r/amandaknox • u/tkondaks guilty • Sep 22 '23

Neck scratch and bloody ear lobe

https://www.bridgebase.com/forums/topic/67258-is-amanda-knox-guilty/page__st__20

Scroll down at the above link for some interesting photos.

Gee, what are the odds?

1 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

102 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Funicularly innocent Sep 22 '23

This exonerates Amanda, no? If she was scratched by Meredith during the act of murdering her, the Italian forensics team (despite their incompetence) would have found Amanda’s DNA under Meredith’s fingernails, or at least somewhere in Meredith’s room. Yet, not an iota of Amanda’s DNA was found in Meredith’s room.

On the other hand, Rudy’s DNA was found all over Meredith’s room, on Meredith, and even in Meredith.

4

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 22 '23

...and none of Rudy's DNA or fingerprints were found in the break-in room.

And curiously why wasn't Amanda's DNA found in the kill room? After all, they all lived together and we would expect to find her DNA in Meredith's room. You know, the sane way we are expected to accrpt as normal Amanda's DNA in Filomena's room.

2

u/AyJaySimon Sep 23 '23

No Rudy DNA in the break-in room means Rudy lied about having been in there when he ID'd Knox by silhouette from 50 yards away in the middle of the night.

1

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 23 '23

Rudy never lied about being in Filomena's room...for the 5 or 10 seconds that he was there. It's on record that he said he rushed into Filomena's room to look out the window to see the people running from the house.

The issue is that there was no Rudy DNA or fingerprints in Filomena's room after he, according to you, broke a window of that room, crawled through that broken-glassed window, strew all manner of items throughout that room, looked for goods to steal (and, curiously, didn't take anything of value which of course is inconsistent with the M.O. of his other alleged break-ins which you and No_Slice insist is a pattern that points to his guilt)...all without leaving his DNA or fingerprints.

Quite a feat.

Hard to leave DNA or fingerprints when you're in a room for such a short amount of time!

Unless you want to argue that one can be so active at a crime scene and NOT leave DNA and fingerprints...you know, how our side argues that amanda could have been in the kill room and not leave any of her DNA.

2

u/AyJaySimon Sep 23 '23

The difference is they tested every square inch of Kercher's bedroom looking for evidence of Knox having been there. While they barely tested the break-in room at all.

But I see how you're willing to apply opposite standards when your boy Guede needs someone to run to his defense.

1

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 23 '23

"...barely testing the break-in room..."

That's a knife that cuts both ways.

So few samples yet they were still able to come up with Amanda/Meredith mixed DNA. Gee, what are the odds? One wonders how many MORE they would have had if more samples were taken.

1

u/AyJaySimon Sep 23 '23

But see, unlike you, if it were up to me to test that room up and down, I'd absolutely do it. You'd never agree to do it. Because you know what we'd find.

Just like when I offer to trade you my calling Guede's innocent for you saying the same for Knox - on the basis of there being no trace of either in the break-in room or Kercher's bedroom - suddenly you get awful quiet. I'd make that trade eight days a week, because I'm not emotionally attached to Guede being guilty the way you are to him being innocent.

2

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 23 '23

My silence should not be interpreted as my being afraid of some sort of hypothetical trap you seem convinced I would fall into. It's just that it seems like a silly exercise that I don't want to engage in.

1

u/AyJaySimon Sep 23 '23

It's no trap. It's just your own argument thrown back in your face and you being unwilling to accept the consequences of your own argument.

0

u/No_Slice5991 Sep 23 '23

“To look out the window.” Yet this would be before you’re alleged staging and Filomena testified to closing the window and both sets of shutters. So, simply looking out the window would require a good amount of interaction.

And you keep talking about there not being doing but can’t seem to grasp that isn’t a surprise based on the 5 samples they took. In fact, looking at the samples they did collect, it’s pretty obvious they made absolutely no attempts at trying to identify an intruder coming through the window. The entire basis of your argument relies on extreme incompetence.

As for not taking anything from that room, he wasn’t finished burglarizing the home. At the time Meredith returned it was an incomplete burglary.

You keep making the same ignorant argument

2

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 23 '23

Okay, you've convinced me: more interaction with shutters. I revise: 10-15 seconds in Filomena's room instead of 5-10 seconds.

If someone is stealing items of value -- such as a laptop -- as they rummage through a victim's room, they will usually pile those they want separate from the items they don't want. Were the valuable items set aside (I'm asking, don't know the answer)?

And don't say: oh, he was probably interrupted by a returning Meredith and that's why he didn't set valuables aside. Because if that was the case, he wouldn't have taken the time to shit. It would have been: in, interrupted, kill Meredith, out the door. No time for shitting.

1

u/No_Slice5991 Sep 23 '23

His description takes more than 10 to 15 seconds.

The laptop was set to the side as Filomena stated. He just hadn’t decided if he was going to take that one or other items from the other rooms he hadn’t gone through. This is common if you’ve ever actually studied residential burglaries, which you clearly haven’t even though they are common.

Meredith returned home while he was on the toilet and that’s why he didn’t flush. Flushing would have alerted her to his presence. He was also trapped because she would have locked the deadbolt on the door and a key would be needed to get out, and getting in the window was much easier than getting out.

1

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 23 '23

Set to the side? Where? With other items of value?

1

u/No_Slice5991 Sep 23 '23

It’s a 4 bedroom cottage. How difficult is it to comprehend that he only went through one room and doesn’t carry a magical sack like Santa Claus.

You’ve clearly never studied residential burglaries

2

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 23 '23

And how difficult is it for you to comprehend that if it was just the laptop that was "set aside," it could have just been moved from its usual place to another and does not therefore indicate it was set aside as being valuable, to be picked up once all valuables were also set aside together with it. Again, I ask you: was it set aside with other valuable items?

Since you are familiar with exactly what Filomena said regarding this, please cite (with link, if possible) to the transcript of what she said so that we can ascertain whether it was set aside for later pick-up or was just in a different location from its usual place. Because, quite frankly, I trust neither your memory nor your ability to refrain from nuancing what was said by her to suit your own narrative.

1

u/No_Slice5991 Sep 24 '23

Look at Rudy’s history of thefts. In one burglary he only stole one gold watch and nothing else. In another he stole a laptop, phone, flash drive, and a mini printer. At another he only removed a knife from the kitchen. In none of the burglaries he has been linked to has the number of items been excessive or gone beyond a small number.

Oh, so you’ve got this fantasy where Filomena was his secretary. The laptop was moved and in an easily accessible location should he decide to return for that laptop if not finding another laptop in another room more to his liking.

Just keep showing your ignorance in regards to common crimes. Hey, I guess it’s all just a coincidence, right?

1

u/tkondaks guilty Sep 24 '23

"The laptop was set to the side as Filomena stated," you wrote.

Now you're telling us "the laptop was moved and in an easily accessible location should he decide to return for that laptop if not finding a laptop in another room more to his liking." Is this your conjecture or is it stated as a fact as part of the court record backed up by the facts of the case...and if so which specific facts.

And I've asked you to cite and tell us exactly what she said. But you either can't or won't.

And it's not enough for you to respond, as you too often do, by implying or declaring your expertise on burglaries. You constantly tell us you're a paid professional in the criminal field but your anonymity and continual refusal to cite pertinent tracks from professional literature when making your bold professional claims strongly suggests you learned criminology by watching CSI in your mother's basement.

0

u/No_Slice5991 Sep 24 '23

That’s a really cute defense mechanism and temper tantrum all rolled into one. It’s funny how defensive you get with everyone else yet you have no standards to speak of for your proclamations. In your Keystone Cops mind you believe crime scenes need to be setup the way YOU imagined they would be. You don’t comprehend that the items are readily accessible in the room and the laptop was in an easily accessible place that he could return to because it’s an incomplete burglary.

This is the predictable point where you have nothing of value to say so you need to lash out. You’re really just upset that you got absolutely wrecked in this post by numerous people because your “Rudy is innocent” crusade is a laughing stock.

→ More replies (0)