I have no idea what you are asking. Of course she was fighting back, anyone would be, but when you are dominated and have no chance, you don't show much of a fight.

You all want to see bruises on her hands from punching someone, more cuts then the ones that do exist on her hands I suppose?

What the hell is your point?

She was fighting back, but this doesn't mean she had much of a chance and was dominated.

Again, clarify your point if you wish to discuss since apparently you are implying I am contradicting myself somehow?

My point? This is the question you asked:

You stated she "violently fought him off."

This is not possible, because she didn't violently fight back.

So, discussing whether she could have been "dominated" does not pertain to the hypothetical you posed.

This is why I suggest you restate your question, especially now that you are arguing for a scenario that does not have Meredith "violently fighting him off."

LOL

Man, I could attack an 11-year old who had no chance....they could "Violently fight back" but still have no chance.

You are stretching it here, really. But I guess you have no reasonable argument to counter with.

At the point of confrontation Meredith could have "violently fought back" by kicking, screaming, punching, wrestling with Rudy.....at this point he dominates her.

Injecting the word "violently" into my structure of questioning does not mean anything other then simply being a word to sensationalize with what was obviously a "violent" scenario, and would certainly fit with our situation at hand.

Anything else?

When did Henry put forth a narrative, are you talking about the mega-mess? That didn't contain one as far as I remember.

What information about the break in from JREF are you looking for? The general opinion among the pro-innocence folks is that the break in was real and that Guede broke in. What needs to be proven?

To call what she had on her hands defensive wounds is overstating things -- she had a small cut on her thumb and two other small cuts. That is not at all what you'd expect nor is it what you find when you have similar single knife attacker situations.

Rudy was not a big guy. He was short (I believe 5'10") and skinny. He could not restrain both of Meredith's arms while also holding a knife.

Your strident trolling is to be commended.

The photo was taken hours after the shower. In that time she'd walked back to raff's then back to the cottage and they'd been standing around in the car park. Do you think it's possible it could have been windy considering where the cottage is positioned and what the car park overlooks?

shhhhhhhhh the adults are talking.

Wind gives you body order?

There is no way the girl in that picture took a shower four hours prior to that picture being taken.

No, except that my point still holds. Inserting "violently" into your question alters it in a material way to the point where removing it actually poses a different question.

You asked question "x" and are now discussing question "y" which precludes "x" from being true.

To be honest, if you are seeking to persuade anyone of anything, it would help to be more clear and remain on point. However, if that is not your goal, then you have nothing to worry about. I mean, talking in circles can be fun, right?

Curatolo was a professional witness who had testified in other murder trials. When questioned about the night of the murder he said he based his timings on buses that weren't running that night. That is enough to disqualify him.

The shop owner was interviewed in the days following the murder and was shown Amanda and Raf's picture and said they weren't there that morning. He came forward a year later with an unconvincing tale about Amanda being there that wasn't corroborated by the other person working there that day iirc. That's enough to question his testimony.

The guy that came forward about Rudy saw his picture in the paper and came forward and said he'd found Rudy mid-burglary and that Rudy pulled a knife on him as he was chasing him out. He'd called the police who told him to file a report but he never did. There's nothing about this incident that makes us question his credibility. The incident apparently took place 6 weeks or so before the murder so it's not like it had been years.

You keep saying this but you don't say why. The reality is you're wrong and I've laid out above why that is.

Source?

Source?

Remember you tried to lie about this two months ago and got busted but fun to embarrass you again.

Please quote these sections so we can flesh out the context and evaluate what was actually being said. Massei said it was possible and therefore probable that Raf gave Amanda a kitchen knife to carry as protection in her purse. Can we disqualify his entire report as well?

That's certainly convincing.

In both cases a second story entry point was accessed by breaking glass with a large rock. Do you see how that makes these break-ins similar? Do you understand the difference between similar and identical? You're lost.

1. Henry provided a narrative last month. The only "mega mess" coming from that was probably in your pants when you realized you had nothing to counter it with.

2. From JREF, I am looking for posts where this issue was decided - as in discussed along with supporting evidence. I appreciate that they all concluded "it happened," but correct me if I am wrong - JREF holds themselves to a standard beyond "hey, what do you think?"

I imagine the topic was introduced and analyzed competently and in good faith.

Or, are you telling me that did not happen?

She had cuts on her hands from the knife, period (you forgot the palm). Who the F are you to determine whether these are substantial enough or not? Did you examine the body?

Your theory suggests there were 3 people all of which were restraining her....so why did she have any cuts at all then?

He is an athletic basketball player and we've all seen the pictures man, he is not a small "skinny" guy. He clearly has an athletic cut and its documented the guy plays basketball.

For you to suggest he cannot hold both her wrists at the same time, especially after already probably hitting her in the face and slamming her head into the wall or ground means you are being completely illogical, and probably a complete vagina who has never fought at the same time.

I've held people down and restrained them while holding both their arms with one hand, and I have had this happen to me before as well. While neither were a violent crime scene, different times being a serious altercation and different times were simply horse play.

The point is though, that this is not even close to being impossible that Rudy did this to Meredith.

We are talking about a small, weak young girl here who was probably weakened more during the altercation.

Have you ever been punched in the face by someone, or fallen on you head when being wrestled to the ground?

Yea, sometimes you might take a hit which damages your consciousness, strength, and coherence and make it just ever so slightly hard to fight back.

LOL.

Ohh Henry

OK, please remove the word "violently" from all my line of questioning, because one obviously makes a conscious decision to either "fight back" in this situation, or "fight back VIOLENTLY" in this same scenario....which would completely change the situation.

Both are totally and completely different now, you are right. my bad.

It's in Amanda and Raf's appeals.

ETA: And the testimony itself was sourced two months ago proving it, donkey.

LOL he can tell just by looking at the picture people!!!

I've quoted it multiple times. We discussed it. WTF is wrong with you that you'd even pretend to now know what we are talking about.

I don't like the knife for defence narrative but it is not absurd. I think it is really low probability but at least it is a possible logical theory. Hellmann's reason is not.

Previously you said that Hellmann claims there is no fake burglary but that is not what he claims. He actually says that Rudy faking the burglary is an explanation for why it was faked so badly. That is to say Hellmann claims that Rudy knowing that a fake burglary would focus attention of the individuals who normally have access to the house that he set out and intentionally faked the burglary and intentionally did a bad job of it so that the police would know it was fake and suspect the residents. That is some multi-level thinking he assigns to Rudy.

Something that is common to most burglaries does not make it similar. Breaking glass with rock is not a unique signature.

Link? Post yours too. Let's post all three of ours and see how they measure up.

There are thousands of posts on the case there, I'm not going to build a case for you based on them but you're free to go there and read the threads. I'd recommend you should do that. Honestly the staged break in was the worst part of the prosecution case because there was no real evidence of it and it was a result of backwards reasoning.

Again there are thousands of posts there on the whole case, the threads are a good read. Go for it.

Hey, it's your question, not mine. You chose the words and you are welcome to continue doing so. However, framing the question properly (or not) is crucial to what actually is being discussed.

What we have been discussing (Rudy dominating Meredith) is different than what you were asking.

Link to you quoting that?

Spare me. You don't convict people based on possible, therefore probable. We're talking about the frickin' murder weapon here. The reality is that it's asinine to believe that knife was there for any reason at all

Henry, you're terrible at this. The reason I ask you to quote your other Hellman zingers is because you're always cherry picking and ignoring context. This is what he actually said, bolding mine.

So yeah you're either wrong or you're a liar. Let us know which one you are.


Wrong. There are obviously similarities in the events leading up to the murder that all point to Guede.

You are the one using JREF as an authority. If you are not competent to discuss the basis for their conclusion (that the break in actually happened) then you should be able to isolate and repost a convincing post from that site.

Otherwise:

1. You should stop offering JREF as an authority;

2. Admit that you do not understand the basis for their conclusion and that you are just taking their word for it.

Finally, as I have stated repeatedly, I am not going to do your work for you. If you can't provide the materials necessary to back up your claims, I will assume they don't exist and that you have just accepted conclusions that you can neither explain nor understand.

Again, if you are trying to convince us of something (other than that you are full of ****) you are failing miserably.