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

[Desert Fox]

The quote is from Pascal, but I agree that applying it to this case is dubious, at best.

Most of us who are not religious know about Pascal's Wager and reject it.

 

[Dan O.]

Well no. Not unless the scream lasted for 25 minutes. When was the broken down car there? It was later right? This is roughly 9:40 - 10:05ish. They should find out though. This is right around the time of the murder or just after. Anything I could suggest is pure speculation but since it was dark I'm guessing noise, like a loud protracted argument. If it were people standing around in the dark quietly, who would look at that? Could you see details of a stunned, distraught, blood-covered person (the murderer) from that distance in the dark? And if so, why would that person be outside for so long. I'm guessing noise.

A single scream or a person running away does not last for 25 minutes.

The standard crime theory has Rudy breaking and entering before 9 pm, at which time he pulls the exterior shutters closed to conceal activity, and lines up the glass on the right broken wind sill while having climbed in the glass free left casement as viewed from the street. This is misinterpreted by Massei as meaning the exterior shutters were closed and an interior action made those glass shards line up against the already closed shutters. Therefore there was nothing to see, and it is nonsensical to imagine all those people sensing noise or irregular activity without coming forward after the publicity. It is far more likely there was another innocent reason. For example, someone might have opened the bonnet of their car.

How long might a scream have lasted?

Weren't there indications of some sort of chase inside the cottage, a knocked over chair, etc?

Could there have been a stand-off of some sort, like on opposite sides of a kitchen table or some other obstruction, where Guede couldn't get to Meredith, and she just kept screaming at the top of her lungs for help? If so, would she be screaming in Italian, or just screaming in english for help and incoherently sounding to Italians?

Just wondering why the assumption that any screaming or disturbance had to be short lived.

Meredith Kercher was said to have a great deal of bruising on her body, including a serious punch in the mouth. Doesn't sound consistent with a short struggle after being taken by surprise, before she's then quickly killed.

Just asking...

A standoff maybe, but chasing her around the apartment screaming for 25 minutes?? I can run over 3 miles in 25 minutes. And I have to assume that realistically 25 minutes of death screams would have surely brought the police. One would hope anyway.

Yet it has to be something of interest. People are purposely turning and looking. I wish we had a photo of what exactly their view was. Does everyone stop and look regardless of day/time? Is it a beautiful view of the canyon? Or can you just see the street and cottage indicating some remarkable activity?

Again, here I am with more questions than answers...

ETA: I brought up Google Maps and they are indeed looking right at the area where the broken window was and Meredith's room.

Sounds pretty plausible, more or less. People were there at the time in the garage, they have ears and hear things, and all looking in the same direction, something must have been happening. If not a violent murder, then what? But something was apparently happening.

All the evidence has to be taken into account, in some way. Maybe or maybe not related. But the time is in the ballpark for the murder, there was a lot of bruising on Meredith, suggesting prolonged engagement in a fight.

That issue of the duration of the crime is something that has always stuck out in my mind. The murder in the bedroom appeared to be fast. But the signs of injury suggested a longer struggle. The symptoms of a chase in the apartment were something new to me, anyway. The cctv video in the garage is strongly consistent with this scenario & very interesting to me.

It's a piece of the puzzle that seems to "fit", and provide a more complete picture of the totality of the event.

I honestly think it is a whole lot of guessing, The only thing I know for sure is that these people should have been identified and asked if they saw or heard anything unusual that night. Do they remember what made them look backwards.

Beyond that we are just playing a game of "I wonder".

Why is everyone guessing and speculating when simple observation should tell you immediately why each of these people look back to the road behind them to see what they heard approaching as they walked through the narrow passage into the car park.

 

[Desert Fox]

Why is everyone guessing and speculating when simple observation should tell you immediately why each of these people look back to the road behind them to see what they heard approaching as they walked through the narrow passage into the car park.

That is a good observation. . . .How about looking at a recording on another date and time seeing if people do the exact same thing?

 

[Dan O.]

Any chance everyone was just looking for oncoming traffic?

No.

That's right. "oncoming traffic" would approach from the direction you are traveling therefore you would look for it ahead of you and not behind.


In each of the images shown, there was a a car on the road either visible in the frame where someone looked back or at least there was an illumination of their headlights indicating a car moving that way. Anyone in that situation would have to be very trusting of what they were hearing to not confirm there was no danger with their own eyes.

Since in each case there is a simple logical reasonable innocent explanation for these people to be turning their heads, there is no cause to speculate that there is any other reason. Still, these are all easily identifiable people that should have all been contacted to see what they might have witnessed before entering the carpark.

 

[Desert Fox]

Question, is there any evidence with Rudy of being a "Peeping Tom?"

 

[kwill]

That is a good observation. . . .How about looking at a recording on another date and time seeing if people do the exact same thing?

How about looking at the whole of THIS recording and seeing if people do the exact same thing?

All those captured between 21.31 and 21.52 passing the entrance barrier show the same reaction; they stop to look to the left, towards the entrance of the carpark, in other words towards the entrance to Meredith’s house. In several images we see a small family, consisting of father, mother, and two children stop; first the mother turns, then one of the children, then both together. They seem to be discussing something. Finally they go away. The couple who passed before them had the same reaction. What attracted their attention? What was happening during those minutes? Had they heard screams? Had they heard someone screaming for help? Had they seen someone running away? Why were these people not identified and questioned?

This writer mentions a very specific 21-minute period during which every person -- ALL OF THEM -- have the same reaction. The people before that period and the ones after it didn't behave this way, which is pretty good evidence that something got the attention of every single person who passed in front of the camera during a ver specific time.

This story is about why the police didn't find this interesting, given that the 21-minute period happened between 9:19 pm and 9:40 pm, which just happens to be from 15 minutes after Meredith arrived home until 26 minutes after. The most likely scenario is that she was dead by 9:30.

So, if you were in charge of the police wouldn't you want to know why ALL the people who came through during (or just after) the murder stop and look toward the cottage? Why did they do that? There may be no connection to the murder at all . . . but it's an obvious question, and one that merited follow-up.

 

[Samson]

How about looking at the whole of THIS recording and seeing if people do the exact same thing?



This writer mentions a very specific 21-minute period during which every person -- ALL OF THEM -- have the same reaction. The people before that period and the ones after it didn't behave this way, which is pretty good evidence that something got the attention of every single person who passed in front of the camera during a ver specific time.

This story is about why the police didn't find this interesting, given that the 21-minute period happened between 9:19 pm and 9:40 pm, which just happens to be from 15 minutes after Meredith arrived home until 26 minutes after. The most likely scenario is that she was dead by 9:30.

So, if you were in charge of the police wouldn't you want to know why ALL the people who came through during (or just after) the murder stop and look toward the cottage? Why did they do that? There may be no connection to the murder at all . . . but it's an obvious question, and one that merited follow-up.

If 12 minutes are added to the clock it becomes 9 31 to 9 52 which is what I believe is the concensus.
There is a suggestion from PMF that the activity works against the thesis that Guede would break and enter with so much activity. However, it also seems that there is no line of sight to the window?

 

[Samson]

For those here who have not listened to Bruce Fischer and Luca Cheli in this extended audio this is the link.

http://wrongfulconvictionnews.com/luca-cheli-discusses-his-analysis-of-the-nencini-motivation/

Compelling and necessary archive.

 

[Desert Fox]

Listening to the audio file,
The problem I keep coming up with is the prosecution in this third trial is arguing for what (in the US) is second degree murder without rape - fight over a turd
The judge comes up with a totally different motivation but it still appears to be second degree murder without rape
Still, the court finds rape.

 

[Samson]

Listening to the audio file,
The problem I keep coming up with is the prosecution in this third trial is arguing for what (in the US) is second degree murder without rape - fight over a turd
The judge comes up with a totally different motivation but it still appears to be second degree murder without rape
Still, the court finds rape.

DF as long as you listen to the audio, you will never forget it, and it puts real people behind the words. I read Luca Cheli's Massei deconstruction as an entrée to the case. It is incandescently alive.

Here is that link.

http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/unbearable-thoughtlessness-of-guilt.html

 

[Dan O.]

How about looking at the whole of THIS recording and seeing if people do the exact same thing?



This writer mentions a very specific 21-minute period during which every person -- ALL OF THEM -- have the same reaction. The people before that period and the ones after it didn't behave this way, which is pretty good evidence that something got the attention of every single person who passed in front of the camera during a ver specific time.

You are inserting a claim that is not part of the article. Where does this claim come from?

So, if you were in charge of the police wouldn't you want to know why ALL the people who came through during (or just after) the murder stop and look toward the cottage? Why did they do that? There may be no connection to the murder at all . . . but it's an obvious question, and one that merited follow-up.

If I were in charge, I would interview each of these persons multiple times over several weeks. In the first interview I would seed in their minds facts I wanted them to know. One such fact would be the scream. I would say we knew knew Meredith screamed at about this time and play the video showing them turning their head to look. On a subsequent interview I would flip through my notes and ask if they could give a better description of the scream they thought they heard. By the third or forth interview about a quarter of the witnesses would have their own memory of the scream that could be used in court.

I learned this technique from a psychologist friend of my father that was establishing verifiable tax deductions for an upcoming audit. Even though I didn't bite at the initial suggestion of our business lunch, my memory has now linked a group lunch from a different time with that event.

 

[Desert Fox]

Do we have recordings of activity before and after this 21 minute period or is this all we have?

 

[katy_did]

I'm not sure you can go that far. The fact that no one else saw what Toto saw doesn't mean that he didn't see it. There are other reasons to doubt Toto.

Still, every car owner who's car left through that gate between 8 PM and later should have been contacted and then the owners should be asked who all these individuals were in the images and then everyone of them should have been questioned.

I'm not sure I agree that what the pedestrians did or didn't see is insignificant (though I agree of course that there are other reasons to doubt Toto!). If the defence could have called the people who walked through the piazza from 9 to midnight to testify, and if none of them saw the couple by the railings who Toto says were there all evening, I think that would definitely be a point in favour of the defence. The same goes for anyone else who might have been in the piazza that night, the people who regularly played basketball there, for example. The police and prosecution should have wanted to find corroboration for what Toto supposedly saw as much as the defence wanted to refute it, so they should've been interested in questioning anyone who could support Curatolo's sighting too - assuming they actually believed in it...

 

[Desert Fox]

DF as long as you listen to the audio, you will never forget it, and it puts real people behind the words. I read Luca Cheli's Massei deconstruction as an entrée to the case. It is incandescently alive.

Here is that link.

http://injusticeinperugia.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/unbearable-thoughtlessness-of-guilt.html

Reading through it makes me think
I have heard argued that Amanda and Raff never blamed Rudy straight off for some oddball reason and instead Amanda accused Patrick.
The problem is then why did they not remove the evidence of Rudy from the room if they were trying to protect him?
The pro guilt argument seems to shatter all logic

 

[Dan O.]

Do we have recordings of activity before and after this 21 minute period or is this all we have?

I don't know that "we" have anything. Oggi may have a copy of the DVD or at least selected portions of it. The defense should have all of it. The testimony of the officer that collected the video may specify the precise time range that it covers.

 

[Samson]

Reading through it makes me think
I have heard argued that Amanda and Raff never blamed Rudy straight off for some oddball reason and instead Amanda accused Patrick.
The problem is then why did they not remove the evidence of Rudy from the room if they were trying to protect him?
The pro guilt argument seems to shatter all logic

Logic deconstructs all guilt ideas. I would like to see attention paid by 11 30 pm time of deathers to the immutable science of digestion. 25 years is a fair old lag for Raf when he was working on his computer as Meredith lay dying.

ETA Lalli seemed to identify the ingredients of the pizza and apple crunch/crumble/crisp in Meredith's stomach. I hope some one will confirm that this validates Lalli's tying off of the intestines. Apparently the defence specialist Introna managed to trash Raffaele's alibi by allowing Meredith to survive till 10 30pm. With friends like that who needs enemies? I would be interested for anyone to illuminate this discussion.

 

[Rolfe]

You're absolutely right. The identification of recognisable elements of what Meredith was independently known to have eaten about 6.30, still in her stomach, and nothing in the duodenum, completely disproves a 10.30 time of death. You're running out of wiggle-room by 9.30 or thereabouts.

Rolfe.

 

[Samson]

You're absolutely right. The identification of recognisable elements of what Meredith was independently known to have eaten about 6.30, still in her stomach, and nothing in the duodenum, completely disproves a 10.30 time of death. You're running out of wiggle-room by 9.30 or thereabouts.

Rolfe.

Thank you again again Rolfe, but why is it your job or any one's. My observation is that Peggy Ganong, Nencini, The Machine and others are deeply uncomfortable with affording the notion of a 9 26pm plus perambulating time alibi combining with pre 10pm death. They can't buy into this. They need more time, all of them. The Naruto timeline has channelled them into something they never needed nor expected. The extremists just deny it, but Nencini did the unmentionable approximation of rounding down, to about 9 20. He is a "judge of people". I am obliged to hope he rots in hell, but especially that these wooden nosed thugs find a beating heart.

 

[Rolfe]

It's a shame the culture prevents people from speaking out. If I were Lalli I'd be telling the world about the time of death thing. But if he did that he'd come in for heavy criticism from people who would find that very inconvenient. He could be professionally ruined. And he did forget to weigh the body, which is hard to explain.

Rolfe.

 

[Bill Williams]

Thank you again again Rolfe, but why is it your job or any one's. My observation is that Peggy Ganong, Nencini, The Machine and others are deeply uncomfortable with affording the notion of a 9 26pm plus perambulating time alibi combining with pre 10pm death. They can't buy into this. They need more time, all of them. The Naruto timeline has channelled them into something they never needed nor expected. The extremists just deny it, but Nencini did the unmentionable approximation of rounding down, to about 9 20. He is a "judge of people". I am obliged to hope he rots in hell, but especially that these wooden nosed thugs find a beating heart.

These people have no interest at all in solving the case - which might be excusable for Peggy Ganong or The Machine, but is inexcusable for Judge Nencini. Nencini thinks he can solve this case by assigning Y-genetic material to women.

Peggy Ganong and/or The Machine are just interested in slut shaming. They are interested in blaming someone who for 4 years could not defend herself, and they drag in Raffaele only as a way to get at Knox. Both do dishonour to the victim.