One of those nights when someone you didn’t really know that well turned out to be crazy, in your home…..and now you’re scared shitless

Then again, I’ve seen a carpark video of what I’m sure? is him…going there alone…(I think it’s him…but you’re never sure are you ?)

Something that’s weird is that so much importance is placed on their having at times conflicting stories of that night…
If I was guilty…the first thing I’d do is organise a joint alibi…
It gives the appearance of an unaware him providing her with what he thought was a fairly innocent cover story (without having given it too much serious thought….but I’d still say he believed in her)

What if the truck-driver story was true ? (his mobile records place him in the area—according to the internet anyway…what fascinates the police is….he definitely knows about the arrival of the tow truck)
Although it’s strange and fanciful…this type of garbled encounter with the weird chucking dates and a phone at them, then stopping to chat to Rudy stuff is…in all truth…just like a night that could lead to a murder….
things like that do happen…I’ve seen stuff like that …there’s all sorts of people in this world
Meredith may have seen and heard what was going on in the road and really exploded with rage at the three of them afterwards….on an already heated night…. the trademark Rudy deposit looks more like a before leaving thing….

I’d say they saw the start of Rudy doing it and that the footsteps the old lady heard on the iron steps were them running away in fear …
….but Rudy alone killed her…I have no doubt

It’s frustrating to see how people (including Tim Egan, a writer I respect very much but don’t understand in this instance) will passionately project and then fight for a nonfactual interpretation of this case. It’s so Karl Rovian, except in Egan’s case at least I’m sure it’s sincere.

The case is so simple, in terms of evidence. Morally and emotionally it’s baffling and tragic, but in terms of the evidence it should be clear to all by now:

1. Rudy Guede participated in Meredith Kercher’s murder. We all agree on this, right?
2. Rudy Guede did not act alone. We know this because…
3. The forensic evidence proves that Meredith lay where she died for some hours, until blood dried. Then she was moved.
4. Got that? She was moved, some hours after she died. Focus on this fact. It’s the most important one in this case.
5. Rudy could not have been the one who moved her body, because he spent the rest of that night being seen in public places–a disco, then a bar.
6. So who was in the house that night, moving Meredith’s body? A footprint in Meredith’s blood matches Raffaele Sollecito’s bare foot, and not any other defendant’s. The footprint isn’t just the same general size as Raffaele’s, it matches its shape. Other footprint traces found with Luminol–which detects blood–match Amanda’s footprint. A woman’s shoeprint, of a shoe Amanda’s size, was found in Meredith’s blood under Meredith’s body in the position where it was found by police. So at the very least, Rudy Guede had accomplices, a man and a woman, with feet very much the size and shape of Amanda’s and Raffaele’s.
7. Amanda’s DNA was mixed with Meredith’s blood found in the bathroom and in a third housemate’s room–the room where a break-in was faked. Could this DNA have come from the surfaces of the floor and bathroom fixtures–after all, this was Amanda’s house? Well, the experts in this trial say no. And it does seem odd that Amanda’s DNA would be somehow more abundant on her roommate Filomena’s floor than Filomena’s–which after all did not appear in Meredith’s blood found there. Only Amanda’s DNA was found in Meredith’s blood.
8. We know the break-in was faked because there was still so much jagged glass in the window frame that no one could have climbed through it without pushing some of that glass out of the way, or cutting themselves, or both. There’s a picture of this windowframe online at the Perugia Murder File website, included in a PowerPoint presentation by a poster known as “Kermit.”
9. Also the window was inaccessible from the ground outside. And the window was broken after the room was tossed, as shown by the fact that the glass was found on top of all the roommate’s belongings strewn around (not stolen, though).

OK. So how can anyone explain all of these inarguable facts? Tell me how else to understand them. As far as I can tell, this is the core of the prosecution’s case, and everything else–cartwheels and thongs and so on–is secondary at best, irrelevant at worst.

The defense doesn’t talk about this chain of evidence, their strategy seems to be to distract from it by any means available. That tells me that they can’t refute it. They can’t show that the footprints aren’t Raffaele’s and Amanda’s. They can’t show that Meredith’s body was never moved. They can’t show that Rudy Guede was a lone attacker. But friends and supporters of Amanda and her family, some of them apparently meaning well, can spin and misrepresent and generally obscure the simplicity of the factual evidence.

I can’t blame Amanda’s family for not wanting to connect the dots and see a painful picture. I also can’t blame them for fighting to defend her against a lynching in the press. But for crying out loud, a murder was committed and whoever did it should be accountable.

Very sad case.

http://egan.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/12/the-knox-trial-continued/