Amanda Knox Is Innocent

[Fez909]

Let's nail this. It's not possible to have bloody foot-prints in the hall from Knox and Sellicitto if there was no bloody foot-prints from them in the room where the killing, it is agreed by all sides, took place.

Yes it is.

I think it's strange that there aren't more traces of Knox and Sollecito in the bedroom, but that's meaningless for what happens outside. Guede's bloody shoe-prints could have been stood in by Knox, and that's how she got blood on her. There's also the bathmat which she might have stood on. There's loads of ways there could be footprints made by her, and they don't even have to imply guilt.

To deny this is weird.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I think it is really hard for people to accept that they just don't/can't know what happened. We try to fill in the gaps, and perhaps somewhere along the way we start to be persuaded of their guilt or innocence, and then without really thinking about it, attempt to assemble the "evidence" to suit that perspective.

You don't have to or need to know what happened to decide on innocence or guilt. It should be decided on the facts of the case. ('Filling in the gaps' as Mignini infamously did and to a ridiculous degree is guaranteed to obscure the truth.)

For example, while most people would accept a bloody finger foot print as evidence.

But some clearly struggle with the notion that the absence of a bloody foot print is also evidence and ought to carry equal weight.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Yes it is.

I think it's strange that there aren't more traces of Knox and Sollecito in the bedroom, but that's meaningless for what happens outside. Guede's bloody shoe-prints could have been stood in by Knox, and that's how she got blood on her. There's also the bathmat which she might have stood on. There's loads of ways there could be footprints made by her, and they don't even have to imply guilt.

To deny this is weird.

There are no traces of Knox in the room at all. None. This is not contested. Plus she never had blood on her anywhere. Not on shoes, not clothes not on skin. The reasons there aren't is because she wasn't in the room and wasn't in the house. Simple.

 

[Joe Reilly]

So, categorised as an "urban myth" by you, then?

You want to put a different label on it, be my guest.

 

[Fez909]

You want to put a different label on it, be my guest.

I wouldn't call evidence which was used to get a guilty verdict in the first trial an "urban myth".

Following the procedure of luminol enhancement, it was shown that Knox, her feet
stained with the victim’s blood, went into Romanelli’s room and into her own, leaving
footprints revealed by luminol, some of which were mixed, i.e., constituted from biological
traces of both Knox and Kercher (one, L8, in the hallway, and one, L2, in Romanelli’s
room); others with traces attributable solely to Knox (three found in her own room: L3, L4,
and L5); and one which was attributable solely to the victim (L1 found in Romanelli’s
room). [The First Instance Court reasoned that] the presence of traces of Knox in
Romanelli’s room confirmed the simulation performed to create a staged scene of an
unknown criminal who entered through the window. It was noted that these traces were
found to have been formed by blood diluted with water, which was considered of high
probative value for the presence of Knox at the time the house was cleaned of the victimʹs
bloodstains.

Pages 11 and 12 of the Supreme Court appeal ruling - link (pdf)

 

[ViolentPanda]

You want to put a different label on it, be my guest.

I'm not trying to label anything, I'm attempting to establish who applied the "urban myth" label.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Let's nail this. It's not possible to have bloody foot-prints in the hall from Knox and Sellicitto if there was no bloody foot-prints from them in the room where the killing, it is agreed by all sides, took place.

You appear to be making assumptions based on watching "Dexter".
It's entirely possible to not have left footprints in the room while being in the room at the time of Ms. Kercher's killing. They'd merely have to avoid stepping in pooled blood. Contrary to popular legend, arterial spray is exactly what the phrase says, it's not the equivalent of having a half-bucket of gore chucked on you, to run down your clothes onto onto your footwear.
It's also entirely possible that someone could enter or re-enter the room after the killing had taken place, having had something OR nothing to do with the killing, and unintentionally track blood around the place.

 

[The Pale King]

There are no traces of Knox in the room at all. None. This is not contested. Plus she never had blood on her anywhere. Not on shoes, not clothes not on skin. The reasons there aren't is because she wasn't in the room and wasn't in the house. Simple.

Not true. Her lamp was in there.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yes it is.

I think it's strange that there aren't more traces of Knox and Sollecito in the bedroom, but that's meaningless for what happens outside. Guede's bloody shoe-prints could have been stood in by Knox, and that's how she got blood on her. There's also the bathmat which she might have stood on. There's loads of ways there could be footprints made by her, and they don't even have to imply guilt.

To deny this is weird.

Absolutely.
It's also entirely plausible that both/either of them entered Ms. Kercher's room, having had nothing to do with her death, panicked and tracked blood out of the room, continued to panic and cleaned it up, not realising that the best policy (for them) would have been to leave it, and to explain it to the attending police officers (who would have seen similar contamination often enough for the explanation to have been credible).

 

[Joe Reilly]

Absolutely.
It's also entirely plausible that both/either of them entered Ms. Kercher's room, having had nothing to do with her death, panicked and tracked blood out of the room, continued to panic and cleaned it up, not realising that the best policy (for them) would have been to leave it, and to explain it to the attending police officers (who would have seen similar contamination often enough for the explanation to have been credible).

So they entered the room paddled around in their bare feet in the blood and tracked it out. How can that be considered 'plausible'?

 

[Joe Reilly]

Not true. Her lamp was in there.

Her lamp did it?

 

[The Pale King]

Her lamp did it?

No, she would've needed the lamp to thoroughly carry out the cleanup.

Whoever did carry out the cleanup used Knox's lamp. You can say it wasn't Knox, but whoever it was used her lamp to do it.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I wouldn't call evidence which was used to get a guilty verdict in the first trial an "urban myth".


Pages 11 and 12 of the Supreme Court appeal ruling - link (pdf)

The first trial took place before the specific test for blood in 2009, which to repeat came back negative.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Absolutely.
It's also entirely plausible that both/either of them entered Ms. Kercher's room, having had nothing to do with her death, panicked and tracked blood out of the room, continued to panic and cleaned it up, not realising that the best policy (for them) would have been to leave it, and to explain it to the attending police officers (who would have seen similar contamination often enough for the explanation to have been credible).

See if I had to speculate...and I might as well cause every other fucker has! I'd say something like this is closer to the truth. I'm not convinced of their involvement but I am convinced they know more than they let on, that they haven't revealed it and they should've just done so a long time ago. Then again I still don't understand how Guede's footprints lead from Kercher's room out the front door and yet Kercher's door was locked from the inside. Even if it wasn't locked from the inside it was still locked and yet none of Guede's footprints indicate he locked the door if he had there would be at least one foot print facing, or partially facing ,the door unless of course he closed it and locked it without turning around at all, which is absurd unless of course he has eyes in the back of his head.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So they entered the room paddled around in their bare feet in the blood and tracked it out. How can that be considered 'plausible'?

"Paddled"? Really? For someone who makes out they're only interested in facts, your language use is a bit emotive.

Do you take your shoes off at home? perhaps Ms. Knox did.

 

[ViolentPanda]

See if I had to speculate...and I might as well cause every other fucker has! I'd say something like this is closer to the truth. I'm not convinced of their involvement but I am convinced they know more than they let on, that they haven't revealed it and they should've just done so a long time ago. Then again I still don't understand how Guede's footprints lead from Kercher's room out the front door and yet Kercher's door was locked from the inside. Even if it wasn't locked from the inside it was still locked and yet none of Guede's footprints indicate he locked the door if he had there would be at least one foot print facing, or partially facing ,the door unless of course he closed it and locked it without turning around at all, which is absurd unless of course he has eyes in the back of his head.

Or perhaps the ones in his arse.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

The first trial took place before the specific test for blood in 2009, which to repeat came back negative.

OK but that still doesn't qualify it as an urban myth does it? Can you link to this test please so we can, ya know, nail it.

 

[Doctor Carrot]

Or perhaps the ones in his arse.

Haha yes true that's more accurate!

 

[The Pale King]

The locked door is interesting. Knox told the police on the morning of the discovery of the body that Meredith always locked her door, even to take a shower, so it was nothing to worry about. The other flatmate, Filomena Romanelli, told the police that Meredith never locker her door, and that if it was locked something was badly wrong and they must break it down immediately. Why would Knox lie about that? Surely for no other reason than to delay the discovery of the body.

 

[Joe Reilly]

"Paddled"? Really? For someone who makes out they're only interested in facts, your language use is a bit emotive.

Do you take your shoes off at home? perhaps Ms. Knox did.

The locked door is interesting. Knox told the police

'Knox told the police' according to the police. That would uncontested wouldn't it.

In the meantime Knox and bf themselves had called the police to delay the discovery of the body?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Yep, that would uncontested wouldn't it.

In the meantime they themselves had called the police to delay the discovery of the body?

Again, in comprehensible English?

 

[Joe Reilly]

"Paddled"? Really? For someone who makes out they're only interested in facts, your language use is a bit emotive.

Do you take your shoes off at home? perhaps Ms. Knox did.

She came in too the house took off her shoes then went into Kercher's room and deliberately stepped in her blood? Plausible?

 

[The Pale King]

Yep, that would uncontested wouldn't it.

In the meantime they themselves had called the police to delay the discovery of the body?

*sighs* Can't you get anything right?

They didn't call the police. The postal police arrived with the tossed mobile phones, at which point they then called the police. Prior to this, Knox had called Seattle and Sollecito had called his sister. Sollecito also put the phone down on the police shortly into the call. He then rang back, presumably having conferred with Knox in the meantime. Info here:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_112_Calls

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Knox_Attempting_to_Delay_Discovery_of_Meredith's_Body

 

[The Pale King]

Yep, that would uncontested wouldn't it.

In the meantime they themselves had called the police to delay the discovery of the body?

Uncontested? Right, so the other flatmate, Ms Romanelli, and the postal police are all in on the conspiracy to convict Knox! And they all perjured themselves, right?

Was anyone not in on the conspiracy?

 

[cesare]

The murder of Meredith Kercher wiki that The Pale King is linking to, is really interesting and detailed.

 

[Treacle Toes]

You arrive home to find your flat broken into....one of your flatmate's bedroom doors is locked. The police turn up x mins later with that flatmate's phone and you tell them not to worry about her room being locked? Seriously? I'd shit my pants and demand they kick it in straight away!

 

[Joe Reilly]

*sighs* Can't you get anything right?

They didn't call the police. The postal police arrived with the tossed mobile phones, at which point they then called the police.

So they called the police.

 

[The Pale King]

So they called the police.

At this stage, they had no choice but to call the police. The postal police had just turned up with meredith Kercher's phone and could see that all was not right. The question is, why did they wait so long to call them? And why did they try and delay the opening of Meredith kercher's room?

Oh, and how did Knox know where Meredith had been killed? http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...tails_of_the_Crime_She_Shouldn.27t_Have_Known

 

[Joe Reilly]

At this stage, they had no choice but to call the police. The postal police had just turned up with meredith Kercher's phone and could see that all was not right. The question is, why did they wait so long to call them?

If they really wanted to delay the 'discovery of the body' then why did turn up at the house at all?

 

[The Pale King]

If they really wanted to delay the 'discovery of the body' then why did turn up at the house at all?

To find out what was going on / exercise some control over the scene / play the part of shocked flatmates.

Why didn't they take the trip to Gubbio they'd been planning for that day?