Continuation Part 19: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Grinder]

Vixen, from a 2007 top ten phone manual.

Follow Instructions to Avoid Interference
Problems
Turn off your mobile device in any location where posted notices
instruct you to do so.
In an aircraft, turn off your mobile device whenever instructed to
do so by airline staff. If your mobile device offers an airplane mode

Apparently not all phones in 2007 had flight mode. This was from the RAZR2 manual. There are no instructions in the manual for a flight mode use other than above.
or similar feature, consult airline staff about using it in flight.

 

[Vixen]

So they were spotted by Popovic, then rushed into town for no reason, then rushed back to start the movie, then rushed back out, then rushed back to be spotted by Popovic again? This is your theory, unsupported by anything, and it makes no sense, but you claim it is "factual" for some reason?

Rudy isn't seen with Meredith on CCTV at ~ 9pm. I don't know what you're referring to there. Sounds like something you've dreamed up.

Rudy used a large (4kg) rock to smash the window because this was his MO. Here are quotes about the rock used to smash the glass at his law office break-in from testimony from the victim: "very heavy porphyry" "a big rock that we found there at the spot"

He scouted early in the evening and noticed nobody home. He came back, still no sign of anybody home, so he concluded it was safe to rob the place. Of course Rudy didn't stage a break-in. He actually did break in, for real. Your difficulty in understanding this point in bizarre. Here's the side of the building he climbed at the law office. And here's the cottage wall being climbed in about 5 seconds.

As for Koko's "testimony", I've already conceded that I don't contest it. Go ahead and rest your case on it

No, no, no, no no. The pair went into town after Mez left the cottage circa 4pm. They say six pm. When asked why they did no shopping, Raff said they had all the provisions they needed. The pair are very evasive about who came back home first. It would appear Amanda hung about town longer. Popovic popped by (no pun intended) 8:40-ish to ask a favour.

If everyone communicates by cell phone as you claim, how come she didn't just ring up?

As for your theory it is possible for a superfit person to scale the wall, that is hardly credible evidence that somebody actually did, when you have a ramshackle front door handy and no-one home for the weekend except a girl on her own who knows you and all you have to do is say you are dropping by for whatever reason.

ETA An Italian newspaper got hold of the said footage (a Rudy-looking character following in one of the girls, wearing a Napapiiri jacket, which Rudy was wearing when arrested in Germany). The police have never released the CCTV footage they do have.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen, from a 2007 top ten phone manual.

Follow Instructions to Avoid Interference
Problems
Turn off your mobile device in any location where posted notices
instruct you to do so.
In an aircraft, turn off your mobile device whenever instructed to
do so by airline staff. If your mobile device offers an airplane mode

Apparently not all phones in 2007 had flight mode. This was from the RAZR2 manual. There are no instructions in the manual for a flight mode use other than above.
or similar feature, consult airline staff about using it in flight.

The old dinosaur Nokias could just be switched off. These days it is difficult to turn off your phone completely.

I discovered this when I switched off my phone when going into departmental stores after reading they track you around the store Big Brother style in GPS IT Pathway tracking ( a form of data-mining, similar to Google search or loyalty cards). I was puzzled my texts came through anyway so obviously it was not off, as I had thought. Likewise, abroad, spam texts still came through, which I was charged for. I found the only way to prevent this was to put it on flight mode.

 

[Vixen]

Vixen the phone log testimony is very vague and seems to be saying that in the few days before the murder they received calls late at night. In that Amanda worked some of those nights, those nights would of course involve late night calls. The cop says months at one point, what's that all about.

Do you have the phone logs showing exactly when they turned phones on and off? When did they charge their phones? Did they turn them off when in class?

Amanda told about her phone being turned off early on. The issue is centered on the 11pm call from papa Raf.

ETA - Are you asserting that Raf's defense team's experts stated that the phone could just have been in a spot that didn't receive a signal, when the police had produced records showing definitively that the phones had been turned off?

I gave you the source for all the phone logs before. You should be able to locate them again on http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page.

Also the Massei Report deals with it in detail.

Raff claims he did not switch off his phone (although bagels kindly offers him a good reason why he must have done, which doesn't involve crime) and the reason he did not get Papa Raff's call at 11:00 pm was because the signals did not reach the part of the apartment where he put his phone down, or rather that is how the PIP have tried to reconcile his fib swith the facts. He made a signed statement to the police he got papa's call at 23:00, a blatant lie.

 

[Vixen]

I fully understand you said this before. You simply do not understand this, do you?

"Nobody needed to concern themselves with premeditation"!?!? Why then did both Massei and Nencini have to invent reason for the knife innocently coming to the cottage?

Please keep posting this way. You are supplying all the ad hominem needed.

If Massei or Nenciin did not accept it was premeditated, they would have had to say it was a crime of passion, and they never did. If they believed it was not premeditated, nor a crime of passion (a defence much loved in the latin countries) then they would not have found for murder. The prosecution would have brought the wrong charges. If I were the defense lawyer I would have advised the pair to go for manslaughter, as the evidence was obviously against them. THEN the issue of: was it, wasn't it premeditation, would have been the major issue.

In the event, it matters not a whit how the murder weapon got there, only that it was used and had Mez' DNA on the blade and Amanda's on the hilt. In addition, an attempt had been made to thoroughly scrub the blade with an abrasive material.

Imagine you get a parking ticket. The authorities who issued it don't give a toss about your reasons. That's for you to argue. AFAIAA your heroes' defense did not argue against premeditation or for a lesser charge of manslaughter.

 

[Bill Williams]

If Massei or Nenciin did not accept it was premeditated, they would have had to say it was a crime of passion, and they never did. If they believed it was not premeditated, nor a crime of passion (a defence much loved in the latin countries) then they would not have found for murder. The prosecution would have brought the wrong charges. If I were the defense lawyer I would have advised the pair to go for manslaughter, as the evidence was obviously against them. THEN the issue of: was it, wasn't it premeditation, would have been the major issue.

In the event, it matters not a whit how the murder weapon got there, only that it was used and had Mez' DNA on the blade and Amanda's on the hilt. In addition, an attempt had been made to thoroughly scrub the blade with an abrasive material.

Imagine you get a parking ticket. The authorities who issued it don't give a toss about your reasons. That's for you to argue. AFAIAA your heroes' defense did not argue against premeditation or for a lesser charge of manslaughter.

It actually good that you keep typing. It's clear you do not know what either of the convicting judges found.

You simply speculate, when it is all there for you to read.

Massei said in his now annuled decision, that it was an unpremeditated crime (as it relates to AK and RS). Massei says it was Rudy's crime, which he initiated because Rudy did not need anyone else's urging to attack Meredith.

Massei then out of whole cloth, invents that AK and RS (making out in the next room) go into Meredith's room to see what the commotion is about. Inexplicably acc. to him, instead of helping their friend, they join in with Rudy.

It was tremendously important to Massei's ill-fated reconstruction how the knife got there. He said that Amanda carried it that night for protection out on the streets. Up until the moment of Rudy's attack on Meredith the knife, acc. to Massei, was inert acc. to the crime.

It is a good thing you were not the defence lawyer. You have no clue, at all, what Mignini/Comodi were pushing, and what any of the judges found. You simply make it up as you go.

Kind of like a Nick van der Leek book.

If the blade had been thoroughly scrubbed, why did so-called DNA survive when blood did not?

 

[Grinder]

No, no, no, no no. The pair went into town after Mez left the cottage circa 4pm. They say six pm. When asked why they did no shopping, Raff said they had all the provisions they needed. The pair are very evasive about who came back home first. It would appear Amanda hung about town longer. Popovic popped by (no pun intended) 8:40-ish to ask a favour.

If everyone communicates by cell phone as you claim, how come she didn't just ring up?

She stopped by before her class and after. Really doesn't matter what they did in town except for Rudi of course but then there is absolutely no witness of them meeting and at that time Amanda was still scheduled to work. Perhaps Popovic was conserving minutes which was common back in the day. I remember calling people back from my landline to save money. But now I've converted my landline into a prepaid account at $3 per month because I have unlimited cell usage.

As for your theory it is possible for a superfit person to scale the wall, that is hardly credible evidence that somebody actually did, when you have a ramshackle front door handy and no-one home for the weekend except a girl on her own who knows you and all you have to do is say you are dropping by for whatever reason.

Sure is more credible evidence that it could be done than any evidence that a knife could be used to stab someone to death and have no blood residue but a perfect match for the victim as the PGP claim. It's a shame the defense, that even Barbie described as lame, didn't do a demonstration of the climb and air it in Italy before the first trial ended.

The prosecution should have had to prove that Steffi's find was possible at a minimum and really that it was serious, precise, and consistent. Amazing that Novelli would demand proof of contamination but not the other way around.

The old dinosaur Nokias could just be switched off. These days it is difficult to turn off your phone completely.

As I said not all cells had flight mode at that time. Doesn't matter what the technology is today, only 2007.

 

[Grinder]

I gave you the source for all the phone logs before. You should be able to locate them again on http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page.

Also the Massei Report deals with it in detail.

Raff claims he did not switch off his phone (although bagels kindly offers him a good reason why he must have done, which doesn't involve crime) and the reason he did not get Papa Raff's call at 11:00 pm was because the signals did not reach the part of the apartment where he put his phone down, or rather that is how the PIP have tried to reconcile his fib swith the facts. He made a signed statement to the police he got papa's call at 23:00, a blatant lie.

No the logs of phones being turned on and off have not been provided just as evidence that pages of her diary were torn out were not provided.

Raf's defense could not have argued the phone was just in a spot that didn't get reception if the phone company had definitive proof the phone had been turned off. Amanda told them she turned it off.

Could you provide the signed statement? Since the murder was long over by 11 I don't see why it was important at all. Raf wasn't the brightest bulb and had an attitude as well that didn't help them in the early days. He did receive those calls normally so not the greatest mistake.

Got to run now to the dog park, so first I need to turn on the phone

 

[LondonJohn]

The old dinosaur Nokias could just be switched off. These days it is difficult to turn off your phone completely.

Total nonsense. It's easy to turn off any mobile device completely. And "completely" really does mean completely.

Take the iPhone as an example (since it's the most common mobile device in circulation - but the same principle applies to every single mobile device in the World). If you press and hold the button on the top of the iPhone, a slider appears on the screen, saying "slide to power off". If you use your finger to swipe that slider to the right, the device turns itself off. Completely. Totally. Utterly. Once the power off procedure has completed, there's nothing going in or out. Nothing happening within the phone. No communication with cellular networks, GPS networks or Wifi networks. Nothing. Nada. Until you press and hold the top button again to turn the phone back on.

Of course, some ignoramuses might be so stupid as to think that turning off the screen of a phone (on the iPhone, for example, this is done by briefly pressing the top button - as opposed to pressing and holding it) equates in some way to "turning it off". Obviously, the phone itself is not turned off in this instance: the screen is disabled, but the phone remains in the same level of contact with cellular, Wifi and GPS systems.

I discovered this when I switched off my phone when going into departmental stores after reading they track you around the store Big Brother style in GPS IT Pathway tracking ( a form of data-mining, similar to Google search or loyalty cards).

Utter nonsense. Whoever came up with this rubbish (complete with BS jargon such as "IT Pathway tracking" and "data-mining") and wrote a suitably scaremongering article about it is either a charlatan or a moron. For a start, all mobile phones are only GPS receivers. They do not transmit GPS data, and nor do they transmit in any way to the GPS system. Rather, they use the received GPS signals in order to calculate the phone's location. That location information may then be transmitted by the phone via the cellular network or a Wifi network - but only with the active permission of the user. In order for a supermarket to "track you round the store" (*chuckle*) they would need some way of obtaining the GPS location data from your phone. Which would require the user either to a) be signed up to (and logged into) the supermarket's app - the user also having actively given permission for the app to use location data from the user's phone, or b) via the user actively logging on to the supermarket's Wifi network.

I guess there's a cottage industry selling these sorts of ludicrous "big brother" stories to the credulous masses. Oh dear.

I was puzzled my texts came through anyway so obviously it was not off, as I had thought. Likewise, abroad, spam texts still came through, which I was charged for. I found the only way to prevent this was to put it on flight mode.

If a user turns his/her phone off (i.e. not just turning the screen off), then nothing comes in or out of the phone while it remains off. So, for example, if a user turns off his/her phone at, say, 10am, no information/data/traffic/communication can occur between that phone and any network whatsoever from that time onwards. Thus, if someone phones that user at 10.15am, the call cannot connect to the user's mobile. Likewise, if someone texts the user at 10.20am, the text canot be delivered to the user's mobile. However, suppose the user turns his/her mobile back on at 10.30am. Once the phone reconnects to the network, the network will deliver the text that was sent at 10.20am, and it will also notify the user of a missed voice call at 10.15am. But all of this communication is only taking place after the phone has been turned on again at 10.30am.

Likewise, putting a phone into flight mode will disable all of that phone's transmitters/receivers, while enabling the phone to continue operating as a stand-alone device (e.g. for playing games, or for writing texts/emails to be sent at a later time when the phone is reconnected to the network). Obviously if one doesn't want to receive texts or calls, one has two options: 1) turn the phone off and leave it off, or 2) place the phone into flight mode.

 

[LondonJohn]

If Massei or Nenciin did not accept it was premeditated, they would have had to say it was a crime of passion, and they never did. If they believed it was not premeditated, nor a crime of passion (a defence much loved in the latin countries) then they would not have found for murder. The prosecution would have brought the wrong charges. If I were the defense lawyer I would have advised the pair to go for manslaughter, as the evidence was obviously against them. THEN the issue of: was it, wasn't it premeditation, would have been the major issue.

In the event, it matters not a whit how the murder weapon got there, only that it was used and had Mez' DNA on the blade and Amanda's on the hilt. In addition, an attempt had been made to thoroughly scrub the blade with an abrasive material.

Imagine you get a parking ticket. The authorities who issued it don't give a toss about your reasons. That's for you to argue. AFAIAA your heroes' defense did not argue against premeditation or for a lesser charge of manslaughter.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
And the remainder of the post shows a risible lack of understanding of criminal law as it relates to murder (and manslaughter). The issue of premeditation would have had a significant bearing on sentencing in this case, had Knox and/or Sollecito ultimately been convicted. Indeed, in the US, it actually informs the charge itself (viz. 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder etc), but that's not the case in either Italy or England/Wales. However, in Italy and England/Wales, if a court accepts there was premeditation, it will make a significant difference to the severity of the sentence (everything else being equal of course). So even if a defendant in Italy or England/Wales knows there's overwhelming evidence of guilt of murder, it's still strongly in the defendant's interest to argue that the murder was not premeditated.

ETA: the part I have bolded above is worthy of special mention for ignorance. In manslaughter, premeditation is never a factor. The issue of premeditation only ever applies to murder (i.e. where there's an accusation of malice aforethought). Chalk another one up

 

[bagels]

No, no, no, no no. The pair went into town after Mez left the cottage circa 4pm. They say six pm. When asked why they did no shopping, Raff said they had all the provisions they needed. The pair are very evasive about who came back home first. It would appear Amanda hung about town longer. Popovic popped by (no pun intended) 8:40-ish to ask a favour.

If everyone communicates by cell phone as you claim, how come she didn't just ring up?

As for your theory it is possible for a superfit person to scale the wall, that is hardly credible evidence that somebody actually did, when you have a ramshackle front door handy and no-one home for the weekend except a girl on her own who knows you and all you have to do is say you are dropping by for whatever reason.

ETA An Italian newspaper got hold of the said footage (a Rudy-looking character following in one of the girls, wearing a Napapiiri jacket, which Rudy was wearing when arrested in Germany). The police have never released the CCTV footage they do have.

I can't go by secret evidence that somebody says exists, only what I have seen for myself.

And I don't know what qualifies as "super fit" but Rudy is certainly athletic, here's his basketball profile showing him on a team which was 4 levels up the pyramid in the Italian national basketball system.

This point and how the PGP deals with it, along with the indifference to the untested alleged semen stain found under Meredith's body, is one of the more interesting aspects of this case to me. Even if Amanda were guilty, the break-in at the cottage would be worthy of further consideration beyond "it was staged." It would be a striking coincidence that Amanda just happened to stage almost to the letter her accomplice's previous break-in, despite that break-in being in itself unusual and regarded as "absolutely not easy" by the victims of it. Did Amanda have knowledge of that break-in? Did Rudy help stage it with her not realizing he was incriminating himself? Did Amanda just get incredibly lucky? The final point is one not acknowledged at all. Part of the obviousness of Rudy's actions as a lone burglar is that break-in, but the PGP act as if it doesn't hurt their case at all. This denial is why Amanda's final acquittal has to be explained as a mafia conspiracy, and not the inevitable result of an incredibly weak case with abundant reasonable doubt.

 

[Grinder]

Not that it matters but there is no evidence of the phones being turned off that I can find except by deduction. Here is a bit from Massei: The signal of that base transceiver station reached *Sollecito’s house+ normally in the preceding days (it was ascertained from the printouts that Raffaele Sollecito normally used the mobile phone at night, thus it can be inferred that the phone was rarely turned off), so there were no technical reasons that could explain a blackout on that very night and only on that night.

Once again, they do not produce the proof alleged to exist; phone company records showing the on and off of their phones.

More from Massei: Given the point, in accordance with Chief Inspector Latella’s proposition with regard to the fact that the phone record printouts do not give information as to whether a mobile phone is switched on or turned off, the Consultant recounted the survey, carried out using his own technical equipment inside Sollecito’s apartment at Corso Garibaldi 30, for the purpose of recording the level of reception of the radio-electric signals transmitted by Vodafone’s base transceiver stations operating in the area.

Oopsie - no records of on/off and in the official court records.

 

[LondonJohn]

Not that it matters but there is no evidence of the phones being turned off that I can find except by deduction. Here is a bit from Massei: The signal of that base transceiver station reached *Sollecito’s house+ normally in the preceding days (it was ascertained from the printouts that Raffaele Sollecito normally used the mobile phone at night, thus it can be inferred that the phone was rarely turned off), so there were no technical reasons that could explain a blackout on that very night and only on that night.

Once again, they do not produce the proof alleged to exist; phone company records showing the on and off of their phones.

More from Massei: Given the point, in accordance with Chief Inspector Latella’s proposition with regard to the fact that the phone record printouts do not give information as to whether a mobile phone is switched on or turned off, the Consultant recounted the survey, carried out using his own technical equipment inside Sollecito’s apartment at Corso Garibaldi 30, for the purpose of recording the level of reception of the radio-electric signals transmitted by Vodafone’s base transceiver stations operating in the area.

Oopsie - no records of on/off and in the official court records.

Well, it can be inferred that Sollecito's phone was not connected to the cellular network for at least part of that evening/night, since it's known that the text message from his father - sent on the evening/night of 1st November - was only delivered to Sollecito's phone at 6am on 2nd November. We can infer from this that Sollecito's phone was not connected to the network from at least the time that his father sent the text, up until 6a the following morning.

However........ there is no evidence to show how/why Sollecito's phone was not connected to the network during this time period. As I've explained before, there are two* ways in which a mobile phone can become disconnected from the network: 1) the phone can be powered on, but can lose signal coverage owing to geographical/topographical/capacity issues; 2) the phone can be physically switched off. We cannot know which of these two reasons (or even a combination of the two) caused Sollecito's phone to become disconnected from the network from the mid-evening of the 1st November up until 6am on 2nd November.


* With today's devices, there's a third way: to leave the phone powered on, but to engage "flight mode", which disables the phone's transmitter and receiver elements, and which thus serves to disconnect the phone from the network. But it's a near certainty that Sollecito's phone in 2007 did not have this feature.

 

[Vixen]

No the logs of phones being turned on and off have not been provided just as evidence that pages of her diary were torn out were not provided.

Raf's defense could not have argued the phone was just in a spot that didn't get reception if the phone company had definitive proof the phone had been turned off. Amanda told them she turned it off.

Could you provide the signed statement? Since the murder was long over by 11 I don't see why it was important at all. Raf wasn't the brightest bulb and had an attitude as well that didn't help them in the early days. He did receive those calls normally so not the greatest mistake.

Got to run now to the dog park, so first I need to turn on the phone

His statement is here:


http://themurderofmeredithkercher.c...Matteini-arrest-Sollecito-translation-PMF.pdf

BTW the police use the term "inactive" re the cellular phones. This is because there may be a number of reasons there is no signal: battery removed/flat, phone broken/submerged as well as being physically turned off.

The theory his phone was in an unreachable place was one expounded on this very forum by the PIP's.

 

[Vixen]

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
And the remainder of the post shows a risible lack of understanding of criminal law as it relates to murder (and manslaughter). The issue of premeditation would have had a significant bearing on sentencing in this case, had Knox and/or Sollecito ultimately been convicted. Indeed, in the US, it actually informs the charge itself (viz. 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder etc), but that's not the case in either Italy or England/Wales. However, in Italy and England/Wales, if a court accepts there was premeditation, it will make a significant difference to the severity of the sentence (everything else being equal of course). So even if a defendant in Italy or England/Wales knows there's overwhelming evidence of guilt of murder, it's still strongly in the defendant's interest to argue that the murder was not premeditated.

ETA: the part I have bolded above is worthy of special mention for ignorance. In manslaughter, premeditation is never a factor. The issue of premeditation only ever applies to murder (i.e. where there's an accusation of malice aforethought). Chalk another one up

Is there an echo?

I already said you could have the last word, so it's pleasing to see you echoing mine.

Data-mining is a well-recognised business concept. Ignorance is as ignorance does.

 

[Vixen]

It actually good that you keep typing. It's clear you do not know what either of the convicting judges found.

You simply speculate, when it is all there for you to read.

Massei said in his now annuled decision, that it was an unpremeditated crime (as it relates to AK and RS). Massei says it was Rudy's crime, which he initiated because Rudy did not need anyone else's urging to attack Meredith.

Massei then out of whole cloth, invents that AK and RS (making out in the next room) go into Meredith's room to see what the commotion is about. Inexplicably acc. to him, instead of helping their friend, they join in with Rudy.

It was tremendously important to Massei's ill-fated reconstruction how the knife got there. He said that Amanda carried it that night for protection out on the streets. Up until the moment of Rudy's attack on Meredith the knife, acc. to Massei, was inert acc. to the crime.

It is a good thing you were not the defence lawyer. You have no clue, at all, what Mignini/Comodi were pushing, and what any of the judges found. You simply make it up as you go.

Kind of like a Nick van der Leek book.

If the blade had been thoroughly scrubbed, why did so-called DNA survive when blood did not?

As I said before, Massei bent over backwards to help the kids. If you carry a knife - for no matter what reason - the reason becomes a moot point if you use it take someone's life in a sadistic manner.

The prosecution identified the knife as the murder weapon, so the onus was on them to show how and why. That's all. That particular knife, they discovered later, was specifically itemised on Raff's rental agreement inventory.

There was no burden of proof on the prosecution to demonstrate the murder was premeditated as it was not a disputed issue by the defence. The defence position was that the pair were completely innocent of any involvement. In any case, even if there was an issue about premeditation, the fact at least two potentially lethal weapons were used on a totally defenseless innocent young woman, is never going to be seen in a favourable light.

 

[bagels]

the fact at least two potentially lethal weapons were used on a totally defenseless innocent young woman, is never going to be seen in a favourable light.

That isn't a fact. Here's an example of a fact: at least one lethal weapon was used on a totally defenseless innocent young woman.

 

[Vixen]

Not that it matters but there is no evidence of the phones being turned off that I can find except by deduction. Here is a bit from Massei: The signal of that base transceiver station reached *Sollecito’s house+ normally in the preceding days (it was ascertained from the printouts that Raffaele Sollecito normally used the mobile phone at night, thus it can be inferred that the phone was rarely turned off), so there were no technical reasons that could explain a blackout on that very night and only on that night.

Once again, they do not produce the proof alleged to exist; phone company records showing the on and off of their phones.

More from Massei: Given the point, in accordance with Chief Inspector Latella’s proposition with regard to the fact that the phone record printouts do not give information as to whether a mobile phone is switched on or turned off, the Consultant recounted the survey, carried out using his own technical equipment inside Sollecito’s apartment at Corso Garibaldi 30, for the purpose of recording the level of reception of the radio-electric signals transmitted by Vodafone’s base transceiver stations operating in the area.

Oopsie - no records of on/off and in the official court records.

What do you mean, 'oops'? They refer to 'inactive' phones. Say you rang me and a curt voice said this person has her phone switched off. That can mean any number of things as I pointed out already. However, police were able to pinpoint Amanda switched off her phone circa 8:42 and Raff's at 8:50 (=or rather, became 'inactive'). Precise timing, eh?

 

[Vixen]

That isn't a fact. Here's an example of a fact: at least one lethal weapon was used on a totally defenseless innocent young woman.

It remains a legal fact bagels, as found by the courts. I did say "potentially lethal", as only one dealt the lethal blow.

 

[Vixen]

I can't go by secret evidence that somebody says exists, only what I have seen for myself.

And I don't know what qualifies as "super fit" but Rudy is certainly athletic, here's his basketball profile showing him on a team which was 4 levels up the pyramid in the Italian national basketball system.

This point and how the PGP deals with it, along with the indifference to the untested alleged semen stain found under Meredith's body, is one of the more interesting aspects of this case to me. Even if Amanda were guilty, the break-in at the cottage would be worthy of further consideration beyond "it was staged." It would be a striking coincidence that Amanda just happened to stage almost to the letter her accomplice's previous break-in, despite that break-in being in itself unusual and regarded as "absolutely not easy" by the victims of it. Did Amanda have knowledge of that break-in? Did Rudy help stage it with her not realizing he was incriminating himself? Did Amanda just get incredibly lucky? The final point is one not acknowledged at all. Part of the obviousness of Rudy's actions as a lone burglar is that break-in, but the PGP act as if it doesn't hurt their case at all. This denial is why Amanda's final acquittal has to be explained as a mafia conspiracy, and not the inevitable result of an incredibly weak case with abundant reasonable doubt.

Here's one news reference:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...V-footage-night-British-student-murdered.html

I'll let you find the Italian tabloid story for yourself.

Amanda was also superfit. Played football and went rock climbing. So what. You'd expect a youth of 20, as Rudy was, to be reasonably fit. It proves nothing he played basketball.

BTW the nine foot wall at the cottage is no way 'identical to the second floor window of the lawyers'. The lawyers' office had a basement (floor 1 in Europe) and steps led up to the front door on Floor 2, with a balcony style ledge for intruders to cling on to. The said lawyers believed that had to be at least two people and they believed it was an inside job of someone looking for confidential data.