that is their changing alibis. Since she was wrong about lumumba, and they were pressuring her about Lumuba’s text, and were repeating they had his cell phone pingsin the area, it takes the suspicion of of her and Sollecito, and puts it on the interrogation. Not that they were framing her, but that they were following the wrong lead and Knox got scared and told them they were right.
May 10, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Shust wrote:
“So, in conclusion, we can only conclude that there’s only one thing suspicious about their behavior, and that is their changing alibis. Since she was wrong about lumumba, and they were pressuring her about Lumuba’s text, and were repeating they had his cell phone pingsin the area, it takes the suspicion of of her and Sollecito, and puts it on the interrogation. Not that they were framing her, but that they were following the wrong lead and Knox got scared and told them they were right.”
Shust’s whole post is a straw man that he/she has built out of distortions to make it easy to knock down. I find it interesting that Shust doesn’t talk at all about forensics, and fails to mention that the “she was coerced and pressured” argument was shot down in the courtroom quite effectively by several credible witnesses to the questioning. Let’s not forget that Mignini obliged Knox after she finally said she was mistreated (with no possibilility of cross-exam) and opened a separate investigation into the matter that could be costly.
The version of the interrogation provided here by Shust as an inevitable conclusion, is also the very basis of his/her line of argument. That’s called circular reasoning and it is not very powerful or interesting from an explanatory perspective.
Shust is of course free to believe what he/she wants about how things went down, and free to try and persuade others in the court of public opinion. Personally, circular logic has never persuaded me at all.
Happy Mother’s Day to all mothers in the world from America, where today is Mother’s Day. My heart goes out today to Arline Kercher, although Mothering Day in the UK fell on 22 March this year.
May 10, 2009 at 3:42 pm
And, just a footnote, people dont write confessions that state
“I stand by my statements, but I don’t believe them.” That is not a confession. It’s just as evident of coercion as it is any implication of guilt.
So therefore, this event is very very critical in the trial and why these 2 are on trial, and also a clue into why they may not have been involved at all. The police wanted a confession, and it was enough for the public to hang them and the police to arrest them and build a case, but since it later proved false, it throws a huge elephant in the room.
May 10, 2009 at 3:43 pm
SB: Very good analysis. And nice sentiment to MK’s poor mother.
Shust: Your points 1-7 are rightly viewed by you as flimsy. I do as well. I never found the kissing, the nicknames, and all, suspicious. I mean their changing their alibis. The shifting stories. The blatant lies. I almost get the sense that you feel AK is part of an oppressed minority, with her sexual proclivities. I would agree, if that were where the judgment arose from. I would never presume to judge her on that ( I might even identify with her on that score). Reasonable doubt is what must be conquered. The more a theory is backed up by facts, the more the psychology is leaving the realm of mere speculation. Amanda’s email home – if one has had to put up all of one’s life with tiresome liars and narcissists – reads almost like an expose. She is following all the signs of a liar, even if she is in some ways a loveable liar ( most are). But the forensics must conquer reasonable doubt, very very true. That is embedded into jurisprudence for a reason.
May 10, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Posted before I saw that. Yes, “but I don’t believe them” is on the list of “points which do not indict AK”.
May 10, 2009 at 3:55 pm
“Shust’s whole post is a straw man that he/she has built out of distortions to make it easy to knock down.”
This is kind of like the tortoise and hare race… BTW, you can speak to me in the first person, or even better, you can simply comment on my opinion without trying to call attention to the person writing the opinion.
“ails to mention that the “she was coerced and pressured” argument was shot down in the courtroom quite effectively by several credible witnesses to the questioning.”
All the ‘credible witnesses’ were people who have vested interests in the legal system of Italy. Perhaps you also believe the police who beat rodney king are also credible witnesses of the beating?
My point stands on a strong foundation of reason, and I’ve built it quite solidly, so if you want to prove it wrong, simply try to pull apart the reasoning instead of attacking it.
“I find it interesting that Shust doesn’t talk at all about forensics”
I find it interesting that you accuse me of not talking about forensics, but then do nothing to talk about them yourself.
“Let’s not forget that Mignini obliged Knox after she finally said she was mistreated ”
This will be interesting for sure. But that hasn’t happened yet. For a skeptical bystander, you sure arent very skeptical,,,, or even a bystander, come to think of it.
“The version of the interrogation provided here by Shust ”
Why do you operate on playground politics? Does it make you feel more popular to speak about me instead of to me? Or are you just scared?
Show some respect, and you will get it in return.
“an inevitable conclusion, is also the very basis of his/her line of argument”… and then, something about circular reasoning.
Uhh… usually a person makes a point and then supports it, and ends with a conclusion that sums up that point and it’s support. But, that’s what educated people are taught in school. I dont know wher you learned how to chase things in a circle, but please continue to do so.
May 10, 2009 at 4:02 pm
points taken SMK.. very nice debating with you..
May 10, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Oh, hush, Shust; We are all engaging in shoddy syllogistic logic, as there is simply a human tendency to circular logic. But exposition is one thing, argument another: you did not even address any of what I said. The more conflicts in statements, and forensic evidence, mounts, the more psychological theory begins to chip away at reasonable doubt. I do see your points, but they are not the main ones : I do not think Amanda’s “odd” behavior in any way marks her as a criminal.
May 10, 2009 at 4:06 pm
Oh no, I posted that, thinking you were ignoring me. Gulp, thanks?????????
May 10, 2009 at 4:16 pm
forgot to add ( and sorry for jumping the gun, and speaking out of turn): In logical syllogisms, the premises must lead necessarily to the conclusion. In psychoanalytic probing, there is the a priori “what thinking leads to “. The Lone Wolf theory ONLY becomes self-contradictory in the light of other forensic facts, lies, staging. On its own, it is reasonable. With the addition of these, it becomes doubtful. But thank you, and to all: I consider it an honor to be able to post my thoughts here to all.
May 10, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Oh well… I thought it was going good before.
I agree, it’s going to come down to forensic evidence and whether or not it’s provable to be true. Guede was arrested based on forensic evidence that put him at the scene of the crime, Sollecito and Knox were not.
If anything, my point is that everything posited against these 2 at this point is extremely fallible, and some of it is ludicrous. If they’d arrested Knox and Sollecito based on forensics, I wouldnt even be having this debate, but that isn’t the case. They’re building their case based off of a speculative arrest.
May 10, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Well, I do hope you see above that I have twice apologized: Who soever treats me with respect, will always be certain to be repaid in kind. Just recall: Inference and deduction are good tools in logic. I do not think Knox and Sollecito were unfairly SUSPECTED. To say that one “knows” they are guilty would be wrong. But there is a mountain of unsettled thoughts, which begin to take on the form of logically deduced suspicion, going beyond intuition….
May 10, 2009 at 4:22 pm
“The Lone Wolf theory ONLY becomes self-contradictory in the light of other forensic facts, lies, staging. On its own, it is reasonable.”
Yes, I completely agree. I also believe the forensic, presumed facts, lies and stagings also can become self contradictory if it’s proven to be so, or if one can build a strong enough argument that it’s too speculative and only created to support the ’3 wolves theory’, so to speak.
May 10, 2009 at 4:26 pm
cool, no worries.
” I do not think Knox and Sollecito were unfairly SUSPECTED.”
Me neither. But their arrest was based on a speculative theory, (mostly knox’s false confession) and not on hard evidence.
“which begin to take on the form of logically deduced suspicion”
IF, and only, if the steps that lead us there are true steps. Our first step is a false one, therefore we have to retrace our steps. Which is exactly what I’ve been doing.
The false step is the false confession of course, and that’s where I have started my argument, from my very first posting.
Unfortunately, in the tortoise and hare race, it’s really hard to get a lot of these rabbits to listen.
May 10, 2009 at 4:36 pm
True enough; it is always possible that one has leaned the ladder against the wrong building, and is climbing toward the wrong window. But I do think all want to listen, but are afraid that the other side also has taken this false step. In truth: Both the Lone Wolf Theory and the Three Wolves Theory stand in danger of standing all proud and strong, only to be slapped down by some irrefutable evidence. As far as AKs false confession: It may be false, in that she did not want to make any confession at all, true or false. False confession has been so overplayed in film and tv for 3 decades, that almost all criminals should remember to add, “But I don’t really believe what I am saying here.” She may have been in earnest, it is true. My sense now is that of the LWT and the TWT, the latter is more aligned with all I have read and reflected on. But if the LWT could be proven to me, really proven, I would certainly recant; all noble thinkers are not afraid to recant. So far, I think Miss R has been pretty on the mark. And a wonderful writer and analyst. But no, this does not prove all 100%, which she herself knows.
May 10, 2009 at 4:53 pm
It seems to me that no one very much, from what I’ve read, ever feels the need to make a case *for* the defendants. They just knock down the evidence against them. The big thing, the very biggest thing, is Why don’t they remember??? Why don’t they know where they were during the murder night and when they were there?
Both Amanda and Sollecito are capable of bringing up tremendously accurate, embellished, detailed and long term memories in their diaries and letters and emails. Yet they just can’t remember anything about this one period of their existence (maybe we took a shower and he washed my hair…?) There’s just nothing but a big hole there, for both of them.
Marijuana? Well, Raffaele is a chronic user and he seems capable of remembering ever other night in sterling detail, read his diary. They have no alibis AND they have no memory. And they smile a lot.
May 10, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Didi: That is a good point. To knock down evidence is not to show innocence. It does not convince or persuade. “Consciousness of Innocence” usually does not blank out, make contradictions, etc. There is a gaping contradiction – a hole, as you rightly call it – between their general capacity to recollection, and the lack of it regarding that one night. They did draw suspicion on themselves, and did not seem terribly interested in persuading to the contrary. And Shust, there is much truth in the sense one gets from a persona: They seem to have gone from being “persons of interest” to “suspects” through their own half-hearted machinations. If they are innocent, then they are bizarre, and then that would in itself explain why they fell into the “trap” they have. Concerning their lack both of alibis and memory: Causes there may be a few; reasons, there are none.
May 10, 2009 at 6:15 pm
” And Shust, there is much truth in the sense one gets from a persona: They seem to have gone from being “persons of interest” to “suspects” through their own half-hearted machinations.”
I agree. Until recently, I was on the same side of the fence you are, that all evidence was pointing towards their guilt. But since the trial began, the prosecutor’s theory has started to appear more and more speculative, and it makes their scenario less and less believable, although I am not supporting their innocence, just saying their guilt must be proven.
For instance, the latest ‘smoking gun’ is that they’ve identified the footprints of sollecito and knox… And there’s all this reporting that ‘this is a bad day for the defense.’
However, these footprints are on the outside of Kercher’s room!! This is not a bad day for the defense, at all. If the lawyer for AK and RS are good, they will point out that these prints are not at the murder scene, but just in the apartment (!)
It just goes to show that one must look below the surface in this case.
…
And I agree, Didi, it’s strange that they don’t ‘remember’ what they did that night, but recollect things in their diaries. But they did say they were at Sollecito’s flat, and they’ve given accounts of that.
This is why I keep going back to the interrogation when their alibis ‘changed’ and it makes me curious as to what changed them. Were they reacting out of fear of jail, or because they truly had something to hide? I think either scenario has equal weight when analyzed closely.
“It seems to me that no one very much, from what I’ve read, ever feels the need to make a case *for* the defendants.”
And I have in some ways made a case for them, that (playing devil’s advocate), it isnt unreasonable to see how they could have been scared into making things up that makes them look very guilty in our eyes. By reasoning through the first suspicions until they were arrested, there is a very plausible scenario that supports it, starting with the fact that Lumumba isnt guilty, but the police were following him as a lead, then Knox told them they were correct.
Again, they were arrested based on theory, not forensics. Which is very different than Guede’s arrest. They replaced Lumumba with Guede, and stuck with the 3 person theory. How did their theory turn into ’3 people’ when the only surefire forensics we’ve seen point only to Guede? Suspicion.
May 10, 2009 at 6:20 pm
I agree with Didi here. Why on EARTH are they both so hopelessly vague about that evening. If they had come out with ONE STORY, the truth, which tallied, then they would not be in this fix. Even when Amanda made a statement in court recently it was no clearer.
The lying (because to me this IS lying, pure and simple. I don’t buy the ‘we were stoned’ line for a second) is perhaps the biggest black mark against them as defendants, the point that undermines their credibility more than anything else.
The truth is simple. Innocent people tell the truth, first time. They should their truth from the roof tops and sign their name proudly beside it. Amanda and Sollecito cannot seem to tell the simple truth. They will not clarify. Until they do they remain guilty in my eyes. They have a LOT of explaining to do.
To most normal people, who don’t have law degrees or science degrees, like people here, this is the simple truth of the matter. They have lied about what they were doing that night, and I for one would like to know why on EARTH they would do that, unless they were guilty.
May 10, 2009 at 6:29 pm
Shust they did not agree with each other about that night. They started off saying they were at Raff’s flat, but then RS changed his story. They also said they were on the internet and watching a movie, and that has been DISPROVEN by the prosecution.
I can see where you are coming from, and I spent a huge amount of time doing the same thing – imagining a scenario where what happened makes them look guilty, but there is a totally innocent explanation. I spent a long time doing this. But there are just too many times one has to do this, for me. Maybe once or twice, benefit of the doubt etc, and ‘yes, I can see how that could look bad but isn’t’ etc. But there are too many times to have to do that. The list goes on and on and is added to. We have experts, many experts in their field. They testify. Are they ALL wrong? Are ALL the police officers wrong? Are ALL the forensics wrong, the interpreters liars. It ends up that we are being asked to believe that the only ones telling the truth are the defendants, and they have already been proved to be lying on more than one occasion.
It a slow accretion of facts for me. On its own, no, I agree there is room for doubt. All together…there are so many…no. I can no longer have my wish that neither is involved. I would love it to be true, but I just cannot suspend disbelief that far.
May 10, 2009 at 6:33 pm
“How did their theory turn into ‘3 people’ when the only surefire forensics we’ve seen point only to Guede? Suspicion.”
Not just suspicion, logic.
One, that the break in was staged, shown, at least, by the window glass on top of objects that had been disturbed in the room (Filomena reports this, not just the police/prosecution). Why would a Lone Wolf, who is not a familiar to the household, stage a break in?
Secondly, the findings in regard to the assault. Yes, the judge said it could, possibly, be one person (because he is trying desperately to be as fair minded as he can be) but if so the person would need three (or better yet, six) hands to administer the blows that were evident while holding down Meredith.
The need for more than one assailant to explain the situation would still have existed, even without Lumumba and not discovering Guede.
May 10, 2009 at 6:46 pm
yes, Bard and Didi, I see your points and they’re definitely reasonable. As for the experts, many of them, when cross examined, also are stating, or implying the defense could also be right.
I agree that the lying is the most damning for them. But I also think it is the only thing 100 percent going against them. Everything else seems to be ideas that support the theory that came from their inconsistent stories. For what it’s worth, it LOOKS like they were involved. It’s why I am being careful about believing it.
“One, that the break in was staged, shown, at least, by the window glass on top of objects that had been disturbed in the room (Filomena reports this, not just the police/prosecution)”
But is it provable?
“ut if so the person would need three (or better yet, six) hands to administer the blows that were evident while holding down Meredith.”
How can we be 100 percent sure? If someone is fighting for their life, the attacker would only need to out fight them in order to succeed against them. They wouldnt need 6 hands. They would just need to outpower the person. If the wounds are many, it just means there are many wounds.
“The need for more than one assailant to explain the situation ”
This is what the prosecutor is supposing. It doesnt mean it’s what happened, though…
May 10, 2009 at 7:36 pm
‘yes, Bard and Didi, I see your points and they’re definitely reasonable. As for the experts, many of them, when cross examined, also are stating, or implying the defense could also be right.’
To me the lying issue is far more than ‘reasonable’. It is compelling. If you can come up with an alternative explanation I would love to know it.
Someone made a point on another board recently which struck home with me, and I hope I can do it justice: it was just that, in the final analysis, we have to take the evidence ‘as it appears’ rather than twisting it this way and that. i.e maybe what we are seeing is what is, in actual fact, there. They ARE Raff’s footprints. They are Amanda’s. Sadly, they are in fact lying. One can twist and turn till kingdom come. Perhaps they just…well…did it.
It would not be the first senseless inexplicable murder by unlikely suspects. They are not the first to protest their innocence. Perhaps we should all step back and just let things shine through as they are. I have great faith in the truth. It shines if you give it a chance.
An innocent young woman is dead. Let justice be done. Don’t torture it thus.
May 10, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Yes, it’s compelling. The alternative of course, which I’ve mentioned before, would be that they were scared into lying, which is not so difficult to believe. All they’d need to do is tell sollecito they had proof amanda was there, and then he’d kill her alibi, and then tell her sollecito’s not supporting her alibi. We know they told her this, so it raises a lot of questions.
“we have to take the evidence ‘as it appears’ rather than twisting it this way and that.”
Depends on what’s twisting though. The only footprints that were found in kercher’s room were guede’s. The only fingerprint found in kercher’s room was guede’s. With what they have presented til now, I still find it more plausible that only guede did it, as it seems we’re having to twist an awful lot of things to give all three of them culpability.
“I have great faith in the truth. It shines if you give it a chance.”
You are right, a young innocent woman is gone. Let’s hope that the truth will shine through…
May 10, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Hi Shust,
You seem to forget that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito lied before they were brought in for questioning. They told the postal police they had already called 112 when they hadn’t.
Raffaele Sollecito told journalist Kate Mansey that he and Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder.
Knox and Sollecito both lied when they claimed they couldn’t remember most of what happened that happened that evening because they had smoked cannabis. It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.
Knox and Sollecito still don’t have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempts.
Knox and Sollecito have both repeatedly lied over a significant period of time. They clearly weren’t scared into lying. That is the most feeble of excuses and Sollecito himself has never claimed this.
It’s not true that the only footprints found in Meredith’s room were Guede’s. A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which is compatible with Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on pillow under Meredith’s body.
Amanda Knox’s and Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra. This evidence places both of them in Meredith’s room that evening.
May 10, 2009 at 11:04 pm
All of the above posts are convincing, and the evidence mainly compelling.
But Shust, there is yet another lens through which to view this: I understand the temptation to think that Mignini – so subtle, so profound, and yet undeniably given to mania and fantasy – is a lout who is trying to further his career. He does not have a good track record. But I would like to raise a sinister suggestion: That his obsession may have “primed” him for penetrating a truth. There is a saying from classical Rome: “All your infidelities will come back to serve you.” Perhaps Mignini was following a fantasy which had a grain of truth, which he saw reflected in AK and RS? I certainly see something there: not all evil, no, not without its own power to attract and charm; but capable in this scenario, of taking them down the wrong road. This is transcendent thinking, which hovers beyond the empirical, and hence, has no place in logic or courts. But it may be a truth of its own kind. Something at least to mull over, as all is just grist for the mill. . .
May 11, 2009 at 7:35 am
“But Shust, there is yet another lens through…”
hmm, i never really was on the lynch mob for mignini, but I am waryl of anyone who’s being investigated for tampering with other trials. He wouldnt be where he is if he wasnt effective.. Maybe he’s attracted to these cases because of something ithin him, I dont know, but apparently he does have obsessions with fantastical things. It’s really possible that all 3 were involved, but their theory of how it was done and what motivated it is just incorrect. It’s going to be interesting to see how it all unfolds.
May 11, 2009 at 8:22 am
Hi Shust,
From what I have read you are still basing the majority of your doubts on the first step in the case which is the statement made by Amanda accusing Lumumba, is this correct? I only ask because if the case was then built up from there, but replacing the cleared Lumumba with Guede, why is Raff involved when Amanda’s statement does not mention him at all?
Surely it must be because the police not only listened to Amanda, but also looked at the evidence? Ergo this points to their being strong evidence to place Raff at the scene too. And it would be odd to then include Raff but exclude Amanda as they have claimed to be together on the night (and then apart, and then goodness knows where!) What would you say is the reason Raff got included and arrested if the basis for the case comes from Amanda’s statement?
I think the trial on Saturday made a few things a lot clearer. The only print in the apartment that belonged to Guede was the bloody hand print. So all the discussions on how the two suspects could clean their own but leave evidence of Guede is moot. It shows that they cleaned everything, leaving only Guede’s obvious hand print. When we were discussing how they would have had to meticulously watch Guede to see where he put his finger prints so they could leave some evidence of him I couldn’t believe this, after all there was a possible sexual assault and urder going on, how could you be watching where someone is putting their hands??
But to know only this one print exists and was in blood as clear as day, makes it very believeable someone could of wiped every surface down bar that print.
Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t the bloody footprints stated to be Amandas and Raff’s in Merediths blood? Back to Shust’s point that they were not in Merediths room and therefore not in the crime scene; surely Merediths blood in Amandas footprint in Amandas room which had then been cleaned and only showed up with luminol is pretty damning?
Hope everyone had a nice weekend, I’m a little browner due to the lovely sunshine!
May 11, 2009 at 8:28 am
“They told the postal police they had already called 112 when they hadn’t.”
This doesn’t make one a murderer, and it’s not evidence against anything, especially since they aren’t lying about an alibi. If the postal police said “did you call the police?” and sollecito said “yes.” and then he turned around and immediately called the police it’s not so odd, because he’s still complying.
Or even if he called the police on his own accord, but told them he already called them, it’s also inconclusive; since, if he wasnt a suspect at that time, and didnt see himself as a suspect, he might not even think of his ‘lie’ as being suspicious behavior. In other words, he complied, and called the police, so where’s the lie (in his mind)?
” that he and Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder.”
Yes, this is strange, but did he and Amanda have contact with ‘one of their friends’ at any point during that evening? And did he say this in English or in Italian? And how good is his English? And if not, what were the exact words in Italian? And who is this reporter? And did they go to a party at anytime around the night of the murder? It’s suspicious, but still inconclusive.
“Knox and Sollecito both lied when they claimed they couldn’t remember most of what happened that happened that evening because they had smoked cannabis.”
Yea, this is definitely a point against them. But when did this lie come about? Before or after the police began drilling them with questions that may have scared them? And what did they say exactly? “I dont remember anything from that night because I was high.” Or, when the polics were drilling them endlessly for the order of events, did they say “I can’t remember EVERYTHING from that night because I was high.” They said the 2nd one, by the way. Totally plausible, and doesnt count as a ‘lie.’
“Knox and Sollecito still don’t have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempts.”
One of sollecito’s friends came by the apartment at a time near to when they believe the attack took place and reported that knox answered the sollecito was there. Sollecito’s lawyer claims they discovered that he opened a comic strip on his computer at some time also near the attack time. Both are ‘credible.’ But if they are both each other’s alibi, then all the police need to do is pull them apart, and that’s exactly what they did, but this only means they got sollecito to go against amanda’s alibi, it doesnt mean they were at the crime scene. Furthermore, the friend that came by originally needed Sollecito to help her at the train station, and knox originally had to work that night. So in the popular scenario, sollecito, knox and guede would have had only a couple hours to say “okay guys, tonight is perfect for us to act out our sinister plot against meredith, because our plans all freed up. Oh by the way, she’s DEFINTELY coming home at such and such time.” Totally implausible. The murder was an accident. It’s harder to clean up an accident, and this is why I ask again: how did they clean up their own participation in the accident, but leave guede’s??
“That is the most feeble of excuses and Sollecito himself has never claimed this.”
Speculative.
“A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which is compatible with Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on pillow under Meredith’s body.”
Not true. It’s claimed to be ‘consistent’ with amanda’s foot. Consistent in what way? Apple juice can be consistent with orange juice, but we both know they aren’t the same thing. If they found a bloody footprint that was an 80 percent match, at best, on a nonmovable object in the room of the murder, or a fingerprint other than guede’s somewhere in kercher’s room, then you have more to work with. This ‘possible footprint’ is yet another speculation, especially since the only other bloody footprint found in a very bloody murder was Guede’s…
“Amanda Knox’s and Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra. ”
True, I’m waiting to see how this all holds up in court, what the defense, as well as ALL the forensic experts have to say about it.
You still need proof they were there. We dont have that at all. Again, nothing has been brought up in trial. We have guede’s footprints and fingerprints, but nothing on knox and sollecito. Waiting to hear about the bra clasp, but at the moment, this is just a claim by prosecution, and it’s got a lot of ‘iffiness’ since it was discovered 6 weeks after the murder, and we know the apartment had multiple break ins…
May 11, 2009 at 8:48 am
Yes. I have seen with many court cases how supposedly solid forensic evidence is waved away by forensic analysts and experts from the other side, so absolutely, we will have to see where it all lands after it goes the rounds in the trial.
In so far as RS not having called 112; telling the postal police he had, and then doing so minutes later: It would seem as though an innocent person, when asked by the postal police, “Have you called 112 yet?” would say, “No, let me do it right now, or do you want to?” The fact that he said, “Yes, we have” and then went and called, sounds like a person who has been caught off guard. If the facts of the prosecution are what they seem to be, it is as though RS and AK were finishing up with cleaning and staging ( not to point at Guede, simply to point away from themselves), were surprised at the unexpected appearance of the postal police ( who in fact noted in their report that the 2 had seemed surprised and embarrassed) and were caught off guard, so answered “Yes” and then quickly called minutes later. None of that is conclusive, but I have seen court cases where an innocent witness is asked, “Why did you not call 911 on that point?” and the person simply responds, “I don’t know. But I called once I got home.” Its all these little details that called attention to themselves. Police have experience, and the red flags begin to pop up with them quickly. But it is true, sometimes too quickly; they are not infallible. I would agree that a piece of evidence found 6 weeks later does not look as good as if it were found immediately in a secured crime scene. They are probably worried about it, on the prosecution side. But it has some strength to counterbalance and compensate, as although there were break-ins, one would still have to ask why the particular DNA was found on it.
May 11, 2009 at 10:43 am
” The fact that he said, “Yes, we have” and then went and called, sounds like a person who has been caught off guard.”
Good point. Unfortunately, we dont know exactly how it transpired that morning, and it would have been wiser to tell the truth ‘no we didn’t call them.’ Again, this only arouses suspicion, but people lie all the time and for many, often harmless reasons.
In this case, the postal police are a form of authority who show up at a messy looking scene and are saying they ‘seemed embarrassed.’ There’s blood on the floor, and in their best defense, these kids should have called the police, and should be embarrassed that they’ve done nothing up to that point. So, therefore, he could very well lie to the postal police just because he felt the police implied that he should have done so.
“Its all these little details that called attention to themselves.”
Yes, however, they automatically call attention to themselves simply by being at the scene first. But there was also a lot of attention projected onto them.
Even if they were ‘cleaning up’ it just makes sense that they would be… After all, there’s a bloody mess in the bathroom that knox claims she thought was a menstrual problem.
” one would still have to ask why the particular DNA was found on it.”
Yea, this part of the trial will be decisive I think.
Does anyone else think it odd that someone made a prank call to the same woman who had the phones disposed in her yard, which lead to the postal police’s arrival? I found this very very coincidental…
May 11, 2009 at 10:48 am
Yes, there could possibly be an innocent explanation, one never knows. And yes, that always confused me: Why the phones were thrown in the garden, to arouse this woman’s suspicion; moreover, a hoax bomb threat call on top of it. Very odd. Why would it occur the very same morning that the murder is being discovered? Almost as though someone wanted attention called to it, but who, and why?
May 11, 2009 at 10:59 am
yes, this troubled me a bit. If the hoax call was connected to the murder and the phones, then it would be in the killer’s interest to make such a call so it pointed to whomever is at the apartment, but the killer would need to also have his eye on the apartment. It’s such a shot in the dark, though. I’m really curious about this hoax phone call also being at the location of the phone discovery.
May 11, 2009 at 11:03 am
Yes, and I wonder why they are not informing about where the call was traced to, which made them know it was a hoax. And for an elderly woman to get a bomb threat, is quite odd. Usually bomb threats are aimed at institutions, for political reasons. Something is very murky and not right about that whole scenario.
May 11, 2009 at 11:04 am
Hey Guys,
I was always really interested in this too. Of all the houses with gardens in Perugia, why call a bomb threat at that house? Does anyone have any information on whether they managed to trace the call? I’m sure concealing caller ID wouldn’t be sufficient for the police to be unable to trace it. Imagine how different things would have been had those phones not been found when they were.
May 11, 2009 at 11:24 am
Well, I recall reading that the woman received a call from a stranger, saying that a bomb was beneath her toilet. She phoned police, they came, and found nothing. But the next morning the cell phone was ringing in the bushes, as Amanda was calling it. Would she have called it, knowing it would ring in a garden, and alert someone? This whole part is the most bizarre, and gets more confusing when examined.
May 11, 2009 at 11:37 am
“From what I have read you are still basing the majority of your doubts on the first step in the case which is the statement made by Amanda accusing Lumumba, is this correct?”
I’m not necessarily doubting they were there, I’m only looking for plausible reason to believe they were there. Most of the reasoning would be convincing with the changing alibis and a confession, if those 2 points were unrefutable. But they’re easily refutable.
My point is that it appears the police were certain knox and sollecito were involved very early on…. BUT this produced a blatantly false confession, which in turns leads to a cause to refute the changing alibis. If she had replaced Lumumba with Guede in her statement, then I would be 100 percent convinced they were involved, since they suspected Lumumba, and had nothing on Guede at that point. That she pointed to their (wrong) suspect only makes it more unclear that she was there.
“why is Raff involved when Amanda’s statement does not mention him at all?”
Sollecito changed his story during the interrogation process, and knox does mention him by confirming that the police have been told that sollecito doesnt support her alibi. It’s quite likely that the 2 were indeed played off of each other, and I think that’s fine, it’s in their interest to get a confession. But, again, the elephant in the room is that the confession was 100 percent false, and therefore if she was involved, she would have implicated herself but protected guede.
“What would you say is the reason Raff got included and arrested if the basis for the case comes from Amanda’s statement?”
Because his story kept changing, and that he was with knox on the day of the discovery, and that he was asking questions about the murder case, and he was cuddly and kissy with her instead of crying, and their overall suspicions… But mostly the changing alibi.
“It shows that they cleaned everything, leaving only Guede’s obvious hand print.”
Not true. they would also have to clean up the correct footprints, because Guede’s footprints were also discovered. And even if they cleaned their own bloody fingerprints without leaving any trace of any other footprint or their forensics in Kercher’s blood, there would still be traces of at least other footprints in the room enough to say there were more than one person in the room. But they’ve reported that only Guede’s footprints are there.
They have one possible footprint that might be amanda’s on a moveable pillow.
Somehow knox and sollecito didnt get any blood on their feet except for when they were outside of Kercher’s room, or they cleaned up only their footprints, but left Guede’s somehow.
We know there was blood in the bathroom, and since no footprint is found of either of them in Kercher’s room, it makes more plausible sense that they got blood on their feet from the bathroom, or any blood on the floor outside of her room. Knox was in her bedroom at some point in the morning.
Anything else is trying to come up with a theory to prove they were in kercher’s room, since it is less plausible to believe, as we do not have proof of anyone other than Guede in that room. We, can of course say ‘They framed Guede’ but in light of these rationales, it’s harder to believe.
*Also Luminol picks up other traces than blood; for example it detects fruit juice, etc.
May 11, 2009 at 11:46 am
Sorry to break in, and that is all very thoroughly thought out, Shust, but I just had a thought relating back to those cell phones. I have the type of mind which is bothered extremely by things which “don’t add up”: the police say the woman heard the phone ringing, and picked it up and carried it down to the police station “as she had heard that bombs could be concealed within cell phones”. Isn’t that bizarre behavior, to pick up, handle, carry, something you think is a bomb? Instead of fleeing the area, and from a safe distance, calling the bomb squad to come de-activate it? And yet this bizarre behavior led the police to find AK and RS there. It galls me, irks me, that none of this “adds up” to a reasonable scenario. Sorry again, just had to get that down before it left my mind.
May 11, 2009 at 11:52 am
hi SMK, yea, no worries, its cyberspace…
the cell phone scenario always seemed very very odd to me. it makes me wonder if someone’s not telling the truth. The only ones who’d have any interest in that would be on the side of the law.
May 11, 2009 at 12:02 pm
then again, if she got the phone call the day before about the bomb, then maybe it makes sense…
However, if knox did murder or was involved in the murder, then why on Earth would she call Kercher’s phone? So that the police would come down and see them cleaning up the mess??
Highly doubtful.
It’s starting to look more and more likely knox and sollecito were not involved.
May 11, 2009 at 12:25 pm
Well, something is not making sense, and I don’t know what to make of it. Are bomb hoaxes part of Perugian Halloween pranks? I am a bit uneasy about all that bomb business, as it is the very thing which led to the discovery of the two. Clearly, they need to explain how this actually occurred, and why the phonecall was made at that time.
May 11, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I’m glad I am not the only one who thinks this way. I never brought it up because I’ve spent so much energy defending my other points but I always thought it was strange.
If it’s true that the phone was discovered because it was ringing, and it was knox calling the phone, and knox and sollecito are such blatant liars like everyone says….
Why would she be calling kercher’s phone? Of course, the only reasonable answer is that she was looking for her roommate.
There’s no reason for her to call attention to herself if she’s involved in a cleanup like popular opinion claims it to be. They’d wait until the time was right, and wouldnt be ‘surprised and embarrassed’ when the police arrived.
Also, if these are criminal masterminds but incapable of keeping their stories straight, then they also wouldnt have the foresight to make the call to kercher as a defense they would use later: “see, I called her phone, we didnt lie to the police.”
It is far more plausible that if the phone was discovered because knox was calling it, then she was simply looking for her roommate, and therefore was not involved in the murder.
Which always leads us back to the police’s supsicions that may have spiralled out of control through knox and sollecito’s ‘changing stories.’
May 11, 2009 at 12:38 pm
The hoax bomb thrat call was made at 10pm Nov1 2007. The woman who received it rang the police immediately and they arrived at her house about 10 minutes later. The following morning, the woman found a mobile phone in her garden. She initially thought that one of the police officers may have left it. A young man in Rome made the hoax call. He wanted to use up credit on his phone in order to be eligible for some free calls from his phone company. He also wanted to have a ‘laugh’ with his mates.
May 11, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Well, this is another version, different to ones I have read. This makes more sense, but I did read 3 places of the scenario of the ringing phone. The first phone she thought was the officer’s. The second was discovered later, ringing. Now I feel compelled to go research this all once more…A bomb threat seems not a good way to get a laugh or use up minutes? In the US, 6 months in county jail for that.
May 11, 2009 at 12:53 pm
well, rome is the only place i’ve ever been to where i watched a guy pee on a cop car in front of the police, and the police do nothing. so i guess a bomb threat just gets a visit from the cops.
May 11, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Yes, I see now, in reference to the judge’s report, Signora Lana Biscarini received the bomb threat in the early hours of Nov 2, later found a cell phone and showed it to police, and her daughter found the second phone later on (some reports said it was ringing in the bushes). Both phones were seized by the postal police. More confusion here, though.
May 11, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Oh, I see Rome is like Provincetown, then.
May 11, 2009 at 12:56 pm
Hi SMK, what do you want to know? My previous post is a brief summary of what happened. What other details do you want? The woman’s son found one of the phones in the middle of the garden at around 9’30am. His dad then rang the police and asked them if one of their officers had left a phone there the night before. The chap on the phone didn’t know and asked them to come to the station. (They were going to anyway to officially report the bomb threat). The mother rang her children from the police station and asked them if they knew Filomena. The daughter and the cleaner were checking the garden to see if anyone had broken in when they heard a phone ringing. They found this Ericsson phone in the bushes. This happened at midday.
May 11, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Was it knox calling the phone?
May 11, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Oh, thank you, damiano, for clearing that up. At least I know that I wasn’t imagining the phone having been ringing in the bushes. Or the woman bringing in the phone to the police ( I see, she was not viewing it as a threat yet, at that point). Was it Amanda, then, calling around midday, as she said she had tried to phone Meredith? Read that some time ago, in a news report, and can no longer recall the source. Thanks again.
May 11, 2009 at 1:05 pm
You’re welcome SMK and yes, AK rang Meredith’s phones.
May 11, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Knox rang Meredith’s phone before the postal police arrived, so there’s a reasonable defense against any accusation that that they were ‘caught’ by the postal police, or an accusation that they didnt take any course of action that an innocent person would.
May 11, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Yes, ringing the Meredith’s phone could be viewed as an act within consciousness of innocence. But the judge’s report claims the phone call lasted only 3 seconds on one call, 4 seconds on another. To some, it meant she did not think she would get an answer, because she believed MK was dead. To some, as I say; not all. And the postal police found them outside with a bucket and mop. Not conclusive, but odd, surely. It seems for each point of innocence, there is a counterpoint tipped toward guilt; and for each point of guilt, there remains a margin for an innocent explanation . I feel I am going round in circles, the more I read on it. The needle tips right and left, and then winds up in the middle, at “inconclusive but suspicious”. At least for me.
May 11, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Afterthought: Did the phone ring for 3-4 seconds, then go to voice mail, which one might hang up on?
May 11, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Somtimes if you call a phone the time only registers once a person picks up, or the answer phone kicks in, which could explain the 3 and 4 second calls, however if I was concerned for a friend I would a) leave an answer phone message to get back to me asap and b) text them to ask them to get in touch. We know Amanda did texting as she text Meredith numerous times on Halloween so I think it odd she didnt text then.
I also find it odd that Raff called the police once they had arrived, I would either say ‘I was about to, shall I do it now?’ or ‘do you want to look around and decide if its necessary?’.
Thank you Shust for replying to my questions;
Shust Said “We know there was blood in the bathroom, and since no footprint is found of either of them in Kercher’s room, it makes more plausible sense that they got blood on their feet from the bathroom, or any blood on the floor outside of her room. Knox was in her bedroom at some point in the morning”
However the footprint was then cleaned up- it was only found due to the luminol. If Amanda did in fact walk in it in the bathroom she then would have had to clean it after, which I don’t believe she has ever claimed to do. If it was fruit juice or some other substance I can only speak from personal experience but if I step in fruit juice I would go straight to the bathroom to clean it off rather than my bedroom.
Also Raff’s footprint on the bathmat, it was a bare footprint. Although it is not impossible I would find it very odd for Raff to come back to the house with Amanda to look at the odd blood she had found and then take off his shoes and walk barefoot in it, treading it into a mat. Many people do take their shoes off to enter a house but if I been told of odd blood marks that had scared my girlfriend I would keep my shoes on and only tentatively enter any rooms with blood, being very careful indeed not to touch any- if you have seen any images of the bathmat you will know it is quite a clear bloody image, no luminol required. Of course I am relying on the footprint being Raff’s but the evidence given this weekend was very conclusive about this.
May 11, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Hi Ginny
“If Amanda did in fact walk in it in the bathroom she then would have had to clean it after, which I don’t believe she has ever claimed to do. ”
” the footprint was then cleaned up- it was only found due to the luminol.”
but does that mean it was cleaned up, or just trace amounts of blood were on her feet? I havent seen the photos. If it’s just trace amounts, it makes sense because the blood in the bathroom would be dried.
Yea i dont think it was fruit juice, just making a point that luminol is merely an agent that helps an investigation, but it’s still just a chemical process…
“Also Raff’s footprint on the bathmat, it was a bare footprint. ”
First of all, how accurate is the measurement of a bare footprint on a bathmat? What kind of bathmat was it? Is it a furry one, or a slick surface? Also, wasnt it just the top section of his foot or something like that? There was a millimeter by milimeter analysis of it, but we can take two ink splotches that look similar and also analyze them millimeter by millimeter. All they’d need to do is match in basic shape, and every millimeter would also match… Again, I havent seen any photos, so I’m just asking.
But you’re right, it’s odd that the print is barefoot, unless it belongs to knox or guede. However, in italy it’s very common to take one’s shoes off in a person’s flat, but they’d need to mention that.
Good points.
Hi SMK
“the judge’s report claims the phone call lasted only 3 seconds on one call, 4 seconds on another.”
Yea, this is odd, but like Ginny mentioned, we dont know if the call lasted that long, or an answering machine recorded that, or if the person who found the phone (and thought there might be a bomb in it!) turned off the phone. In any case, we dont know WHY the call was recorded to last a few seconds, but we do know that she was looking for her roommate. Which is why we cannot use the postal police’s ‘interruption’ as cause to believe they were ‘caught off guard.’
And that they were claimed to be holding a mop and bucket merely goes back to the fact that they were at a messy scene without going into the murder room (which was locked.) Was any cleaning agent found in kercher’s room?
If they were holding a mop, then this might explain sollecito’s bare footprint, if that is indeed what it is. They were preparing to clean up a messy bathroom…. Not strange at all.
(Mind you, I’m only pointing out that there are explainable scenarios for all points of suspicion, but there is very little explanation as to how they could clean all their prints up in kercher’s room and leave no trace to this. I’m neither arguing for innocence or guilt, but stating that the lone wolf theory is more plausible from several points of view)
May 11, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Hi, and apologies if my first message was a little brusque. I promise to develop better blog etiquette.
On the subject of the hoax phone call -
Surely it is just a little too coincidental that this call was made shortly after the murder and shortly before Meredith’s phones were found in the lady’s garden? Obviously, the hoax caller must have known the name of the woman whose house they were calling, otherwise how would they get her landline number? Apologies if I am going over old ground, but, did police question the hoax victim to find out if she knew Guede, Sollecito or Knox? Or who else she knew in the neighbourhood?
May 11, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Excellent question, and I would like to know the answer to that one, myself.
May 11, 2009 at 8:45 pm
(We are going for record # of comments on here on LOMTU, I see.)
I’ ve assumed whenever it’s happened that no information has become available in certain areas that seem, from the outside at least, to be of possibly terrific significance (and this coinciding bomb threat is one of those), that the investigation came to a dead end and nothing was significant. So the bomb threat, for all its oddity, must be just that–an unrelated coincidence.
May 11, 2009 at 9:00 pm
You may just be right. It would then belong to the class of those strange coincidences, which seem to defy the odds, like Jungian synchronicity ( 2 unrelated events within acausality, which somehow came together and produced a significant event). It does seem as though the judge found the moving of the body, hours after death, when Guede was off and about, as pointing clearly to Knox and Sollecito, and that none of Guede’s effects were removed, to him was indicative of framing. This seems to be what was most significant to him, along with inexplicable memory lapses.
May 11, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Yes, Jung would say synchronicity. Popeye would say, Just a big coinkydink.
May 11, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Ha!!!
May 11, 2009 at 9:57 pm
Hi Didi, perhaps youre right, but I think there’s more to the hoax call… Just how common are bomb hoax calls to family homes in provincial Italy? And in particular bomb hoaxes swiftly followed by the finding of abandoned phones in the garden linking to a murder scene some distance away?
I suggest the caller wanted to draw the police’s attention immediately to the murder … but why? If the hoaxer was involved in the murder, why would they want attention drawn to it… unless perhaps they were confident that another person or persons, also involved, would be caught still at the scene and would take the rap…?
Here’s a speculative scenario: Guede, Sollecito and Knox were all involved in killing Meredith. Following her death, they agreed to do a hasty cleanup operation, but Guede panicked and reneged on the other two, took Meredith’s phones and made a run for it, dropping the phones and making the hoax call on the way, in a foolhardy attempt to draw police to the scene and thus capture Knox and Sollecito still red-handed.
May 11, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Kathy, the call was made before the murder happened, from Rome. As Didi said, it was a coincidence, just like the text message someone received on the 31st from a stranger saying ‘Meredith will die tomorrow’, or the fact that Mignini has investigated crimes in the past which were carried out by more than one person. I think there are enough ‘mysterious’ elements here without creating others.
May 11, 2009 at 10:15 pm
The call was made the morning of November 2. But I suppose the constellation of events is empirically disconnected, although not all is simply coincidence, but might have presupposed or brought to bear on things (Mignini’s prior experience)–but it is always good to air out all suspicions and doubts, if only to clarify.
May 11, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Kathy, as I believe Damian has already explained, the hoax call was made by someone from Rome who was totally unrelated to the case. It was just an odd coincidence.
May 11, 2009 at 10:42 pm
And also, recently the police (or prosecution?) has decided that whoever was trying to toss the cell phones was really aiming for a wooded ravine a few yards beyond the public area they actually ended up in. The ravine would have been an attractive goal for someone wanting to “hide” them. The person was trying to throw the phones at the same time they were running, it’s thought, and couldn’t propel them as far as they’d hoped, thus, again coincidentally, instigating the whole investigation.
May 11, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Ah, so then they might well have thought they were far more remote….Still so odd that the bomb hoax call was made, but simply have to deal with its strangeness. Had the call not been made, and the phones propelled further, all would be vastly different. Thanks for all clarifications.
May 12, 2009 at 3:44 am
The hoax call was just one of those things that are stranger than fiction, the Police traced the caller and ruled him out of the investigation, it was covered by Finn on the Italian woman at the table blogg last week I think.
The defence would probably argue that the fact that the foot prints recovered from the crime scene only match AK and Raff through the same random chance except in Rudy’s case.
Statistically speaking people making random hoax bomb calls seldom call someone they know in case their voice is recognised while you are more likely to be murdered by someone you know than by a stranger.
May 12, 2009 at 3:53 am
The coincidental bomb hoax on the morning after the murder is pure film noir. After the exquisitely planned murder, everything starts going wrong. The irony is Ak47 calling the cell phones again and again not realizing she was spurring the discovery of MK’s murder. I suggest by that point in the morning she believed MK to still be alive, much as she now believes that she didn’t kill MK.
May 12, 2009 at 6:31 am
“I suggest by that point in the morning she believed MK to still be alive, much as she now believes that she didn’t kill MK.”
That Greggy is thought provoking. Magical thinking.
Really sad.
May 12, 2009 at 7:26 am
” I suggest by that point in the morning she believed MK to still be alive, much as she now believes that she didn’t kill MK.”
Yes, that is defintely ‘magical thinking.’
It’s far more reasonable to believe she was looking for her alive roommate than it is to believe she was calling a dead girl that she killed but believed was still alive.
magical thinking, for sure.
May 12, 2009 at 7:38 am
She — as many others who commited terrible things — faked it (fake calls to the mobile phone of the victim, to prove her innocence) — bad luck it was within hearing distance of others — no magic, only the usual trick.
May 12, 2009 at 7:40 am
an attempt at an alibi gone wrong — she should have thrown the mobile phone of the victim farther off (or anyone, who threw it) –
May 12, 2009 at 7:46 am
The calls were too short — if I am worried about someone, I let it ring, and I leave a message –
May 12, 2009 at 8:26 am
“She — as many others who commited terrible things — faked it”
Because you’ve already convicted her in your mind, any reasonable explanation is torn apart by your ‘faith that she did it.’
And I get accused for ‘circular reasoning…’
“fake calls to the mobile phone of the victim, to prove her innocence”
And yet, the inability to maintain her story. For criminal masterminds, they sure made a lot of mistakes, but somehow thought out how they’d use this as a defense further down the road…
Not just once did she call, but she called both of Meredith’s phones… Hmmm… Looks like she was REALLY thinking far down the road of her murder trial. If what you say is true, why would she be compelled to try ALL of kercher’s phones??
It’s more reasonable that she called meredith’s phone because she was concerned about where her roommate was.
“The calls were too short”
By what standard is a ‘call too short?’ If the call had last 30 minutes, would you be satisfied? She called, Meredith didn’t answer, obviously she got voice mail, and so she hung up and called the other phone. Got nothing, and hung that up too.
In a reasonable person’s mind? “Meredith isn’t answering.” Obviously, it’s also morning, and not a school day as far as I know, so there’s another reason she might not want to wake Meredith in case she spent the night at her friends (knox knew she kercher was going to be with the other girls that night).
VERY REASONABLE.
It’s more far fetched to believe:
1) she called meredith’s phoneS just to prove her innocence to herself. (since she wasnt a suspect, there’s no reason to prove her innocence to anyone else at that point or ‘plan for her own murder trial where she knows they’re gonna check phone records’)
2) she implicated herself in a confession, but named the police’s suspect which turned out to be the wrong guy, thereby sacrficing herself but protected Guede, who the police later found out was the culprit instead of their original suspect.
3) she and her boyfriend planned a murder with a guy no one can prove was an acquaintance of theirs.
4) They cleaned up all unrefutable forensic evidence of themselves in the room of the murder, BUT somehow left the forensics of their ‘accomplice’ in a devious scheme they premeditated
5) They all three premeditated a murder on a night one of them was originally supposed to work, and the other was supposed to help a friend with luggage at a train station, and the victim told knox she was spending the evening with her friends. Since we dont know Guede’s plans for the night, maybe he drew the blueprints, and for their ghastly scheme and gave it to them at the basketball courts? Please…
All reasonable explanations point to Guede breaking in to the flat and kercher walking in on him which lead to Guede either attacking her or trying to silence her, and that eventually lead to her death, Guede’s panic, and his evidence everywhere at the scene.
Any evidence against them thus far is refutable by any standard of reason. But there is no refutable answer as to why Guede is all over the flat and on kercher, but there is no conclusive trace of knox and guede on kercher or in the room of the murder…
But then again, if the emporer tells you he’s wearing clothes that only the wise can see, it must be true, so you better believe it!
May 12, 2009 at 8:42 am
Hi Shust
If Guede did the break-in and murdered Meredith, he then went to the bathroom after killing Meredith??? Sorry, that I come back with the bathroom, but it’s just rare. If you kill somebody, you then run away, like the witness (old woman) attest. You won’t take a break to go to the bathroom and let more evidence of your presence at the crime scene…
Only possible issue I see: he came back and staged the scene (filomena’s room), but still quite unbelievable…
@Hungarian: she also called Filomena and told her she was looking for Meredith. So it’s proven she was a bit worried about Meredith absence. Another point about the mobiles. If you want to make them disappear, first you switch them off and make them disappear so that they never appear, but not throw in neighbor’s garden… Quite stupid… Wasn’t there any DNA on Meredith’s phones???
May 12, 2009 at 8:52 am
hi loquitoalex
“If Guede did the break-in and murdered Meredith, he then went to the bathroom after killing Meredith”
“If you kill somebody, you then run away, like the witness (old woman) attest. ”
Oh, I’m sure he ran away. But the question in my mind is not ‘why did he go to the bathroom?”, but “why didnt he flush..?” I’d say fear and panic drove him to the toilet so to speak, once the blood began to flow out of control. How else would you explain all the blood in the bathroom.. He went to the toilet because otherwise he would have shat his pants. It’s even possible that he was trying to prevent her death, and this is why so many things like her bra, etc. changed. But, he DIDNT FLUSH because he ran away.
What are you suggesting? He went to the bathroom BEFORE he killed kercher? Even harder to believe…
” If you want to make them disappear, first you switch them off and make them disappear so that they never appear, ”
Even more evidence that this was an accident and not premeditated. The disposable of the phones is sloppy and the way it was disposed is strange.
And if it wasnt premeditated, it’s even more difficult to prove sollecito and knox’s involvement..
May 12, 2009 at 9:00 am
But don’t forget, that the bathroom was cleaned after the murder, but the toilet was not flushed! Why should Guede clean off all the blood in the bathroom, but not flush the toilet. Your’re right, the not-flushing is very strange. Even more, if he really cleaned the bathroom…
May 12, 2009 at 9:08 am
How do we know the bathroom was cleaned again? I dont remember reading about it being cleaned.. Can you clarify that point? From what I understood, it was bloody and feces in the toilet…
May 12, 2009 at 9:12 am
We discussed it some days ago, because of Amanda’s testimony that she showered the morning after the murder. There is a link above that shows the bathroom after forenists using luminol. We concluded that when Amanda entered to shower there was just a little bit of blood, as she said.
May 12, 2009 at 9:22 am
she took a shower, but I dont remember hearing about any evidence that it was cleaned… If it was cleaned, there wouldnt be the poop in the toilet.
May 12, 2009 at 9:24 am
or did you mean that you think it was cleaned, because there was more blood revealed by the luminol than what was seen at the crime scene?
May 12, 2009 at 9:28 am
I can’t imagine she took a shower in this bloody bathroom. If she found the bathroom that bloody and didn’t call the police, that makes her more than suspect or just crazy!?!
May 12, 2009 at 9:59 am
yes, but the photo i’ve seen was after the luminol.. luminol maps out traces of blood too, so it’s possible that she didnt see as much blood as we do in the photo, since we are seeing all traces of blood… which is also why i say if a person stepped in blood anywhere, then it’s likely the luminol is going to trace it. therefore, we cant use footprints OUTSIDE of kercher’s room as evidence, unless those footprints also match inside her room… which only guede’s is undisputably there.
May 12, 2009 at 10:00 am
(since trace amounts are not seen by the naked eye but are picked up by the luminol, to answer your question…)
May 12, 2009 at 10:04 am
“therefore, we cant use footprints OUTSIDE of kercher’s room as evidence, unless those footprints also match inside her room”
Exactly.
So it’s clear that the bathroom was cleaned of the blood
May 12, 2009 at 12:18 pm
shust, the ‘poop’ (of Guede) was in the other bathroom, where she allegedly dried her hair — why didn’t she flush it? why did she keep it — she could have done it while drying her hair. I think it is an instinct — I wouldn’t dry my hair with a ‘poop’ in the same room.
May 12, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Shust, commenting your comment — if I did judge her already — maybe, for sure my hypotheses which aren’t very original, I admit, are kind of based of her participation in the events, although I don’t know what happened, and how she participated, she didn’t turn into a bloodthirsty animal in my eyes, but I am sure, she knows much more than she confesses — and I don’t have the power of sentencing, it is not in my hands –, but for you she is innocent already — and forever, isn’t she, this is the prism through which you look on this case, and you are ready to fight for it, aren’t you?
May 12, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I think in the end, it all boils down to their having no alibi. Supposing all were what it is, all these confusing facts, but say, if AKs mother had been visiting, and she and AK and RS had all gone to another town to a hotel, and many people could support this, and they had not come back til morning. Then all would be dismissed. It is the lack of alibi, the lack of memory, and then all these facts get added, and then all takes on a different meaning. I must admit that forensics are there, though, but I mean the calls, the mop and bucket, etc. The police and prosecution always lose interest if there is an airtight alibi, no matter how much had formerly been pointing in the direction of suspicion. And added to this, they switched off their phones, they changed accounts, they claimed not to remember, etc. The police were simply following standard procedure in not eliminating them. Then the added details of the forensic findings. Shust, and I am asking this earnestly, not trying to confront or deride in any way: Are you meaning that all of the evidence has some innocent explanation, and they have jumped to a conclusion? If you set forth what the explanation would be for those details, then we could see if that is reasonable or not: the body being moved, the bra clasp, the mop and bucket outside, the not having phoned police, etc. This case really gives me a headache after a while…
May 12, 2009 at 12:52 pm
“for you she is innocent already”
No, to me she’s a person I do not know who is on trial, being accused for murder, and we’re currently listening to one side, which is the prosecution, and waiting to hear the rest of it, including the defense.
“this is the prism through which you look on this case, and you are ready to fight for it”
I was linked to this blog from a website called ‘true justice.’ True justice means total fairness. It’s not fair to the victim or the accused to jump to conclusions. True justice is giving the same, equal, unadulturated energy and attention to the defense as one does to the prosecution. I’ve said before it looked like they were guilty to me for a long time. Now that they’re on trial I’m analyzing whether or not there’s reason to believe otherwise. And so far, there is credible reason to do so.
May 12, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“So it’s clear that the bathroom was cleaned of the blood”
Not to me. Luminol picks up traces of blood. There doesnt need to be a puddle of blood for luminol to work, and there doesnt need to be a cleanup for there to exist traces of blood.
May 12, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Absolutely: Jurisprudence demands that the defense and prosecution both, be examined and re-examined. No argument there. Shust, if you see what I posted above, it is all these odd details, and I am willing to suspend all judgment but cannot explain certain of these. I have no interest in finding them guilty, wish they were not, but something is afoul. oh, think a post is coming up as i post…
May 12, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“I wouldn’t dry my hair with a ‘poop’ in the same room.” Maybe not, but you arent on trial. The witnesses against Knox said she didn’t flush the toilet after herself, so there’s reasonable defense. Just because you do things one way doesnt mean she does, since we have testimony that she does the opposite.
May 12, 2009 at 1:46 pm
“I think in the end, it all boils down to their having no alibi.”
I think there’s some truth to this, but I also think they had an alibi until sollecito went back on it. But since we know they told knox they had proof she was there, then it’s reasonable to think they also told sollecito the same thing.. right? Then, it’s not so hard to see how he would want to distance himself from her, since he’s told them earlier that they were together. Further, if they told him this, then he says ‘I said rubbish before because I was just going along with what she said.. Actually, she left, or may have left, but I stayed in the flat.” Then it makes him look suspicious for 1… and secondly, they did what knox said they did: They told her sollecito was not supporting her alibi, they had proof she was there, and she would go to jail 30 years if she couldnt come up with a scenario. Now, they had already questioned her abotu the text to lumumba, and had found telephone pings of his in the area, right? So, ‘Amanda, come up with an answer.” She says they pressured her about the text, and this is believeable since we know it existed. Amanda: “Okay, Lumumba did it, I have visions of this … but… they seem unreal to me.” This is NOT a confession, and in my opinion it strengthens her alibi, although popular opinion is that it makes her look guilty. The reason isay it strengthens her alibi is that we have to look at the whole picture: Lumumba wasnt there, they thought he was, she wrote that it seems more unreal to her, and in order for her to be guilty and point to lumumba, I repeat, this means she is protecting Guede and sacrificing herself.
Furthermore, about the alibi: I’ve pointed it out before that a friend was at RS’s flat at a time close to when they think the murder took place, and both of them were there. Also, RS’s lawyer says there was a file opened on his computer at a time consistent with the murder.
“The police and prosecution always lose interest if there is an airtight alibi”
True, and I think this is the only thing that points to them in an unadulturated way. But it is still refutable.
” Are you meaning that all of the evidence has some innocent explanation, and they have jumped to a conclusion”
I think that they had an early suspicion and it lead to them jumping to a premature conclusion, yes. We know this is true, because they arrested an innocent man. Whether that is Knox’s fault, or the police played a part in it is still open, although I think there are telling signs that they were going on their theory first, and looking for the facts second.
Again, they arrested these three based on speculative findings, not on forensics, but they arrested Guede on forensics, IN SPITE OF their speculative findings (Lumumba). The fact that Guede did not point a finger to them and they did not point a finger to him is a clue into something. When Guede was called to testify, he wouldn’t do it. He has every reason in the world to say they were involved, because then he can make an appeal for a lighter sentence, since he’s found guilty. Also, Knox had every reason to point to the right guy, instead of Lumumba, since they are telling her she will go to jail if she doesnt tell the truth. And since we have no proof that they knew Guede, then we can’t reasonably speculate that they were all three in on her murder (!)
You need to prove they knew each other, and the prosecution simply has failed to do that.
“the body being moved, the bra clasp, the mop and bucket outside, the not having phoned police, etc. ”
Yea, it gives me a headache too, but mostly repeating myself.. I’ve given a reasonable defense for all of these details elsewhere.
At this point in the case, we are working backwards. We have arrested two people based on a false confession and suspicions, behavioral issues, and inconclusive evidence. If they had arrested them based on a true confession and/or forensics then Iwould be right there with those who have already decided they are guilty.
It’s just not a plausible scenario as it is to believe guede’s the only one who did it. The ’3 wolf’ senarios just dont add up when analyzed closely. At least not at this point in the trial.
May 12, 2009 at 2:02 pm
I know you will say you cannot prove it was AK’s shoe print but how and why would Guede, if he was alone with Meredith, get a small 37 shoe size in Merediths blood on the pillow in her locked room? Merediths own feet were considerably larger so it was not a shoe of hers.
May 12, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Oh, OK, I see. Sorry, I must have missed your accounting for those details, and will go back and read it. Did not mean to ask you to repeat yourself. Yes, this throws all into confusion. I think the fact that Guede has not openly unraveled the entire story about the 3 of them does not look good for the prosecution. Usually at this juncture he would have come out with it, “OK, all 3 of us were supposed to be there; Amanda had told me that Meredith might be interested ; I was surprised when they got violent” . I don’t know if this bothers anyone else, but it really does me. It makes it look like he was alone and knows he would be refuted. This really does need explaining. But when they claim the body was moved hours after death, and this is airtight, backed by science, and the Judge states in his report, “Who else would have access and motive to return, but Knox? We know Guede was in a night club, removed from the vicinity” etc. OK, how does one get rid of that? Really did not know you had addressed those other things, but I am getting dizzy because this case no longer makes sense to me on any level, thanks to Guede and his bizarre silence.
May 12, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Yes, that foot print needs explaining.
May 12, 2009 at 2:08 pm
“the ‘poop’ (of Guede) was in the other bathroom, where she allegedly dried her hair”
ok, so it wasnt in the room with the blood? That is interesting…
May 12, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“how and why would Guede…get a small 37 shoe size in Merediths blood on the pillow in her locked room?”
The key to this question in my opinion is that it is a shape on a pillow.
A pillow is a soft plush and moveable object. My question is how reliable is a footprint on a pillow? Sure, it may be a size that’s consistent with knox’s foot, but is it a complete and traceable print that matches her shoe? Not from what I’ve heard…
I havent seen the photo so I don’t know what the print looks like. If the footprint was found on a hard unmoveable object and was an exact match, I wouldnt have an answer for you.
May 12, 2009 at 2:13 pm
That footprint on the pillow in Meredith’s blood is not clear at all for me. If this footprint exist, there should be a lot of blooded footprints of this size in the house, that should have appeared with luminol and not just 1 or 2.
May 12, 2009 at 2:22 pm
No worries, you dont have to apologize but thanks.
“I think the fact that Guede has not openly unraveled the entire story about the 3 of them does not look good for the prosecution. ”
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks this.
“It makes it look like he was alone and knows he would be refuted.”
Yes!! I feel a sense to clap loudly….. He’s said already that they were there, and this was his excuse. That came much, much later, in his changing defense. however, when it came to testify this, he refused, saying “I dont want to be called a liar again.” Sound like a guy fighting for his life? Or sound like a guilty coward who knows it’s a lie?
“they claim the body was moved hours after death, and this is airtight, backed by science, ”
How is it airtight? First, can we prove she was moved after she died? And secondly, we wouldnt know if the killer/s ran away. Thirdly, we dont know if the killer/s returned to check if she was dead. Fourth, we don’t know that if she was moved, it was to see if she was dead, to cover her, to stage a crime, or to help her before she died. This is entirely speculative.
There’s so many holes in the fundamental logic of plausibility that all three were involved. On the surface, it looks like they did, but that’s because our entire trial is based on a speculative arrest which we know resulted in the arrest of a man who was undoubtedly innocent. So, now, how do you prove the other 2 were guilty? Most think the lies make them look more guilty. To me, it raises more questions.
May 12, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Sorry I can’t find any pictures of the shoe print, but you are the only one I have heard question the fact it was a shoe print at all- I think that would’ve come up in court if there was any doubt what the blood stain was.
The fact that there were not more footprints etc has been attributed to the clean up- a strong bleach can remove blood so it will not appear under luminol, the spray form used leaves some blood to be found- in that line of thinking it is very possible the clean up, while thorough for the most part meant some footprints were cleared, never to be seen again and some were left, hence only finding random footprints rather than an obvious trail from one place to the next. It would merely take someone cleaning up to spray their bleach spray more time on one footprint compared to another.
I don’t know the ins and outs of the moving of the body but I believe the way the blood had dried in certain places etc proves certain aspects of moving. It is proven for instance that her bra was removed some time after the death due to the dried blood on the bra matching an area of dried blood on the victims shoulder where the strap had been. The fact that Guede was out clubbing by a certain time does not fit with the amount of time it would’ve taken for this blood to dry and then the bra to be removed.
May 12, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Yes, Shust: What Ginny says above is what I meant about the body being moved, and then that once more opens the door to looking back at AK and RS, although I have always been more than willing NOT to look back at them. Judge Micheli in his 106 page report, said he looked carefully at the statements about the body having laid in a certain position for several hours (revealed through pooling of the blood and livermortis; which shows at death, when the blood pools and reveals the position a body had laid in. Hence, the police can say with confidence that the body was moved, as the pooling ran counter to the position she was in ). This led Micheli to ask, if Guede was at a club, who had access to come in and do this? OK, see why I feel that this entire case is chasing its own tail? For each assertion, we have counter evidence. Only if Guede himself came back, or left far later, or had a helper, and left the place unlocked, can this be explained….
May 12, 2009 at 3:14 pm
…or everything falls into place with the two other guys, who are already in the picture.
May 12, 2009 at 3:22 pm
I think this is why Judge Micheli felt that by inference and deduction he must look at those 2, and see if he could rule them out, and found he could not. This does not mean they are guilty; it means they must stand trial to determine beyond a reasonable doubt their innocence or guilt. If they are guilty, this is prudent. If they are innocent, this is tragic.
May 12, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Thanks SMK, I can not see any reason in that case to question his decision. I think everyone would agree that he was completely in the right to put them on trial as their involvement could not be ruled out.
I think however, even when a decision is reached many months down the line, there will be many many people who will believe what they believe, whichever way the jury votes. Even if a confession were to appear from the suspects it would be hard to believe due to their damaged credibility.
May 12, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Yes, thanks to you, too Ginny: And also, for Shust, from what I have read, this Judge was in a difficult position. It was not a case of his rushing to judgment. He was perplexed and bewildered , and felt that the 2 would have to stand trial, as there appeared to be no explanation as to the blood pooling evidence, other than the body had been deliberately moved many hours post-mortem. Knox and Sollecito seemed unable to defend or explain themselves on this score. The parents and family of Ms. Kercher must find it dreadfully painful to hear of their beloved daughter spoken of in these terms, but when making accusations against two young college students, the liver mortis evidence seemed to be of massive significance to this Judge. He wrote a report over one hundred pages in length, but to me, this one factor was truly the deciding one.
May 12, 2009 at 3:50 pm
SHUST; I think it is important to know that Micheli in his report, first looked at Laura and Filomena. Both had airtight alibis. He next looked at Guede, who was sited in a club at the time in question. He next looked at Knox and Sollecito, and weighed them in the balance, and found they came up wanting. NOT guilty, just questionable. His decision: The 2 must stand trial to see if they indeed were involved. To his thinking, it must have been someone who lived in or visited the cottage. I am willing to consider other arguments ( as Micheli must be also, even if Magnini is not).
May 12, 2009 at 3:51 pm
The truth is easy to tell and repeat over and over. Why? It just flows out, you don’t have to think about it. Lying causes confusion, jumbled statements and changing accounts of what happened. The truth could have ended this mess a long time ago!! One wolf or three hopefully everyone involved in this horrific crime will be convicted.
May 12, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I one hundred percent agree. Micheli definitely had enough to bring them to trial. Without a doubt.
May 12, 2009 at 4:12 pm
” It is proven for instance that her bra was removed some time after the death due to the dried blood on the bra matching an area of dried blood on the victims shoulder where the strap had been.”
I’m aware of this but still not clear what it means. The blood on the inside of the bra was dried in a place matching the place on her body. Can someone please clarify?
Because there’s several explanations that could also be applied to the possibility of the body being moved. And we know it’s highly unlikely she was killed the way she was found, covered in the duvet.
very sad, the whole ordeal, no matter what you believe.
May 12, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Yes, and although I have leaned toward their guilt, and have found Miss Represented’s psychoanalytic conjecturing compelling, beautiful, and moving, I am willing to give them some presumption of innocence. If – and it is a massive IF – they are innocent, then it is tragic that they are awaiting trial in jail, when they ought to be pursuing their college studies. If they are guilty, then this should be proven beyond any and all reasonable doubt, if the conviction is to be a just one. I think the fact that Micheli was willing to look closely at Laura and Filomena shows he would have asked them also to stand trial, if they had been found outside with mop and bucket, could offer no alibi, changed stories, etc. Mignini may be obsessive, but Micheli seems a calm and reasonable man. I am still hugely bothered by Guede’s silence of course, and had he not been dancing in a club, I think Micheli would have thought he had stayed, and moved the body.
May 12, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Just saw that one, Shust. It seemed the medical examiner found she had lain on her side for hours, through examination of liver mortis marks, where the blood had pooled. Strap marks showed a bra had been on, but was not on when they found her beneath the duvet. It takes hours for the liver mortis marks to show ( unfortunately I know this first hand, as my family had to contest autopsy reports on my husband’s death in 2006; the liver mortis was a key issue.)
May 12, 2009 at 4:18 pm
“That footprint on the pillow in Meredith’s blood is not clear at all for me. If this footprint exist, there should be a lot of blooded footprints of this size in the house, that should have appeared with luminol and not just 1 or 2.”
Yes, this is why I ask about the proof of a cleanup. Have any trace of cleaning agents been found? If not, then how does this hold up? Because it would sure punch a big hole in the prosecution. They keep talking about a staging. But NOT a cleanup.
There’s still not been strong clinical evidence presented in the trial that these 2 were in the room of the murder.
May 12, 2009 at 4:21 pm
” I am still hugely bothered by Guede’s silence of course, and had he not been dancing in a club, I think Micheli would have thought he had stayed, and moved the body.”
But what is the time of the attack, the time of death, and the time of the body move? Is it really not plausible he did all three?
May 12, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Sorry to hear of your loss SMK,
Shust, yes there is evidence of a clean up- hence my comment that the bleach used was in spray form not a stronger liquid bleach.
For the record I would like to say a lot of this information is on the TJMK site, and any questions people have there are often answered using copious amounts of evidence.
May 12, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“Strap marks showed a bra had been on, but was not on when they found her beneath the duvet.”
Thanks for that and sorry you had to know that through personal experience…
So the bra was moved at some point, but is that conclusive that it was removed only after she died? Could it have been removed while she was still alive, after she was stabbed?
May 12, 2009 at 4:25 pm
He MAY have done all 3. It depends on his being caught on surveillance in a club. I think Micheli felt there was a margin of implausibility, and the police were strongly suspecting Knox and Sollecito. Did you see what I said about liver mortis above? I think I must re-read all on this case, and see what the times were. I know they spoke of it being hours. Time of death was 10:30-11:30 pm, from news reports I have read. Livermortis has stages, of pooling, revealing different marks. I am not an expert, but Micheli looked at the expert’s reports. So it would have been sometime in the morning, that the body was moved. But I cannot go too far, as I do not have the report or news items on it in front of me.
May 12, 2009 at 4:27 pm
“yes there is evidence of a clean up- hence my comment that the bleach used was in spray form not a stronger liquid bleach.”
ok i will look into that, thanks
May 12, 2009 at 4:28 pm
SMK states it would have been a few hours before she was moved. By that point Guede was dancing the night away so it still remains who else moved her? You seem to be disregarding the liver mortis point Shust, which SMK has painstakingly explained at her own emotional cost is a very strong point.
May 12, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Shust: Thanks just caught your others , above. I believe the bra was only removed – following the liver mortis evidence – post mortem, and hours so. But I think Ginny has a point: I myself do not have the facts clear enought, but the site she mentions does.
May 12, 2009 at 4:30 pm
“Did you see what I said about liver mortis above?”
Yes, I will check more on this aspect of the case.. thanks for the info. Even if the body was moved much later, it would still need to be proven that it had to happen at the time guede was at the club. If they can do that, then it’s hard to prove others werent involved..
May 12, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Thanks, Ginny, and yes, he did take note of it and even expressed his sympathy–but we are apparently all posting at once, and Miss R now has a record 433 on one post!!! Yes, thanks to both of you, Ginny and Shust, for your kind words. I think i will go to TJFM and see what they say later on……….
May 12, 2009 at 4:33 pm
“You seem to be disregarding the liver mortis point Shust, which SMK has painstakingly explained at her own emotional cost is a very strong point.”
Yes I acknowledged that, thanks.
May 12, 2009 at 4:34 pm
yea, i will give it a rest too.. thanks for the nice dialogue.. see you around.
May 12, 2009 at 4:43 pm
Yes, I made sure to acknowledge you both, Shust and Ginny, for your kind remarks to me. Thanks to you both; We seemed to have all 3 posted at once. Very complex case, this one; not easy to determine, and we will have to see where all comes out. That there are 437 posted remarks, gives some insight as to what Judge Micheli was up against, as he struggled with all the conflicting reports.
May 12, 2009 at 5:00 pm
An open and respectful discussion – this is the only site on this case that seems to have been able to achieve this, at least in the most recent exchanges. Compliments to the moderator and contributors.
May 12, 2009 at 5:02 pm
I second that; it is a rare achievement, and in the end, even Shust is “ready to make nice”. Well done, all, and thanks to you, above, for making nice . And to Miss R, brava, and thanks.
May 12, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Addendum: To reword, I think Shust always did want to be fair, as did Ginny and Didi and Miss R and myself, and all. It just took some time to get past the passion, and rising hackles, as is natural: This is, after all, a case concerning the fates of 4 young people, one of them tragically murdered.
May 12, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Hello,
just wanted to say that liver mortis usually begins within 20 minutes of death.
May 12, 2009 at 5:58 pm
This case and the trial are particularly complex and confusing, even in the world of murder trials I’d say. To be able to say anything reliable and useful about the evidence, the time line, the defendants–you need to know a terrific lot about it. It’s been going on now more than a year and a half. Last night, feeling curious, I went back and read posts on the old Haloscan MK Murder forum and after that the True Crime Board, which eventually became what’s now Perugia Murder File. (They had to keep moving due to troll persecution, for one thing.)
Those founding members have been with it since the first days. They knew every bit of evidence in detail, created files and flashpoint demonstrations and argued it all, pro and con. They’re still doing that. They are experts–and so arguing something like the removed bra with them is a different kind of exercise. And for them, talking to someone who is new to it all is a kind of mentorship, not an argument really. (Although the case is always shifting.) That’s why I say we’re fortunate Miss R. give us this forum to work out our questions.
I don’t think you can have a meaningful opinion until you at least know the basics of what you’re talking about (although I don’t —and I still put my foot into it).
May 12, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Shust said;
“The fact that Guede did not point a finger to them and they did not point a finger to him is a clue into something.”
It certainly is. I’d say it’s a clue into two different things.
Shust said;
“When Guede was called to testify, he wouldn’t do it. He has every reason in the world to say they were involved, because then he can make an appeal for a lighter sentence, since he’s found guilty.”
He would have got a lighter sentence at his trial if he had told the police the truth. The suspects behaviour after the crime is taken into consideration when the judge passes sentence. The crucial time for RG was when he was interrogated. He lied, repeatedly. If he hadn’t, he would have also got some attenuating circumstances which would have meant another reduction in his sentence.
SMK said;
“I think the fact that Guede has not openly unraveled the entire story about the 3 of them does not look good for the prosecution.”
It hasn’t helped the prosecution and it didn’t help RG. I’m not sure I’d say it casts the prosecution in a bad light though, if that’s what you meant.
SMK said;
” I am still hugely bothered by Guede’s silence of course,”
Logically, it makes no sense and never has done. I mentioned a few possible explanations earlier; shame, fear and bad legal advice. A friend also added denial to the list. I can’t think of any others and believe this point is extremely important. Perhaps there’s a big story here.
May 12, 2009 at 10:12 pm
I want to know why nobody else are being brought to book here.
According to shust, Amanda and her boyfriend are squeaky clean and should no way be in prison.
Sounds like the FOA I know, but nevermind.
I have been reading all of shusts theories and opinions and I would like to hear with the same veracity all the doubts he has and why.Please be the same with your stated doubts about the case shust, as what SMK has been saying all along makes absolute total sense to me…
Forgive me if I am wrong, and you already have in advance.
Sorry in advance for putting a comma after and.
My sbelling is crap also.
May 12, 2009 at 11:05 pm
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The Shust blog BORES me.
May 13, 2009 at 3:03 am
Pat and Deathfish: I tried, in vain, to stop him (Shust) a few days ago — he is so empty and boring, he is so very repetitive, a typical troll — but I didn’t succeed — what I am waiting for now is Miss R.’s next entry: she is always so refreshing — even when she treats terrible and complicated subjects — because she always does her homework, and can put things clearly and precisely in words –
May 13, 2009 at 7:52 am
(I miss Greggy!!!)
May 13, 2009 at 9:39 am
EVERYONE WHO COMMENTS HERE TO READ PLEASE
Thanks to all for your messages and emails regarding the comments section of this blog over the last few days. Many of you have noticed that the comments have gone more than a bit off topic of late. I run this blog alone and have been both busy and unwell over the last week. It’s not easy to moderate a blog that has gone so massively off topic and at such speed.
I don’t want to have to do this and appreciate that many of you come here for the psychology related discussion and that many of you are adults who probably don’t need to be reminded of good manners and etiquette when commenting on this or indeed any other blog related to the case.
But in the interests of making things easier for everyone, I have now enabled certain features that allow me to moderate more effectively:
It will only be possible to comment on new posts. Posts older than 14 days will automatically be locked in order to effectively moderate.
You must be signed into your WordPress ‘dashboard’ with a user name and valid email address to comment.
No Anons please.
Please choose a handle and stick to it. It’s very hard to debate with multiple handles especially when you consider I can see both email addresses and IP’s.
The discussion should remain on topic. This blog is about the psychology behind the murder of Meredith Kercher. It is not about: The mobile phones, DNA evidence, fingerprints, bomb hoaxes, Mignini’s previous cases, Sollecito’s hard drive, Rudy’s non-existent previous criminal conviction or drug abuse etc. I appreciate that many of these points are discussed to add weight to an argument when discussing a post and in these instances they are fine but it is not polite to hijack a thread and go so off topic that the original post isn’t even discussed. Please stay on topic.
Please be polite to other posters.
Please appreciate that I am liable for everything I post as well as your comments as well, libellous comments will be deleted as will comments that are disrespectful to the victim or her family.
Any comments, suggestions, ideas etc:
Email me at briteastonellis@googlemail.com
Thanks for reading and I hope the conversation will get back on topic. New post coming soon but I have been unwell recently. I have also been distracted and upset by the direction the blog comments have headed in the last few days and have at times thought about locking the comments completely. I’m not going to do that because I thoroughly enjoy reading them.
Thanks to everyone who has stepped in and contributed.
Miss R
May 13, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Colossus: “In time you will come to regard me not only with respect and awe, but with love.”
Dr. Forbin: “NEVER!”
Colossus: “Ah, I can tell you why the three of them killed MK…”
Dr. Forbin: “Not fair! You know I have wasted weeks speculating about that case. Okay, World Control, I’m beaten, go ahead…”
May 13, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Miss R.
Thank you for intervening. We needed it. I actually had wondered if you were away or not well.
Please feel better and thanks for setting out the boundaries.