For heaven's sake, you should take all these issues to Judge Massei. None of them as you list is a change of alibi, but still - Judge Massei settled it in 2010.
Then again Nick van der Leek would not know this because even you say he'd not heard of the case until May 2015. Now you are parroting non sequitors from him.
Vixen makes several allegations against Amanda. With regards to her allegation that Amanda said she was at the cottage when speaking with Filomena when the phone tower which picked up the call covered Raffaele’s apartment. My understanding is the phone tower did cover the cottage and someone from this forum can perhaps confirm this.
Vixen claims that Amanda could not remember at all what she did on the evening of the murder. Where are the statements where Amanda said this? Vixen also claims Amanda gave three different reasons for switching off the mobile phone. Are there any statements for this? With regards to the time Amanda ate dinner, Amanda has always said she can’t remember the exact time she ate dinner as she was not keeping a record. This is dealt with in Amanda’s appeal for the Hellman trial :-
“According to Amanda the time they ate dinner was changed from 22:00 to 23:00. Amanda is accused of making the time later to add to her alibi and cover the time of the murder. However, Amanda has always stated she did not remember exactly what time they had dinner. Amanda repeatedly stated during interrogation the night of November 6, 2007, that she had found it very difficult to remember the exact hours of dinner and the movie on November 01, 2007. During her June 12, 2009 testimony, Amanda stated: “we talked, we had dinner, and we had not left the apartment. I had not looked at the clock. I am not able to tell exactly that time I did everything.” Amanda also stated that she did not remember the exact events of the evening very well, and said “I think we were making dinner, but I am not sure.” She was asked if they ate dinner after the movie and she said “I think so.” It is a very arbitrary assumption that Amanda attempted to postpone the hour of dinner for an alibi based upon her stating she did not know the exact time lines of her activities. Instead she recounted as best she could these normal activities that are repeated everyday and hard to be framed in a time line. It is a common experience that two people in love might prolong or have intermittent consumption of food, without accurate times”
Even if Amanda had difficulty remembering what she did on the night of the murder and details may change, how is this evidence of guilt? Vixen and other PGP expect people to have perfect minute by minute recall of what they did on a certain time and if the recall is not perfect, they have a period of time they can’t account for. The human brain does not work like a computer and people will have difficulty remembering details and likely to get details wrong. If Amanda and Raffaele were guilty and they spent time in the cottage murdering Meredith and they needed to account for this time if questioned, why is it that Amanda and Raffaele seemed to have made no attempt to construct a common story of what they did in the time they were supposedly in the cottage? This is an extract from an article called the unbearable thoughtlessness of guilt which deals with this :-
“The most obvious thing, the thing that anybody at their place would have done would have been to plan the cleanup of the crime scene for the following morning and, above all, conceive a story, invent an alibi for themselves for that evening.
This point cannot be stressed too much: if guilty they would certainly have spent the wee hours of November 2nd in planning a common, shared tale of their actions during the previous evening. They are clever, aren’t they?
So they had to imagine that they would have been questioned about their whereabouts on that evening and they would have all too naturally worked out a more or less detailed story of their actions.
Usually the weakness of concocted stories between accomplices is that they agree too much: the common error is that of working out too many details, of telling them with too much precision and with little or no difference between the two accounts.
While we can suppose that our clever and devious couple will not commit such a mistake, it would also be an offense to their intelligence to surmise that they will not at least agree about the basic elements of they concocted story or that they will not be able to say with certainty at what time they had dinner, when there was the pipe leak, when they stopped watching the movie, when they had sex and approximately also when they fell asleep.
Because if they are guilty they know perfectly that it is all important that their story appears believable, that it doesn’t change and that at least a timeline if not the minute details must be agreed upon and coherently repeated to everyone.
In this scenario Raffaele would have never told a totally different story to a British journalist (letting alone the possibility Raffaele misunderstood her questions and/or she misunderstood his answers).
But also, Amanda would never have appeared vague or shifting about the time of the dinner or about the pipe leak: they would have put times in their story, maybe not down to the minute, but certainly down to the half hour.
In synthesis: they would have had a better reciprocal alibi than the one they presented in the historical reality”
Vixen claims Amanda said she was in a state of panic when the postal police said she was not when they arrived at the cottage. The postal lied they had arrived at the cottage twenty minutes earlier than they actually did which was shown on CCTV. Officer Michele Battistelli lied that he had not entered the room when Meredith’s door was broken which was contradicted by two witnesses. Is the testimony of officers who were proven liars reliable?
