Continuation Part Eight: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[Bill Williams]

Andrea Vogt excerpt;

"The harsh Vecchiotti-Conti review begins on page 195 of Nencini’s report. The possibility of contamination so hotly debated by consultants and made credible to the point of being included in the independent experts’ written report actually “has no significance” in the criminal trial, he wrote, and was “misleading.”
He categorically rules out contamination. Even in the case of the bra clasp catalogued by police but only collected 46 days later, had Sollecito’s DNA been fruit of contamination it would have been found elsewhere and on other objects taken from the scene that day, such as on Meredith’s blue sweatshirt where Guede’s DNA was found, he wrote, not just on the tiny hook of the bra clasp. He notes records show there were no other items containing Sollecito’s DNA handled that day, ruling out making laboratory contamination. Nencini accepts there may have been professional lapses on part of the forensic police, but determines that none of those oversights were so grave as to have negatively impacted the forensic analysis with regard to the case. The absence of contamination is also proven by the records of negative and positive controls performed by much-maligned forensic biologist Patrizia Stefanoni. Those controls were done and had been referred to in court, but Vecchiotti and Conti overlooked this, claiming there was no record of them."
Highlite 1 - Wow. Contaminated evidence isn't relevant in a criminal trial.

Highlite 2 - So more DNA findings of Sollecito in the murder room, would be more indicative of contamination, and less indicative of his presence and participation in the murder? Rudy Guede's DNA must therefore all be the result of contamination.

Highlite 3 - So C &V are mistaken, in that Stefanoni did comply with all of their requests for data? IS that possibly true in any conceivable way, no matter how you twist up the words?

This is stunning. Highlite #2 is the truly stunning.... Sollecito is damned if his DNA is found and damned if it isn't.

Massei's judgment is Nobel Prize potential by comparison. Massei actually discusses four, not one but four, of the potential routes of contamination for the bra-clasp. Does Nencini discuss ANY of them?

1. That Stefanoni cannot rule out she contaminated the hooks when she picked up the clasp with obviously dirty gloves.

2. That the simple act of replacing the bra-clasp on the floor after examining it by hand is a potential for contamination

3. That members of the 118 medical team had access to Meredith's bedroom on Nov 2 (the ones who uncovered Meredith's body), and took no anti-contamination precautions.

Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni
stated that everyone who entered wore gloves and shoe-covers except for the
personnel from 118, who, even without the precaution of shoe-covers and gloves
could not have contaminated the clasp, it is observed, since it was well-hidden and,
one might say, protected by Meredith's body and by the pillow under which it was
found.​

I'm not sure why, then, everyone else simply dispensed with the protective gear!? Also, I'm also quite sure that when Stefanoni replaced the clasp on to the floor she carefully avoided the places the 118 team had contaminated.

4. I forget #4..... it's upthread.​

 

[Grinder]

Can someone go through those graphs point by point, and in non technical language for the DNA-challenged.

People say this is important, and that it is proof of fraud, but I for one do not have the chops to interpret the data.

I've asked for months that some of the people here that are experts get together and write a guide for use in court.

I wish that Planigale, Diocletus, Kaosium, and Chris (use little common words ) would write a paper on this case focusing on just three or four pieces of evidence and some basic mistakes in the lab.

I would describe a proper LCN lab, compare it to the Rome lab and explain how easy LCN is to spread by mere touch. IIRC the NY lab used for one of the first LCN used in court and how it was set up, tested and how long that took.

It is important for people to understand that LCN isn't the same as regular DNA in that it can't be seen first. Whereas anyone can understand that if semen, blood or saliva is found in a suspicious location identifying its owner is powerful evidence, finding a microscopic particle of DNA isn't necessarily part of any crime.

So an over view of DNA and LCN. An overview of procedure and protocol in all aspects of collection, transport and testing (storage).

An explanation of how forensic DNA has developed and the value of it in crime work as well as the dangers.

Then go into some detail (footnotes for scientists) of what was wrong with the specific pieces of evidence in this case and showing pieces that were done correctly.

If I forgot an expert it was not intentional.

 

[Bill Williams]

Can someone go through those graphs point by point, and in non technical language for the DNA-challenged.

People say this is important, and that it is proof of fraud, but I for one do not have the chops to interpret the data.

I've asked for months that some of the people here that are experts get together and write a guide for use in court.

I wish that Planigale, Diocletus, Kaosium, and Chris (use little common words ) would write a paper on this case focusing on just three or four pieces of evidence and some basic mistakes in the lab.

This is the start of a beautiful friendship..... just saying.

 

[Dan O.]

I have 2 open theories for how the DNA got on the bra clasp. The first is that Meredith had gotten the DNA from several boys, including Raffaele, under her finger nail and then transferred that to the one clasp hook before showering and cleaning her nails that morning. The second Is the deliberate contamination of the one hook from an object takes from the dirty prison cell that was presumed to have Raffaele's DNA but also contained DNA from other inmates or guards.

Can anyone else think of other possibilities that account for multiple male profiles being found on the one hook and nothing but Meredith on the other?

 

[Bill Williams]

But there is more, Nencini writes.

The decision not to test Trace “I” of DNA that was later revealed to be a trace of Amanda Knox’s DNA on the handle of the kitchen knife was an autonomous decision of the two experts that was communicated verbally to the consultants, but was not a joint decision of all the forensic consultants, as the experts suggested. Court records show the Kercher family and prosecution’s forensic consultants all maintained in September 2011 that the technology existed to trace the small trace and requested that it be done. That Professor Vecchiotti convicingly and repeatedly said it could not be tested was “clearly in error.” The Nencini court went ahead with the testing, and the RIS in Rome were able to get a reliable result, following all double amplification requirements and international protocols. Nencini notes that RIS officials as well as other consultants testified that the kit for identifying such a small trace of DNA was available on the Italian market back in 2011, but they were ignored. The trace should have been tested, Nencini wrote, and by reporting that it was impossible to do so, the experts contributed to an error of judgement by the presiding magistrate, whose ruling was eventually tossed. Nencini considers several pages of statistical and genetic analysis made by various consultants in both the first and second appeals. On page 221, he writes that “the behavior of Vecchiotti was “censurable” because before providing an imprecise report in a trial, she should have requested the controls documentation from the forensic police and only in the case of that data not being provided, come to the conclusions that she did.

This is what I don't get.....

The ISC presumably tossed Hellmann's verdict because of claims like this, that Hellmann had abdicated his judicial responsibility to the experts. Acc. to the ISC independent experts are to be the tail, and Hellmann is the dog and the tail should not wag the dog.

What Andrea Vogt misses, is that even if the ISC's reasoning is sound on this point and worthy of tossing Hellmann.....

..... what eventually was found on 36i? Should not Nencini be saying that eventual solution to the mystery of 36i is that Hellmann got the right result for the wrong reason?

On that other matter - what does Andrea Vogt say about Nencini finding female Y-Haplotypes on the clasp?

 

[Bill Williams]

I have 2 open theories for how the DNA got on the bra clasp. The first is that Meredith had gotten the DNA from several boys, including Raffaele, under her finger nail and then transferred that to the one clasp hook before showering and cleaning her nails that morning. The second Is the deliberate contamination of the one hook from an object takes from the dirty prison cell that was presumed to have Raffaele's DNA but also contained DNA from other inmates or guards.

Can anyone else think of other possibilities that account for multiple male profiles being found on the one hook and nothing but Meredith on the other?

The 118 medical team which uncovered Meredith's body on Nov 2 did not wear protective clothing or shoes.

Maybe the extra Y-Haplotypes are of the male doctor and female nurse who were there. Even if (as Napoleoni ludicrously assures Massei) the clasp may have been under Meredith's body, when Stefanoni replaced the clasp to the floor on 18 Dec, she replaced it on the spot contaminated 47 days earlier.

 

[Grinder]

I have 2 open theories for how the DNA got on the bra clasp. The first is that Meredith had gotten the DNA from several boys, including Raffaele, under her finger nail and then transferred that to the one clasp hook before showering and cleaning her nails that morning. The second Is the deliberate contamination of the one hook from an object takes from the dirty prison cell that was presumed to have Raffaele's DNA but also contained DNA from other inmates or guards.

Can anyone else think of other possibilities that account for multiple male profiles being found on the one hook and nothing but Meredith on the other?

The clasp could have been handled by people in the room between Nov. 4 and Dec. 18. IIRC the detectives were in there tossing the place and may not always have worn gloves.

I'm not sure how much of Raf's is there but perhaps he dried his hands on a towel that Meredith used later or he transferred a little to her cheek with a hello kiss.

 

[carbonjam72]

Bra Clasp contamination possibility, per Dr Gill of the UK on the BBC

I have 2 open theories for how the DNA got on the bra clasp. The first is that Meredith had gotten the DNA from several boys, including Raffaele, under her finger nail and then transferred that to the one clasp hook before showering and cleaning her nails that morning. The second Is the deliberate contamination of the one hook from an object takes from the dirty prison cell that was presumed to have Raffaele's DNA but also contained DNA from other inmates or guards.

Can anyone else think of other possibilities that account for multiple male profiles being found on the one hook and nothing but Meredith on the other?

I don't believe in the idea of crime scene contamination by planting evidence, because it seems like the quality of the DNA matches is too tenuous. I think gaming the results in the lab, possibly including willfully induced environmental contamination, is more likely. But this is where the DNA experts on the site could really help us out.
But as for another route for contamination on site, here's something from the BBC and Dr Peter Gill, UK DNA expert.

In a radio program broadcast, I think around the same time as the inexplicably biased BBC documentary, "Is Amanda Knox Guilty" by the same Andrea Vogt over whose work we now marvel, that BBC reporter interviewed Dr Peter Gill, the UK expert in crimes scene DNA.

Dr Gill was asked if guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt against Amanda and Rafaele, and the answer was of course, 'absolutely not'.

Dr Gill suggested that Rafaele may have touched the door handle to Meredith's room when they were first checking to see if she was there and asleep. He mentioned that the forensic team were wearing latex gloves that were 'good at picking up DNA', and so there might have been "innocent transfer" of the DNA, meaning contamination. (He also pointed to shipping and handling of the samples).

The BBC reporter than went back and asked a member of the Italian police (some guy I'm not sure who) if they had tested the outside door handle to Meredith's room for DNA, and he said something like, "No, the crime was on the inside of the room, why would we test the outside door handle".
Same police guy also said they didn't need to test the semen stain, because it might have led their investigation off on a completely wrong direction (not an exact quote, but in the ball park.)

Here's a quote from BBC magazine that is incorporating the quotes from Dr Gill in the BBC Radio program. Here's also the link:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26338637

"From the DNA evidence he's seen, Gill says the case against the pair has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt."

 

[Chris_Halkides]

definitions of T(lag) may vary from one study to another

From Chris' blog:

A 2003 study by Chen et al. (J. Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 18, 41-46) determined a value of t(lag), namely 81.9 ± 17.4 minutes, with a range of 37.1 to 117.8 minutes. The authors described the test meal: “The egg [one yolk and two whites] was ingested with two slices of white bread coated with 7 g of margarine and 8 g of grape jelly, followed by 150mL water.” A paper on gastric emptying times (Hellmig et al., "Gastric emptying time of fluids and solids in healthy subjects determined by 13C breath tests: influence of age, sex and body mass index" Volume 21, Issue 12, pages 1832–1838, Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, December 2006), was published in the Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, which is peer-reviewed. Other articles cited this paper at least 25 times. These workers described their test meal: “After addition of 50 mL of low-fat milk, the egg was scrambled and fried in a pan. The solid test meal was completed by a piece of brown bread (50 g) and butter (20 g).” They showed that t(lag) for a solid meal did not follow a normal distribution. The median time was 82 minutes, with the 25% percentile at 66 min. and the 75% percentile at 102 min. Out of 82 subjects (Figure 1D), the longest value was 200 minutes, and the next longest was 170 minutes (each value corresponded to a single individual).​

You see that the 82 minute median time you use is from this study.

If math is the same here as whatever planet you're on 200 minutes equals 3 hours and 20 minutes. The test meal is not the fatty meal Meredith ate. The volume of the meal is much less than the 500 ml.

If Meredith ate at 8 which is certainly possible then even the 75% puts the time at 9:42.

ETA _ From your Colorado favorite:

The rate of gastric emptying is strongly influenced by both volume and composition of gastric contents, which makes considerable sense. Consider three examples of something you might ingest and try to anticipate which rate of gastric emptying would be most appropriate:

When interpreting their results, it is important to use the same definition of T(lag) that the authors used. I wrote a comment about this issue some time ago.

 

[GWCarver]

Innocent or they weren't there mean exactly the same thing. You are stuck in circular reasoning (using a polite word).

Of course the classic life insurance just taken out or the will changed a day before the "accidental" death are suspicious. Of course if there is a clear motive in any crime it makes the case easier but without evidence motive isn't enough and with enough evidence motive isn't needed.

No matter how this murder came down it didn't make sense or need a motive.

They didn't prove guilt BRD and that's all that matters.

Hey Grinder, do you realize you attributed something to me I didn't say, and now you are saying I'm engaging in circular reasoning - or worse - because I pointed it out? I don't think "they are innocent" and "they weren't there" mean the same thing in the context of what we were discussing, which was whether or not a scream would have been motive for Amanda and Raffaele to kill Meredith (which you suggested), the same as it would have been for Guede. Feel free to point out my "circular reasoning", but do me a favor and just use what I actually said, not what you substituted.

I think you just like to argue and are reluctant to admit you made a mistake. Saying they were not in the cottage negates Amanda's coerced statements, something just saying they are innocent doesn't necessarily do, IMO.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

I thought this case could not get more absurd, but I was wrong.

So Judge Nencini knows more about DNA forensics that Professors Conti and Vecchiotti do? And Andrea Vogt just reports this unjust vituperation as if it were true? Her fecklessness is exceeded only by her hatefulness against Knox and Sollecito, and that is going a ways.

 

[Anode]

I don't believe in the idea of crime scene contamination by planting evidence, because it seems like the quality of the DNA matches is too tenuous. I think gaming the results in the lab, possibly including willfully induced environmental contamination,
is more likely. But this is where the DNA experts on the site could really help us out.

But as for another route for contamination on site, here's something from the BBC and Dr Peter Gill, UK DNA expert.

In a radio program broadcast, I think around the same time as the inexplicably biased BBC documentary, "Is Amanda Knox Guilty" by the same Andrea Vogt over whose work we now marvel, that BBC reporter interviewed Dr Peter Gill, the UK expert in crimes scene DNA.

Dr Gill was asked if guilt had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt against Amanda and Rafaele, and the answer was of course, 'absolutely not'.

Dr Gill suggested that Rafaele may have touched the door handle to Meredith's room when they were first checking to see if she was there and asleep. He mentioned that the forensic team were wearing latex gloves that were 'good at picking up DNA', and so there might have been "innocent transfer" of the DNA, meaning contamination. (He also pointed to shipping and handling of the samples).

The BBC reporter than went back and asked a member of the Italian police (some guy I'm not sure who) if they had tested the outside door handle to Meredith's room for DNA, and he said something like, "No, the crime was on the inside of the room, why would we test the outside door handle".
Same police guy also said they didn't need to test the semen stain, because it might have led their investigation off on a completely wrong direction (not an exact quote, but in the ball park.)

Here's a quote from BBC magazine that is incorporating the quotes from Dr Gill in the BBC Radio program. Here's also the link:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26338637

"From the DNA evidence he's seen, Gill says the case against the pair has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt."

Tell that to everyone who claims that AK's DNA in the hall and bathroom prove she is guilty. The cop says the murder happened in the room, why should anything outside the room matter? SMDH

And I interpret that last quote as: "we didn't want any evidence that might steer us away from AK and RS." Nice...

 

[Bill Williams]

So Judge Nencini knows more about DNA forensics that Professors Conti and Vecchiotti do? And Andrea Vogt just reports this unjust vituperation as if it were true? Her fecklessness is exceeded only by her hatefulness against Knox and Sollecito, and that is going a ways.

I've been resisting caving in to the sentiment that since March 2013, this has not been about the evidence.

I mean, look how many pages of this "continuation" are comprised of Gastric Emptying talk.

Nencini has written a motivations report which would not pass a Biology 101 class at any university. His words about DNA and forensics in general are beyond ludicrous.

So I am considering NOT engaging in any thread which discusses the evidence any more. The evidence is clear - Knox and Sollecito did not do this.

The "evidence" now is that Italy's judiciary wants to move Rudy Guede out of the murder room - despite his own forensics there and inside the victim. Nencini moves Rudy well away from the dirty deed.

Why?

We've come a long way from Massei's 2010 report which, even in convicting Knox and Sollecito, say that this is a crime of Rudy's lust, and Rudy's lust alone.

 

[acbytesla]

This isn't betting and you can't add these things or you are doing reverse osmosis (osmotic). Either they could have been at the cottage at TOD or not. Just like the ILE can't make 3 compatibles into a match the defense can't make 3 improbables into an alibi.

It really isn't a matter of that. All the available evidence points to an early TOD in the 9 o'clock hour but Rudy's own statements peg the TOD to be 9:30.
Considering that the digestion evidence shows the TOD the earlier being the most likely, it just seems the most likely. That said, I've just weighted Rudy's own testimony the highest in terms of reliability keeping mind the other evidence. If Rudy had never said the TOD was 9:30, It would be a straight line from say 9:05 diminishing all the way to 10:00 PM.

I get what you're saying that it is an "osmotic" way of thinking about it and none of it proves the time conclusively.

However, keeping in mind all the evidence that points to a probable time of death, it all points earlier rather than later and Rudy alone actually sets a real time. None of the "ear witnesses" actually set a time that could actually be possible, so why not value Rudy's testimony the highest?

 

[Samson]

It really isn't a matter of that. All the available evidence points to an early TOD in the 9 o'clock hour but Rudy's own statements peg the TOD to be 9:30.
Considering that the digestion evidence shows the TOD the earlier being the most likely, it just seems the most likely. That said, I've just weighted Rudy's own testimony the highest in terms of reliability keeping mind the other evidence. If Rudy had never said the TOD was 9:30, It would be a straight line from say 9:05 diminishing all the way to 10:00 PM.

I get what you're saying that it is an "osmotic" way of thinking about it and none of it proves the time conclusively.

However, keeping in mind all the evidence that points to a probable time of death, it all points earlier rather than later and Rudy alone actually sets a real time. None of the "ear witnesses" actually set a time that could actually be possible, so why not value Rudy's testimony the highest?

Maybe Rudy's Skype call and interrogation is the cleanest testimony to interpret

Amanda wasn't there, (she probably has an alibi)
9 30 scream (might have been heard)
She stole the money (so he could construct a scenario about a real item that would be discovered)
Someone with brown hair - (he knows Raffaele is in custody but does not name him)
Then later Biscotti "he did not name anyone because there is no one to name". (Don't burn your bridges in case an alibi is discovered like Lumumba's).

This guy is not plain dumb, and neither are the American public if something is configured and presented in simple terms.

 

[Grinder]

I think Guede killed Meredith to shut her up because she started screaming. The same thing probably happened to JonBenet Ramsey.

I considered the reason he killed her as his motive. Or that there was no motive but the reason he killed her was because she was screaming

But if screaming was the motive then that could be the motive for anyone including the kids.

The problem with this is there is zero credible evidence Amanda and Raffaele were at the cottage that night, so that leaves Guede there by himself or Guede with one or more accomplices.

I've eliminated Amanda and Raffaele as suspects because of the lack of evidence suggesting they were not at Raffaele's apartment as they stated,....

I took this to mean that the scream couldn't be the cause or motive for the kids because....drum roll.... they are innocent.

Hey Grinder, do you realize you attributed something to me I didn't say, and now you are saying I'm engaging in circular reasoning - or worse - because I pointed it out? I don't think "they are innocent" and "they weren't there" mean the same thing in the context of what we were discussing, which was whether or not a scream would have been motive for Amanda and Raffaele to kill Meredith (which you suggested), the same as it would have been for Guede. Feel free to point out my "circular reasoning", but do me a favor and just use what I actually said, not what you substituted.

I think you just like to argue and are reluctant to admit you made a mistake. Saying they were not in the cottage negates Amanda's coerced statements, something just saying they are innocent doesn't necessarily do, IMO.

So again if the reason (motive) Rudi killed her was her scream, why couldn't that be the motive (reason) the kids killed her?

The last line is confusing to me. Are you saying that saying they are innocent doesn't negate Amanda being in the cottage during the murder? Are you suggesting she might have been there but is innocent?

So it seems to me you don't believe that a scream could be the motive (reason) for the kids because they weren't there which you know because they are innocent.

 

[Grinder]

It really isn't a matter of that. All the available evidence points to an early TOD in the 9 o'clock hour but Rudy's own statements peg the TOD to be 9:30.
Considering that the digestion evidence shows the TOD the earlier being the most likely, it just seems the most likely. That said, I've just weighted Rudy's own testimony the highest in terms of reliability keeping mind the other evidence. If Rudy had never said the TOD was 9:30, It would be a straight line from say 9:05 diminishing all the way to 10:00 PM.

I get what you're saying that it is an "osmotic" way of thinking about it and none of it proves the time conclusively.

However, keeping in mind all the evidence that points to a probable time of death, it all points earlier rather than later and Rudy alone actually sets a real time. None of the "ear witnesses" actually set a time that could actually be possible, so why not value Rudy's testimony the highest?

This is NOT directed at you individually but it seems to me much of this type of pro innocence argument is very similar to the Italy collection of porbables and could haves.

They didn't prove guilt BRD, period. This more likely talk may be good for betting a horse race but doesn't work for proving guilt or innocence.

The GE proves to me beyond all doubt that the 11:30 TOD is out of the question and makes a 11:00 as close to out of the question as is needed to prove innocence if that time is needed for guilt.

Why would Rudi's testimony be weighted the heaviest? Because you think his naming the correct time of the scream is important to his defense because it really happened. Remember by the time he said that well over a week had passed and no one except Amanda had mentioned the scream. I think it is just as likely that he measured the times from the Patrick accusation and figured it would fit with that. Text, meetup, sex, scream and murder.

Rudi kills Meredith at 9:15 and then does what for the next 45 minutes before leaving with the phones, money and CCs?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

two quick rebuttals to Nencini

The bra clasp was tampered with when it was stored. I'd like to see how Nencini explains that one. As for the supposed error that C and V made in not testing track 36I, I have given a refutation of that position some time ago in this thread.

 

[Bill Williams]

As English translations of the Nencini report come in - in snippets - it becomes more clear that Nencini is simply misrepresenting the facts of the case.

This: to do with the so-called striations or grooves Stefanoni said contained the controversial Sample 36b, the so-called Meredith trace on the kitchen knife from Raffaele's....

This is from page 320 as alluded to by Andrew Gumbel.

Italian
"L'ufficiale di polizia giudiziaria che materialmente lo prelevò dal cassetto ove erano riposte le posate dichiarava nel corso del dibattimento di primo grado clie la sua attenzione era stata colpita dal fatto che quel coltello, e non altri presenti nel inedesimo cassetto, risultava molto più pulito rispetto alla generalità delle posate, tanto da lasciar immaginare clie fosse stato lavato con cura e di recente. Questa circostanza, che potrebbe apparire un dato di percezione personale e irrilevante, portò a conclusioni rilevanti nel processo. Esaminato il coltello dalla polizia scientifica, sulla sua lama, all'interno di una serie di striature quasi impercettibili ad occl-iio nudo, veniva rinvenuto DNA niisto di d~iec ontributori: Mereditli Kercher e Raffaele Sollecito."

Andrew Gumbel's English Translation
"The police officer who actually removed the knife from the kitchen drawer stated during the first trial that he had been struck by the fact that knife seemed much cleaner than the other items in the drawer, leading him to believe that it had been recently cleaned. This observation, which might seem irrelevant or a matter of perception, raised important questions. Forensic examination of the knife, its blade, and a series of streaks, barely perceptible to the naked eye, resulted in identification of the DNA of both Meredith Kercher and Raffaele Sollecito."​

First highlight - this is a complete misrepresentation of what even Judge Massei at the 2009 trial at least deals with. It is Stefanoni who says there was a striation on the knife in which 36b was lodged, presumably to protect it from cleaning. (The issues with that claim are legion, but will not stop me here.

Suffice it to say that even Massei acknowledges that even the preliminary judge's expert did not see those striations or grooves. Peter Quennell on TJMK claims to have a picture of the knife showing those grooves... begging the question of even Nencini's claim of them being "barely perceptible", or why the first prosecution expert did not see them at all.

Second highlight - Nencini just invents the presence of Raffaele on that knife. Completely invents it. Out of whole cloth. Either is lying or displays a stunning disregard for facts. Is blind in one eye and cannot see out of the other. Had a senior's moment. Had a brain fart. Is going for laughs. Is purposely trying to having his report dismissed by ISC. Is trying to attract the attention of that cute blond in the front row at trial. Is getting a head start on April Fools. Cannot find his ass with both hands and a roadmap. Is secretly working for the PR Supertanker out of Seattle....

.... your guess is as good as mine.

 

[acbytesla]

This is NOT directed at you individually but it seems to me much of this type of pro innocence argument is very similar to the Italy collection of porbables and could haves.

They didn't prove guilt BRD, period. This more likely talk may be good for betting a horse race but doesn't work for proving guilt or innocence.

The GE proves to me beyond all doubt that the 11:30 TOD is out of the question and makes a 11:00 as close to out of the question as is needed to prove innocence if that time is needed for guilt.

Why would Rudi's testimony be weighted the heaviest? Because you think his naming the correct time of the scream is important to his defense because it really happened. Remember by the time he said that well over a week had passed and no one except Amanda had mentioned the scream. I think it is just as likely that he measured the times from the Patrick accusation and figured it would fit with that. Text, meetup, sex, scream and murder.

No, Because Rudy has no real reason to lie about the time Grinder. It's not like some of the other things he says which seem couched in ways trying to absolve himself from the crime. Rudy admits being there...so why does the time matter to him? Seriously? Give me one logical reason that Rudy lies about the time? The gastric evidence, the clothes in the washer, the outer clothes, Rudy's statements they all confirm around a 9:30 TOD.

Rudi kills Meredith at 9:15 and then does what for the next 45 minutes before leaving with the phones, money and CCs?

Who says Rudy waits 45 minutes? I can see a real possibility that Rudy ran down into the ravine and spent that time trying to calm down and think clearly before heading back to his apartment. And out of curiosity, I thought we resolved the spelling of Rudy's name?