Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Amanda Knox reveals why she lied


Ozfactor

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, timewarrior said:
Quote

 

Okay. . .I can concede that both Amanda and Sollecito probably did more damage to themselves than what is bound by the realm of rational thought.   More and likely, they are habitual, self serving, and quite frankly not so intelligent compulsive liars/sociopaths who constantly dug their own graves every freaking time they opened their mouth.  

That said. . .I have two words for you:  Casey Anthony. . .

If there was ever a person whom I thought would have been convicted. .. it would have been her. . .she lied to the police so boldly and so frequently, I thought for sure she'd hang.  Yet the jury, following the letter of the law, could not link her to the crime physically.  The prosecution and the police had failed in their efforts.   They relied so heavily on the words of sociopath, they forgot that one important thing most people need to convict.  Irrefutable proof. 

The same here.  Amanda and Sollecito's words and lies are just that.  Words and lies.   Words and lies are often spoken by crazy people, those with delusions, people who want and crave attention, and people who just can't tell the truth to save their life. 

Being a lying sociopath does not make a person a murderer.   Show me physical evidence that Amanda and Sollecito were in that room (other than that one questionable dna hit on the bra strap) and I'll admit their involvement.  Otherwise, all words and lies are just words and lies.  Intangible and unprovable. . .

 

Beyond the bra strap, which as I've conceded is questionable, there is none. Words and lies do not serve as irrefutable proof, this is true, but they can certainly be indicative of guilty knowledge. This is a complex case, and I think there was a sufficient amount of reasonable doubt to acquit. I'm not convinced that Knox/Sollecito participated in the actual murder. It's difficult to determine exactly what their role was, but I don't believe they were just two innocents railroaded by the police and a rogue prosecutor. The investigators and the courts would have been grossly derelict not to have pursued Knox/Sollecito given all of the evidence.

Quote

 

I guess it all depends on which dna expert you want to believe, how much the scene was compromised by shoddy police work, and what your interpretation of reality is.  You have some DNA experts claiming that nothing was contaminated and other claiming that the whole scene was contaminated.  I personally like to think it was a little of both.   However, judging from the incompetence and unethical behavior of the man at top of this food chain:

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/knox-prosecutor-convicted-of-abuse-of-power/

I don't have much trust in the abilities of the local police force to not F' up the crime scene.   I'm pretty positive that that they did. . .but there was still enough to prove Rudy's role. . .I'm sure the closer they were to the body, the more care they took in their actions.   At least I would hope so. . .

Again. . .attention seeking liars or sociopaths. . .see above man. . .

and low?  Really?  Sollecito had been in the apartment before, that day even.  We shed skins cells, hair, sweat, saliva, etc. almost constantly.  It is very likely that enough of a sample could have found itself on someone's shoe and was tracked into the room.  you don't have to live there to leave evidence behind.  heck you can even leave prints behind on  just a ten second visit to place so long as you touch something.  Why do you think police ask murder suspects if they've ever been in so and so or knew so and so. . .theoretically, the suspect could say, yes I visited them a few days ago or had sex with so and so that week in their apartment. . .it gives an explanation as to why the dna was found at the site that could be countered in the courts.  It's when a suspect claims they have never been in a place or never new a person, that's when they eliminate any reason for dna being present on site. . .

Again. . .attention seeking liars or sociopaths. . .see above. . .

Yeah, the supreme court was right to throw out the conviction but they are wrong on the assertion that there were multiple assailants.  It's their opinion.  It's not based on physical evidence.  Where is the other unidentified DNA profiles?  other unidentified fingerprints?   where is there one shred of evidence that there was more than Rudy and Meredith in that room  that night. . .you can't have just the DNA of one assailant. . .not in an enclosed environment. . .not in scenario where they are proposed to be holding her down and assaulting her.  

And yes, I'm dismissing every piece of behavioral, testimonial, eye witness, and unreliable physical evidence because I'm a F'ing skeptic.  I know people lie, I know eye witness testimony is faulty, and I know that crime scenes can get contaminated.  I can cite you example after example throughout history on each of these subjects, but I frankly don't have the time.  Further, even the shoe prints are questionable, because no shoe is unique.  Another person could have the same shoe. .. now a shoe with blood on it. . .that's different. . .but I digress. 

You know what I don't dismiss?  

1.  Finger prints in blood.

2.  Semen in the body

3.  previous criminal behavior

and that's just for this case.  Other types include:

4.  Electronic evidence (video, audio, computer transactions involving monetary payments)

5.  Cell phone pings

6.  Text and Email traffic (especially if obtained from multiple sources).

7.  certain types of behavior evidence that results in documented evidence (i.e. obtaining life insurance polices, bitter divorce proceedings, etc.)

8.  scars and wounds on the body of the assailant.

I'm sure I could come up with a few more. . .but I'm tired of this.   You all can continue to mull over speculation and things you think are reliable, undisputed proof of guilt, but frankly, I, and in some cases the court systems have a higher standard to adhere to before I condemn a person or persons to death or life imprisonment.   I demand such high standards (as should you) from my legal and law enforcement because as William Blackstone said originally (and Benjamin Franklin later modified):

"It is better that ten (or 100 as Franklin said) guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

 

I think being skeptical is healthy, but using your standards, no one would ever be convicted of anything. If continuous, changing lies from suspects mean nothing, all behavioral evidence is inconsequential, eyewitness/court testimony unreliable, and crime scenes presumed to be contaminated, there's not much left to convict on. And as it is, numbers 1(footprints),4,5,6, and 8 that you cite were in fact present in this case with regard to Knox/Sollecito.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
1 hour ago, Booth said:

Beyond the bra strap, which as I've conceded is questionable, there is none. Words and lies do not serve as irrefutable proof, this is true, but they can certainly be indicative of guilty knowledge. This is a complex case, and I think there was a sufficient amount of reasonable doubt to acquit. I'm not convinced that Knox/Sollecito participated in the actual murder. It's difficult to determine exactly what their role was, but I don't believe they were just two innocents railroaded by the police and a rogue prosecutor. The investigators and the courts would have been grossly derelict not to have pursued Knox/Sollecito given all of the evidence.

I disagree.  I think the investigators and courts wasted a significant amount of time, money and resources pursuing these charges against Amanda and Sollecito.  Whether or not you interpret their words as indicating guilt or not and whether or not you believe they were involved.  Both the investigators and the courts had an OBLIGATION to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that both of them were involved in this murder.   If the evidence did not support their involvement to this extent, then charges should not have been pursued.  They have wasted tax payer's money, the city's resources, and essentially ruined the reputation of the people and court system of Italy.  

 

1 hour ago, Booth said:

I think being skeptical is healthy, but using your standards, no one would ever be convicted of anything. If continuous, changing lies from suspects mean nothing, all behavioral evidence is inconsequential, eyewitness/court testimony unreliable, and crime scenes presumed to be contaminated, there's not much left to convict on. And as it is, numbers 1(footprints),4,5,6, and 8 that you cite were in fact present in this case with regard to Knox/Sollecito.

Not true.  Physical evidence collected properly with approved police proceeding can and does get people convicted.   As are lies from suspects that are also substantiated by physical evidence.  It's not that hard.  Yes behavioral evidence and eyewitness accounts are unreliable.  But crime scenes are only contaminated by poor police procedures.   For example, if you watch the Homicide Hunter and know of Joe Kenda (a former police investigator), he often details the need to collect good evidence in the show and how there could be two sides to every story or every piece of evidence.  In this youtube video where he is talking to an audience:

 

He details at about the 1 hour 3 minute mark, how the Jon Benet Ramsey case was botched.  It was because of poor police work.  An arrogant police department who didn't know what they were doing, conducted the crime scene investigation so poorly that a murderer will most likely never be caught.   The same could be said here for certain aspects of the Knox case and the investigation they conducted.  They made mistakes. . .their shoes weren't covered with white covers while at the scene. . .they were tracking DNA in all over the place. . .they failed to find the bra strap immediately.   As Joe Kenda says, you only have once change to get it right. . .else it's gone forever. 

In regards to 4, 5, 6, the question is what are they really showing. . .Amanda and Sollecito had every right to be in that area, it was where they lived.   There is a reasonable explanation as to why they are there.  If the actually lived 40 miles away, per se, and the cell phones were showing that they were in the area, then that's significant. . .And regarding 8, scars and wounds. . .what fresh wound and scars did Amanda and sollecito have?  I'm sure Rudy had some. . .never heard about them. . .

Finally, back to 6, text and email communication would be a good way to show if Rudy and Amanda had direct communication with each other.  Often because it captures events in real time. . .again. . .there's no direct link to Amanda and Rudy supported this way. . .you'd have to assume that they met completely in a vacuum and managed to plan a murder completely in a vacuum. . .

It's just not likely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one more thought. . .it's like the investigators in Italy kept trying to fit an Amanda and sollecito puzzle pieces into a puzzle that only had one image. . .Rudy. . .they developed this elaborate, complicated ritual involving sex games, satanic worship and other things just to make the pieces fit. . .that's not good police work. . .that's creating the reality you want. . .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, timewarrior said:
Quote

I disagree.  I think the investigators and courts wasted a significant amount of time, money and resources pursuing these charges against Amanda and Sollecito.  Whether or not you interpret their words as indicating guilt or not and whether or not you believe they were involved.  Both the investigators and the courts had an OBLIGATION to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that both of them were involved in this murder.   If the evidence did not support their involvement to this extent, then charges should not have been pursued.  They have wasted tax payer's money, the city's resources, and essentially ruined the reputation of the people and court system of Italy.  

I don't think pursuing justice is a waste of money. And in fact, the prosecution, on two occasions, did prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether you agree with those verdicts or not, that alone shows this clearly wasn't a frivolous prosecution. 

Quote

In regards to 4, 5, 6, the question is what are they really showing. . .Amanda and Sollecito had every right to be in that area, it was where they lived.   There is a reasonable explanation as to why they are there.  If the actually lived 40 miles away, per se, and the cell phones were showing that they were in the area, then that's significant. . .And regarding 8, scars and wounds. . .what fresh wound and scars did Amanda and sollecito have?  I'm sure Rudy had some. . .never heard about them. . .

What 4,5 and 6 are showing is that Knox/Sollecito lied about where they were and/or what they were doing! For some reason you seem to think this is meaningless.

The roommate Laura Mezzetti testified to seeing a scratch on Amanda's neck in the hours following the discovery of Meredith's body; one that was not there the previous day.

Quote

 

Finally, back to 6, text and email communication would be a good way to show if Rudy and Amanda had direct communication with each other.  Often because it captures events in real time. . .again. . .there's no direct link to Amanda and Rudy supported this way. . .you'd have to assume that they met completely in a vacuum and managed to plan a murder completely in a vacuum. . .

It's just not likely. 

 

It might show they had direct electronic communication with one another. The absence of that certainly doesn't rule out a personal meeting. Maybe even a chance encounter at the Piazza Gramana where Rudy always hung out and they were seen by witnesses. Yeah, I know, I know, they were unreliable...

And I don't presume this was a planned murder. It's quite possible that Guede ran into Knox(who he had met a couple of times) and convinced her to take him to her flat and introduce him to her pretty British roommate.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on a piece of evidence. The bloody footprint made in Meredith's blood on the bathmat. Who do you think put it there, and what happened to the rest of the trail?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Booth said:

I don't think pursuing justice is a waste of money. And in fact, the prosecution, on two occasions, did prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether you agree with those verdicts or not, that alone shows this clearly wasn't a frivolous prosecution. 

It is when the case is so p*** poor to begin with.   The first verdict was done by a jury, most juries are filled with idiots, morons and feeble minded fools.   It is far better to be tried by  one smart person (i.e. trial by judge) than trying to convince a jury of individuals who are often swayed by the media and have very basic knowledge about how science works.  Often times, jury members just assume that a person is automatically guilty because they believe the police force is perfect and that the prosecution is infallible. . .Further, the prosecution's case was immediately thrown out in the first appeal, then reinstated by another appeal board after the prosecution complained, and finally thrown out again by their supreme court.   A truly strong prosecution case would not have been thrown out in the first appeal.  The reinstatement, I attribute to a fluke in their justice system because in American once it's thrown out, its out.  The way I see the second so called conviction is the system pandering to the prosecution and was basically a call for the overturn to be re-reviewed.   They weren't re-convicted, they had their convictions reinstated.  Completely different thing.  

Now the conviction of Rudy. . .what happened when it was appealed. . .oh right. . .it was upheld. . .

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-knox-case-court-rejects-grounds-for-new-trial-for-rudy-guede-in-meredith-kercher-murder/

And why is that?  Because it is a solid case against a guilty man.  A guilty man the Italian justice system only gave 10 yeas in prison to because of their idiotic and wasteful pursuit of Amanda and Sollecito. . .

Justice was not done here my friend. . .if I was Meredith's relative. . .I would be p***ed. . .

 

10 hours ago, Booth said:

What 4,5 and 6 are showing is that Knox/Sollecito lied about where they were and/or what they were doing! For some reason you seem to think this is meaningless.

The roommate Laura Mezzetti testified to seeing a scratch on Amanda's neck in the hours following the discovery of Meredith's body; one that was not there the previous day.

It is meaningless when one considers that extreme lack of physical evidence at the crime scene.   Further, they had admitted to using mind altering drugs so probably didn't have a coherent grasp on their daily activities.  That doesn't make them criminals. . .nor does it necessarily mean they are lying. . .it means that they don't really have a good, solid alibi that can be verified by outside evidence.  

That so called scratch was described by a pathologist as an "extremely non specific skin irritation" and noted that there was no broken skin or marks from fingernail scratching.  You're telling me, that in the fight for her life, Meredith wasn't able to make one mark on either of them?   Rudy had cuts on his hand that were still visible after he was captured two weeks later.  

 

10 hours ago, Booth said:

It might show they had direct electronic communication with one another. The absence of that certainly doesn't rule out a personal meeting. Maybe even a chance encounter at the Piazza Gramana where Rudy always hung out and they were seen by witnesses. Yeah, I know, I know, they were unreliable...

And I don't presume this was a planned murder. It's quite possible that Guede ran into Knox(who he had met a couple of times) and convinced her to take him to her flat and introduce him to her pretty British roommate.

I'm curious as to your thoughts on a piece of evidence. The bloody footprint made in Meredith's blood on the bathmat. Who do you think put it there, and what happened to the rest of the trail?

Yeah.  Unreliable.  Cause let's face it.  They could have been seen with another black man that was not Rudy.  Unless you have pictures or something concrete, all you have is one person's opinion that they knew each other.   And opinions are like @$$holes. . .everyone has one. 

The whole spur of the moment sex party murder theory is just insane and does not fit the evidence.   It was the prosecution and the investigator's attempts to build a case around a suspect they felt was guilty.  They even stated it openly:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-knox-italian-police-bombshell-we-knew-she-was-guilty-of-murder-without-physical-evidence/

That's bad police work.   It reeks of assumption.  It indicates that they weren't objective and had put their blinders on.  

The so called bloody foot print was never tested by the prosecution or the police to verify that it was actually blood.  It's bad evidence.  There's so much wrong with it that I just can't detail it all here.  Check this out:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html

Look, you need to check out the articles written by a veteran FBI agent:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI.html

permit me if you will, to quote a certain passage from it:

Quote
I spent years of my life working on cases in the federal courts, from simple murder to mass shootings to weapons of mass destruction. In the U.S., the totality of the evidence and the hunches of the investigators in this matter would not have been sufficient to get a search warrant, much less take somebody to trial. The case is completely flawed in every way. The physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is wrong, contrived, misinterpreted, and (to put it kindly) misstated. The other “evidence” is made up of (embarrassingly naïve) hunches and bias. The “DNA” evidence is particularly inaccurate. The alleged motive and modus operandi of Knox/Sollecito is so tortured (and constantly-changing) that it defies belief.
 
“FACTS DETERMINE CONCLUSIONS”—The universal truism of investigation. The instant that one’s conclusions determine or change the facts, you have corrupted the judicial system.
I have been a young investigator, and I have supervised eager but inexperienced young investigators. Young or inexperienced investigators have a tendency to believe their own hunches. This is dangerous, because uneducated hunches are usually wrong. Hunches are not bad, they just need to be allowed to die a natural death when evidence proves them wrong. The sign of an investigation run amok is when an initial hunch is nurtured and kept on life support long after evidence should have killed it. This case is just such a situation. In the Knox case, the investigator openly states:
 
“We knew she was guilty of murder without physical evidence.” -- Edgardo Giobbi, Investigator.
 
Then, when physical evidence came in that did not support their story, they simply changed their story. And their suspects. And their murder weapons. And the motives. (If there was ever a ‘smoking gun’ in this case; that statement was it.)
 
I will only say of the interrogation, that if any FBI Agents I supervised had conducted that interrogation in the U.S., I would have had them indicted. I am not surprised that Amanda made incriminating and conflicting statements in such a horrible situation. I am more surprised that under that duress, she didn’t make more incriminating (but ultimately false) statements. Hypothetically, any trained investigator operating for many hours without rules, in a foreign language, slapping and threatening a naïve, frightened girl just out of her teens and in a foreign country, (denying her food, sleep and the right to an attorney and Consular advice) can get her to say just about anything. If this was the medical profession, one might deem such activities “intentional malpractice”.
 
The investigators in this matter appeared to have decided upon a conclusion, and repeatedly changed their story so that the evidence would suit their conclusions. After the evidence came back that Rudy Guede sexually assaulted Meredith, did it not occur to the investigators that they had a simple rape/murder? The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. Crimes are only this complicated in James Bond movies. Amanda would not even have been a suspect in any US investigation. A sex murder occurs and your prime suspect is the female roommate? Experienced, or simply competent investigators would have known that statistically, 90% of murders are committed by men. When women commit murder, only 16% use a knife, and close examination might show that the vast majority of those are gang-related. Any conclusion that involves a woman stabbing another woman is statistically so rare, that it should be looked at with great suspicion.
 
There is also a thing called “leakage”. Leakage is the tendency of homicidal or mentally ill people to ‘leak’ behavior that would indicate their true nature. If one is to believe that Amanda Knox was the drug-crazed, homicidal Svengali that she was made out to be, there is absolutely NO way that such sociopathic behavior would not be leaked in some significant way prior to this crime. No, instead we see a girl on the Dean’s list working several jobs to attend a university program in Italy. A girl who had not even had a scrape with law enforcement.
 
A good auto mechanic who lacks scruples, can take a car out of a junk yard, bolt on a couple of new fenders, drop in new carpets and slap on tires and a $100 coat of paint. Once he cleans up the interior and rolls back the odometer, he could sell it as a near new car to 99% of the population. It appears new, the mileage says it’s new, and only a trained mechanic would know the difference.
 
But bring in a trained mechanic, and he might notice that the brake pedal, for instance, is worn almost to the metal. That’s a sure sign of 100,000 miles of use or more. The hint of blue smoke out of the exhaust would be a dead give-away of a worn-out motor. He would warn you that all is not as pretty and new as it seems.
 
Take my word for this. Investigation of violent crimes is my life; not a hobby. The case the Italian prosecutors are trying to sell you is not the beautiful thing it appears to some to be. It’s a junker all cleaned-up and waiting to be purchased by naïve people. And the jury in Perugia bought it.

 

Specifically read this one:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

It details the vast amount of physical evidence that is just not there that should have been had the events transpired the way the prosecution and investigators assert.   You have to remember that this was a violent, bloody, horrific crime.  There is no way that neither Amanda nor Sollecito could have come out of this as clean as they were if they were present.  You know what.  I'm just going to quote the whole article right now because there is just too much to :say about this entire scenario that my head is exploding.  It even has an analysis of that behavior stuff you're so fond of: 

 

Quote

 

The Mountain of Missing Evidence

By, Steve Moore

Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence

The Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case isn’t really about (the alleged) evidence, it is about lack of evidence—evidence that would have to be there if Knox and Sollecito participated.   A shooting victim has an entry wound.  That is evidence.  If you tell me you have a shooting victim, but there’s no entry wound, the lack of evidence shows your theory to be impossible.  No entry wound→ no evidence→ no shooting.  A complete case consists of not just what’s at the crime scene, but what’s not at the crime scene.  This is simply basic investigation:  Investigation 101.  The prosecutors and investigators in this case simply ignored the implications of what they could not find.

In the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case, we have a conflict between an implausibly small amount of highly suspect “evidence” that is alleged to be at the scene vs. a vast amount of missing evidence that would have HAD to be at the scene if Amanda and Raffaele had participated at all, and even more so if they had participated in the way the prosecutors allege. While the prosecution’s evidence is scant, contrived and likely non-existent; the mountain of missing evidence is absolutely overwhelming and compelling.  And they both can’t be right because they are mutually exclusive.

If Amanda and Raffaele had actually killed Meredith in company with Rudy Guede, the following evidence WOULD have been there:

BLOOD TRANSFER

1.  Meredith’s room would have been filled with the bloody footprints, handprints and smears of THREE PEOPLE, not one.

In the world of homicide (and other) investigations, law enforcement officials and prosecutors use the word “transfer”.  Transfer is what it sounds like; the transfer of physical evidence from one person to another.  Transfer is especially prevalent in murders (especially by stabbing) and rape.  The nature of this case indicates that it would have the MOST transfer of any type of case.

2/3 of the required evidence missing, means 2/3 of the people were not there.

If the prosecution’s story is true, we are missing all credible evidence of the participation of, or even presence of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the cottage at the time of the murder.

With three alleged assailants, that would mean that 2/3 of the evidence is simply missing.    Evidence of Rudy Guede’s presence and participation are everywhere; bloody footprints, DNA, fingerprints, palm prints, bodily fluids, hair and even fecal matter.  Nobody; not even Rudy Guede disputes this evidence.  How then can the total absence of evidence of any other person be explained?  The prosecution cannot provide an answer.

The sheer volume of forensic evidence of Guede’s presence is overwhelming.  Evidence of any other person’s presence or involvement could not be erased without wiping out that of Guede’s. Therefore, the room could not have been cleaned, and was not cleaned.  This means that the missing evidence was not removed—it was never there.

Amanda Knox is alleged to be the person who stabbed Meredith Kercher.  She would therefore have been in VERY close proximity to Meredith—well within an arm length.  Blood spatter evidence at the scene is consistent with ‘projected’, or ‘medium velocity impact spatter (MVIS) blood stains which travel at between 1.5 meters per second (mps) and 7.5 mps.  (That is an arm-length in ½ second).  Blood was spattered several feet away from Meredith’s wounds.  It is inconceivable that the person stabbing Meredith was not contaminated by blood spatter.  Guede was.

Anybody holding Meredith (such as was alleged by the prosecution) would be within the spatter zone.  Again; blood on clothes and skin.  This would mean that both Raffaele and Guede would have had substantial amounts of Meredith’s blood on them as they were alleged to have held Meredith.

The volume of blood in a woman the size of Meredith is between 4 and 5 liters.  Approximately 2 liters of blood loss results in death.  That would indicate that at least two liters (a little over half a gallon) of blood was spilled on the hard-surfaced floor.

Nobody disputes that Meredith was fighting bravely for her life to her last breath.  There were 46 wounds on her body consistent with such a struggle.  With three persons wrestling and stabbing, it is impossible that contact blood transfer did not occur; on the feet, on the clothing and on the hands of any alleged perpetrator.  Especially when fighting in the small confines of Meredith’s bedroom.  And the footprints would occasionally overlap.

Guede stepped in the blood, Guede put his hand in the blood, Guede touched surfaces all around the room.  Yet neither Amanda Knox, nor Raffaele Sollecito came in contact with any blood?  This is difficult to conceive, as even if they avoided the large blood pools and spatters, it would be impossible to avoid stepping on the bloody (but sometimes latent) footprints left by Guede.

It is all the more impressive that examiners found latent (but non-blood) footprints claimed to be of Amanda all through the house….but NONE in Meredith’s room.  This is an impossible result if Amanda had been involved in the murder.  Against all of this missing evidence is a bra clasp that sat for six weeks in a pile of dust with a questionable DNA marking related to Sollecito, and a bloody footprint of Guede that the prosecution asserted to have belonged to Raffaele.

BLOODY CLOTHING:  NOT THERE

2.  There would be blood-stained clothes, underwear and/or shoes of the attackers.

There is a simple answer to why Guede’s clothes were not found to have blood on them.  They were never found.  Guede left the country, and disposed of his clothes and shoes.  Those items can never be tested.  But Amanda and Raffaele stayed in town.  Their clothes would have been with them.  Maybe even ON them.  The blood would likely not have even been dry.  Even after laundering, it is easy to detect latent blood on fabric and certainly leather.  Any blood on Amanda or Raffaele’s clothes or shoes would have been found.

No blood was ever found on any of their clothes or shoes.

The prosecution might argue that the two disposed of the clothes they allegedly wore at the murder.  But then one would have to believe that they cleverly and secretly disposed of their shoes, they disposed of their clothes, they disposed of one murder knife……but they kept a second murder knife, and returned it to their silverware drawer.  This makes absolutely no sense.  I remember as a kid that if you started telling a tall tale, the tales you had to tell to back the first one up became all the more ridiculous.  This reminds me of that type of situation.

INJURIES TO THE ASSAILANT(S)

3.  There would have been bruises, cuts and other injuries to Amanda and Raffaele.

It is a rare occurrence when a frenzied fight involving a knife does not involve injuries to both parties, even when one is assumed to be larger and stronger than the other.

When I was on an FBI SWAT Team, we had an exercise designed to teach us the dangers of trying to fight off a knife attack.  A red magic-marker played the part of a knife, and an “assailant” would attempt to attack another member of the SWAT Team with it.  We did this in white t-shirts and open sleeves so we could see the wounds.  Within seconds, the assailant had usually dispatched the victim with stabs and slashing attacks to the neck and torso, as the victim fought back desperately.  Without exception though, the attacker was “cut”.  Always.  And almost every time on the hands or fingers.  This is because the victim, in attempting to fight off a knife, reaches for the hands, which deflects the knife into fingers or other parts of the hands.  In addition to the “cuts”, there were bruises and lacerations simply from elbows and arms flying.

Also, folding knives have no ‘hilt’, a perpendicular piece between the knife handle and blade to keep your hand from sliding forward when using the knife for stabbing.  When this happens, the attacker usually receives slash injuries to his finger just below (or in the vicinity of) the second knuckle.  Amanda could not have known that.  She had no such cuts.  Rudy Guede, when arrested had such cuts across three of his fingers.  One piece of evidence used against O.J. Simpson in his stabbing/slashing murder trial was that he had a severe cut on his finger, likely inflicted during a stabbing motion when his hand slid over the blade.

In the FBI, I have been involved in several physical altercations, including a couple of attempts to take a knife away from a person.  Each of those events ended in all parties having bruises and/or cuts.  And these people weren’t fighting for their life; they were just fighting to keep from being arrested.  Meredith had 46 wounds consistent with a fight for her life.  Rudy had just such cuts on his hand.  If Meredith had been attacked by three people, is it plausible that in all of Meredith’s fighting that she was unable to inflict a single scratch or a bruise on either of her other two attackers?  Not really.

Neither Raffaele nor Amanda had a bruise on their body, not a cut, not a scratch. Amanda had a small mark on her neck that was proven to be nothing. There was not a single hair of theirs in the room. Raffaele’s glasses were not broken or bent.  They were NOT involved in any struggle with Meredith.

BLOOD CONTAMINATION IN AMANDA’S ROOM OR RAFFAELE’S APARTMENT

4.  There would be significant blood residue

They had to change and clean up.  They didn’t change their clothes outside.  They would have to have changed either at Amanda’s or Raffaele’s, and if the clothes came in contact with ANY object or substance, there would have been further transfer.  At the O.J. Simpson crime scene, significant amounts of the victims’ blood were found on the carpet in Simpson’s house.

There is NO place where they could have changed their clothes which would not have been contaminated by contact transfer.

Not a speck of blood was found in Amanda’s room or Raffaele’s apartment. (According to the Italian authorities themselves, not even the knife taken from Raffaele’s apartment had blood on it.)

ESCAPE

5.  There would likely have been some type of escape attempt

Guede fled to Germany shortly after the murder.  Amanda had time to get a flight out of the country and to the safety of America.  Raffaele had friends in Rome.  Instead, Amanda was at her cottage when Raffaele called the police.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INDICATORS OF VIOLENCE

6.  Much (flawed) amateur psychology has been bandied about by the press and the police in this matter.  It is true, however, that a person’s behavior can be an indicator of future violence.

The prosecution alleged ridiculous theories in this case such as satanic rituals, etc., which were soundly rejected even in the Motivation Document.  However, the Motivation Document alleges that Amanda came upon her roommate fighting off a rapist, and instead of assisting her roommate; she sided with the rapist.  Not only that, but for some unknown reason, Amanda abandoned her attempts to assist Guede rape her friend, and simply slashed her throat.  The Motivation Document could not provide any motive for this attack.  This is anti-social behavior in the extreme.  This is sociopathy.  This behavior is so extreme that it could not be hidden from the world prior to this event.

As part of my duties in the FBI, I was responsible for evaluating the dangerousness of individuals who were involved in violent groups, or were threatening violence.  I worked closely with FBI profilers on these matters, and even assisted in the creation of an FBI text on lone attackers.  We put dangerous people in prison and I believe we saved lives.

The Association of Threat Assessment Professionals (ATAP), whose conferences I attend, has several behavioral checklists to assess potential violence.  The following are a selection of questions which are industry standards used to assist in the assessment of behavior that indicates future violence.  They rate the potential violence by how many of these predictors are present in a person’s life.  The higher the score, the higher the potential threat.  Let’s check how Amanda Knox would score on this test.

But first, we should discuss the word “credible”.  Something is credible when it can be backed up with substantial facts.  An unsupported accusation (such as those we have seen in the press) is simply non-credible.  In determining if anybody was dangerous, we always discounted any information that we could not verify.  Doing otherwise would endanger lives.  An example of information which would be discounted here is, for instance, an accusation that Amanda Knox was involved in the occult, and committed murder as part of a satanic ritual.  No unbiased person believes that, and it has never been established with a single scintilla of evidence.

7.  WHAT WOULD WE HAVE SEEN IF AMANDA KNOX WAS THE KILLER SHE IS PORTRAYED TO BE?  We would have seen:

A.  A MOTIVE for violence:

No motive has ever been established for Amanda allegedly murdering Meredith, though the prosecution came up with a new one almost every week during the trial.  None.

B.  Homicidal fantasies or preoccupation:

No credible allegation has ever been made that Amanda Knox harbored homicidal fantasies or preoccupation.  This would have surfaced by the time Amanda was 21.  Stories would abound; she would likely be a feared person.  Much like Rudy Guede was in Perugia.

C.  Violent intentions and expressed threats

Not once can a single person provide any account that Amanda threatened anybody in her entire life.  Not one person can state that she ever displayed violence of any kind.  Ever.

D.  Weapons skills and access

Amanda Knox has no knowledge of guns or knives as weapons.  (If you consider cooking knives a weapon, then there is not a person in America or Italy over the age of 8 who does not have access to a weapon, rendering this part of the question null).

Putting a knife in Amanda’s hand is like putting a trumpet in my hand.  It doesn’t mean that I know what to do with it.  I am a firearms instructor.  I can tell you that a knife or firearm in an inexperienced person’s hands is more dangerous to them than others.  The thought that you could put a knife in Amanda’s hands, and the very first time, have her inflict fatal wounds (especially without injuring herself in the process) is ludicrous.

E.  Pre-Attack planning

The Italian court stated that there was no pre-planning for this crime.

F.  Stalking

No allegation was made, even by Mignini, that Amanda ever stalked Meredith or any other person.  Amanda has never been accused of stalking or ANY similar behavior in the US.

G.  Job Problems

Amanda held several jobs working toward going to Italy to study.  She has never been fired from a job.  She had no reason to believe that she was having any problems at Le Chic. (After an angry Patrick Lumumba was released from prison, he told the “Daily Mail” tabloid that he had fired Amanda prior to the crime.  This was shown to be a lie in trial.)

H.  Loss, Personal Stressors

Amanda was having the time of her life in Perugia.  She had just met Raffaele, and was in a new romance.  Amanda was extremely happy.

I.  Lack of conscience

Much has been made of a perceived lack of concern for Meredith in the days following the murder.  I believe most of these to be highly inaccurate and sensationalized, to sell media.  However, the lack of conscience issue is not a photograph of one or two days in a person’s life.  It is a movie of their entire life.  Amanda’s care and concern for others in her hometown is legendary.  Only those who prefer to get their information from tabloids believe otherwise.

J.  Anger problems

Anger problems do not mean that a person is never angry.  A complete lack of anger over a lifetime is a danger sign, not a reason to relax.  Absent discredited tabloid reports, there are no indications that Amanda Knox dealt with anger any differently than any other normal person.   There have never been any accusations by schools, teachers, and friends or family that Amanda had “a temper” or any such thing.

K.  Depression and suicidality

I refer you to the answer to question 9:  Amanda was having the time of her life in Perugia.  She had just met Raffaele, and was in a new romance.  Amanda was extremely happy.

L.  Paranoia and other psychotic symptoms

Not a single speck credible evidence exists that in her entire life, Amanda Knox ever suffered from any mental illness, or neurosis.

M.  Isolation

Before Amanda left America, she had hundreds of friends.  She now has thousands.  Amanda is a “people person”, who at the time of Meredith’s murder, had a boyfriend and lived with three other girls.

N.  History of violence

None.

O.  History of criminality:

Amanda Knox has NO history of criminality.  None.  In his latest appeal Prosecutor Mignini points out that Amanda was fined for a loud party.  A loud party?  Really?  This is not criminality.  Period.   This is no more criminality than is a speeding ticket.  Are all college students who host or go to loud parties now threats to become violent murderers?  The argument is simply absurd and beneath the dignity of Mignini’s office, though clearly not below his personal dignity.  This is a panic reaction to an upcoming appeal.  Are we to believe that there is a person in a civilized country who believes that the throwing of a loud college party is grounds for raising a sentence from 26 years to life?  Where are the statutes that say a loud party is worth a prison sentence enhancement?  This is simply desperation and petty posturing.  It should shame an otherwise honorable and reasonable Italian Judiciary.

Mignini alleges that rocks were thrown at the party.  But he does not allege that Amanda had any part in it.  She didn’t.  How do I know?  If Mignini had any proof that she threw a single rock, he would have put it in the appeal.

These are examples of a history of criminality that professionals recognize:  Robbery, threats, assault, cruelty to animals….All things in which Rudy Guede has dabbled.

Amanda had been in Perugia for three months and was virtually unknown to the police.  Rudy Guede, however, had been arrested several times in the previous 30 days.

P.  Domestic partner violence

No.

Amanda scores a zero on the potential violence threat test.  No threat.  Not a small threat, not a manageable threat, not a moderate threat….no threat whatsoever.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is absolutely no evidence of Amanda Knox in the room at the time of the murder,  nor is there evidence that she participated in any way.

a.      No blood

b.      No hairs

c.      No fingerprints

d.      No footprints

e.      No saliva

f.       No DNA

2.  There are absolutely no items of Amanda’s which have any blood on them

a.      No clothes

b.      No shoes

c.      No socks

d.      No underwear

3.  Amanda had not a scratch on her the morning after the attack

a.      No cuts

b.      No bruises

c.      No lacerations

4.  There was absolutely no blood found in Raffaele’s apartment or Amanda’s room.

a.      Nothing on the floors

b.      Nothing on knives

c.      Nothing on carpets

d.      Nothing on walls

e.      Nothing on clothes

f.       Nothing on utensils

g.      Nothing on doorknobs

5.  There was no escape attempt by Amanda or Raffaele

a.      Rudy escaped to Germany shortly after the attack

b.      Amanda did not attempt to flee

c.      Raffaele did not attempt to flee

6.  There were NO psychological indicators of potential violence in Amanda

a.      No motive

b.      No homicidal fantasies or preoccupation

c.      No violent intentions or expressed threats

d.      No weapons skills

e.      No pre-attack planning

f.       No stalking

g.      No job problems

h.      No loss or personal stressors

i.       No lack of conscience

j.       No anger problems

k.      No depression or suicidality

l.       No paranoia or other symptoms

m.     No isolation

n.      No history of violence

o.      No history of criminality

p.      No domestic partner violence.

Based on the preceding, AMANDA’S INVOLVEMENT IN THE MURDER IS NOT JUST UNLIKELY, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE.  The prosecution is missing all evidence needed to convict Amanda Knox, and hasn’t provided any plausible reason for it's absence.

 

 

Look, I'm sorry, but this is not a hard case.  If the police had done their job properly and hadn't been lead by an egotistical nut job who see satanic conspiracies everywhere and considers himself a messiah, then it never would have gotten so far off the rails as it has.   If you honestly want to keep clinging to your suspicion of both Amanda and Sollecito then, fine.  Nothing I can say or do will convince you that you have been mislead and are essentially barking up the wrong tree.  Nearly every piece of evidence you have presented is refutable when one takes a skeptical look at it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Booth said:

I'm curious as to your thoughts on a piece of evidence. The bloody footprint made in Meredith's blood on the bathmat. Who do you think put it there, and what happened to the rest of the trail?

Look Boothy,

While not an expert, I obsess about murder cases. . .I'm constantly watching documentaries, especially the datelines where people are exonerated and so forth. . .

Further, I investigate as part of my career.  Not murders mind you. . .but still. . .I know what is good evidence and is bunk. . .and all this stuff you keep bringing up just doesn't dissuade from the preponderance of physical evidence against Rudy.  If I had been on Amanda's jury, I would have held out for acquittal.   But you won't find people like me on a jury because lawyers tend to throw out people in my profession.   Mainly because they know they can't razzle and dazzle us like they can with common morons. 

Edited by timewarrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Booth said:

I don't think pursuing justice is a waste of money. And in fact, the prosecution, on two occasions, did prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether you agree with those verdicts or not, that alone shows this clearly wasn't a frivolous prosecution. 

Further, pursuing justice is in itself an injustice against the accused if it is done maliciously, with ill intent, and has no merit.   The reason America has the no double jeopardy clause built into the constitution is because of this very fact.  The state, with its limitless resources at hand, can literally bankrupt the accused with it's constant filing and refilling of charges.   Often times, if they don't get the answer they want, they can just recharge a person and keep recharging that person until they are broke, can't afford legal counsel and eventually gets convicted because of incompetence. 

The founding fathers did not like this practice.  They insisted that because such an injustice could occur, the state must be forced to only present the best cases they possibly can.  They have one shot to get it right.  if the state cannot, with it's unlimited resources and such, cannot present beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person is guilty, then they have failed to present their case and must move on. 

What the Italian prosecution has done was conduct a malicious prosecution against an obviously innocent duo, wasting precious government resources, and garnering very little benefit to the public.   Blanketing their actions in some pseudo convoluted sense of moral outrage and justice seeking does not excuse their incompetence and unethical behavior. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, timewarrior said:
Quote

 

It is when the case is so p*** poor to begin with.   The first verdict was done by a jury, most juries are filled with idiots, morons and feeble minded fools.   It is far better to be tried by  one smart person (i.e. trial by judge) than trying to convince a jury of individuals who are often swayed by the media and have very basic knowledge about how science works.  Often times, jury members just assume that a person is automatically guilty because they believe the police force is perfect and that the prosecution is infallible. . .Further, the prosecution's case was immediately thrown out in the first appeal, then reinstated by another appeal board after the prosecution complained, and finally thrown out again by their supreme court.   A truly strong prosecution case would not have been thrown out in the first appeal.  The reinstatement, I attribute to a fluke in their justice system because in American once it's thrown out, its out.  The way I see the second so called conviction is the system pandering to the prosecution and was basically a call for the overturn to be re-reviewed.   They weren't re-convicted, they had their convictions reinstated.  Completely different thing.  

Now the conviction of Rudy. . .what happened when it was appealed. . .oh right. . .it was upheld. . .

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-knox-case-court-rejects-grounds-for-new-trial-for-rudy-guede-in-meredith-kercher-murder/

And why is that?  Because it is a solid case against a guilty man.  A guilty man the Italian justice system only gave 10 yeas in prison to because of their idiotic and wasteful pursuit of Amanda and Sollecito. . .

Justice was not done here my friend. . .if I was Meredith's relative. . .I would be p***ed. . .

 

We've got to keep our facts straight here, friend. First, the initial trial was decided(unanimously) by 8 jurors; 6 of them laypersons and 2 of them judges. That is, at least two 'smart people' in your judgment, voted to convict. Second, you appear to misunderstand how the American appeals process works. Your assertion that "once it's thrown out, it's out" is not accurate. A verdict can be "thrown out" either with or without jeopardy attached. In the latter scenario, a prosecutor would be free to refile the charges and try the defendant(s) again. Third, Guede was ultimately sentenced to 16 years in prison, not 10.

Quote

It is meaningless when one considers that extreme lack of physical evidence at the crime scene.   Further, they had admitted to using mind altering drugs so probably didn't have a coherent grasp on their daily activities.  That doesn't make them criminals. . .nor does it necessarily mean they are lying. . .it means that they don't really have a good, solid alibi that can be verified by outside evidence.  

Their alibis certainly could've been verified by evidence. The problem for AK/RS is that their alibis were contradicted by the available evidence. This was not from a simple lack of memory, but a seemingly deliberate attempt to mislead. I don't think drug use can explain why Knox told the police that Meredith normally kept her bedroom door locked. They both claimed to be asleep until 10:00 the morning following the murder, which we know wasn't true. RS was surely aware that Meredith had never been to his apartment and been pricked by the alleged murder weapon. I could go on, but I hope you get the point.

Quote

That so called scratch was described by a pathologist as an "extremely non specific skin irritation" and noted that there was no broken skin or marks from fingernail scratching.  You're telling me, that in the fight for her life, Meredith wasn't able to make one mark on either of them?   Rudy had cuts on his hand that were still visible after he was captured two weeks later.  

And what precisely does "non-specific skin irritation" mean in this instance? Sure sounds like medicalese for "Yes, she had a mark, I won't deny that, but I can't say definitively what caused it". Knox was examined by this pathologist 4 days(I believe) following the murder, as she was instructed. Mezzetti noticed the wound the following day without any prompting or inclination to do so. Which is more credible? The jury was free to consider both opinions.

And I could ask you the same question. You're telling me that a martial arts-trained woman, in the fight for her life, who was universally described as physically strong, left nothing more than (possibly)a few cuts on her assailant's hands? And whose body showed no defensive wounds?

Quote

 

Yeah.  Unreliable.  Cause let's face it.  They could have been seen with another black man that was not Rudy.  Unless you have pictures or something concrete, all you have is one person's opinion that they knew each other.   And opinions are like @$$holes. . .everyone has one. 

The whole spur of the moment sex party murder theory is just insane and does not fit the evidence.   It was the prosecution and the investigator's attempts to build a case around a suspect they felt was guilty.  They even stated it openly:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/amanda-knox-italian-police-bombshell-we-knew-she-was-guilty-of-murder-without-physical-evidence/

That's bad police work.   It reeks of assumption.  It indicates that they weren't objective and had put their blinders on.  

 

There's no need for pictures or anything more concrete; we have Knox's own admission that she had met Guede before.

And how exactly could they have been seen with another black man(or anyone else, for that matter) when they supposedly never left Sollecito's apartment that night?

Quote

 

The so called bloody foot print was never tested by the prosecution or the police to verify that it was actually blood.  It's bad evidence.  There's so much wrong with it that I just can't detail it all here.  Check this out:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-01.html

 

Well, this is almost embarrassing, but you may wish to familiarize yourself again with your own link. It actually bolsters my contention. As the link points out, the footprint on the bathmat was in fact made in blood, and that blood belonged to Meredith. So again I'll ask, who made that footprint, and what happened to the rest of the trail?

Quote

 

Look, you need to check out the articles written by a veteran FBI agent:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI.html

permit me if you will, to quote a certain passage from it:

 

Specifically read this one:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI2.html

It details the vast amount of physical evidence that is just not there that should have been had the events transpired the way the prosecution and investigators assert.   You have to remember that this was a violent, bloody, horrific crime.  There is no way that neither Amanda nor Sollecito could have come out of this as clean as they were if they were present.  You know what.  I'm just going to quote the whole article right now because there is just too much to :say about this entire scenario that my head is exploding.  It even has an analysis of that behavior stuff you're so fond of: 

 

Look, I'm sorry, but this is not a hard case.  If the police had done their job properly and hadn't been lead by an egotistical nut job who see satanic conspiracies everywhere and considers himself a messiah, then it never would have gotten so far off the rails as it has.   If you honestly want to keep clinging to your suspicion of both Amanda and Sollecito then, fine.  Nothing I can say or do will convince you that you have been mislead and are essentially barking up the wrong tree.  Nearly every piece of evidence you have presented is refutable when one takes a skeptical look at it. 

 

I'm pretty familiar with this case and have already read the articles you've provided. Understand, I don't believe that AK/RS were necessarily guilty of striking the fatal blows or even being physically involved in Meredith's murder. I have no desire to cling to my suspicions of them; quite the opposite. I'm still willing to believe them both innocent. I'm asking you to give me reasonable explanations as to why these two would do and say all of the things that they did if they're innocent. Why would innocent people continue to lie over and over? To explain why so much of the evidence indicates their guilt if they're innocent. You seem to be content to just dismiss the evidence under the categories of: incompetent/abusive police, "nut job" prosecutor, unreliable witnesses, drug use, etc. You're quick to dismiss the police-gathered evidence that implicates AK/RS, but wholeheartedly accept their work when it points to Guede. I think it's more complicated than that. There's no question that the police made mistakes in this case, and if I were sitting on the jury, I would've likely acquitted them as well. But that doesn't make them innocent.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:42 PM, Booth said:

We've got to keep our facts straight here, friend. First, the initial trial was decided(unanimously) by 8 jurors; 6 of them laypersons and 2 of them judges. That is, at least two 'smart people' in your judgment, voted to convict. Second, you appear to misunderstand how the American appeals process works. Your assertion that "once it's thrown out, it's out" is not accurate. A verdict can be "thrown out" either with or without jeopardy attached. In the latter scenario, a prosecutor would be free to refile the charges and try the defendant(s) again. Third, Guede was ultimately sentenced to 16 years in prison, not 10.

Regarding the jury vs smart people. . .one has to remember that smart people become sheeple when more than one person is present.  It's group think.  In general I was speaking in terms of generalities regarding which one you should choose. 

Regarding thrown out, I didn't mean conviction overturned, I meant in terms of being acquitted.   Based on the Italian court system she's been convicted twice and acquitted twice, correct?  In such a case, the American system would not be retrying a person after the first acquittal.   

Finally, regarding the 10 vs 16. . .I was speaking off the cuff here and probably forgot to include the word "like" as in "like 10 years". . .indicating a basic generality without quoting specific facts and statistics.   Probably wasn't clear in my initial ranting. . .my apologies.  

 

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:42 PM, Booth said:

Their alibis certainly could've been verified by evidence. The problem for AK/RS is that their alibis were contradicted by the available evidence. This was not from a simple lack of memory, but a seemingly deliberate attempt to mislead. I don't think drug use can explain why Knox told the police that Meredith normally kept her bedroom door locked. They both claimed to be asleep until 10:00 the morning following the murder, which we know wasn't true. RS was surely aware that Meredith had never been to his apartment and been pricked by the alleged murder weapon. I could go on, but I hope you get the point.

The DNA hit on the knife was later found to be non conclusive.  And yes alibies can be verified by evidence.  Most are not. I think we are in agreement that both of them probably screwed up the case with their inconsistent statements and such.   many people lie to the police just because they don't like the police.   some people do it just to be @$$holes.   It's not unfathomable that two young people would do such a thing in general.  At least not to me. 

 

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:42 PM, Booth said:

And what precisely does "non-specific skin irritation" mean in this instance? Sure sounds like medicalese for "Yes, she had a mark, I won't deny that, but I can't say definitively what caused it". Knox was examined by this pathologist 4 days(I believe) following the murder, as she was instructed. Mezzetti noticed the wound the following day without any prompting or inclination to do so. Which is more credible? The jury was free to consider both opinions.

And I could ask you the same question. You're telling me that a martial arts-trained woman, in the fight for her life, who was universally described as physically strong, left nothing more than (possibly)a few cuts on her assailant's hands? And whose body showed no defensive wounds?

I get marks on my skin all the time. . .allergic reactions and what not.  Often times, I have marks that look like wounds on my body that are not wounds.  I have sensitive skin.   Not saying that she has it, but she might and it could explain what the mark was.   And perhaps Meredith didn't fight back at all. .. perhaps she was so scared she froze. . .or was too broken to fight back after Rudy had his way with her. . .There are many variables.  The fact remains, he had wounds on his hands, consistent with a knife attack.  His finger prints were at the crime scene in blood and his DNA was inside her. . .

 

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:42 PM, Booth said:

There's no need for pictures or anything more concrete; we have Knox's own admission that she had met Guede before.

And how exactly could they have been seen with another black man(or anyone else, for that matter) when they supposedly never left Sollecito's apartment that night?

In the documentary she stated she knew of him.  I know of a lot of people myself. . .doesn't mean I'm going to commit a murder with them. . .

And you're right. . .they don't have much of alibi. . .whether they were at the apartment or out in the promenade.  The whole jumble of crap that is the eye witness testimony is confusing and unreliable.   big surprise. . .

But you know what?  They could lie till the cows come home, doesn't change the physical evidence.   The physical evidence shows that it was one person.  Not three.  The physical evidence shows it wasn't them.  So in all honestly. . .when it comes down to it. .. they could lie their way to nirvana to the police and it wouldn't convict them of this crime. 

Obstruction of justice. . .for sure. . .but murder. . .no. . .

 

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:42 PM, Booth said:

Well, this is almost embarrassing, but you may wish to familiarize yourself again with your own link. It actually bolsters my contention. As the link points out, the footprint on the bathmat was in fact made in blood, and that blood belonged to Meredith. So again I'll ask, who made that footprint, and what happened to the rest of the trail?

 

You needed to go to page 3 of the link:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

They state it was most likely made by Rudy and why it was kinda there by itself.  No murder scene is perfect.  There is going to be missing things.  However, that doesn't mean evidence of other people is going to be completely eliminated if they were actually there.   . 

 

On ‎2‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 5:42 PM, Booth said:

I'm pretty familiar with this case and have already read the articles you've provided. Understand, I don't believe that AK/RS were necessarily guilty of striking the fatal blows or even being physically involved in Meredith's murder. I have no desire to cling to my suspicions of them; quite the opposite. I'm still willing to believe them both innocent. I'm asking you to give me reasonable explanations as to why these two would do and say all of the things that they did if they're innocent. Why would innocent people continue to lie over and over? To explain why so much of the evidence indicates their guilt if they're innocent. You seem to be content to just dismiss the evidence under the categories of: incompetent/abusive police, "nut job" prosecutor, unreliable witnesses, drug use, etc. You're quick to dismiss the police-gathered evidence that implicates AK/RS, but wholeheartedly accept their work when it points to Guede. I think it's more complicated than that. There's no question that the police made mistakes in this case, and if I were sitting on the jury, I would've likely acquitted them as well. But that doesn't make them innocent.

Why would innocent people continue to lie over and over?   Simple.  The two said and did things because they are possibly delusional human beings.  From all that I have seen of human behavior, I'm not surprised that they ended up tanking themselves.  Others have done so before.  False confessions are a reality.  Even when not coerced.   Many people confessed to being jack the ripper just to get a free meal or claim fame.  People are sad and insane just in general.  The world is a cold, cruel place, and full of nut jobs. . .were you not aware of this? 

Why do I place more evidence on the stuff for rudy?  because it was easily and readily discoverable. . .they found his presence with virtually little effort.  In fact they had expected to find proof of Amanda and her boyfriend and only discovered Rudy by accident.  They had blinders on.  And had to modify their version of events after the evidence proved them wrong.  All the steps they took to find evidence of Amanda and her boyfriend was them reaching. . .interpreting things they think they found because they wanted to prove them guilty.  Not find the one responsible.  Basically when their first sweep of the crime scene showed that it was someone else, they had to go back and "find" evidence that it was really Amanda and her boyfriend. . .

Why?

Hubris? 

Unwilling to change their opinions on the two. . ?

Who knows. . .

The police and prosecution had basically stated that they believed both had done the crime, had arrested the two, before the evidence came back from testing. .. rather than believe what the evidence showed, they change the narrative so as not to make themselves look bad. 

Is it because they were afraid of a lawsuit?  because of the zeal of justice?  because they didn't want to be proven wrong?  who knows.  The fact of the matter is, when the evidence came in, they should have looked at it, and changed their opinion on the crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/10/2017 at 9:20 AM, timewarrior said:

It is when the case is so p*** poor to begin with.   The first verdict was done by a jury, most juries are filled with idiots, morons and feeble minded fools. 

I'm amazed that you don't realize how untrue your statement is.

I agree that there is a fool on every jury, but it is not the majority.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, timewarrior said:
Quote

 

Regarding the jury vs smart people. . .one has to remember that smart people become sheeple when more than one person is present.  It's group think.  In general I was speaking in terms of generalities regarding which one you should choose. 

Regarding thrown out, I didn't mean conviction overturned, I meant in terms of being acquitted.   Based on the Italian court system she's been convicted twice and acquitted twice, correct?  In such a case, the American system would not be retrying a person after the first acquittal.   

Finally, regarding the 10 vs 16. . .I was speaking off the cuff here and probably forgot to include the word "like" as in "like 10 years". . .indicating a basic generality without quoting specific facts and statistics.   Probably wasn't clear in my initial ranting. . .my apologies.  


 

Well, if you're claiming the the two judges simply became sheeple because they were among six laypersons, I think that's a pretty weak argument. Knox/Sollecito had the benefit of two seasoned judges hearing their case and were found guilty.

The second decision was not an acquittal. It was the equivalent of being granted a new trial; not uncommon in the US.

Quote

The DNA hit on the knife was later found to be non conclusive.  And yes alibies can be verified by evidence.  Most are not. I think we are in agreement that both of them probably screwed up the case with their inconsistent statements and such.   many people lie to the police just because they don't like the police.   some people do it just to be @$$holes.   It's not unfathomable that two young people would do such a thing in general.  At least not to me. 

Most alibis are in fact corroborated by witnesses, computer/phone records, etc. Moreso in today's world than ever. All of that evidence existed here, but again, it all contradicted their alibis.

Quote

 

I get marks on my skin all the time. . .allergic reactions and what not.  Often times, I have marks that look like wounds on my body that are not wounds.  I have sensitive skin.   Not saying that she has it, but she might and it could explain what the mark was.   And perhaps Meredith didn't fight back at all. .. perhaps she was so scared she froze. . .or was too broken to fight back after Rudy had his way with her. . .There are many variables.  The fact remains, he had wounds on his hands, consistent with a knife attack.  His finger prints were at the crime scene in blood and his DNA was inside her. . .


 

OK, so you're either going to claim Knox's wound was normal, or just speculate that perhaps Meredith didn't fight back? Again, you're engaging in confirmation bias. 

Quote

 

In the documentary she stated she knew of him.  I know of a lot of people myself. . .doesn't mean I'm going to commit a murder with them. . .

And you're right. . .they don't have much of alibi. . .whether they were at the apartment or out in the promenade.  The whole jumble of crap that is the eye witness testimony is confusing and unreliable.   big surprise. . .

But you know what?  They could lie till the cows come home, doesn't change the physical evidence.   The physical evidence shows that it was one person.  Not three.  The physical evidence shows it wasn't them.  So in all honestly. . .when it comes down to it. .. they could lie their way to nirvana to the police and it wouldn't convict them of this crime. 

Obstruction of justice. . .for sure. . .but murder. . .no. . .

 

You have to ask yourself why Knox would continue to lie and obstruct justice. To protect someone she hardly knew who had just murdered her "friend"?

Quote

 

You needed to go to page 3 of the link:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

They state it was most likely made by Rudy and why it was kinda there by itself.  No murder scene is perfect.  There is going to be missing things.  However, that doesn't mean evidence of other people is going to be completely eliminated if they were actually there.   . 

 

If it belonged to Guede, how did he get from the bedroom to the bathroom without leaving a trail? Where is the other half of the footprint which should be seen on the tile? Why would he take his shoe off to begin with?

Quote

Why would innocent people continue to lie over and over?   Simple.  The two said and did things because they are possibly delusional human beings.  From all that I have seen of human behavior, I'm not surprised that they ended up tanking themselves.  Others have done so before.  False confessions are a reality.  Even when not coerced.   Many people confessed to being jack the ripper just to get a free meal or claim fame.  People are sad and insane just in general.  The world is a cold, cruel place, and full of nut jobs. . .were you not aware of this? 

So, is that your position, then? Knox/Sollecito are just delusional, sad, insane nut jobs? That's more reasonable than believing they were lying to protect themselves?

Quote

 

Why do I place more evidence on the stuff for rudy?  because it was easily and readily discoverable. . .they found his presence with virtually little effort.  In fact they had expected to find proof of Amanda and her boyfriend and only discovered Rudy by accident.  They had blinders on.  And had to modify their version of events after the evidence proved them wrong.  All the steps they took to find evidence of Amanda and her boyfriend was them reaching. . .interpreting things they think they found because they wanted to prove them guilty.  Not find the one responsible.  Basically when their first sweep of the crime scene showed that it was someone else, they had to go back and "find" evidence that it was really Amanda and her boyfriend. . .

Why?

Hubris? 

Unwilling to change their opinions on the two. . ?

Who knows. . .

The police and prosecution had basically stated that they believed both had done the crime, had arrested the two, before the evidence came back from testing. .. rather than believe what the evidence showed, they change the narrative so as not to make themselves look bad. 

Is it because they were afraid of a lawsuit?  because of the zeal of justice?  because they didn't want to be proven wrong?  who knows.  The fact of the matter is, when the evidence came in, they should have looked at it, and changed their opinion on the crime. 

 

Ahh, but you're ignoring a key point here. Thanks to Knox's lies, they announced and also believed Lumumba was guilty of this crime. That made them look pretty bad. They expected to find evidence implicating him. Why didn't they railroad him too? The reason is simple: He didn't lie to the police repeatedly, he didn't place himself at the scene, his alibi was corroborated, and there was no physical evidence of him at the scene. NONE of this was true regarding Knox/Sollecito.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2017 at 0:08 PM, timewarrior said:

You needed to go to page 3 of the link:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/footprints-03.html

They state it was most likely made by Rudy and why it was kinda there by itself.  No murder scene is perfect.  There is going to be missing things.  However, that doesn't mean evidence of other people is going to be completely eliminated if they were actually there.   

 

 

I'd like to delve into the information provided in the link a bit further. This is what it states:

It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat. 

The outline of the foot is incomplete. The heel extends off the edge of the mat, and parts appear to be missing in the upper right and lower left quadrants. Under the scenario described above, these missing elements can be explained as areas where the towel was dry or where the foot extended beyond the edge of the towel.

Booth continues:

So my questions remain. What evidence is there to suggest Guede cleaned up in the bathroom? None. If you believe that Guede left the blood drops/smears in the bathroom, his cleanup effort was awfully pathetic, as he left the most obvious ones(light switch, faucet handle) undisturbed. Every indication is that, rather than clean up, he left the flat in quite a hurry, leaving a trail of blood and the front door wide open. 

There were bloody towels found "at the crime scene", yes, but what they don't tell you is that they were only in the bedroom, no other location. The notion that a towel was laid down by Guede and stepped on in the bathroom is pure speculation, and maybe even a bit preposterous. Either way, if such a clear bloody footprint was transferred through this supposed towel to the bathmat, it surely would've been transferred to the tile as well. No matter how you look at it, it doesn't make sense. Guede laid a towel down presumably to avoid leaving a print, but then leaves a visible print anyway? And he doesn't bother to clean/destroy it? He took the time to remove his shoe(possibly a sock as well) and clean his foot, but apparently didn't see any reason to clean his shoes, as he left clear shoeprints down the hall as he fled the scene. And even if we were to accept all of this(and how can we, really?), it still does not explain how he got to the bathroom without leaving a trail. (Sorry about the font, I couldn't figure out how to fix it).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
On 2/21/2017 at 0:08 PM, timewarrior said:

But you know what?  They could lie till the cows come home, doesn't change the physical evidence.   The physical evidence shows that it was one person.  Not three.  The physical evidence shows it wasn't them.  So in all honestly. . .when it comes down to it. .. they could lie their way to nirvana to the police and it wouldn't convict them of this crime. 

This is simply not true. The physical evidence showed that there were multiple assailants. The physical evidence placed Sollecito in the murder room, on Meredith's bra strap. The physical evidence placed Knox in the small bathroom with her strong DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in several locations. The physical evidence showed Meredith's DNA and Knox's DNA on the murder weapon, found in Sollecito's apartment.

Combined with all of their duplicity, their odd behavior, and other evidence, I don't find these items so easy to dismiss as you seem to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

My oh my you have been busy haven't you. . .okay. . .let's see. . .

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 7:32 AM, Booth said:

Well, if you're claiming the the two judges simply became sheeple because they were among six laypersons, I think that's a pretty weak argument. Knox/Sollecito had the benefit of two seasoned judges hearing their case and were found guilty.

Judges can also become sheeple in terms of public opinion swaying their decisions. . .Judges can also become sheeple if they are part of a group and the majority pressures them to vote one way.   It takes guts and convictions to not be swayed by others and take a stand.  Often many jurists state that they only changed their mind because they felt like they should to make the others happy and to prevent a mistrial, despite on any misgivings.   Again, I was talking in terms of generalities.   If you have two choices. . .choose the judge (singular) over the jury.   The judge will be more likely to be objective and independent than a jury of your peers.  That's my point. 

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 7:32 AM, Booth said:

The second decision was not an acquittal. It was the equivalent of being granted a new trial; not uncommon in the US.

I say it was an acquittal because all the news reports and other online sources I read say that it was an acquittal and that the supreme court set aside the acquittals because on the grounds that it had gone beyond the remit of a Corte d'Assise d'Appello by not ordering new DNA tests and failing to give weight to circumstantial evidence in context such as Knox's accusation of the bar owner in the disputed interviews.  In other words, after being declared innocent, the supreme court says no, retry it.  That's how I interpret it.   And here in in America, once you're acquitted, your acquitted. . .if a court declares you innocent, you are free and clear.   Now if it's overturned, that's different. . .that's when you get retried. . .

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 7:32 AM, Booth said:

Most alibis are in fact corroborated by witnesses, computer/phone records, etc. Moreso in today's world than ever. All of that evidence existed here, but again, it all contradicted their alibis.

I think we are in agreement that they had a crap alibi.  Basically if all you have is each other, you're screwed.  And if others see you near a crime scene you're screwed.   If a murder is going down. . .book a flight to Toledo.   but even then, cause you knew it was going down. . .you're screwed.   Basically. . .you're screwed.

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 7:32 AM, Booth said:

OK, so you're either going to claim Knox's wound was normal, or just speculate that perhaps Meredith didn't fight back? Again, you're engaging in confirmation bias. 

Lord, okay then. . .does anyone know what the condition of Meredith's body was?   did she have defensive wounds?  dna under the fingernails?   Can someone link me to a specific report please in English?  I apparently have to confirm my bias before I answer this.    Again, either scenario could have happened, it depends on what the evidence says.  

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 7:32 AM, Booth said:

You have to ask yourself why Knox would continue to lie and obstruct justice. To protect someone she hardly knew who had just murdered her "friend"?

She's a sociopath. . .didn't I already state this?   An attention seeking whore perhaps?  Either way, the physical evidence doesn't support her involvement. . .you're focused way too much on behavior rather than the evidence. . .lots of people get convicted based on behavior. .. Alice Crimmons ring a bell?   Just because someone doesn't act they way you think they should, doesn't mean they killed someone. . .larry the town idiot is not a murderer just because he's the town idiot.  He's a murderer because his fingerprints were on the f'ing knife in Sally ****'s oh so ample chest. . .

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 7:32 AM, Booth said:

If it belonged to Guede, how did he get from the bedroom to the bathroom without leaving a trail? Where is the other half of the footprint which should be seen on the tile? Why would he take his shoe off to begin with?

 

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 7:32 AM, Booth said:

So, is that your position, then? Knox/Sollecito are just delusional, sad, insane nut jobs? That's more reasonable than believing they were lying to protect themselves?

Uh, yeah. .. haven't I stated it repeatedly already?   Most people are just sad delusional nut jobs. . .it's a fact of life. . .not saying they weren't lying to the cover their @$$e$, everyone does that. . .but if you factor in intense pressure from the police and the notion that "breaking" a suspect is the best way to get a confession often leads to false confessions and false implications, then yeah, it is more reasonable.  Badgering someone until they crack is not a way to get a confession.  Most people will confess when confronted with very simple facts. .. you're dna was all over her. . .your fingerprints were on the knife. . .stuff like that breaks people more often than not.  Not 12 hour interrogations and physical violence.

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 7:32 AM, Booth said:

Ahh, but you're ignoring a key point here. Thanks to Knox's lies, they announced and also believed Lumumba was guilty of this crime. That made them look pretty bad. They expected to find evidence implicating him. Why didn't they railroad him too? The reason is simple: He didn't lie to the police repeatedly, he didn't place himself at the scene, his alibi was corroborated, and there was no physical evidence of him at the scene. NONE of this was true regarding Knox/Sollecito.

What's different about Lumumba is that he had an actual air tight alibi. . .Amanda and Sollectio did not. .. they had each other. .. and other conflicting eyewitnesses. . .they overlooked the lack of physical evidence because of this and because they behaved in way they didn't deem appropriate.  

 

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 4:45 PM, Booth said:

I'd like to delve into the information provided in the link a bit further. This is what it states:

It is not certain how the footprint was made, but evidence suggests the killer cleaned up in the bathroom, and several blood-soaked towels were found at the crime scene. Very likely the killer laid a bloodied towel on the bathroom floor so that it covered or overlapped the mat. He removed his shoe to rinse the blood from it. While his shoe was off, he stepped on the towel, transferring an imprint to the bathmat. 

The outline of the foot is incomplete. The heel extends off the edge of the mat, and parts appear to be missing in the upper right and lower left quadrants. Under the scenario described above, these missing elements can be explained as areas where the towel was dry or where the foot extended beyond the edge of the towel.

Booth continues:

So my questions remain. What evidence is there to suggest Guede cleaned up in the bathroom? None. If you believe that Guede left the blood drops/smears in the bathroom, his cleanup effort was awfully pathetic, as he left the most obvious ones(light switch, faucet handle) undisturbed. Every indication is that, rather than clean up, he left the flat in quite a hurry, leaving a trail of blood and the front door wide open. 

There were bloody towels found "at the crime scene", yes, but what they don't tell you is that they were only in the bedroom, no other location. The notion that a towel was laid down by Guede and stepped on in the bathroom is pure speculation, and maybe even a bit preposterous. Either way, if such a clear bloody footprint was transferred through this supposed towel to the bathmat, it surely would've been transferred to the tile as well. No matter how you look at it, it doesn't make sense. Guede laid a towel down presumably to avoid leaving a print, but then leaves a visible print anyway? And he doesn't bother to clean/destroy it? He took the time to remove his shoe(possibly a sock as well) and clean his foot, but apparently didn't see any reason to clean his shoes, as he left clear shoeprints down the hall as he fled the scene. And even if we were to accept all of this(and how can we, really?), it still does not explain how he got to the bathroom without leaving a trail. (Sorry about the font, I couldn't figure out how to fix it).

He stayed long enough to take a ****. . .I don't know about you, but that indicates he didn't leave all that much in a hurry.  and he's going to leave covered in blood?   Not likely.  he probably washed up after raping and killing Meredith.  Look, I'm not going to sit here and talk to death about towel dynamics. . .There is evidence of one set of footprints at that crime scene.  it's very unlikely that knox and sollecito could have cleaned up just their footprints without leaving obvious traces. 

On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 9:32 PM, Booth said:

This is simply not true. The physical evidence showed that there were multiple assailants. The physical evidence placed Sollecito in the murder room, on Meredith's bra strap. The physical evidence placed Knox in the small bathroom with her strong DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in several locations. The physical evidence showed Meredith's DNA and Knox's DNA on the murder weapon, found in Sollecito's apartment.

Combined with all of their duplicity, their odd behavior, and other evidence, I don't find these items so easy to dismiss as you seem to.

Jesus, the d@mn bra strap again?   the one found 3 months later?   Pretty much everything you just mentioned there was refuted.  There was not Meredith's dna on the knife. . .the knox dna was because she used the knife in sollecito's kitchen. . .there was not proof that it was actually the murder weapon, the police just speculated that and tried to claim it was.   the knife was in sollecito's apartment because he had a kitchen and knives are often used in kitchens to cut things when you cook.  Knox's dna in the bathroom is explained by her living there.  Even the mixing of it could account for that.  She freaking lived there.  My dna is all over my house.  Crap, I have knives in my house too.  Convict me of a murder!   The only thing you have going for you is their duplicity and odd behavior. . .and news flash. . .people are odd. . .people lie. . .doesn't make them murderers. .

And seriously, what physical evidence is there that shows multiple assailants?  List it!  Right now.  Every single piece.  

Look, unless you stop bringing up these silly items that have been refuted, I'm not going to play anymore.  The investigation was botched.  Amanda and Sollecito were drugged up immature @$$holes who couldn't act appropriately enough for the Italian authorities. . .That doesn't make them involved.  Or murderers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, timewarrior said:
Quote

 

Lord, okay then. . .does anyone know what the condition of Meredith's body was?   did she have defensive wounds?  dna under the fingernails?   Can someone link me to a specific report please in English?  I apparently have to confirm my bias before I answer this.    Again, either scenario could have happened, it depends on what the evidence says.  

She's a sociopath. . .didn't I already state this?   An attention seeking whore perhaps?  Either way, the physical evidence doesn't support her involvement. . .you're focused way too much on behavior rather than the evidence. . .lots of people get convicted based on behavior. .. Alice Crimmons ring a bell?   Just because someone doesn't act they way you think they should, doesn't mean they killed someone. . .larry the town idiot is not a murderer just because he's the town idiot.  He's a murderer because his fingerprints were on the f'ing knife in Sally ****'s oh so ample chest. . .

 

Again, you're welcome to read the SC decision, the same court that "acquitted" AK/RS. It agreed there were multiple assailants and explained why. Personally I'm not convinced myself they had much involvement in the actual attack, if any, but I think it's possible.

Quote

Uh, yeah. .. haven't I stated it repeatedly already?   Most people are just sad delusional nut jobs. . .it's a fact of life. . .not saying they weren't lying to the cover their @$$e$, everyone does that. . .but if you factor in intense pressure from the police and the notion that "breaking" a suspect is the best way to get a confession often leads to false confessions and false implications, then yeah, it is more reasonable.  Badgering someone until they crack is not a way to get a confession.  Most people will confess when confronted with very simple facts. .. you're dna was all over her. . .your fingerprints were on the knife. . .stuff like that breaks people more often than not.  Not 12 hour interrogations and physical violence.

The police did not have DNA or fingerprint evidence at that point with which to confront her. This was at most a 2-hour interrogation; relatively brief. Either way, none of this would explain the lies that AK continues to tell TODAY.

Quote

What's different about Lumumba is that he had an actual air tight alibi. . .Amanda and Sollectio did not. .. they had each other. .. and other conflicting eyewitnesses. . .they overlooked the lack of physical evidence because of this and because they behaved in way they didn't deem appropriate.  

As usual, you've ignored the other points. Unlike AK/RS, Lumumba also didn't lie repeatedly, place himself at the scene, give unknown details of the crime, or leave evidence behind.

Quote

He stayed long enough to take a ****. . .I don't know about you, but that indicates he didn't leave all that much in a hurry.  and he's going to leave covered in blood?   Not likely.  he probably washed up after raping and killing Meredith.

We don't when he used the toilet, before or after the assault. We do know he left the flat with at least his shoes covered in blood as he left a trail out the open door. That indicates to me that he made no attempt to clean up.

Quote

Look, I'm not going to sit here and talk to death about towel dynamics. . .There is evidence of one set of footprints at that crime scene.  it's very unlikely that knox and sollecito could have cleaned up just their footprints without leaving obvious traces. 

Right, you don't want to discuss towels, footprints or bathmats because you can offer no innocent explanation. One bloody half print in the bathroom makes zero sense, so you just offer some crazy speculation. Where's the other half? Where's the trail? You have no answer.

Quote

 

Jesus, the d@mn bra strap again?   the one found 3 months later?   Pretty much everything you just mentioned there was refuted.  There was not Meredith's dna on the knife. . .the knox dna was because she used the knife in sollecito's kitchen. . .there was not proof that it was actually the murder weapon, the police just speculated that and tried to claim it was.   the knife was in sollecito's apartment because he had a kitchen and knives are often used in kitchens to cut things when you cook.  Knox's dna in the bathroom is explained by her living there.  Even the mixing of it could account for that.  She freaking lived there.  My dna is all over my house.  Crap, I have knives in my house too.  Convict me of a murder!   The only thing you have going for you is their duplicity and odd behavior. . .and news flash. . .people are odd. . .people lie. . .doesn't make them murderers. .

And seriously, what physical evidence is there that shows multiple assailants?  List it!  Right now.  Every single piece.  

Look, unless you stop bringing up these silly items that have been refuted, I'm not going to play anymore.  The investigation was botched.  Amanda and Sollecito were drugged up immature @$$holes who couldn't act appropriately enough for the Italian authorities. . .That doesn't make them involved.  Or murderers

 

So the bras strap was collected later, so what? How does that indicate it was contaminated? In fact, I would suggest that it makes contamination with RS less likely. The only other item with his DNA was on a cigarette butt collected earlier. So what was the route of contamination? Did the technician use the same glove from months earlier?

And yes, your DNA is all over your house, and mine all over my house. But mine has never been found mixed in strong concentrations, in multiple places, mixed with the blood of a victim who was murdered in my house, where a burglary had obviously been staged. Nor did I subsequently go tell the police that I was at the scene of that crime and offer details that were previously unknown. I also didn't accuse an innocent person of that crime or offer different alibis all proven to be false.

Maybe one day if I find myself in that situation, I'll find an attorney to convince a court to ignore all of this because I'm just an immature, psychopathic ***hole. And if I'm lucky, you'll be my jury foreman. Look, you've been given evidence, but you want to dismiss it all out of hand(botched investigation, unreliable witnesses, tainted DNA, abusive interrogation, etc.) or refuse to discuss it. In other words, parroting all of the media talking points from Team Knox. So, if you don't want to play anymore, that's fine, you can take your ball and run home.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Booth said:

Again, you're welcome to read the SC decision, the same court that "acquitted" AK/RS. It agreed there were multiple assailants and explained why. Personally I'm not convinced myself they had much involvement in the actual attack, if any, but I think it's possible.

Everything I have read has indicated that the police and prosecutors assumed that there were multiple assailants based on the severity of the attack.  They don't believe that one person could inflict that much ferocity on another individual.  To that I say, see Jack the Ripper, one person, totally dismembers his victims (at some times in less than 15 minutes).  What I am asking for is where is the physical evidence of other parties?   Opinions are like @$$holes. . .everyone has one.   Where is the documented second set of prints. . .other blood types. . .other dna?  Where are the other footprints in blood?  There should be two other sets in that room.  Other than speculation and theory, where is the physical evidence of someone other than Guede and Meredith in that room. 

 

1 hour ago, Booth said:

The police did not have DNA or fingerprint evidence at that point with which to confront her. This was at most a 2-hour interrogation; relatively brief. Either way, none of this would explain the lies that AK continues to tell TODAY.

Delusion would, coercion would.   And how do you know she's lying now?   Granted her past was spotty, but what specifically is she stating now that is being proven to be false?   Other than her assertions that she is innocent, and the police coerced her into making the previous statements that is?  Is she adding new elements?  Changing her story even to this day?  Is she suddenly claiming something different?  If so, then cite the source, cause I have not seen any reports of her being caught in other lies. .. and you know the media would jump at the chance to dredge up all this mess. . .They just need one little explosion.  

 

1 hour ago, Booth said:

As usual, you've ignored the other points. Unlike AK/RS, Lumumba also didn't lie repeatedly, place himself at the scene, give unknown details of the crime, or leave evidence behind.

A.  He was older and wiser than AK/RS were (this is actually something to consider and not take lightly).  At the very least AK was still in school. . .on a college semester abroad. . .not fully on her own. . .not fully aware of how the real world works. . .or what her rights are in a criminal proceeding. . .Lumumba, however, was a full fledged adult with real world experience.  Probably not easily bullied or intimidated by the police.  Didn't back down.  AK/RS, both allowed themselves to be intimidated by the police (their own assertions if I recall) and allowed themselves to be swayed into thinking and believing in something that wasn't true.  Look, it happens all the time.   False confessions are a reality.  

B.  Look at the quality of the evidence you claim they left behind. . .Amanda's blood was in the bathroom. . .a bathroom in a place she lived in, probably cut herself shaving, or menstruated all over.  Her fingerprints were in the house. . .well she lived there. . .RS dna and fingerprints in the house could even be explained based on whether or not AK had him in her room, or he visited her or what not. . .We shed dna every second of every day. . .skins cells. .. saliva. . .hair. . .waste matter. . .there are plenty of reasons why dna might be found at a scene. 

1 hour ago, Booth said:

We don't when he used the toilet, before or after the assault. We do know he left the flat with at least his shoes covered in blood as he left a trail out the open door. That indicates to me that he made no attempt to clean up.

Well he either used the toilet before he raped and killed Meredith or after, either way he was lingering, and at the very least, he made an attempt to clean himself up because if he didn't, then he'd be very noticeable in trying to escape with blood all over him.   Look, blood spatters. . .it sprays. . .it gets everywhere. . .ever spill a little bit of soda?   It goes a long way. . .now imagine a freshly stuck body with blood spurting through it with an active heart beat. . .hit an artery. . and it spurts out. . .thrust the knife in. . .and it comes out coated in the stuff. . .raise the knife up for another strike. . .the blood on the knife goes flying through the air. . .

Frankly, I agree that he wasn't cleaning up the scene.  I assert he cleaned the blood off himself. . .and that's where we get the blood trail to the bathroom and out the door.   Perhaps I wasn't clear on that. . .but either way. . .any killer that stabs a person at close range is going to get coated in blood. ..

 

1 hour ago, Booth said:

Right, you don't want to discuss towels, footprints or bathmats because you can offer no innocent explanation. One bloody half print in the bathroom makes zero sense, so you just offer some crazy speculation. Where's the other half? Where's the trail? You have no answer.

I don't want to talk about it because there are just so many variables as to why the trail is broken up that it would take me all day to speculate.   He could have grabbed a towel off the ground to dry off and that's why there is half a print. . .he shoe could have only stepped in the blood halfway. . .he could have re-stepped in some of the blood he washed off himself or he could have done any number of things that could have caused that half foot print. . .He could have been running through the house. . .might explain the missing footprints.   It's really hard to say. . .

What I do know is that even if they had cleaned up some of the footprints. . .they still could have ascertained their presence with proper police techniques.   Which based on what I have seen, they haven't really done as well as they should.  I don't think they were as equipped or prepared to handle a homicide like this as say the New York police department would.   And instead of asking for assistance right away. . .they let egos run the day. 

 

1 hour ago, Booth said:

So the bras strap was collected later, so what? How does that indicate it was contaminated? In fact, I would suggest that it makes contamination with RS less likely. The only other item with his DNA was on a cigarette butt collected earlier. So what was the route of contamination? Did the technician use the same glove from months earlier?

And yes, your DNA is all over your house, and mine all over my house. But mine has never been found mixed in strong concentrations, in multiple places, mixed with the blood of a victim who was murdered in my house, where a burglary had obviously been staged. Nor did I subsequently go tell the police that I was at the scene of that crime and offer details that were previously unknown. I also didn't accuse an innocent person of that crime or offer different alibis all proven to be false.

Maybe one day if I find myself in that situation, I'll find an attorney to convince a court to ignore all of this because I'm just an immature, psychopathic ***hole. And if I'm lucky, you'll be my jury foreman. Look, you've been given evidence, but you want to dismiss it all out of hand(botched investigation, unreliable witnesses, tainted DNA, abusive interrogation, etc.) or refuse to discuss it. In other words, parroting all of the media talking points from Team Knox. So, if you don't want to play anymore, that's fine, you can take your ball and run home.

1.  Dude, the bra strap was collect months later. . .after god knows how many people walked through that room with their uncovered shoes. . .tracking in dna through the air, depositing it with their foot steps. . .I've said repeatedly that you have to treat crime scenes delicately. . .the more people that walk through them. . .touch stuff, etc. .. the more likely you are contaminating things and destroying evidence.   Any police officer worth his salt will tell you that. . .by the time they found the bra strap. . .it was worthless as evidence.  

2.  Again, the blood of the victim could have mixed with the preexisting dna from Amanda already on site.  it's called cross contamination.   it's why police often ask a murder suspect have you ever visited a place before, and the murder suspect often, thinking he's being clever, states that he's never ever been in said place before. . an obvious lie. 

3.  And why do you think the burglary was staged?  Did Rudy not properly follow the burglary checklist?  Or are you assuming just because you don't want to believe this crime is a simple robbery gone bad?  

4.  AGAIN, the placing at the scene, the supposed details, the accusations, the other alibis. . all could have been caused by improper interrogation tactics which based on this police force's history and the lead investigators past, I tend to think they engaged in.  

5.  You can take that defense if you want.  however, I doubt I will be the jury foreman. . .most lawyers don't like auditors being on a jury.  We can see through the crap and the theatrical antics and focus on the facts.   We are very hard to persuade to ignore the truth and know how to properly investigate or how things should both be properly investigated and how things should be done. 

6.  It's not that I am parroting Team Knox, it's that I am agreeing with their observations and findings as a rationale individual who understands that people can be intimated by the situation they are in, that false confessions are possible, that crime scenes have to be handled with care. . .and that the physical evidence, when collect and handled properly, is far more reliable than the actions of a confused individual.  If team Meredith presented something that wasn't based on speculation or was backed by strong physical evidence then I'd be agreeing with them. 

7.  No you can keep the ball. . .but I'm getting tired of basically you constantly giving the same reasons over and over again as to why she's guilty.  I feel like we are at an impasse and are not contributing anything significant to the debate other than the fact that we disagree with each other.   That is fine, we are allowed to disagree. . .but I'm not going to constantly beat my head against a brick wall hoping that it will one day give me cheese.   Further every time you reply to me you somehow do this weird answer within my answer thing so I can't just simply quote what you said without having to do a bunch of cut and paste crap. . .it's frankly very time consuming.   and annoying. . .

Edited by timewarrior
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, timewarrior said:

 

Quote

Frankly, I agree that he wasn't cleaning up the scene.  I assert he cleaned the blood off himself. . .and that's where we get the blood trail to the bathroom and out the door.   Perhaps I wasn't clear on that. . .but either way. . .any killer that stabs a person at close range is going to get coated in blood. ..

And here you are trying to be clever. I see through it, as does everyone else. THERE WAS NO BLOOD TRAIL TO THE BATHROOM, and that was my entire point. Where did it go? Who erased it? 

And you're making no sense. How did he he leave a trail out the door if he cleaned the blood "off himself"? He cleaned everything except his shoes? You sound ridiculous.

Quote

 

I don't want to talk about it because there are just so many variables as to why the trail is broken up that it would take me all day to speculate.   He could have grabbed a towel off the ground to dry off and that's why there is half a print. . .he shoe could have only stepped in the blood halfway. . .he could have re-stepped in some of the blood he washed off himself or he could have done any number of things that could have caused that half foot print. . .He could have been running through the house. . .might explain the missing footprints.   It's really hard to say. . .

What I do know is that even if they had cleaned up some of the footprints. . .they still could have ascertained their presence with proper police techniques.   Which based on what I have seen, they haven't really done as well as they should.  I don't think they were as equipped or prepared to handle a homicide like this as say the New York police department would.   And instead of asking for assistance right away. . .they let egos run the day. 

 

Exactly, you don't want to talk about it. Why not? Because it's incompatible with your theory. So your answer is to engage in preposterous speculation. Or secondarily, your explanation is simply: "it was a flawed investigation"...

Quote

1.  Dude, the bra strap was collect months later. . .after god knows how many people walked through that room with their uncovered shoes. . .tracking in dna through the air, depositing it with their foot steps. . .I've said repeatedly that you have to treat crime scenes delicately. . .the more people that walk through them. . .touch stuff, etc. .. the more likely you are contaminating things and destroying evidence.   Any police officer worth his salt will tell you that. . .by the time they found the bra strap. . .it was worthless as evidence.  

You're not offering any explanation as to how a strong sample of Sollecito's DNA could have gotten on that bra strap. Look, I'm not stupid; your "OJ" defense is not going to cut it. 

Quote

2.  Again, the blood of the victim could have mixed with the preexisting dna from Amanda already on site.  it's called cross contamination.   it's why police often ask a murder suspect have you ever visited a place before, and the murder suspect often, thinking he's being clever, states that he's never ever been in said place before. . an obvious lie. 

And again, this might be a plausible explanation if the DNA sample from AK was weak and therefore suggested it was only from skin cells, saliva, etc. as a result of cohabitation. That's not what we have here.

Quote

3.  And why do you think the burglary was staged?  Did Rudy not properly follow the burglary checklist?  Or are you assuming just because you don't want to believe this crime is a simple robbery gone bad?  

I don't know that there's a checklist, but most burglars(especially experienced ones like Guede supposedly was) generally break in the easiest and least visible way possible. Regardless, any burglar who takes the time, effort, and risk to break into a home usually steals SOMETHING. 

Quote

4.  AGAIN, the placing at the scene, the supposed details, the accusations, the other alibis. . all could have been caused by improper interrogation tactics which based on this police force's history and the lead investigators past, I tend to think they engaged in.  

Of course, they(those dirty Italians) made Amanda(and Raffaele) lie repeatedly. That day, the next day, a week later, 10 years later...all because of their "improper interrogation tactics". Perhaps you're right. After all, they probably did actually raise their voices to her and deprive her of restaurant-quality food for two hours. You're venturing into fantasy at this point. The "supposed" details Knox offered included Meredith screaming, a sexual assault, and a black assailant, all stated before the police even knew these details. We've already been through this, and you've dismissed it all, much like you have everything else.

Quote

6.  It's not that I am parroting Team Knox, it's that I am agreeing with their observations and findings as a rationale individual who understands that people can be intimated by the situation they are in, that false confessions are possible, that crime scenes have to be handled with care. . .and that the physical evidence, when collect and handled properly, is far more reliable than the actions of a confused individual.  If team Meredith presented something that wasn't based on speculation or was backed by strong physical evidence then I'd be agreeing with them. 

Again I'll tell you, there are people serving life sentences who were convicted on far less evidence than exists here. When was the last time a young adult female falsely confessed to participating in a murder? In a world of 7 billion people, or even among the 1.5 billion in the developed world, how many examples can you cite? Very, very few, if any. You want to dismiss all of the physical evidence as a result of a flawed investigation, tainted DNA, etc., and all of the behavioral evidence as Knox/Sollecito being simply young, immature, psychopathic, drug-addled, whatever. I'm not buying it. There is real evidence here that points to their participation in this crime.

Quote

7.  No you can keep the ball. . .but I'm getting tired of basically you constantly giving the same reasons over and over again as to why she's guilty.  I feel like we are at an impasse and are not contributing anything significant to the debate other than the fact that we disagree with each other.   That is fine, we are allowed to disagree. . .but I'm not going to constantly beat my head against a brick wall hoping that it will one day give me cheese.   Further every time you reply to me you somehow do this weird answer within my answer thing so I can't just simply quote what you said without having to do a bunch of cut and paste crap. . .it's frankly very time consuming.   and annoying. . .

Perfect. So we'll hang onto the ball and keep playing while you run home. But I think the reason you're getting tired is because you're too busy running around the questions I've posed to you. Again, I'm open to the fact that AK/RS may be innocent, but you can't give me any reasonable explanation as to why I should believe this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Booth said:

 

This is what happens when I try to quote you.  I'm tired because every time I make a response to you, I have to manually cut and paste all your answers individually.  The last message to you took over an hour to do.   I have better things to do with my time than argue with someone who just insinuated that I was racist.  I in no way stated that Italians were dirty.  I honestly don't think you are open to the fact that AK/RS are innocent.  And yes you are right, many people are serving life sentences for far less evidence. . .and you know what. . .many are being found innocent decades later thanks to dna testing and other measures.   It shows that the systems of justice are inherently flawed no matter how hard we try.   It shows why we must always be willing to consider the alternative because sometimes, just sometimes, the state gets it wrong.  

In this case, you have experts on both sides saying either that the dna evidence was significant or negligible.  it all depends on which side you want to believe.  And technically Guede did steal something. . .her stole Meredith's innocence and then her life. . .look, it happens all the time. . .you know how it goes right?  guy breaks into house. . finds a nice piece of @$$ all alone. . .decides to have his fun. . .it goes too far. . .guy decides it's best to leave. . .but first decides to clean up.  It's not right and is morally reprehensible. .. but it does happen.   and when it does happen this way. . .nothing really ever gets stolen. . .Heck I've even talked to someone once who admitted that he was only in someone's house to steal a tv, then the female owner came in. . .and his plans changed.  (the conversation got really uncomfortable after that, I believe he is in jail now. . .or dead. . .either is a possibility. . .)

Regarding the blood trail, I apologize for any confusion I'm causing, I'm not trying to be clever on it or anything.  I just haven't looked at the blood pattern diagram in over two months since I last reviewed it.  So you wanna know how a blood trail could be started in the bathroom without being linked to site of the murder.  okay. . .now I'm not saying this is what happened, only what could have happened.   Guede leaves to go wash up, he has blood on his person and his knife.  he goes to the bathroom, while in the bathroom several drops come off his clothes and the knife, perhaps due to gravity or so his movements, who knows.  he then steps in that blood and starts the trail there.   like I said. .. it only takes a little blood to make a big mess. . .I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm just saying it would be one way it could have happened.  

regarding the bra strap (again), there was also, if I recall correctly, again I haven't rechecked, this is mainly from memory, that there were other dna profiles in addition to RS.  Apparently The Conti-Vecchiotti Report was very condemning on the tactics used by the prosecution and the investigators regarding their handling of the DNA evidence.  Haven't read it yet, not enough time these days, but plan to soon.  Basically, it's very easy to contaminate dna.  Look, I know you don't like this site, but they do raise some significant questions as to how the investigation was conducted, how the evidence was collect and specifically for the bra clasp, why it's not a good piece of evidence:  http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html

Finally, not going home, just don't see the need to constantly battle with someone so far rooted in his ideology that it leads into a self destructive suicide run.  Instead, I plan to just step back and let you pull the trigger on yourself. . .just mind the blood spatter. . .it does get everywhere. . .I'll try to make a nice trail for you.

:blink:

Edited by timewarrior
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/20/2017 at 8:19 AM, timewarrior said:
Quote

 

This is what happens when I try to quote you.  I'm tired because every time I make a response to you, I have to manually cut and paste all your answers individually.  The last message to you took over an hour to do.   I have better things to do with my time than argue with someone who just insinuated that I was racist.  I in no way stated that Italians were dirty.  I honestly don't think you are open to the fact that AK/RS are innocent.  And yes you are right, many people are serving life sentences for far less evidence. . .and you know what. . .many are being found innocent decades later thanks to dna testing and other measures.   It shows that the systems of justice are inherently flawed no matter how hard we try.   It shows why we must always be willing to consider the alternative because sometimes, just sometimes, the state gets it wrong.  

In this case, you have experts on both sides saying either that the dna evidence was significant or negligible.  it all depends on which side you want to believe.  And technically Guede did steal something. . .her stole Meredith's innocence and then her life. . .look, it happens all the time. . .you know how it goes right?  guy breaks into house. . finds a nice piece of @$$ all alone. . .decides to have his fun. . .it goes too far. . .guy decides it's best to leave. . .but first decides to clean up.  It's not right and is morally reprehensible. .. but it does happen.   and when it does happen this way. . .nothing really ever gets stolen. . .Heck I've even talked to someone once who admitted that he was only in someone's house to steal a tv, then the female owner came in. . .and his plans changed.  (the conversation got really uncomfortable after that, I believe he is in jail now. . .or dead. . .either is a possibility. . .)

Regarding the blood trail, I apologize for any confusion I'm causing, I'm not trying to be clever on it or anything.  I just haven't looked at the blood pattern diagram in over two months since I last reviewed it.  So you wanna know how a blood trail could be started in the bathroom without being linked to site of the murder.  okay. . .now I'm not saying this is what happened, only what could have happened.   Guede leaves to go wash up, he has blood on his person and his knife.  he goes to the bathroom, while in the bathroom several drops come off his clothes and the knife, perhaps due to gravity or so his movements, who knows.  he then steps in that blood and starts the trail there.   like I said. .. it only takes a little blood to make a big mess. . .I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm just saying it would be one way it could have happened.  

regarding the bra strap (again), there was also, if I recall correctly, again I haven't rechecked, this is mainly from memory, that there were other dna profiles in addition to RS.  Apparently The Conti-Vecchiotti Report was very condemning on the tactics used by the prosecution and the investigators regarding their handling of the DNA evidence.  Haven't read it yet, not enough time these days, but plan to soon.  Basically, it's very easy to contaminate dna.  Look, I know you don't like this site, but they do raise some significant questions as to how the investigation was conducted, how the evidence was collect and specifically for the bra clasp, why it's not a good piece of evidence:  http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/TheBraClasp.html

Finally, not going home, just don't see the need to constantly battle with someone so far rooted in his ideology that it leads into a self destructive suicide run.  Instead, I plan to just step back and let you pull the trigger on yourself. . .just mind the blood spatter. . .it does get everywhere. . .I'll try to make a nice trail for you.

 

I'm not trying to make things difficult. I find it easier to highlight a portion of your text, click the quotation mark at the top, and place my answer underneath it. No cut/paste required. 

I wasn't trying to insinuate that you're racist. Looking at it again, I can see why you read it that way, but it was not my intent. I'm sorry for that. I was only speaking of some the media coverage and comments from Knox supporters who have implied Italy is some kind of third world country without the know-how and resources to complete a proper and thorough investigation or conduct a fair trial.

I am in fact open to them being innocent. I've already conceded that, had I been on the jury, I don't think I could have found them guilty. But there is some damning evidence here, and a lot of questions.

You're right that I do not like the site that you've linked. They don't seem to believe anyone is ever guilty. Brendan Dassey, Darlie Routier, etc. Seriously? They support even the most obviously guilty convicts. But honestly, I don't really like any of the sites dedicated to this case. They're all biased to one side or the other.

I understand you're just speculating, but I find your footprint scenario to be implausible. There's no evidence that Guede made any attempt to clean himself up at all. If he had, your theory would suggest that he ignored all the blood dripping off of his clothes and instead made it a priority to remove his shoe and clean his bare foot. It just doesn't make any sense. 

I think there are legitimate questions about the bra strap, but the spin put out by Team Knox reeks of the OJ defense. "Well, the investigators made mistakes, so therefore none of the physical evidence can be trusted". You have to demonstrate how this evidence was contaminated, not simply suggest that it could have been.

 

Edited by Booth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Booth said:

 

Very well, I accept your apology and whole heartedly agree that this entire case is f'd up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.