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

[Strozzi]

Thank you Strozzi, that makes more sense of it. I was not thinking of throwing the knife exactly with the phones, but I have never heard whether it is assumed he got it from the kitchen drawer like he did at the nursery, and whether there was a suggestion none were missing?
I'm not sure what you imply, when are you saying Perugia wanted him with a clean record, before the murder, just after, or when they found their murderer had form?

The thrust of Mignini's accusations is that Knox led / orchestrated the attack and the subsequent cover-up. He even claimed that it is Knox who plunged the knife into Kercher's throat. According to Mignini, 20 year old Knox controlled the two males using her evil sexual female ways. Mignini sought to portray Rudy as a follower directed in the three-on-Kercher attack by Knox. "Poor Rudy", said Mignini to the judge.

Mignini wanted this to be Rudy's first crime. Mignini cannot accept that Rudy was in the flat as a burglar. The first police theory is that the murder was a sex crime against a young woman by a man she had met and invited in. Once the police and prosecutor really honed in on Knox, they could not believe/accapt that Rudy was there as a burglar. He had to have been let in by Knox. Per Mignini, she not only admitted innocent Rudy, but she is responsible for him being there - she invited Rudy to come to the cottage.

Rudy, per Mignini's fantasies, was a man with no criminal past. If he had a criminal past, it would make it more credible that he had broken in and that Knox was not involved.

ETA: Note the parallels between what the police sought to extract from Knox - her supposed role to arrange for Lumumba to come to her cottage and then her role to arrange for Rudy to come to the cottage. In both police/prosecutor scenarios, Knox arranged for the man to come to have sex with Kercher, and that she is the one who actually admitted the man into the cottage. It's Knox and her key, in both of Mignini's sick fantasies.

 

[Samson]

The thrust of Mignini's accusations is that Knox led / orchestrated the attack and the subsequent cover-up. He even claimed that it is Knox who plunged the knife into Kercher's throat. According to Mignini, 20 year old Knox controlled the two males using her evil sexual female ways. Mignini sought to portray Rudy as a follower directed in the three-on-Kercher attack by Knox. "Poor Rudy", said Mignini to the judge.

Mignini wanted this to be Rudy's first crime. Mignini cannot accept that Rudy was in the flat as a burglar. The first police theory is that the murder was a sex crime against a young woman by a man she had met and invited in. Once the police and prosecutor really honed in on Knox, they could not believe/accapt that Rudy was there as a burglar. He had to have been let in by Knox. Per Mignini, she not only admitted innocent Rudy, but she is responsible for him being there - she invited Rudy to come to the cottage.

Rudy, per Mignini's fantasies, was a man with no criminal past. If he had a criminal past, it would make it more credible that he had broken in and that Knox was not involved.

ETA: Note the parallels between what the police sought to extract from Knox - her supposed role to arrange for Lumumba to come to her cottage and then her role to arrange for Rudy to come to the cottage. In both police/prosecutor scenarios, Knox arranged for the man to come to have sex with Kercher, and that she is the one who actually admitted the man into the cottage. It's Knox and her key, in both of Mignini's sick fantasies.

I read this

Mignini admitted in court that "if the break-in had not been staged the two defendants would have to be innocent"

Is this true? I have no citation, it is from another blog comments section. If it is real court testimony, I think I start to have a real understanding of who thought what. In fact the break in was completely unstageable for many well known reasons, but incredibly they are all getting away with it.

 

[Dan O.]

.
Hi Anglo

I echo your thanks to Michael for posting that testimony, and I also noticed the witness speculations.

The arrogance of Commodi is amazing. I was struck by the section where Commodi simply asserts that the Police did not delete any of the 3 missing messages. It reminds me of her statement to the effect that 'we will decide what evidence is presented, not the defense'. Commodi is the questioner (Q) in the following snippet:

A: That I can’t take for granted what had been done before, because I don’t know what the Postal Police did, this does not mean that I wish to claim that they made mistakes, it just means I can’t exclude it!
Q: On the other hand I can exclude it, so excluding the possibility that the Postal Police could have deleted some potential evidence…
Defense intervention: But who decided that?
Q: I exclude it!
Judge Massei: Let’s hypothesize that this is the case, what would the question be?

Despite Commodi's assertion, if I am understanding the witness correctly, he goes on to point out that 1 of the 3 missing messages was a message received on the afternoon of Nov 2 after Meredith was dead, and presumably while the telephones were in police hands. That implies that the Police did delete at least 1 of the 3 messages, so quite possibly all of them, but the court simply continues on with the hypothesis that the Police did not delete any of the messages. Once again, Commodi is the questioner (Q) in the following snippet:

Q: Exactly, so taking for granted that the Postal Police did not alter the contents of Meredith’s cell phone…
A: But nothing is taken for granted, because there are 3 calls missing from the list… there are also 3 items missing of the 30 memorized last calls, nobody has doubted what they have done, then there is the log, so … we have another case, on the 2nd in the afternoon when Meredith was dead…

Cody
.

I responded to this before. The evidence shows that some calls had been deleted it does not show when they were deleted.

Think of the call log like a bathtub that holds 30 gallons water flows in from the faucet and when the tub is full the excess flows down the drain. Now let's say at some point the faucet is turned off. A little later we check th tub and discover that is 3 gallons short of the 30 gallon capacity. You may speculate that someone removed those 3 gallons after the faucet was turned off. But it is also possible that at some time prior to the faucet being turned off several gallons were removed from the tub and it had only just refilled to the 27 gallon level when the faucet was turned off. Without any way to distinguish between these two possible scenarios your speculation has no value.

 

[RandyN]

I read this

Mignini admitted in court that "if the break-in had not been staged the two defendants would have to be innocent"

Is this true? I have no citation, it is from another blog comments section. If it is real court testimony, I think I start to have a real understanding of who thought what. In fact the break in was completely unstageable for many well known reasons, but incredibly they are all getting away with it.

Mignini has a long history of saying and then later denying things. Sexual ritual day after Halloween... delayed a day due to dinner. We forgot to push record....no wait...budgetary restrictions...that's the ticket. Mignini goes into court and reads a letter supposedly written by Guede except that Guede didn't understand the words nor could he read his own hand writing. Huh. A nursery school in Milan is robbed of several thousand Euros and then a couple of week later "another" criminal is caught inside the same school...what are the odds? Mignini? Milan? Napolini? Anyone? No? Right!

Mignini is a liar and abuser of office ...he has been convicted and should be past his third phase by now...except that the corrupt Italian judicial system is covering for his abuses...his convictions, his corrupt acts, his multiple sub-related cases used to silence lawyers, parents, reporters, newspapers, bloggers. Google for Googles sake. Who does this and gets away with it? So far Mignini has slipped the noose quite adeptly.

The defense must be running short of time to appeal, no?

 

[JREF2010]

Two comments: I think it reasonable that Rudy ditched the knife as he wound his way through the hillside, and not at the time or in the immediate vicinity when he ditched the phones. The phones could be in a pocket or carried comfortably in a hand. The large knife (bloody?) was not comfortable to carry and if he had any worry of being seen by anyone in the dark he would not want to be seen with the big knife. I think the knife was ditched before Lana's garden. It would also not throw well - light and hard to get a firm grip around it's slender handle. Probably threw it in what at night looked like thick bushes.

The Milan police and prosecutor have a different interest in prosecuting Rudy than the prosecutor in Perugia. No charges were apparently filed in Milan at the time of his detention at the nursery school, for if charges were formally filed (per Machiavelli) a defendant is brought before a judge for a pre-trial detention hearing - and none of that is known to have happened in late 2007. The Milan police called the Perugia police and then let him go.

Had Rudy not been involved in the murder, he would not have been prosecuted in Milan. It would have been a non-case. Sent out of Milan and possibly told not to return.

However, that is not what happened because Rudy was arrested for murder in Perugia. The Milan authorities belatedly prosecuted him to clean up the loose end. That is opposite of what the Perugia police and prosecutor would have wanted. Perugia wanted Rudy to be clean -with no criminal record - until the evening of the murder. They want that night to be seen as his first crime.

The knife not being found was always a mystery, I suspect it was tossed early after being wiped off to some extent. Often the criminal will stick it in the ground and step on it to bury it making it extremely hard to find.

I doubt the goofball forensic team spent much time on finding it.

If they did it would have Merediths blood and Rudys traces is all, and they already had Rudy. Its like having 10 items against Rudy that are serious and maybe one more wasnt that important to convict the rapist, murderer, burglar, liar, coward Rudy Guede.

The Italian persecutors could still make up insane idiotic scenarios without logic or reasons, and that seems to be good enough for the Judges.

 

[xinonix]

Your problem is you are assuming that Mignini and the cops are trying to find out who killed Meridith and prove he/she did it.
I recommend you try a new approach, assume it is the opposite.
The cops don't want anybody to find out who did it and they want to prove somebody else did it. Why would they be doing such a thing? My guess is Rudy is part of their team. He is an informer. They needed a guy that nobody will suspect is working with the cops.
I don't believe that anybody would want to kill Meredith, but apparently someone wanted her dead. Those guys in Perugia were hired to make this happen.
Rudy was in jail in Milan. The jailers got a call from Perugia requesting their assistance. They released Rudy, gave him his knife back, and put him on the train to Perugia.
My guess is, the plan was that Rudy would be waiting for Meredith in her apartment and he would kill her while she was alone. His friends on the police force would be investigating the crime and they would bring back some fake fingerprints and DNA samples. The crime would go unsolved.
This scheme failed because before the regular police got there, the postal police did, and they took fingerprints and DNA samples. They used their smart phones to send image files of the fingerprints to interpol. Then the German police got involved when they arrested Rudy, took his fingerprints and sent those to interpol. A computer assisted finger print analysys program found a match.
To stop Rudy from talking about his cop friends in Perugia, they sent a lawyer up there to talk to Rudy and offer to get him a very short sentence if he agreed to not say anything that was true.
The deal was Rudy would assist the justice system by ratting out 2 people whom he did the crime with. For this he would be rewarded with a big reduction in his sentence.
This means that the Perugians had to find some suspects for Rudy to roll over on.
Amanda was one of 2 people in town who had a key to Meridith's home. therefore she was the most likely suspect. She could sneak in and do a sneak attack. Rafael could provide Amanda with an Alibi, so they made him another suspect. The police said the break in was staged by Amanda to make it look like someone who did not have a key could get in. Rudy got his reduced sentence and he kept his mouth shut.
While an American jury would never believe this stuff, they do things differently in Italy.
I am sure that Grinder can explain why this theory is totally crazy.

 

[RandyN]

@ Michael

Thanks for posting those exchanges with Pellero. Boy, do they make a meal of things over there! They let expert witnesses randomly speculate outside their area of expertise as with this:

No, the connection for me, and I’m convinced of this, occurred here, while the telephone was inside Sant’Angelo Park, in the vicinity of the garden of via della Pergola and probably the reason why the telephone was thrown in the garden of via della Pergola, otherwise there wouldn’t be a reason to throw it there. For me it happened that the telephone received an MMS message, the telephone rang, whoever had the telephone remembered in that moment having a telephone which amongst other things was proof of a crime and decided to get rid of it and it was gotten rid of in the place where the person was.

He should just stick to saying where the phone was at 22.13. The rest is none of his business. He should also try harder not to refer to Lana's house as 'via della Pergola' as that renders his evidence horribly confusing. Maybe also listen and just answer the question asked, which he virtually never does.

We are losing some of the sense of this evidence because he was evidently referring to a map, presumably showing the coverage of each tower, so we can't see what other parts of the city were covered by 30064 (to answer Comodi's point that it was highly unlikely MK would be so often in the vicinity of Lana's place when making calls.

I am interested in what folks make of the deletion thing. In the course of making a point about the deleted MMS, Comodi declares the posties have deleted nothing from the phone (I like the infuriated way she does it ). What she is saying is that, as it is highly unlikely the killer/thief would have deleted it, the inference must be that MK was still alive at 22.13 and deleted it herself. Why, if at all, is she wrong about that?

The line of questioning itself was certainly intended to intimidate the witness and it is not the first time the prosecution "kindly reminded" witnesses that suggesting the police made mistakes or worse, they actually did a corrupt act is well...a crime and I will now charge you with that....ahemmm.

Meanwhile, we can review an over abundance of proof that that exact thing likely happened. Burning up 4 computers for example. failing to collect/share all CCTV evidence, forgetting to push record/curious budget cuts, overwhelmingly convinced of staged break-in and yet a remarkable lack of investigation/evidence/study/photography detailing that conclusion.

This is how I would make cases against people if I were the king too! Whats to not understand?

So are you suggesting that the postal police deleted these three messages? Well...who am I to say. I suppose that is about as likely as the PP burning up 4 computers...LOL what are the odds MS Comfortable? Or perhaps it is as likely as the police forgetting to record the most important interviews of the case. What are the odds of these things happening singly, let alone all happening.... plus a hundred other sloppy careless corrupt matters...evidence collection, storage, chain of custody, missing control data, rotted evidence, rusted evidence....(I could easily get to a hundred instances)

So MS Comfortable...I think it is the Postal Police or MS Carlizzi and the dead priest...you decide.

 

[LashL]

As a believer that the conviction for calunnia against Knox is a wrongful conviction, I still believe that interrogations, per se, should stick to the task at hand.

The task at hand for them is solely to procure confessions and incriminating statements from the suspect in the room.

see: Interrogation Wikipedia​

These days other interrogation techniques also seem to incorporate exit strategies for detecting signs of a false confession, but make no mistake about it - interrogations are NOT about a friendly exchange of opinions or the eliciting of further information.....

..... they are about confessions. Nothing more, nothing less.

It appears that you may have missed the point. Perhaps you should read my post and the linked article again.

As an aside, I've been professionally involved with the criminal justice system for more than two decades now in various capacities so I do know a little bit about it. Police interviews should be about ascertaining facts, not about procuring false confessions, not about procuring false accusations, and not about trying to get witnesses to change their evidence to suit the police theory de jour. When one starts out with a bad process (e.g. the Reid technique), it should not be surprising that one is unlikely to obtain good (read: reliable) results. When one deliberately uses a faulty process (e.g. the Reid technique after it was determined a long time ago to be faulty), one is deliberately seeking to obtain unreliable results.

 

[Desert Fox]

Your problem is you are assuming that Mignini and the cops are trying to find out who killed Meridith and prove he/she did it.
I recommend you try a new approach, assume it is the opposite.
The cops don't want anybody to find out who did it and they want to prove somebody else did it. Why would they be doing such a thing? My guess is Rudy is part of their team. He is an informer. They needed a guy that nobody will suspect is working with the cops.
I don't believe that anybody would want to kill Meredith, but apparently someone wanted her dead. Those guys in Perugia were hired to make this happen.
Rudy was in jail in Milan. The jailers got a call from Perugia requesting their assistance. They released Rudy, gave him his knife back, and put him on the train to Perugia.
My guess is, the plan was that Rudy would be waiting for Meredith in her apartment and he would kill her while she was alone. His friends on the police force would be investigating the crime and they would bring back some fake fingerprints and DNA samples. The crime would go unsolved.
This scheme failed because before the regular police got there, the postal police did, and they took fingerprints and DNA samples. They used their smart phones to send image files of the fingerprints to interpol. Then the German police got involved when they arrested Rudy, took his fingerprints and sent those to interpol. A computer assisted finger print analysys program found a match.
To stop Rudy from talking about his cop friends in Perugia, they sent a lawyer up there to talk to Rudy and offer to get him a very short sentence if he agreed to not say anything that was true.
The deal was Rudy would assist the justice system by ratting out 2 people whom he did the crime with. For this he would be rewarded with a big reduction in his sentence.
This means that the Perugians had to find some suspects for Rudy to roll over on.
Amanda was one of 2 people in town who had a key to Meridith's home. therefore she was the most likely suspect. She could sneak in and do a sneak attack. Rafael could provide Amanda with an Alibi, so they made him another suspect. The police said the break in was staged by Amanda to make it look like someone who did not have a key could get in. Rudy got his reduced sentence and he kept his mouth shut.
While an American jury would never believe this stuff, they do things differently in Italy.
I am sure that Grinder can explain why this theory is totally crazy.

It is just far more likely they made a mistake and then did not want to own up to it.

As well, informant or not, just about any police force will throw you to the wolves if you murder somebody.

 

[Bill Williams]

It appears that you may have missed the point. Perhaps you should read my post and the linked article again.

As an aside, I've been professionally involved with the criminal justice system for more than two decades now in various capacities so I do know a little bit about it. Police interviews should be about ascertaining facts, not about procuring false confessions, not about procuring false accusations, and not about trying to get witnesses to change their evidence to suit the police theory de jour. When one starts out with a bad process (e.g. the Reid technique), it should not be surprising that one is unlikely to obtain good (read: reliable) results. When one deliberately uses a faulty process (e.g. the Reid technique after it was determined a long time ago to be faulty), one is deliberately seeking to obtain unreliable results.

You perhaps are correct that I missed the point of your original. But from what little I know, a "Police Interview" is a different animal from an interrogation.

Interrogations are about procuring a confession or incriminating statements. Police go into them with a good, ballpark set of facts and would rather have a confession than not. From what I've read, since the Central Park Five, police are (theoretically) now trained in how to spot a false confession - the hallmark of false confessions was as in the Central Park Five case - the four (or five) confessions simply did not add up.

What police in that case did in response to public pressure to solve it, was to put an amalgam-case together, always at the end implying that regardless of the facts, it remains that the five at one point, and on film, confessed - even though they withdrew their confessions. (For some reason, having them confess on film/tape trumped the real person sitting in front of the jury saying, "I didn't do it".)

The Reid technique is not one I would defend, but it is still used.

I guess the only place to go in this back and forth is this - would you want ALL interrogations made illegal, meaning, a sit-down session where some sort of technique is used to get the person in front of them to confess?

That's what an interrogation is, as distinct from a police interview.

 

[Samson]

You perhaps are correct that I missed the point of your original. But from what little I know, a "Police Interview" is a different animal from an interrogation.

Interrogations are about procuring a confession or incriminating statements. Police go into them with a good, ballpark set of facts and would rather have a confession than not. From what I've read, since the Central Park Five, police are (theoretically) now trained in how to spot a false confession - the hallmark of false confessions was as in the Central Park Five case - the four (or five) confessions simply did not add up.

What police in that case did in response to public pressure to solve it, was to put an amalgam-case together, always at the end implying that regardless of the facts, it remains that the five at one point, and on film, confessed - even though they withdrew their confessions. (For some reason, having them confess on film/tape trumped the real person sitting in front of the jury saying, "I didn't do it".)

The Reid technique is not one I would defend, but it is still used.

I guess the only place to go in this back and forth is this - would you want ALL interrogations made illegal, meaning, a sit-down session where some sort of technique is used to get the person in front of them to confess?

That's what an interrogation is, as distinct from a police interview.

Amanda told them what they knew to be true? I know you are not defending ILE here, and it does seem that LashL's linked article could have been written with her case in mind.
By definition false confessions will get the facts seriously wrong.

 

[LashL]

...

Hopeless. I don't know why I bother, sometimes.


Carry on.

 

[Planigale]

Here's the precise Italian phrase used by Sollecito in front of Judge Matteini:

Non sono certo se Amanda è uscita quella sera, non io ricordo.

That is a withdrawal and it was made in front of a judge. Your claim is false.

In the meantime, the Sollecito family is vigorously defending itself by leaking further incriminating CCTV footage to the popular Italian magazine OGGI, as reported in this on-line summary:

http://www.articolotre.com/2014/06/caso-mez-un-video-potrebbe-scagionare-amanda-knox/

The images may or may not be Knox: who's to know? But the source is undeniably the Sollecitos, with their access to the complete case file, and the intent is to continue to call into question Amanda's claim that she was at Raffaele's apartment for the duration.

With any luck they'll eventually leak the photographs of Amanda's cell phone that indicate Patrick's name was not on the SMS as confirmed during Ficarra's testimony.

Knox continues to publicly claim that she could not be the murderer because her DNA wasn't found inside Meredith's room. Guess whose DNA was found there on an article of Meredith's undergarments? This is why the Sollecitos are unhappy with Amanda right now.

So Sollecito is the young man who collected knives, possessed a Manga mag, had watched a pornographic movie, and had a drug problem. He lived a few metres from Guede, both of whom spoke Italian. According to the prosecution his DNA was found on the victims bra, and the knife she was killed with was found in his possession. Just how will getting rid of the one witness who provides him an alibi that night help?

Whereas once this baggage is removed the case against Knox collapses.

Or perhaps you are implying that Knox planted Sollecito's DNA on the bra to incriminate her alibi? Presumably she also knew the Italian fingerprint experts would be so incompetent that they would identify the shoe prints as belonging to Sollecito despite the fact the pattern is different (I hope they are better at counting ridges when it comes to finger prints!)

Sollecito is just so lucky he did not possess any heavy metal albums (no doubt when played backwards would have contained instructions to kill), did not play Grand Theft Auto, and had been watching Amelie rather than Psycho. Things could have been so much worse for him.

 

[anglolawyer]

I responded to this before. The evidence shows that some calls had been deleted it does not show when they were deleted.

Think of the call log like a bathtub that holds 30 gallons water flows in from the faucet and when the tub is full the excess flows down the drain. Now let's say at some point the faucet is turned off. A little later we check th tub and discover that is 3 gallons short of the 30 gallon capacity. You may speculate that someone removed those 3 gallons after the faucet was turned off. But it is also possible that at some time prior to the faucet being turned off several gallons were removed from the tub and it had only just refilled to the 27 gallon level when the faucet was turned off. Without any way to distinguish between these two possible scenarios your speculation has no value.

Huh? If 'the list' shows a call was made to her phone on the afternoon of the 2nd but the phone itself does not retain a record of it doesn't that mean it was deleted on or after the afternoon of the 2nd?

By the way, note that Pellero did not have access to the phone itself, only the records supplied by the prosecution. The SIM or the phone's software (hardware?) might retain a record of any deletion. Of course, this is all just silly speculation as we know that improper deletion of telephone activity is inconceivable. Comodi herself says so.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

http://amradaronline.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/amanda-knox-boyfriend.jpg

Edited by Locknar: 

Hotlink removed, breach of rule 5.

 

[Desert Fox]

That's what an interrogation is, as distinct from a police interview.

They will always claim it is an interview even when they are actually trying to sweat a confession out of you.

 

[NancyS]

Great fashion shot Sherlock, she's a proper Femme Fatale that Knox, I guess you're admiring her handbag - although I'm finding the red trousers are the stand out item for me, what a hipster!. Is your point that this picture somehow proves your theory that Knox was innocent of murder, but too scared of Guede to call the police and instead staged the crime scene and then covered for Guede even though it meant four years in prison?

 

[codyjuneau]

.
Hi Anglo

I echo your thanks to Michael for posting that testimony, and I also noticed the witness speculations.

The arrogance of Commodi is amazing. I was struck by the section where Commodi simply asserts that the Police did not delete any of the 3 missing messages. It reminds me of her statement to the effect that 'we will decide what evidence is presented, not the defense'. Commodi is the questioner (Q) in the following snippet:

A: That I can’t take for granted what had been done before, because I don’t know what the Postal Police did, this does not mean that I wish to claim that they made mistakes, it just means I can’t exclude it!
Q: On the other hand I can exclude it, so excluding the possibility that the Postal Police could have deleted some potential evidence…
Defense intervention: But who decided that?
Q: I exclude it!
Judge Massei: Let’s hypothesize that this is the case, what would the question be?

Despite Commodi's assertion, if I am understanding the witness correctly, he goes on to point out that 1 of the 3 missing messages was a message received on the afternoon of Nov 2 after Meredith was dead, and presumably while the telephones were in police hands. That implies that the Police did delete at least 1 of the 3 messages, so quite possibly all of them, but the court simply continues on with the hypothesis that the Police did not delete any of the messages. Once again, Commodi is the questioner (Q) in the following snippet:

Q: Exactly, so taking for granted that the Postal Police did not alter the contents of Meredith’s cell phone…
A: But nothing is taken for granted, because there are 3 calls missing from the list… there are also 3 items missing of the 30 memorized last calls, nobody has doubted what they have done, then there is the log, so … we have another case, on the 2nd in the afternoon when Meredith was dead…

Cody
.

I responded to this before. The evidence shows that some calls had been deleted it does not show when they were deleted.

Think of the call log like a bathtub that holds 30 gallons water flows in from the faucet and when the tub is full the excess flows down the drain. Now let's say at some point the faucet is turned off. A little later we check th tub and discover that is 3 gallons short of the 30 gallon capacity. You may speculate that someone removed those 3 gallons after the faucet was turned off. But it is also possible that at some time prior to the faucet being turned off several gallons were removed from the tub and it had only just refilled to the 27 gallon level when the faucet was turned off. Without any way to distinguish between these two possible scenarios your speculation has no value.

.
It appears he was cut off before he completed his statement, but it sounded to me that he was trying to make the point that the log showed one of the missing messages was received by Meredith's phone on the afternoon of November 2, which would be after Meredith was dead, and while her phone was in Police custody. If so, then that particular message could only have been deleted by the Police. Am I mis-interpreting what he said?

Cody
.

 

[Desert Fox]

Great fashion shot Sherlock, she's a proper Femme Fatale that Knox, I guess you're admiring her handbag - although I'm finding the red trousers are the stand out item for me, what a hipster!. Is your point that this picture somehow proves your theory that Knox was innocent of murder, but too scared of Guede to call the police and instead staged the crime scene and then covered for Guede even though it meant four years in prison?

I think that Sherlock found one of the rare photos where she is carrying the hand bag on the other side. The buttons seem to match the image I attached. Actually, looks like the picture is part of the same series this one belongs to. Interestingly though, in the image I found the handbag is on the left shoulder which she seems to use most of the time.

 

[NancyS]

I think that Sherlock found one of the rare photos where she is carrying the hand bag on the other side. The buttons seem to match the image I attached. Actually, looks like the picture is part of the same series this one belongs to. Interestingly though, in the image I found the handbag is on the left shoulder which she seems to use most of the time.

I thought that might be the point - although it is silly to use paparazzi magazine shots as proof of anything as they are all tweaked and mirrored so that they look their best on the page. And I think lots of people swap their bag side, depending on whether their shoulder/arm is aching so don't really agree with that argument and a far better argument is that Amanda is not a fat middle aged woman with a moustache