DISQUS

Community Page on DISQUS

what is this?

Jump to original thread »
Author

Open Thread: The Murder of Meredith Kercher

Started by stevehuff · 9 months ago

<div style="text-align: justify;">For this inaugural open thread using the new commenting system, I'd like to suggest readers discuss the "Foxy Knoxy" murder -- the alleged murder of Briton Meredith Kercher by Rudy Hermann Guede, Amanda Knox, and Raffaele Sollecito. Click here ... Continue reading »

974 comments

  • so how many points do you need to get .... to get something like a coffee pot for instance?........
  • You can totally ignore the points, if you like. I don't think they're too important.
  • Ok -- here you go -- sorry for the delay -- I'd somehow set this particular entry to "no comments, hide existing."

    I'm tired.
  • Hi, just testing. Sorry.
  • Hi guys. I need to get something off my chest. Sorry for the abruptness, but I can't hang around much longer tonight. I hope you will all consider what I write below:

    1. Neither Rudy, Raf, or Amanda committed murder that night. None were involved in violence against Meredith.

    2. Most of what Rudy says is the truth. He leaves out some details of what happened that night, and also the name of the killer, which he knows. Fran referenced some articles earlier that say that in a taped conversation RG admitted to his father that he knew the name of the killer but was too afraid to reveal it.

    3. The real killer is known to all of them, at least by sight and reputation. He is someone to really fear.

    4. This case would be much simpler for the police if it were just a case of finding out which of these kids killed MK. But the truth is much more dangerous and difficult.

    Okay, If we believe Rudy, everything starts to make more sense. It causes us to see AK, RS, and even RG the way people who know them see them, as young people incapable of such violence. When we thought they could have been killers, especially Amanda, we had to stretch our imagination, but we did so because we thought the evidence pointed to them. With Rudy's story, we don't have to stretch anymore. Amanda is just an unwise, promiscuous girl. RS is just a fool for a girl, and RG is so, so unlucky always. The person who stabbed MK in the neck is a hardened criminal. Now it does all make sense.

    Patrick mentioned that he was afraid of firing Amanda, afraid of repercussions of some sort. When I read that I thought he just meant she wouldn't bring her friends there anymore. It might be more than that. In describing how difficult it was to have her as an employee, he said that he, as her boss, was even told by one of the fellows with whom she was flirting to to leave her alone. I think the implication was that he had to back down.

    The police should be looking for that person, or men like him, men with whom Amanda associated who were real criminals, men who everyone is a little afraid of. Not like Rudy, who I would guess no one is afraid of.

    Please consider these things. Ciao.
  • Interesting suggestion, Sparrow. If the unknown person is so dangerous, why did Rudy go dancing after he fled the scene of the crime? Also, to believe him one would have to believe his tale of Meredith's affection towards him.
  • Couldn't stay away. Pinecone... Quickly... the unknown person didn't kill RG. He didn't have to. He's pretty sure RG will keep his mouth shut. The unknown person may be connected, that's why he's so daring. He can get away with things. Sorry, but this is Italy. Rudy went dancing because he just lived through a nightmare. It must have seemed so unreal, yet he couldn't deny it. He went dancing to revisit the life he loved, the innocent one, dancing and laughing with pretty girls, one last time, before he ran away.

    I have no problem believing Meredith liked him. That joke he told her about sucking his blood because she lost her cup was so cute and clever. If I were a girl, dressed like a vampire at a party, and a guy said that to me, and if he presented himself as cutely as the joke is, I would have laughed out loud. I get the picture Rudy is very likable. Why did that rich man take pity on him? I've seen quotes from friends that say he's very nice. And his complaint about being portrayed as a drug dealer might be valid. That may be overblown. He's a student. Maybe he has sold some drugs on a small scale, maybe he's been found with some, but he may not be a hardcore criminal. Maybe he's more like Amanda. You think she's never sold any on a casual basis? Provided some?

    Anyway I have no problem with the idea that they flirted at the party. He said they kissed. It might have been a real kiss, it might have been a peck on the cheek. In Italy everyone kisses on the cheek. But if she didn't have special feelings for him, maybe he exaggerated it because he liked her. Guys do that all the time.

    Maybe she was just being nice to him and he imagined it more. Maybe he said he wanted to come over to her house and she said "Okay," being all vague and nice, while he was being specific. These kind of things happen all the time, you know that.

    Or maybe she really liked him and did arrange to meet him, but she wasn't ready to tell her friends. That happens too.

    The story of affection between them may not be true, but I have no problem believing it (a week ago I would have though). But I think that when Rudy talks now of HIS affection it's very real. He watched her die. He's bonded to her forever. Her tragedy... I'm sure many people writing on this blog cry for Meredith sometimes. I'm sure he cries every night for her. Take a look at his recent photos.
  • Interesting Sparrow. But it has been reported that he was stabbed in a fight over drugs in a square in Perugia -- not a casual drug dealer sort of thing. It has also been reported that he has been arrested for b&e on at least two (and maybe three) occassions in the last 6 months. Those would be the times he was got.

    The psychology of the b&e criminal is very scary. No psychological or physical boundry applies to them.
  • What is b&e?
  • break and enter
  • Rudy may have gone dancing to prove to the 'really bad guy' how nonchalant he was about it (before he skedaddled out of town in fear). He also may be lying about why he went there initially. Perhaps he did go to meet Amanda, or... who knows? But showing some human decency afterwards (if true) doesn't meanwe must believe his story of a consensual relationship.

    This scenario, however, does not take into account Rudy's DNA in/on Meredith.

    kb
  • I have a problem with this DNA evidence. Mostly this is because they say there was no blood on her legs. There's no way this could have happened with her wounds, unless she was clothed when she was killed. That's why I believe Rudy when he says he didn't rape her and she was still dressed in her jeans when he left.

    So I do still believe there was a "clean up" and or altering of the crime scene after Rudy left. And maybe this is where AK and RS come into the picture. They are involved somehow. They are also afraid. Remember, AK is probably the reason this dangerous character is in the house (unless he is there because of the residents of the apt. below).

    When RS complains about "helping" people, I think he's talking about AK. She came to him with this problem. She's involves somehow in this scene that went out of hand and turned to murder. Maybe this guy is so dangerous and protected that they too don't want to tell the police. So, RS helps her cover up things, so she doesn't have to tell police anything about this other guy. If it were simply a mystery rape, perpetrated by someone else, she's free and clear. Now RS says he wouldn't be in this mess if it weren't for AK, and he says it's better to save yourself and not help others sometimes.

    Back to the DNA. I think I've read on this blog that in this preliminary stage, evidence like DNA evidence can merely be mentioned, but needn't be proven to pass the rigorous standards they have in a final trial. This DNA evidence may prove not to be real, or conclusive. Or it may be a result of contamination in the lab (it happens), or it may have been planted. What form did this DNA come from? Was it skin, semen, shit? We don't know.
  • What clean up?
  • AK showered in the bloodied bathroom - so, AKs clean up.
  • "I have a problem with this DNA evidence. Mostly this is because they say there was no blood on her legs. There's no way this could have happened with her wounds, unless she was clothed when she was killed. That's why I believe Rudy when he says he didn't rape her and she was still dressed in her jeans when he left."

    Check out the second paragraph below.

    http://www.agi.it/italy/news/200712141908-cro-r...

    "those judging the review...have heard - in addition to the defence - the reconstruction of the grounds for the charge and the comments by the magistrate on the "relationship/non-relationship" between Rudy and Meredith. The two allegedly did not have any date the evening before 1 November simply because on that date they had not even met."

    "The bloodied fingerprint on the pillow found next to Meredith, the DNA traces on the vaginal swab carried out as part of the autopsy and epithelial ones found in the bathroom are the mark left by Rudy Hermann Guede in the house..."
  • Pinecone, it's true we must keep in mind all that the judges say, but we know already that some of the things they've said have proven already not to be true, and they have adjusted for that. Patrick is a case in point. And some things they maintain, I am sure you don't agree with, like the assessment of Amanda as one who is dangerous and can incite others to commit violence, or whatever she said.

    I don't know how they concluded that R and M never met. They might conclude differently later.

    The bloody thumbprint, yeah it's his. He had blood all over his hands because he tried to help her, he said. The bathroom, he was there. The vaginal swab? I explained my problem with that. She was dressed when she was killed.
  • "The vaginal swab? I explained my problem with that. She was dressed when she was killed. "

    But she was not dressed when she was found. And Rudy's DNA was found on vaginal swabs.
  • Yes. I don't believe he assaulted her after she was killed. You may, but I don't. So the DNA on the vaginal swab is one of those pieces of evidence I will doubt.
  • "The person who stabbed MK in the neck is a hardened criminal."

    I think he is. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's killed other women. He also left his DNA in the victim and all around the crime scene. Why didn't Rudy's "real dangerous man" have a dangerous weapon? Rudy says he was armed with a very thin instrument that had only a narrow, sharp tip. The description matches the wounds on the victim and the wound on Rudy's palm. The knife from RS's kitchen was too wide to have been the murder weapon.
  • "Why didn't Rudy's "real dangerous man" have a dangerous weapon? Rudy says he was armed with a very thin instrument that had only a narrow, sharp tip."

    That sounds like real dangerous weapon to me. Rudy said it made a very deep cut, and it was very sharp.
  • hi Steve, just wanted to ask how to download a video from youtube.
    I'm asking you cause I've seen you made it with all videos of this case.
    Thanks
  • Amy, go here:

    http://www.techcrunch.com/get-youtube-movie/

    The file will download as a .flv extension. You will then need to convert it to .avi or .mpg in order to re-upload it to your own YouTube acct. To handle .flv files and to do conversions. you can try:

    http://tinyurl.com/9xyy6

    Total Video Converter -- that's what I've used, and it's done the job just fine. To break it down:

    1. Download YouTube vid you want via techcrunch tool
    2. Download the Total Video Converter -- or any similar program
    3. If you want to use the .flv file, the Total Video Converter will play it
    4. If you want to re-upload to your own YouTube, you will have to convert the video to .avi or .mpeg and upload it.

    Lather, rinse, repeat...
  • OK cw, here are the instructions

    HOW TO LINK EXPLICITLY TO ANOTHER POST


    1. Hover over the user icon beside the post you wish to link to. You will get a little menu that includes the item "Permalink".
    2. Right-click on the Permalink item to bring up a menu. This will let you select "Copy Link Location" (or similar, depending on which browser you use).
    3. Paste the link into the post you are creating.
    4. Important: Edit out the part of the link between the final "/" and the "#". This will look something like "?s=oldest&v=threaded". If you don't do this, the link will cause the page to be regenerated with your sort and view preferences, not the other users'.

    (Reposted as new to allow threaded users to see it easily, and to allow for points :) )
  • Another gotcha (and partial solution). Copying the whole link URL is a problem, since some users are viewing at http://www.truecrimeweblog.com/2007/12/open-thr... and others at http://truecrimeweblog.disqus.com/open_thread_t.... Using the whole URL from the Permalink will cause other users who click on it to be directed to the version of the page you are using.

    PARTIAL SOLUTION Use relative URLs. This means actually writing some HTML. Here I have created a link to the parent of this post. The HTML code I embedded to do this was:

    <a href="#comment-36779">link to the parent of this post</a>

    (but still this fails when the posts are not on the same page in the paginated version. Still trying and testing...)
  • I've come to the conclusion that the Parent and Permalink links are fundamentally broken in the embedded, paginated version. They don't work even "as intended" if the post they link to is not on the same page. You can demonstrate this by finding a post where the parent is not on the same page. Hovering and selecting "Parent" simply doesn't work - and the reason why is clear to anyone with an elementary understanding of HTML. Another reason not to use the paginated version folks. Stick with http://truecrimeweblog.disqus.com/open_thread_t...
  • OK Squiggle: I just upped your points to 5 (highest I've seen to date) after reading this latest thread. Congrats! *laughs* that my medals were all stolen by a b & e 'er.

    But now I am a bit confused again. I am using the //true.crimewebblog.disqus etc. version but does that still cause the instructions you previously listed to give a follow up reader a "false page" link or "other page" link. Relative links I understand but that is going to be a manual HTML entry after looking up the URL. Just more confusion for a bunch of amateur sleuths as myself.

    Xin is right! This is beta software and not the best. Seems as though we could possibly be the best beta team they might encounter. Would hope Steve or someone might update them to our efforts. *lol*
  • cw: "I am using the //true.crimewebblog.disqus etc. version but does that still cause the instructions you previously listed to give a follow up reader a "false page" link or "other page" link?"

    No, they're currently the best we can do. What it will do is cause users of the embedded, paginated, version to be redirected here when they click on one of your links. On balance, not a bad thing.

    Also, there will be no broken links if they're directed here, whereas there sometimes will be with relative URLs when accessed via the paginated version.
  • Only GEEKS would never think of end users & HIDE all this stuff behind an icon. My Dad used dial-up for inventory in 1969, and I've been coding since Os & 1s. But to offer this functionality as an Easter Egg Hunt is stupid, stupid, stupid. EDN rant. Go To <Top of Thread>.
  • Hey! Only DUMB geeks would do this. I've been coding since I entered machine code in hex 25 years ago. I supervise student software engineering projects every year. This sort of insane non-visibility (cf. Donald Norman, 'The Design of Everyday Things' (http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Do...)) is the kind of thing I would come down on like a tonne of bricks.
  • You all can use html. You can also vote comments up or down, but I hope you'll be fair there. It will help you ignore trolls, I'll tell you that much. I'm still farting around with the look, but I really like it so far.
  • cheer up coyotewaits.................don't feel bad................I only have 3 points
  • Four meman...I like your posts.
  • hey meman, i just gave you one, so the total climb to five, hhhmm 3 +1 = 5. Sort like the equation of the evidence in this case so far.
  • lol thanks .............................point for you to........Have a great day
  • OK pinecone, seattleite, et al...

    I want to ask, please reply :):-

    * Do you think AK was there that night at the time of the murder?

    * What was she doing during the murder (your guess?)?

    * What did she do that night/morning after the murder(again your guess)?
  • * Do you think AK was there that night at the time of the murder?

    * What was she doing during the murder (your guess?)?

    * What did she do that night/morning after the murder(again your guess)?

    I don't know, I used to think she was, but doubt it now. If she was there, the assault was in progress when Amanda entered the house.

    She left when she heard the screams and wandered back to RS's house.

    The next morning she did exactly what she said she did.
  • pinecone, thanks for answering. so either way you're not certain if she was there or not.

    The crime couldn't have been already in progress as she entered because CCTV & witness statements re: MKs arrival puts her there at 8:40-ish before MK.

    Unless you mean, she arrived, went out for 9 at the basketball court, ALL while stoned off her face, came back, the crime was in progress then.

    OR came back, smoked dope or whatever she 'did'. THEN the crime happened.
  • "The crime couldn't have been already in progress as she entered because CCTV & witness statements re: MKs arrival puts her there at 8:40-ish before MK."

    That's all speculation.
  • Granted.
    But still, I have noted both you and seattleite do not say AK was definitely not there during the crime.
    thanks :)
  • Pinecone,
    it is looking more and more likely that RHG is very violent, and guilty, I agree. IMHO AK is more involved in this than just being a passive innocent by-stander though. I don't know what to make if the bra thing, and if that means as some have suggested half/full necrophilia, or if he was part of some of the staging?
    I don't know why he first denied she was there, I think she help set up the situation, and the prospect as RHG said was appealing to him. I don't know if he stabbed her though, as I can't see why he's use a piece of glass, it's illogical. He obviously wasn't there to ransack the property, at least 1 knife if not two were involved, so that to me screams premed, even if it was just planned an hour earlier, it's premed IMHO. They had knives, they were 'ready to go'.
    Erm, as I said I am squemish but my mum has sky-plussed(point of contention) loads of csis that I am clearing off on to DVD today. Anyway, in this one episode there was no blood splatter initially from a victim because the weapon was left in their throat for a short time.
  • Here's how RHG could have been responsible for the whole thing on his own or with 'homies' & how the mushroom might go against this theory (discarding the 2 bloodied footprints, evidence of a clean up, cctv placing AK there, witness statements about other people, the 2am arguing, AK not using her key to open MKs door, the knife with AK&MKs dna etc).

    * MK lets herself into her house (she is not ambushed outside by RHG cos she has mushrooms)
    further, I find it strange that if she lt rhg in for a rondevous she'd eat cheese & mushrooms with him, unless she did so before he came - unlikely cos of digestion time of mushrooms & time of death.
    * RHG has broken in before (but MK hasn't noticed and how did RHG move to other rooms to ransack without a key) or after (and MK would have had to lead him to her room for the money - toilet soiling goes against this too cos it's more likely imho he pottied before the ambush).
    * MK eats mushroom meal on her own (why, if they didn't, did the ILE not find the punnet in the house fridge or in the litter bags, why only in RS fridge).
    * She goes to her room & is ambushed on the way by RHG.
    or
    * she answers the doorbell

    I wonder why he went to the house, how he knew or thought it was empty. maybe he came looking for AK. he'd have to have been carrying a knife. or else MK gashed his hand with her dinner or cooking knife, and he later used this.
  • and if AK & RS are innocent, they really are acting strangely.
  • Loz said 37 minutes ago (or more, I haven't refreshed): thanks for that, so RHG/AK could have got a lift off Bulagaio from RS who went to the car park?

    Here's RS's Audi, parked out front of the police station on Nov. 5. or 6. when he got arrested. I guess Dad had a spare set of keys, otherwise it's still parked there.
    http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?4348...

    Good nite!
  • Hi everyone. I don't want to foist anything on anyone, but since AK's declarations today haven't cleared up much, I've done another PowerPoint, of the geography and relation between the girls', RS's and RHG's houses.

    My own bias (all three are involved in someway in different aspects of Nov. 1 p.m.) shows through. Even those who support other scenarios may get something out of the PPT.

    Download it at:
    http://www.mediafire.com/?5kwcoj9jm0j
    (I hope that becomes clickable when I post. Otherwise, copy and paste that address into your browser. Cheers).
  • Kermit: You work is terrific. Your cell phone map is still one of the best pieces of work on this blog. Thanks.
  • Great work Kermit. I love your sense of humor. I think the Perugia LE could use your analytical and mapping skills
  • http://truecrimeweblog.disqus.com/open_thread_t... Kermit Download it at:
    http://www.mediafire.com/?5kwcoj9jm0j
    (I hope that becomes clickable when I post. Otherwise, copy and paste that address into your browser. Cheers).


    thanks for that, so RHG/AK could have got a lift off Bulagaio from RS who went to the car park?
  • Someone smile at me too.
  • CW: So far Amanda seems pretty impetuous...so really...anything can happen at her hearings.
    RS's attorneys have him on a leash, waiting for who-knows-what, and Rudy is scared, well, shitless, as he should be. No one has been charged yet, so there lies ahead a very clear reason to talk.

    The fact that AK and RS are silent begs the opinion that they've got something to be silent about. Neither's past predicts any sort of comfort in being in jail. Aside from everything else, they are poised to become the potential RUIN of their families, if only considering the $$$.
  • PL declined to talk further too. I chalk that up to attorney saying "you got nothing to gain given how they treated you...decline to help them further ensnare you." Amanda does have something to gain...maybe house arrest at the nunnery (all puns intended).
  • http://truecrimeweblog.disqus.com/open_thread_t...

    seattleite: Yes, agree maybe as the singing nun.....
  • Loz: I think they are on some kind of cycle--maybe two weeks or so it seems--to review their stories and to see if their memories have improved. plus they have a shot at getting released. even when RS asked to speak (and then he clammed up) he waited a couple weeks.
  • xin: do you not think at this point that AK and RS will have nothing more to say to the judge or investigators based on attorney advice, and that even RG will not say much, if anything more, for the same reason. They have nothing to gain and it would force (I hope) the prosecution to go forward with arrests and a trial sooner, where I am assuming (possibly incorrectly) that the prosecution will have to reveal all their evidence to the court (judges & jurors) and the defense. (Back to that Italian CCP question again)?
  • CW

    I think she will address questions with the attorney trying to keep her in control. I would tell her to STFU but may be they believe she has a chance to go to house arrest or something. Amanda is Amanda's own worst enemy in this case...not because there is loads of proof that she is guilty but because she is Amanda.
  • seattleite & others: Is AK's hearing tomorrow 12.17.07? I forgot. If so we haven't long to wait for the next "drama" she may express.
  • I think they are releasing chunks of her diary to show she doesn't remember still, as an excuse for her not answering these qustions? we'll find out after if she answered them.

    I think it could shoot them in the foot long-term though, because she can't blame her confusion on the duress of interrogation. Then again, she still has 'stoned/mashed'. BUT, I think the prosecution will show her & RS 'timelines' are very constructed?
  • ah OK. thanks. and every 2 weeks, they can not claim to be under duress on each of those occasions. Thanks Xin
  • The fact that Pinecone and Co. have fallen for AK's "frame him" "alibi" I find really quite shocking. For some time now, AK's strategy had been patently obvious to those with knowledge of the crime facts.
    To frame RHG, AK's strategy was to:
    1. remove all dna apart from RHG's --- she achieved this almost 100 percent by bleaching everything, washing MK's clothes apart from certain "key" items, and disposing of her own bloodied pullover.
    2. tell police that she saw a black man at the scene --- to get them on the "perp's" trail. (She achieved this by saying that she saw PL - he was ideal because he was black like RHG. Of couse she couldn't say it was RHG himself, because that really would have placed her at the crime scene.)
    3. draw attention to the "perp's" DNA --- remember her going on about the shit in the toilet

    It's quite possible that RHG was also involved in the assault, but he - unlike AK - has no motive for the murder. Moreover he has no weapon, because LE have stated from the outset that the stabs were caused by a knife (or knives). Pinecone's "piece of glass" theory is so outrageously nonsensical that it sounds to me like something out of Alice in Wonderland or Harry Potter. Also almost beyond belief is Pinecone's cute idea that MK was assaulted by a single perp. The chances that a perp, acting without accomplices, could have forced MK into oral sex while simultaneously inflicting knife wounds are very small in my view - and this is backed up by the professional literature.
  • Andy: The reason I have gone over to the Pinecone and Co. is because absolutely no new "solid" (non-circumstantial) evidence as been presented in the last three or four weeks linking AK to being at the crime scene at the agreed period that the assault/murder of MK took place (21:30 - 22:30).
    Please bear with me for my points.
    1) She made a statement to LE, obviously under great interrogation stress (in US it would be unacceptable in court) that she was there in person in the kitchen and heard screams, PL, etc. She later recanted this statement and claimed it was made under duress. Such statements are weak as evidence of guilt.
    2) There is supposedly a CCTV video of her entering the house at exactly 20:38 pm. If that video exists? OK, assume it does. It is hard evidence she entered the house at that time. Where then is the same camera when she exits the house, at what ever time, 23:30, 01:30, or 02:30 the morning of the 02 Nov, or even 21:00 on the 1st just before MK arrives shortly after 21:00?? So this becomes week evidence along with why no CCTV image of an RG or other perp leaving the premise at 22:30. Just eye witnesses, notoriously weak in these kind of cases.
    2a) So being circumstantial, without further camera evidence, as her attorney I weave a scenario for the court. Yes AK met RG at the basketball court at 20:30 on the 1st to buy some hashish. The transaction was completed and she went on to her house at 20:38 to get something else to take back with her to RK's. RG followed her surreptitiously. AK enters house. leaving door ajar since she is just going back out and RG sneaks in to rob the place hiding in Filomena's bathroom ( right close to the entrance) or room until AK leaves. After she leaves RG ransacks Filomena's room and then hears MK come in. Or even they complete the deal at the house instead of the bb court and both leave. (a reason for AK to stay quiet). RG hangs around and sees MK (an extremely attractive woman) arriving at the house and forces himself upon her and into the house. Take your pick. The rest is tragic history.
    3) A drop of AK's blood is found on the bathroom sink that AK and MK share. So what? That is circumstantial only. The blood could have been left there earlier in the day, even when RS, AK and MK were all still at the house. She could have had a bloody nose and just not wiped it up. It was her shared bathroom.
    4) AK's room was clean of all finger prints and traces of DNA. Appears even to have been cleaned with bleach. Attorney: Yes she cleaned it earlier that day. She hadn't been using it except to come and go since she was sleeping and staying at RK's every day/night for the past two weeks. But she decided to make it presentable for everyone anyway, having time to give it attention that holiday after hard partying the Halloween eve before.
    4a) Again totally circumstantial and not hard proof of her presence at the time of the murder.
    4b) I cannot buy into the idea that there was any cleanup by AK, AK & RS or anyone. If AK & RS were cleaning up why did they leave specs of blood in the bathroom sink (not the feces bathroom) and the blood diluted by water on the floor or rug. Rather stupid for people smart enough to manipulate a crime scene of their own presence, etc. More likely a panicked and careless killer was cleaning himself up before getting out of there. And who says AK washed MK's clothes. Maybe MK washed her own and just left them in the washer. See previous posts on this conjecture. We do have enough info on this item of the washing machine.
    5) Her behavior as described by the press, quoting friends and acquaintances at the police station isn't even evidence let alone circumstantial evidence. It wouldn't stand a chance in court. All it is is inappropriate (if some wish to call it guilty type behavior, so be it) behavior for someone who was a roommate and supposed friend of the victim to most of us. If the court allowed such testimony as these descriptions of her behavior, an attorney would find counter testimony as to that her behavior was a result of her own shock and incomprehension as to what had happened to her roommate;
    Now I am sure you are going to go "that is nonsensical" and that is fine, you are as entitled to your opinion as I or any one else. I am just trying to point out a counter viewpoint that the evidence against her is weak from a legal and hard forensic standpoint, say as compared to the evidence against RG.
    6) Finally I will throw in the cell phones of RS and AK go off at the same time (I remember that time as 21:00, I wish someone would reverify it, but I think Xin's timeline is 20:45. Either way how do the LE know they were turned off. The phones very well may have been placed together say next to RS's computer while they were at RS's house and electronic interference kept them from either broadcasting a signal (ping) or receiving a call or text msg because they were out of range.
    6a) Even PL said you couldn't place a cell call from his bar because the interference was too great. You had to go outside to place it. Once I heard that from him I was even more assured of his innocence because it meant to me that one wouldn't have to stroll very far from his own Le Chic before the next close tower (one near AK & MK house would also pick up the signal. Multiple towers must pick up a cell's location, otherwise there would never be a smooth hand-off off a call without it being dropped (early days of cell technology).

    So obviously I am out of breath and this is very long, but it is my case for the defense of AK unless, and it is a very big UNLESS, the investigating prosecutor or judge publicly states more solid evidence against her and not just conjectured theories based on this circumstantial evidence. They may have more to tell us yet. I will wait for it.
    The same goes for RK who's only solid evidence is the shoe print. One piece of evidence does not not make a guilty verdict unless that evidence is a signed confession. I rest my case for leaning strongly in the Pinecone theory box as of now.
  • http://truecrimeweblog.disqus.com/open_thread_t...
    coyotewaits1) She made a statement to LE, obviously under great interrogation stress (in US it would be unacceptable in court) that she was there in person in the kitchen and heard screams, PL, etc. She later recanted this statement and claimed it was made under duress. Such statements are weak as evidence of guilt.

    True, but she has had plenty of R&R since.
    Yet, her memory still fails her. Both she and RS have exactly the same gaps in memory from that night. Yet, they remember alot of similar details.

    That to me is suspicious.

    This I feel ties in with the whole free press thing. I personally think it's a good thing that her failure to remember and her statement being almost an exact negative