AMANDA KNOX -- guilty or innocent???

[MilfDriller]

Areas of disagreement about the knife. DNA-advocates allege it was cleaned with bleach, but DNA-critics have documented that bleach destroys DNA. It seems to be agreed that bleach also destroys blood. Therefore, if bleach were used it would have to react with blood much more slowly than with DNA.

One DNA-advocate claims that there was no noise in the data. Another DNA-advocate may believe that the signal-to-noise ratios in this case are sufficient. The DNA-critics respond by noting that spectroscopy generally has finite S/N ratios, meaning that the noise is not zero. The S/N ratios of the fluorescence peaks are tabulated along the x-axis in Figure 1 of the petition. They can also be read by referring to the y-axis. The amount of noise can be estimated by looking at the squiggly stuff between each peak in Figure 1. It would be helpful to learn what criterion for peak rejection was typically employed in Dr. Stefanoni’s lab.

[MilfDriller]

This to me is the crucial point. Bolded below.

Lack of DNA from RS or AK on the victim. The timeline provided by Fulcanelli implies that whatever physical contact between RS or AK and the victim there was took place over a twenty minute period. If physical contact took place, their DNA should have been found on Meredith’s body.

Areas of disagreement about the lack of DNA. DNA-critics think the lack of much DNA is a significant hole in the prosecution’s case. DNA-advocates believe that the lack of DNA in the room found can be explained by cleanup and point to a paucity of documentation at this site concerning how much DNA one would expect to find on Meredith’s body.

Overall conclusions. DNA-advocates concur with the finding of the petition: “No credible scientific evidence has been presented to associate this kitchen knife with the murder of Meredith Kercher… DNA testing results described above could have been obtained even if no crime had occurred. As such, they do not constitute credible evidence that links Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher.”

[DOMINATER]

I know this thread is old I just picked up on it .I saw a special a few weeks ago and the bottom line she is innocent ,all bullshit the knife had animal blood. The toilet the women used when its their time of the month had a little bit of blood which like a few drops it was from a place where you would expect blood. Everything else was bull they even said because she kissed her boyfriend outside was tp prove her guilt. They said no doubt the police work was so bad they just framed her. I speak Italian andlistening to the lawyers proved to me the case was questionable. I went to medical school it Italy and I know for a fact the municipal police are mostly guys who are connected to the Marfia, yes you heard it the Marfia in fact most work is govt. controlled, which the Marfia is in control. The MARFIA IN AMERICA HIDES AND STAYS LOW IN iTALY THEY ARE LIKE ROCK STARS.If you want a job collecting tolls just get in touch with uncle tony.Well these kids were framed and since President Bush did such a great job in the world the Americans are really disliked in Europe. I graduated in the 70's at time we were loved by the ITalians, you dating alot of woman who wanted to come to America, Back then never let your date supply the rubbers ,they would put wholes so you get them pregnant and take them back to America barefoot and pregnant and they were marrying a doctor not bad comada.

[MilfDriller]

My personal opinion:

Bra clasp: a problem

Knife: not a problem

and I don't understand the commotion over the knife when it wasn't even the murder weapon. maybe I'm missing something there????

[MilfDriller]

I know this thread is old I just picked up on it .I saw a special a few weeks ago and the bottom line she is innocent ,all bullshit the knife had animal blood. The toilet the women used when its their time of the month had a little bit of blood which like a few drops it was from a place where you would expect blood. Everything else was bull they even said because she kissed her boyfriend outside was tp prove her guilt. They said no doubt the police work was so bad they just framed her. I speak Italian andlistening to the lawyers proved to me the case was questionable. I went to medical school it Italy and I know for a fact the municipal police are mostly guys who are connected to the Marfia, yes you heard it the Marfia in fact most work is govt. controlled, which the Marfia is in control. The MARFIA IN AMERICA HIDES AND STAYS LOW IN iTALY THEY ARE LIKE ROCK STARS.If you want a job collecting tolls just get in touch with uncle tony.Well these kids were framed and since President Bush did such a great job in the world the Americans are really disliked in Europe. I graduated in the 70's at time we were loved by the ITalians, you dating alot of woman who wanted to come to America, Back then never let your date supply the rubbers ,they would put wholes so you get them pregnant and take them back to America barefoot and pregnant and they were marrying a doctor not bad comada.

Welcome. And I can understand your initial reaction/opinion as that was my initial reaction as well. However, it would serve you well to go over this thread and investigate this case on your own if you are interested in this case. It is not as simple as it initially appears.

I do not discount your noting of Italy's way of doing some things in a 3rd-world manner much the same way as some things are done in a backwoods, hick town in the U.S.

Anyways, feel free to examine the case further. There is plenty of info to go over.

[MilfDriller]

prepare to laugh your ass off!!!


I'm googling, but if anyone has anything on her as a defense expert, please let me know. XXXXX@XXXXX . COM

Thanks.

REPLY:

Don't know what you have, she came over here for DNA testimony, DPS sent the stuff straight to her lab and she sent it back after supposedly testing it all, trouble was when we reviewed the evidence that she sent back with the DPS lab, she hadn't even opened everything, same seal on some of the samples....we pointed it out and she never took the stand, case closed

[MilfDriller]

expert testimony

[MilfDriller]

I have to say that while reading the bf's diaries and written papers.... he is civil or has the capacity for civility.

Amanda, on the other hand, is a sinister bitch.

In reading the bf's words... repeatedly I see 'that poor girl' over and over again. He continually expresses empathy.

I have to rack my brain to think if Amanda has ever expressed empathy. Instead she makes comments such as:

'lots of interrogation... now it's time for some well-deserved pizza'
Meredith is dead.... 'Well, shit happens'
'the thing that sucks is that we can't go back in the house and I'll have to pay another month's rent even tho I won't be living there'

Not the kind of bitch you want at your funeral.

[poker_dummy101]

maybe since shes so freaky she went over to have sex with the black guy and meredith leaving the bf at the house for a bit

[MilfDriller]

This is regarding the washing machine/dryer. When the Postal Police arrived it was still running or had just finished. The question has always been, 'Who would wash a dead woman's clothes? Or did Meredith wash them posthumously?'

Been looking for this for a while.

What is the truth about the washing machine? I lack the time to read all the available transcripts and my brain is starting hurt with all the contradictory statements about very basic things like this that should be trivial to establish. Either the police did, or didn't say that the machine was running.


It is dizzying, isn't it?

The confusion about the washing machine is deliberately spun (pun intended) by FOA because the officers who discovered it running were the Postal Police and the officers who arrived after the cycle ended were the Carabinieri. Two different groups of police.

It was Filomena who testified that the machine was warm which led investigators to finding Meredith's clothes inside. This was damning evidence because it meant that Meredith could not have possibly been the one who started it to wash her own clothes, having been dead for some time. Investigators later found traces of her own blood on them.
__________________

[MilfDriller]

I believe the washing machine was only presented to furnish the prosecutor's case with evidence that someone who was not Meredith had found a reason to clean blood from clothing found at the crime scene. Since it was warm, was operating when the Postal Police arrived, and had been wiped of prints, it was support for the narrative that whoever had cleaned the footprints from the hallway had also washed Meredith's clothes.

[MilfDriller]

I'm sorry, but how can this not be anybody BUT Amanda?

What are the odds that on the morning after the murder Amanda is out front of the house w/ a cleaning mop.... and the dead woman's clothes are in the washer/dryer at the same time?

Did Amanda 'just miss' crossing paths w/ the killer who has a cleaning fetish?

[MilfDriller]

This is some good shit. 3D of the cottage.

[MilfDriller]

THe bottom image is better to imagine the scene, imo. You can trace the hallway better from this angle. Also, if you match up the hallway that makes a straight line to Meredith's bathroom... you get a good idea. This is also the hallway shown in the previous picture... maybe page 9.

[MilfDriller]

Amanda took a shower, had no towel. So, she walked naked to her room even though the front door was wide open when she arrived?

Her story has no consistency. It will be upheld at the second level. There is much more the Prosecution can present, if necessary.

Not sure if I posted previously about how Amanda did her hopping routine from the shower... Yet another fanciful story.

[MilfDriller]

not a fan of Ann Coulter, but this is a decent video on the case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfFh8AdC8Pk

[MilfDriller]

The prototypical psychopath has deficits or deviances in several areas: interpersonal relationships, emotion, and self-control. Psychopaths gain satisfaction through antisocial behavior, and do not experience shame, guilt, or remorse for their actions.[15][16][17] Psychopaths lack a sense of guilt or remorse for any harm they may have caused others, instead rationalizing the behavior, blaming someone else, or denying it outright.[18] Psychopaths also lack empathy towards others in general, resulting in tactlessness, insensitivity, and contemptuousness. All of this belies their tendency to make a good, likable first impression. Psychopaths have a superficial charm about them, enabled by a willingness to say anything without concern for accuracy or truth. Shallow affect also describes the psychopath's tendency for genuine emotion to be short lived and egocentric with an overall cold demeanor. Their behavior is impulsive and irresponsible, often failing to keep a job or defaulting on debts.[18] Psychopaths also have a markedly distorted sense of the potential consequences of their actions, not only for others, but also for themselves. They do not, for example, deeply recognize the risk of being caught, disbelieved or injured as a result of their behaviour.[19]

[MilfDriller]

Why Defendants Mostly DONT Testify? Those Devils That Lurk In The Details

Posted by FinnMacCool



Preamble

We have always pressed very hard for the truth to come out. WHY did poor Meredith have to die? And why and how in such a cruel and depraved way?
It now looks almost overwhelmingly certain that the truth did NOT come out when Amanda Knox took the witness stand in the court on 12 and 13 June.
No media organization seems to have made even the slightest effort to analyze Amanda Knox’s testimony, to see if it hangs true with past statements and known timelines.
But the judges and jury will do this for sure.
We have also begun to cross-check the testimony, and the first results look quite devastating for the defense.
1. A phone call before dawn

The phone is ringing in Seattle. Edda Mellas wakes up – it is long before dawn, on a Friday morning early in November. (To be precise, it is 0447 on November 2, 2007.)
Her daughter is calling from Italy – Amanda doesn’t usually call at this hour, she’s usually more careful about time zones.
Speaking to ABC’s 20/20 show a few weeks later, Edda described the content of that call as follows:
[Amanda] goes, “I’m back at my house, and I want you… first I know I’m okay.” And I said, “Okay, you know, what’s goin’ on?” And she said, “Well, I was at Rafael’s last night… and I’ve come home now and I think somebody’s been in my house...” And she told me, “We can’t find Meredith. We can’t get a hold of Meredith. And her room is locked.” And I said, “Hang up and call the police.”
Phone records show that the call lasted a minute and a half. Amanda is concerned enough to wake her mother before five in the morning. First, she reassures her mother that she herself is okay. She explains what will later become her alibi for the murder of Meredith Kercher – that she spent the night at Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment.
Then she explains why she is calling in the middle of the night – there are signs that someone has been in the house, that Meredith’s door is locked, and that she and Raffaele have been unable to make contact with Meredith.
Edda’s reply is simple, and plainly it is good advice: hang up, and call the police.
Phone records show that a minute and a half after this call ended (at 1250) Raffaele made a call to his sister Vanessa, who is a lieutenant in the carabinieri.
We don’t have too much detail about the content of this call (since Vanessa hasn’t testified and Raffaele is exercising his right to silence) except that it appears to have been similar to Amanda’s call to her mother. Raffaele briefly explains the problem at the cottage and Vanessa advises him to call the police.
A minute later, Raffaele calls the police. After a phone problem – he has to call back after being placed indefinitely on hold – he calls them a second time and explains the problem. Since these calls were recorded, we know exactly what was said.
Raffaele claims that someone has broken into the house through a broken window and caused a lot of disorder. There is a lot of blood, but nothing has been stolen, and the main problem – as he sees it – is that there is a locked door. The police say that they will send a patrol to verify the situation.
Edda’s testimony, supported by the police and phone records, shows a straightforward link from the call she received at 0447 Seattle time (1247 in Perugia) to the calls that Raffaele makes to his sister (1250) and the police (1251 and 1254). That whole process takes just eight minutes.
At 0524 (1324 in Perugia), Edda receives a second phone call from her daughter. Amanda explains that the police have now arrived and found Meredith’s dead body.
2. Two days later: an email

The murder makes the international news. Several phone calls follow. Over the weekend, Amanda is one of several people being interviewed by the police, alongside others who knew Meredith, or who arrived at the crime scene before the discovery of the body.
At home in Seattle on Sunday, Edda Mellas receives an email from her daughter, which is copied to multiple recipients (friends, family, and staff at the University of Washington).
Amanda describes how, on the Friday morning, she went home, showered, noticed some problems, returned to Raffaele’s apartment, went back to the cottage with Raffaele, and became increasingly alarmed about the various signs that an intruder had been in the house.
Then there is a part that Edda finds strange. Amanda describes the following events, as regards calling the police:
“in the living room raffael told me he wanted to see if he could break down merediths door. he tried, and cracked the door, but we couldnt open it. it was then that we decided to call the cops. there are two types of cops in italy, carbanieri (local, dealing with traffic and domestic calls) and the police investigaters. he first called his sister for advice and then called the carbanieri. i then called filomna who said she would be on her way home immediately. while we were waiting, two ununiformed police investigaters came to our house.”
Something is missing from this account. There is no mention at all of the pre-dawn call that Amanda made to her mother – the one in which Edda herself told Amanda to call the police. Naturally Edda trusts her daughter. But there is something about this part of the email that troubles her, because it doesn’t square with her own memory of what had happened on Friday morning.
3. The next weekend: visiting Amanda in prison

Edda decides to travel to Perugia to support her daughter in the aftermath of her housemate’s murder. She leaves Seattle on Monday, November 5, planning to meet Amanda in Perugia first thing on Tuesday morning.
However, by the time Edda arrives, Amanda has already been arrested on suspicion of involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher.
In fact, it seems that Amanda has accused a local man, Patrick Lumumba, of committing the crime, while she herself was in the kitchen of the cottage, covering her ears so as not to hear Meredith’s screams.
Amanda has also written a subsequent document in which she partly stands by this accusation and partly withdraws it, claiming that it now seems “less real” than her previous statement that she spent the night of the murder at Raffaele’s apartment.
Although she has never been to Italy before, Edda does have some contacts in Perugia, since the town is twinned with Seattle. These contacts advise Edda about finding a lawyer for Amanda, so that she can dismiss the court-appointed attorney and appoint a local lawyer (Lucian Ghirga) who remains Amanda’s legal representative to this day.
Mr Ghirga explains the difficulties of Amanda’s having told several versions of events, and advises specifically of the dangers of accusing an innocent man. He hopes that Edda will be able to help Amanda resolve these difficulties, and to tell the clear truth about what happened.
On Friday, November 10, Judge Claudia Matteini finds sufficient grounds for continuing to hold all three suspects (Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox and Patrick Lumumba) pending further investigation.
On Saturday, November 11, Edda Mellas visits her daughter in jail. It is now eight days since Edda received that phone call before dawn in Seattle.
One of the points she wants to help Amanda resolve is that puzzling omission from the email of the pre-dawn phone call. How could it be that Amanda has forgotten making that call? Here is a transcript of the conversation between Edda and Amanda about that pre-dawn call:
Edda (surprised): But you called me three times.
Amanda: Oh, I don’t remember that.
Edda: Okay, you called me first to tell me about some things that had shocked you. But this happened before anything really happened in the house.
Amanda: I know I was making calls. I remember calling Filomena, but I really don’t remember calling anyone else. I just don’t remember having called you.
Edda: Why would that be? Stress, you think?
Amanda: Maybe because so many things were happening at once.
Edda: Okay, right.


4. “I really don’t remember this phone call…”

Edda is not the only one who finds it surprising that Amanda could simply forget making the call.
Judging from the records, and from Edda’s testimony, that forgotten call appears to have triggered Raffaele’s calls to the police.
Prosecutor Manuela Comodi focused specifically on this point when questioning Amanda in court on June 13, 2009.
Initially, Amanda claimed that she was still unable to remember having made the pre-dawn phone call. She reported that the first call she remembered making was the one at 1324 (0524 in Seattle), which followed up the forgotten call with an account of how the police had arrived and had now found Meredith’s body.
Comodi: You said that you called your mother on the morning of Nov 2.
Amanda: Yes.
Comodi: When did you call her for the first time?
Amanda: The first time was right away after they had sent us out of the house. I was like this. I sat on the ground, and I called my mother. (Note: This is the 1324 call.)
Comodi: So this was when either the police or the carabinieri had already intervened.
Amanda: It was after they had broken down the door and sent us outside. I don’t know what kind of police it was, but it was the ones who arrived first. Later, many other people arrived.
It’s hard to know what to make of Amanda’s account here. It’s one thing to have forgotten making that pre-dawn phone call. But Amanda is now expecting the court to believe that she has also forgotten this prison conversation with her mother, along with the suggested reason (“stress”) for forgetting the call.
As Comodi presses her further about this phone call, Amanda’s only response is that she simply doesn’t remember making it.
Comodi: But from the records, we see that you called your mother – not only from the billing records but also from the cell phone pings – that you first called your mother at twelve. (Note: this is the 1247 call – actually much later than 1200.) At midday. What time is it at midday? What time is it in Seattle, if in Perugia it is midday?
Amanda: In Seattle it’s morning. It’s a nine hour difference, so, ah, three in the morning.
Comodi: Three o’clock in the morning?
Amanda: Yes.
Comodi: So your mother would certainly have been sleeping.
Amanda: Yes.
(Note: because of a difference in when Daylight Savings Times changes, the actual difference on November 2, 2007, would have been just eight hours. Midday would be four o’clock in Seattle. 1247 in Perugia would be 0447 in Seattle.)
There is imprecision both from Comodi and from Amanda with regard to the pre-dawn phone call. The call was not made at midday in Perugia, but at 1247. The gap between Seattle and Perugia was in fact – unusually – only eight hours during that particular week.
The prosecutor is drawing attention to the earliness of the hour – or at least, the earliness of the hour as Amanda understood it to be. 0447 is getting close to a time when it might be acceptable to call an early riser, whereas 0300 certainly isn’t. Perhaps this is the reason for Comodi’s allowing the time to shift earlier at this point in the conversation.
The next section of dialog makes it clear that Comodi’s main aim in this line of questioning is to establish what was Amanda’s motive in making this call.
It’s one thing to call your mother in the middle of the night because the police have just discovered a dead body in your house. But it’s another thing entirely to call your mother at three in the morning because you think there might have been a break-in at your house the previous night.
The obvious implicit question here is: “Why call your mother, who’s fast asleep on the other side of the world, before you’ve even called the police?”
There are credible answers that that an innocent person might provide to this question – for example, by claiming that she was faraway, in a foreign country, and she just wanted hear a friendly, comforting voice.
But Amanda doesn’t say anything of the kind. Instead, she anticipates and wards off the question, by insisting that she simply has no memory of making the call in the first place.
Comodi: But at twelve o’clock, nothing had happened yet. That’s what your mother said…
Amanda: I told my mother…
Comodi: …during the conversation you had with her in prison. Even your mother was amazed that you called her at midday, which was three or four o’clock in the morning in Seattle, to tell her that nothing had happened.
Amanda: I didn’t know what had happened. I just called my mother to say that [the police] had sent us out of the house, and that I had heard something said about…
Comodi: But at midday nothing had happened yet in the sense that the door had not been broken down yet.
It’s worth noting here that, although Amanda has estimated midday as 0300 in Seattle, Comodi silently corrects her by saying “0300 or 0400”. Comodi knows perfectly well that the difference in Daylight Savings Times affected the time difference.
But the prosecutor’s intention is to clarify why Amanda made that phone call to her mother, not when she made it.
We’ve seen that, in Amanda’s email, she claimed that she and Raffaele had reached a point where they had decided they would have to call the police. In the courtroom, Amanda sticks to that story.
But the cellphone records show that before Raffaele called the police, Amanda called her mother in Seattle. Comodi wants to know why she did that.
In the following brief exchange, Amanda repeats five times that she cannot remember making that call.
Amanda: Hm. Okay. I don’t remember that phone call. I remember that I called her to tell her what we had heard about a foot. Maybe I did call before, but I don’t remember it.
Comodi: But if you called her before, why did you do it?
Amanda: I don’t remember, but if I did it, I would have called to…
Comodi: You did it.
Amanda: Okay, that’s fine. But I don’t remember it. I don’t remember that phone call.
In the above exchange, Amanda sounds irritated (“okay, va bene”) to be reminded of this phone call, and insists that she simply doesn’t remember it. For her part, Comodi reminds Amanda that this is not a “he said/she said” scenario. (“Lo ha fatto.” “You did it.”) There is no possibility of denying that the call took place. This is a phone call that is recorded on the billing records and by the cellphone pings.
5. Why is this phone call important?

We might wonder about why it is important whether or not Amanda could remember calling her mother at 1247, before the body was discovered.
It’s important because that police records show that the communications police had already arrived at the house, and had spoken to Amanda and Raffaele, at the point when this phone call was made.
What really happened during those few minutes appears to be as follows.
- CCTV footage in the car park shows a black Fiat Punto (the same as the model driven by the policemen) arriving at 1225. The police themselves recorded their arrival at the cottage at 1230.
- Filomena calls Amanda at 1234 – Amanda doesn’t mention that the police are already there, but she does say (for the first time) that a window is broken in Filomena’s room.
- Filomena then calls her boyfriend, Marco, and asks him to go to the cottage, because she knows that he will be able to get their more quickly than herself.
- Marco and his friend Luca arrive at the cottage and find that the police are already there, that they have spoken to Amanda and Raffaele and that Amanda has written down some phone numbers.
- Raffaele and Amanda then go into Amanda’s bedroom. A few minutes later, Filomena herself arrives, with her friend Paola Grande. Paola testified that she saw Raffaele and Amanda emerging from Amanda’s bedroom just before one o’clock.
- It would appear that Amanda and Raffaele went into Amanda’s bedroom at around 1247 and made four phone calls: the first to Edda Mellas, the second to Vanessa, and the third and fourth to the police. In other words, while Luca and Marco were talking to the communications police, Amanda went into the bedroom and phoned Edda Mellas.
The explanation Amanda gave her mother as the reason why she forgot the call was that there were so many things happening at that moment. And in fact, there would appear from this reconstruction of events that in reality there were a lot of things happening at once.
But in Amanda’s own version (given in her email) she claims that there actually weren’t many things happening at that point. There were just two people in the house – herself and Raffaele. She claims the police arrived later, after Raffaele dialled 112, and Marco and Luca arrived later still.
In other words, at this point - when Amanda and Raffaele’s version conflicts with the testimony of the other witnesses, with the phone records, with the police records, with the CCTV footage from the car park, and even with the testimony of Amanda’s own mother - they need some kind of coherent story.
Raffaele has exercised his right to silence.
Amanda claims she can’t remember the phone call she made to her mother. And the reason she gives for not remembering the phone call contradicts her own story about what was happening at the time.
6. Judge Massei intervenes

At this point in the trial, the chair of the panel of judges decides to intervene.
He picks up on the issue of the forgotten phone call. He is concerned that Amanda is suggesting that maybe the phone call did not even take place, when in fact it is quite plain that it did.
Politely, he interrupts this part of the questioning.
Massei: Excuse me. You might not remember it, but the Public Minister [prosecutor] has just pointed out to you a phone call that your mother received in the small hours.
Commodi: At three o’clock in the morning.
Massei: So, that must be true. That did happen. Were you in the habit of calling her at such an hour? Did you do this on other occasions? At midday in Italy, which corresponds in Seattle to a time when… It’s just that we don’t usually call each other in the middle of the night.
Amanda: Yes, yes, that’s true.
Massei: So either you had a particular reason on that occasion, or else it was a routine. This is what the Public Minister is referring to.
Amanda: Yes. Well, since I don’t remember this phone call, although I do remember the one I made later, ah. But. Obviously I made that phone call. So, if I made that phone call, it’s because I had, or thought that I had, something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought even then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I’d gone to Raffaele’s place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn’t know what to think. But I really don’t remember this phone call, so I can’t say for sure why. But I suppose it was because I came home and the door was open, and so for me…
Even to the chair of judges, in other words, Amanda continues to insist that she cannot recall making the phone call that looks to have triggered the self-incriminating 112 calls.
A neutral observer might think of those phone calls as a botched attempt to gather more witnesses to their having innocently stumbled upon the crime scene and then called the police.
The phone records show that Amanda had made one phone call to Filomena (at 1208) before the arrival of the police, and three calls to Meredith Kercher’s phones (at 1207, 1211 and again at 1211). (Amanda claimed that Meredith’s Italian phone “just rang and rang” – but phone records show that it rang for just three seconds.)
So, if it were not that Amanda was trying to strengthen her alibi, and gain another witness to her having innocently stumbled across the crime scene, why exactly did she call her mother?
Amanda’s answer is, “I don’t remember this phone call, so I can’t say for sure why.”


7. Edda Mellas’s testimony in court

On June 19, a week after Amanda had testified, Edda Mellas provided a much fuller version of the phone call that Amanda had unfortunately forgotten.
Edda provided far more detail than she had provided to the ABC 20/20 show. The Seattle TV station, Kiro TV, summarized her evidence as follows:
- In the first phone call, Amanda said, “I know it’s early,” but she called because she felt someone had been in her house. She had spent the night at Raf’s. She came back to have a shower and the main door was open. She thought it was odd but it has a funny lock and it did not close well.

- She went to have a shower and when she came out she noticed some blood but she thought maybe someone had her menstrual cycle and did not clean afterwards. She then went to her room and then went to the other bathroom to dry her hair and saw there were feces in the bathroom. Amanda thought that was strange because normally girls flushed the bathroom.

- She went back to Raf’s and told him about the things she found strange. Sometime later she got hold of one of the other roommates. She tried to call Meredith several times but there was no answer.
- They came back to the house and she showed Raf what she found and then they also noticed the broken window. And now they were pounding on Meredith’s room trying to wake her.
Edda had provided so much detail that she was asked to confirm whether all this information was indeed in the first call. She confirmed that it was:
Yes, [Amanda spoke] very quickly. I told her to call the police. She said Raf was finishing a call with his sister and then was going to call police. This was the first call.
This first call lasted just 88 seconds, so Amanda must have spoken very quickly indeed.
Edda has also managed to answer the question that her daughter failed to answer the previous week, about why she had called her mother at such an unearthly hour: “Amanda said I know it’s early but she called because she felt someone had been in her house.”
If we accept Edda Mellas’s testimony at face value, we find ourselves wondering how a person who could have crammed so much detail into a phone call could possibly forget making that phone call at all?
We notice also that Edda has confirmed once again that she did advise her daughter to call the police. (And we know that her daughter’s boyfriend did exactly that, shortly after Amanda put the phone down.) Yet Amanda claims that she cannot remember that advice, nor can she even remember making the phone call.
At the end of her written document on November 6, Amanda wrote:
“All I know is that I didn’t kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.“
As the trial progresses, it looks increasingly as though Amanda was indeed involved in the killing of Meredith Kercher – and she has nothing but lies to protect her.

[MilfDriller]

I have just read a post in The Guardian that states that there was no staged break in. The clothes were not scattered around, they were where the owner had left them. Also that there was no glass on top of the clothes. What looked like glass was just a polka dot pattern. I had never heard this defence before. At least the supporters are able to debunk some evidence other than that of the DNA I am beginning to have my doubts now. Perhaps they are innocent after all.


Sounds convincing to me, and the blood was just ketchup right?

[MilfDriller]

After reading Rudy's diary for the gazillioned time I noticed another little truth (I think). I believe what Rudy does is use actual happenings and moves them around in his story. So his date is not true (or it was an appointment with Amanda) but his conversation with Meredith could well be true. It is possible that Meredith joined the 3 at first just for a drink or smoke and had a little chit-chat with Rudy, or the chit-chat happened at another day. Assuming he was on the toilet when the murder happened, his overheard argument between Meredith and Amanda is not true I think. That would have happened much earlier. I think the argument he is referring to is the one between Amanda and Rafaelle in Italian, also heard by a witness. Possibly Amanda going outside or to the kitchen after this argument? I am not sure if the witness indicated how much time there was between the argument and the scream.

Ditto for Amanda's writings

[MilfDriller]

I think there may be some tiny elements of truth in Rudy's story, but I'm interested in one particular fact: Rudy left a "deposit" in the toilet. I believe this fact represents very strong evidence against the lone wolf theory.

Assuming he broke in via Filomena's window, as the lone wolf theory demands, when would he have left this evidence? Would he have said to Meridith upon entering the cottage "I just broke in and I'll be in to rape and murder you in a minute, but right now I really need to take a dump."? Or would he, after committing a horribly violent murder, decide to relax and hang out for a while even though any other occupant of the cottage might return at any moment and finger him as the culprit?

I'd suggest that neither of these two are even remotely possible. The only explanation I can imagine is that when he went to relieve himself, he had no concern whatsoever of being identified as a criminal. Which means he was among "friends".

A solution to this may be that he arrived, broke into the house, and found no one present. Maybe he had to take a shit all of a sudden... and at that precise moment Meredith arrives. So he's left to hang out in the bathroom... But then, when the time is right, he jumps out of the bathroom and rapes and kills Meredith.... w/ half a shit still hanging out of his ass.

Nah.... that's not gonna work.

Seriously, tho, if he took the shit BEFORE the rape and murder... why didn't he flush?

This whole shit thing doesn't make any sense.

[MilfDriller]

Meant to say 'wipe'.

[MilfDriller]

The defense theory would be that he were on the toilet when Meredith came into the house, and then he just jumped up and attacked her. However, there is so much more evidence (window, rock, glass, staging, etc.) against the 'Lone Wolf' theory that it is hardly ever mentioned anymore. It is unlikely he killed Meredith and then went to the bathroom without leaving a trace of blood. His bloody footprint trail went straight out of the door.

[MilfDriller]

Rafaelle's phone call to the police is also interesting. 'There is a lot of blood', he says. At that point the bedroom door was still closed and the blood in the bathroom was not that much that it stopped Amanda from showering (according to her). So why he said 'a lot'?

[MilfDriller]

That quote has always bothered me too.

Amanda claimed that she'd assumed someone was having "menstrual issues" and thus the blood in the bathroom. (Have any of you other ladies EVER left smears all over the bathroom during your time of the month? No? Me either.) Since she was so unconcerned with that blood and had already developed a theory around it, didn't she share that (crazy) explantion with Rafaelle?

OR, is it more likely that Rafalle, having grown up with a sister, knew what was and was not normal with regards to "menstrual issues." Isn't more likely that he realized any half-intelligent person would NEVER accept Amanda's ridiculous story about being unconcerned by the blood traces in the bathroom and would immediately become suspicious?

SO, he has to mention the blood as odd so as not to get roped in with Amanda's obvious lie. But, IMO, in his nervousness at the sudden arrval of the postal police, he tripped up and described it as "a lot of blood," revealing that he'd seen more than just the streaks in the bathroom.

[MilfDriller]

I'm torn on it- on first glance I agree, it rings an alarm. (Anyone have what the original italian was, btw?) But looking at trace footprints of Guede in the entry along the couch that lead out the front door (thanks for the correction on that), and the absense of them in the hall, a case theoretically could be made that Sollecito saw some of what Knox didn't see, including the footprints. If we presume innocence, it might be that they didn't register in his mind after what came next (of course we also don't know fully what was testified/presented at trial). Further, the missing prints between Amanda's door and the couch could be explained by the hallway being a high density area, and the number of people that went into that hallway stepping on the prints obliterated them. A luminol test in the rest of the hallway could reveal blood that had been tracked around from people stepping. However, thus far I've only seen the luminol test outside knox's door and to the bathroom, and from a quote I've seen that was the area they focused on. Also, if they've got a partial print in the bathroom, did they do the luminol in the bathroom to find the rest of the print? What did they find?

[MilfDriller]

You are exactly right.
I find the whole thing incredible and the more time marches on, it appears to me less believable than it (Knox's fairytale) was first uttered.
Dear old wacky Amanda cartwheeling in the police station after her friend was found dead with her throat cut in the room next to hers...
Amanda naked doing some bizarre sack race routine with a bloody bathmat...
She never noticed Filomena's room had been trashed..
She never noticed her window was broken from the outside as she walked up to the open front door - nevermind not noticing from the inside.
All in all I think there is some morsel of truth (I am being kind here) in what she says - just like Guede...
I believe she and Sollecito both showered together to rinse all the blood away in that room after the murder (bare footprints anyone?) and indeed cleaned up while both naked.
A very cunning young woman Amanda Knox but in a classic sense, they were betrayed by their phone habits in the end.

[MilfDriller]

Here are a couple of images of what someone sees upon entering the cottage. Looking forward, there is the hallway and bathroom, with Filomina's bedroom on the left. The third door on the left is Meredith's bedroom. To the right is the kitchen, where Amanda was standing when Meredith's door was broken.

[MilfDriller]

Amanda's bedside lamp on the floor of Meredith's bedroom, locked in the room ... the lamp was missing from Amanda's bedroom and, upon seeing the wires on the floor leading into Meredith's bedroom, right outside of the bathroom door, Amanda ... in an apartment where the front door was wide open, no one was home, there was blood on the bathmat, and her bedroom lamp was locked in another bedroom ... she showered, then walked to Raffaele's apartment, had something to eat, and then strolled back to the cottage ... before she was found standing outside the cottage with a mop and kissing her latest squeeze. She made a 3 second call to Meredith's phone - just before announcing that she couldn't get ahold of Meredith ... and then involved Filomina

Question ... is the lamp cone shaped? I think I saw a photo of it after the clean up.

[MilfDriller]

This is the hallway in the dark, just outside of Meredith's bedroom, standing in front of the bathroom. The next is the same scene lightened a bit. Still have to add the lamps.

[MilfDriller]

Plus, she cleaned Raffael's floor before returning to her own home.

How many times did Amanda walk over her own lamp cord in the hallway that morning? BUT Amanda did mention scooting the bathmat down the hall, because she did not have a towel. She never even mentioned that cord.

No towels in the bathroom must have been the towels Rudy said he used fo Meredith. Where are they? No towels in the bathroom was not a 'red light' to Amanda.

Even now, I'm wanting Amanda to be innocent. Cannot think of a single way she could be yet.

[MilfDriller]

I too wanted her to be innocent for the longest time. I tried eliminating this and that ... supposing that the evidence was contaminated ... but at a certain point, the only defence argument was "contamination of evidence", until it was obvious that there was no argument against the DNA evidence.

I can't think of anyone that would leave a puddle of water in their tiled kitchen floor overnight. Even if Raffaele is that stupid, he's hardly going to cart a mop through town when he can buy one for a few dollars at the same place where Amanda was seen buying cleaning products early on the day the murder was discovered. From photos, he looked like he thought of himself as a playboy ... cool guy in nice car ... not guy walking through University town with a mop.

5 times ... that Amanda walked past or saw an electrical cord in the hallway leading to a locked door, and the lamp in her room was missing. This woman from Seattle, Amanda Knox, showered in an unlocked cottage in Italy, even though there was blood on the floor. Then she had lunch with her newest boyfriend. Then they went to her place where ... oh my goodness ... it looks like there's been a crime. What to do ... what to do ... how about we get the mop, step outside and enjoy the autumn colours, kiss a bit and ... oops ... what are the police doing here? Did you call them? ... nope, not me ... the beginning of doubt.

How do we know that there were no towels in the bathroom? I read about Amanda scootching across the floor on the bathmat ... was that because there were no towels? Even if there were no towels, scootching isn't exactly the first choice, especially since the bathmatt was found in the bathroom, and Amanda wasn't the type to clean up after herself ... how much time did she spend blow drying her hair anyway? ... and putting the scootched bathmatt back in the bathroom, not noticing the broken window ...

[MilfDriller]

Animation of the crime...

http://www.bild.de/BILD/news/2009/12/13/amanda-knox-engel-mit-den-eisaugen-video/animation-zeigt-was-in-der-mordnacht-geschah.html

[MilfDriller]

This is too funny...


Amanda Knox Future

[eastvan09]

Right on point milf! Great job presently so much info for us to go over.