Amanda Knox Trial Evidence- Crime Scene Theory- Body Moved- Reports-links

Amanda Knox convicted of murder in Italian retrial - World News

Excerpt from NBC report: (Prosecutors argued that Kercher was killed in a sex game,) 

That Clears Amanda Knox-

BBC News - Kercher trial: How does DNA contamination occur?

  *Excerpt from report: This concern was not his alone. There have been claims that the initial evidence was handled using dirty gloves and that investigators entered the crime scene without protective clothing.

Midwest.com Associated press writer: Alessandra Rizzo

      http://mynorthwest.com/11/175444/Amanda-Knox-trial-suffocation-main-cause-of-death
 Excerpt from report: Forensic expert Gianaristide Norelli, a witness called by the Kercher family, said the main cause of Kercher's death was suffocation.

Court documents have said suffocation was caused by the hemorrhage following the neck wounds. But Norelli said suffocation was also aided "manually" by forcing the victim's mouth and nose shut and by strangling her.

The struggle was staged.

The girls body was moved into the bedroom from outside.

                           The knife wounds were post suffocation, not during suffocation. 

Probably to get blood. 

If Rudy Hermann Guede, admitted he was in the room with the girl, that night; why would he do that?

According to the police, he would have been in the bedroom with a dead girl.

  

Let's say he was in the room with a girl, but she wasn't Kercher. 

That would suggest that Kercher was outside of the apartment/house. 

The body was brought into the house and the struggle was staged to coincide with the arrival of Knox and Raffaele Sollecito .

It's not a matter of reasons or motives or extortion schemes. It is a matter of whether the body was moved into the house after death. 

  The answer is that it was.

 That clears Amanda Knox.

End of story.

     "It is clear from the study of available statements and publicized evidence, that the body was not the primary concern of the forensics investigators."
      It can be readily assumed that the girls body was brought into the apartment, from the outside, after death.
   The police are suspect in the movements of the girls body.
                         Opinion: Don Robbins Jan. 31-2014

A Real Letter To The President From An American-

  Dear Mr. President,

   Would you resign? Thank you.

Pictures- Lips Happy Valentines Day!- ZOMPIRES- ACTION RIDER!

ZOMPIRE Haiku-Zom/Goo- "Mutations" Love

"Blue Tree" abstract by Don Robbins

"Hi" ZOMPIRE picture

ZOMPIRE Haiku! "Mutatons" Zom-Goo Happy Valentines Day! (ZOMPIRE LOVE!)

Happy Valentines Day "Honey I Still Love You"

Send me a box of chocolates?
-I'll send you a box of chocolates.

Send me some roses too?
-I'll send a dozen roses, with kisses, just for you.

I waited all day for the Valentine!
I checked the mail but it never came-
I cared for you so much,
I thought you felt the same....

-Roses grow in heaven.
-They make chocolates there, in heaven, too;
-I send a Valentines Day card every year-
-I wander if they ever get to... honey I still love you.

"Happy Valentines Day."

Who Let The Men Into The Office? The Janitor did Not See Sandusky (After hours)

  The janitor was not on the floor, in the building on campus, when he said he saw Sandusky.
   I was on the floor with the woman and her child, before we walked over to the building where she worked. We were talking to her father before we left.
  I saw no janitor on that floor.
   
  When we got to her building, she went upstairs with her boy. I stayed down stairs. 
  I noticed that there were two men in the office: (This was after hours.)

The men in the office were wearing white shirts, with ties, black slacks.

I asked her if people were supposed to be in the building or offices. She said she didn't know.

She left to go home.

I asked security and they said to talk to them back at the other building. They were there to talk to the janitor.

I went back to the other building. 

The security had already talked to the janitor. 

The other janitors told me he saw something in that building.

The security told him they would look into it.

I asked them about the men in the other building.

They said they didn't think anyone was in the building, that if they were in the office that a janitor probably let them into the office.

 They checked but the janitor in that building did not let them in. 

Somebody did but security didn't know who.

 The janitor said he saw something but I think he saw men in the other building. (Not the men in the office but someone he thought was Sandusky.) Someone he was told was Sandusky.

I never saw the janitor after we went into the building together, earlier that evening.

The woman, the janitor, and myself went into the building at the same time.

I believe that someone asked the janitor to let the men into the office in the other building.

While he was there he saw a man who they told him was Sandusky.

 He did not see Sandusky in the building we went into together.

Diagram Of The Office Where Paterno Talked To The Witnesses After The 2001 Shower Room Incident

  This is the office that was in the building where the 2001 incident took place.

Where Are The Ethical Guidelines To Adequate Care? (Patients Rights Disapeared Under Obamacare)

  The policy you have is not the ethical guideline with respect to hospital treatment or care.
  Medicare is not a legal guideline with respect to the care you should receive when in a hospital for treatment and care.
   
  Making the statement that it was the policy you have, that dictated your care or whether you received care , is not true. Was not true.

  So where are the ethical guidelines to the care people receive in hospitals? Where are the rules that guarantee your treatment regardless of your policy?

  You have to understand that the level of guaranteed care that all Americans were guaranteed in hospital care, before Obamacare, is no longer the level of care you are guaranteed as a patient.

 Legally, and ethically, your care and treatment is now dictated by what is written into your policy.
 Basically, that means that if certain treatments, care, rehab, is not covered on your particular policy, then you might not get appropriate care, even if it means you could die.

In the cases where patients are not covered on their policies and could die from no care, the government has stated under Obamacare that the government will make the decision, concerning the particular patient. They tried to say, during the arguments before Obamacare was passed, that the care would be ordered on each case. That reviews would be made to ensure that each patient got fair treatment. (Instead of doctors making the decision, internally, in the hospitals that were treating the patients.)
  
  One of the first acts in those situations by Obamacare agents, was to make the decisions across the board without even reviewing one patients file. 

  Obamacare does not give affordable-quality, health care to individuals, the exact opposite is true.

  Obamacare has drastically harmed your families chances of guaranteed quality health care and taken rights away from you to protect your health care interests within the legal framework of heath care guidelines. 

Considering the fact that there are no guidelines left that are based on legal rights of the  patients.

 That is exactly the opposite of what people thought Obamacare was about, in the first place.

 As All the Rest
Sleepwalker
Blue Ruin
Wish I was Here
Hellion
Love Is Strange
Skeleton Twins
A Most Wanted Man
Only Lovers Left Alive
Gods Pocket
Under The Electric Sky
Camp X-Ray
Life After Beth

Research- Penn State Case- Links To Posts- Video links- Accounts Of 2001 Incident

On Penn State Cases- Videos -Links- Eye Witness Accounts

The Set Up PSU

The Evidence 2001 ( Why Schultz and Curley Are Not Guilty) 22 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/10/984/

“Stingray Boy” Penn State University Actor (Shower Room 2000) 11 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/1254/

Sandusky- Why He’s Not Guilty-Penn State case “False Evidence” 11 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/06/22/www-sandusky-com/

“The Actual Targets” 2001 Information (The Lie) .PSU 9 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/27/the-actual-targets-psu-falseified/

Source Of The 2001 Information- “They Knew” And What they didn’t Know 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/29/1300/

Jerry Sandusky Should Get A Pardon- Charges of Corruption Should Be Filed 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/31/jerry-sandusky-should-get-a-pardon-charges-of-corruption-should-be-filed/

“Stingray Boy Penn State University Actor” (Shower Room 2000) 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/stingray-boy-penn-state-university-actor-shower-room-2000/

The Janitor Was Trickedhttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/the-janitor-was-tricked-into-believing-it-was-sandusky-in-2000/

Videos:

Videos: What I Said About: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LlG2ToO_bQ

The Made Up Story of 2001:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmIqwXygVc

WATCH!- ▶ Penn State Was Set Up *Evidence 2001 – YouTube.

▶ Penn State Was Set Up! *Evidence 2001 – YouTube

New Video. Two complete hours. (How they framed Sandusky)

 

From eye witness account. Penn State Evidence 2001- Explains in Audio format the falsifying of evidence used to accuse Penn State of a cover up.

Two hours in length. Covers corruption in Investigations and Court case.

*Must listen for supporters of Penn State.

Proof Sandusky was framed!

Explains truth about secret falsified evidence from 2001.

via ▶ Penn State Was Set Up *Evidence 2001 – YouTube.

Videos: What I Said About: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LlG2ToO_bQ

The Made Up Story of 2001:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmIqwXygVc

         “ (Shower Room 2000) “

Did Stingray boy and the actors deceive people at Penn State to test them on whether they would report incidents that they saw that might be suspected child abuse? (Yes)
Was the janitor tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky preform a sexual act in the shower room in 2000?
The answer is yes.
Knowing this leads one to believe that the conspiracy against Jerry Sandusky, coach Paterno, and Penn State officials, started sometime before the fake shower room incident of 2000, where the janitor was tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky licking the crotch area of a child, when in fact it was actors portraying Sandusky. (Stingray Boy)
They called the testimony credible in court when the janitor came forth to say that he saw a man in the shower room with a child. And then gave graphic details of the incident.
Jerry Sandusky to take the heat for it.
(A fabricated incident to test the worker like a lab rat, morally speaking.) A made up story.
A man who looks like a child. A man that looks like Sandusky. Putting on a sexually charged act for the janitor to witness.
Enough for the jury to suspect Penn State of a cover up. Or Sandusky of child abuse.

“Stingray Boy” Penn State University Actor” (Shower Room 2000).

In the question of deception: Did Stingray boy and the actors deceive people at Penn State to test them on whether they would report incidents that they saw that might be suspected child abuse? Was the janitor tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky preform a sexual act in the shower room in 2000? The answer is yes. They called the testimony credible in court when the janitor came forth to say that he saw a man in the shower room with a child. And then gave graphic details of the incident. And there is poor Jerry Sandusky to take the heat for it. A fabricated incident to test the worker like a lab rat, morally speaking. A made up story. A man who looks like a child and a man that looks like Sandusky putting on an act for the janitor to witness. Enough for the jury to suspect Penn State of a cover up. Or Sandusky of child abuse.

KELLY KNEW

They knew that the 2001 information, they obtained, was secret. No one knew that they had the information. They knew no one was aware that they had the information.

What they didn’t know was that there was only one source for the information. They had to have obtained the 2001 information from that source. That source had to have obtained the 2001 information from Paterno. Probably out of the logbook in his house, without his knowledge. They also didn’t know that the 2001 information had similarities with the 2002 shower room incident but it was actually a separate incident. *(I was a witness to the 2001 incident that happened in the locker room at 9:30 in the morning. )

* This is what Linda Kelly believed( Because of the information they had.) Linda Kelly: Attorney General Pennsylvania:  

1. She believed that she knew  the truth about the 2001 incident and knew that Jerry Sandusky molested a child in the shower room.
 

2.  She believed that McQueary told Paterno and later recounted the incident with Schultz and Curley.

3. So, she accused Jerry Sandusky with abuse and the officials with cover up of  information and failing to report child abuse.(Quote- un- Quote: The Penn State Child Abuse Failing to Report Scandal.)

Spanier Trial

Note* Ex President Spanier has launched counter suit of claim against the investigators (Freeh). School claims defamation/slander! (Here is a description of some of the evidence that was falsified.)

The evidence from 2001 that proved that there was a 2001 shower room incident, was a log entry written by Paterno in his office. He wrote the entry in his logbook shortly after the incident. (There was an incident but it wasn’t the 2002 Sandusky/McQueary incident.)
The incident was not officially investigated. It was not considered a suspicious act with respect to the possibility of child abuse.
The prosecutors stated that the 2002 incident was actually in 2001. They extracted information from the 2001 incident and said that it applied to the Sandusky incident but it didn’t. (They knew it didn’t.)

They charged Penn State University officials with covering information that they knew had nothing to do with Sandusky or suspected child abuse.

The 2001 shower room information was falsified. The fact was, that, the information used was not in any way connected to the Sandusky incident.http://www.ydr.com/crime/ci_23642294/ex-penn-state-president-graham-spanier-files-libel

The 2001 information was used to make a claim that the 2002 incident, reported about Sandusky, by McQueary , was actually in 2002. The claimants knew the information they received from secret sources was tainted. Then, later falsified and used as evidence. This is the very information that the NCAA claimed that officials covered.

The 2001 information was later used as evidence in court. It had been forged and falsified.

PSU CoP

 OUT.

  I’m sure that after the award in the Sandusky case, (To witness 5) people who have read what I said about the evidence in 2001, would think , “now what do you have to say about it Don?” Well, I say the same thing I did. Sandusky didn’t do it.
 The school officials who signed over the settlement should be fired. The laws that are unconstitutional should be thrown out of the state employees regulations. This farce of the law and the corruption, greed and self serving interests that turned the court into a witch hunt should not be allowed to be used as a precedent for other cases.http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/17/justice/penn-state-sandusky-victim-settlement/
The Supreme Court of the United States should throw out the whole case and disallow the State system to maintain separate laws for separate institutions and employees of those separate, but not equal, entities. ( Especially in higher education.)
And an independent investigation into the evidence from 2001 should be conducted by the Federal authorities. The U.S. Supreme Court should call for a
review of the case, from the beginning.
The information from 2001 should be reviewed first with respect to falsifying the evidence. And the matter of revealing the source of the 2001 evidence, (information) should be immediately called for.
That’s a good start.
The laws, that the NCAA cited, concerning their accusations that PSU officials failed to report child abuse, should be sheltered from exploitation of power.

The 2010 presentiment was false.      The 2010 presentiment by the Grand Jury was false.

In December 2010, assistant coach Mike McQueary appeared before the grand jury looking into the Victim 1 case. The presentment states that on March 1, 2002, at 9:30 PM, McQueary entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building at Penn State and heard what he believed to be the sounds of sexual activity coming from the shower. He looked in the shower and “saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.”[26][27] Further investigation revealed that the correct date of the incident was actually February 9, 2001.[28]
The sound effects came from the shower room incident in 2001.
McQueary testified that the prosecutors said he heard and saw a sexual assault, but that he never told them that.

Sources: Wikipedia Online (Don Robbins) -Eye Witness 2001.

They took information from an incident that happened a year before McQueary said that he reported seeing Sandusky and said that it had to do with him, and it didn’t. (In 2001)

The incident in 2001 happened. But, it didn’t include Sandusky. The investigators for Freeh and Kelly only said that it did. It didn’t. They lied and said it did but it didn’t. No one ever knew. No one checked the source of the 2001 incident. The officials were accused of covering information that had nothing to do with Sandusky.

On Penn State Cases- Videos -Links- Eye Witness Accounts

The Set Up PSU

The Evidence 2001 ( Why Schultz and Curley Are Not Guilty) 22 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/10/984/

“Stingray Boy” Penn State University Actor (Shower Room 2000) 11 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/1254/

Sandusky- Why He’s Not Guilty-Penn State case “False Evidence” 11 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/06/22/www-sandusky-com/

“The Actual Targets” 2001 Information (The Lie) .PSU 9 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/27/the-actual-targets-psu-falseified/

Source Of The 2001 Information- “They Knew” And What they didn’t Know 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/29/1300/

Jerry Sandusky Should Get A Pardon- Charges of Corruption Should Be Filed 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/31/jerry-sandusky-should-get-a-pardon-charges-of-corruption-should-be-filed/

“Stingray Boy Penn State University Actor” (Shower Room 2000) 8 viewshttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/stingray-boy-penn-state-university-actor-shower-room-2000/

The Janitor Was Trickedhttp://donrobbinsblog.com/2013/08/28/the-janitor-was-tricked-into-believing-it-was-sandusky-in-2000/

Videos:

Videos: What I Said About: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LlG2ToO_bQ

The Made Up Story of 2001:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmIqwXygVc

WATCH!- ▶ Penn State Was Set Up *Evidence 2001 – YouTube.

▶ Penn State Was Set Up! *Evidence 2001 – YouTube

New Video. Two complete hours. (How they framed Sandusky)

 

From eye witness account. Penn State Evidence 2001- Explains in Audio format the falsifying of evidence used to accuse Penn State of a cover up.

Two hours in length. Covers corruption in Investigations and Court case.

*Must listen for supporters of Penn State.

Proof Sandusky was framed!

Explains truth about secret falsified evidence from 2001.

via ▶ Penn State Was Set Up *Evidence 2001 – YouTube.

Videos: What I Said About: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LlG2ToO_bQ

The Made Up Story of 2001:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFmIqwXygVc

         “ (Shower Room 2000) “

Did Stingray boy and the actors deceive people at Penn State to test them on whether they would report incidents that they saw that might be suspected child abuse? (Yes)
Was the janitor tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky preform a sexual act in the shower room in 2000?
The answer is yes.
Knowing this leads one to believe that the conspiracy against Jerry Sandusky, coach Paterno, and Penn State officials, started sometime before the fake shower room incident of 2000, where the janitor was tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky licking the crotch area of a child, when in fact it was actors portraying Sandusky. (Stingray Boy)
They called the testimony credible in court when the janitor came forth to say that he saw a man in the shower room with a child. And then gave graphic details of the incident.
Jerry Sandusky to take the heat for it.
(A fabricated incident to test the worker like a lab rat, morally speaking.) A made up story.
A man who looks like a child. A man that looks like Sandusky. Putting on a sexually charged act for the janitor to witness.
Enough for the jury to suspect Penn State of a cover up. Or Sandusky of child abuse.

“Stingray Boy” Penn State University Actor” (Shower Room 2000).

In the question of deception: Did Stingray boy and the actors deceive people at Penn State to test them on whether they would report incidents that they saw that might be suspected child abuse? Was the janitor tricked into believing that he saw Sandusky preform a sexual act in the shower room in 2000? The answer is yes. They called the testimony credible in court when the janitor came forth to say that he saw a man in the shower room with a child. And then gave graphic details of the incident. And there is poor Jerry Sandusky to take the heat for it. A fabricated incident to test the worker like a lab rat, morally speaking. A made up story. A man who looks like a child and a man that looks like Sandusky putting on an act for the janitor to witness. Enough for the jury to suspect Penn State of a cover up. Or Sandusky of child abuse.

KELLY KNEW

They knew that the 2001 information, they obtained, was secret. No one knew that they had the information. They knew no one was aware that they had the information.

What they didn’t know was that there was only one source for the information. They had to have obtained the 2001 information from that source. That source had to have obtained the 2001 information from Paterno. Probably out of the logbook in his house, without his knowledge. They also didn’t know that the 2001 information had similarities with the 2002 shower room incident but it was actually a separate incident. *(I was a witness to the 2001 incident that happened in the locker room at 9:30 in the morning. )

* This is what Linda Kelly believed( Because of the information they had.) Linda Kelly: Attorney General Pennsylvania:  

1. She believed that she knew  the truth about the 2001 incident and knew that Jerry Sandusky molested a child in the shower room.
 

2.  She believed that McQueary told Paterno and later recounted the incident with Schultz and Curley.

3. So, she accused Jerry Sandusky with abuse and the officials with cover up of  information and failing to report child abuse.(Quote- un- Quote: The Penn State Child Abuse Failing to Report Scandal.)

Spanier Trial

Note* Ex President Spanier has launched counter suit of claim against the investigators (Freeh). School claims defamation/slander! (Here is a description of some of the evidence that was falsified.)

The evidence from 2001 that proved that there was a 2001 shower room incident, was a log entry written by Paterno in his office. He wrote the entry in his logbook shortly after the incident. (There was an incident but it wasn’t the 2002 Sandusky/McQueary incident.)
The incident was not officially investigated. It was not considered a suspicious act with respect to the possibility of child abuse.
The prosecutors stated that the 2002 incident was actually in 2001. They extracted information from the 2001 incident and said that it applied to the Sandusky incident but it didn’t. (They knew it didn’t.)

They charged Penn State University officials with covering information that they knew had nothing to do with Sandusky or suspected child abuse.

The 2001 shower room information was falsified. The fact was, that, the information used was not in any way connected to the Sandusky incident.http://www.ydr.com/crime/ci_23642294/ex-penn-state-president-graham-spanier-files-libel

The 2001 information was used to make a claim that the 2002 incident, reported about Sandusky, by McQueary , was actually in 2002. The claimants knew the information they received from secret sources was tainted. Then, later falsified and used as evidence. This is the very information that the NCAA claimed that officials covered.

The 2001 information was later used as evidence in court. It had been forged and falsified.

PSU CoP

 OUT.

  I’m sure that after the award in the Sandusky case, (To witness 5) people who have read what I said about the evidence in 2001, would think , “now what do you have to say about it Don?” Well, I say the same thing I did. Sandusky didn’t do it.
 The school officials who signed over the settlement should be fired. The laws that are unconstitutional should be thrown out of the state employees regulations. This farce of the law and the corruption, greed and self serving interests that turned the court into a witch hunt should not be allowed to be used as a precedent for other cases.http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/17/justice/penn-state-sandusky-victim-settlement/
The Supreme Court of the United States should throw out the whole case and disallow the State system to maintain separate laws for separate institutions and employees of those separate, but not equal, entities. ( Especially in higher education.)
And an independent investigation into the evidence from 2001 should be conducted by the Federal authorities. The U.S. Supreme Court should call for a
review of the case, from the beginning.
The information from 2001 should be reviewed first with respect to falsifying the evidence. And the matter of revealing the source of the 2001 evidence, (information) should be immediately called for.
That’s a good start.
The laws, that the NCAA cited, concerning their accusations that PSU officials failed to report child abuse, should be sheltered from exploitation of power.

The 2010 presentiment was false.      The 2010 presentiment by the Grand Jury was false.

In December 2010, assistant coach Mike McQueary appeared before the grand jury looking into the Victim 1 case. The presentment states that on March 1, 2002, at 9:30 PM, McQueary entered the locker room at the Lasch Football Building at Penn State and heard what he believed to be the sounds of sexual activity coming from the shower. He looked in the shower and “saw a naked boy, Victim 2, whose age he estimated to be ten years, with his hands up against the wall, being subjected to anal intercourse by a naked Sandusky.”[26][27] Further investigation revealed that the correct date of the incident was actually February 9, 2001.[28]
The sound effects came from the shower room incident in 2001.
McQueary testified that the prosecutors said he heard and saw a sexual assault, but that he never told them that.

Sources: Wikipedia Online (Don Robbins) -Eye Witness 2001.

They took information from an incident that happened a year before McQueary said that he reported seeing Sandusky and said that it had to do with him, and it didn’t. (In 2001)

The incident in 2001 happened. But, it didn’t include Sandusky. The investigators for Freeh and Kelly only said that it did. It didn’t. They lied and said it did but it didn’t. No one ever knew. No one checked the source of the 2001 incident. The officials were accused of covering information that had nothing to do with Sandusky.