The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Stacyhs]

He did not break in: FACT. The nursery school head testified under oath Rudy did not break in. He was never charged with breaking and entry, or trespass, or burglary. EVER. To this day. And never has been.

The fact you have to dissemble, despite being corrected on numerous occasions - and the court documents in this are readily available - proves you have no confidence in your professed belief in the kids' 'innocence'.

He was arrested and taken to the police station. According to PGP favorite, Follain:

They had detained him at a kindergarten in the city on 27 October – six days before Meredith’s murder – and accused him of attempted robbery. Rudy told officers that he had gone there to spend the night, but the head of the kindergarten said he had forced her locker and tampered with her computer. In Rudy’s rucksack, officers found a big kitchen knife he had taken from the kindergarten, a hammer of the kind used for breaking windows on trains in emergencies, as well as a laptop and a cell phone they said he had

Follain, John. A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case (Kindle Locations 2456-2460).

The only reason he wasn't charged and tried was because the Milan prosecutor, after calling the Perugia police, said to let him go. So stop with this "he wasn't charged or tried" nonsense as if that's some kind of evidence that he didn't have a history of criminal activity.

The PGP like to point out the fact that Sollecito carried a pocket knife as so many countless men do but ignore that Guede carried a tool made specifically for breaking glass in emergencies. Yep, hundreds of thousands of people around the world carry train/car emergency glass breaking tools with them just like pocket knives.

 

[Bill Williams]

But, Bill...you've been told umpty-nine times otherwise. Why can you just not accept that eloquent proof?

Vixen tells us what M/B said, but never shows us what they said. What they said is as per above.

Machiavelli's contribution is to tell us that in Italian there are words used which mean the opposite of their plain text meaning. "Hypothetical" and "alleged" suddenly - for no explicable reason - no longer mean "hypothetical" or "alleged".

Then they say their "interpretation" proves that M/B is internally contradictory! That takes a lot of hitzpah to make those moves!

 

[Stacyhs]

Vixen tells us what M/B said, but never shows us what they said. What they said is as per above.

Machiavelli's contribution is to tell us that in Italian there are words used which mean the opposite of their plain text meaning. "Hypothetical" and "alleged" suddenly - for no explicable reason - no longer mean "hypothetical" or "alleged".

Then they say their "interpretation" proves that M/B is internally contradictory! That takes a lot of hitzpah to make those moves!

I'd use another word but it's verboten.

 

[Vixen]

In fairness to Vixen, she HAS provided "evidence" of such a conclusion, and it is this as per her posy upthread:

​

This despite even Patrizia Stefanoni saying that it isn't so, that this can not be divined as outlined by Vixen.

So much for the eloquent proof.

What all are missing is the style of argument that M/B adopted in Sept 2015 in their motivations report. Starting in Section 9 they try a summary of all the salient facts as before the Nencini court, assembled from both sides. They run though those arguments, and conclude that even if the worst case scenario for the pair is true.....

​

​

M/B specifically say IT WOULD NOT BE UNEQUIVOCAL AS A DEMONSTRATION OF POSTHUMOUS CONTACT WITH THAT BLOOD AS A LIKELY ATTEMPT TO REMOVE TRACES - "WOULD NOT BE"...... (of course, the run on sentence does not help....)

My wish is that people would actually follow the argument M/B makes in the whole of Section 9 of their report, rather than cherry-picking.....

If we read Marasca in context we have:

Another element against her is the mixed DNA traces, her and the victim’s one, in the “small bathroom”, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing).

The fact is very suspicious, but it’s not decisive, besides the known considerations about the sure nature and attribution of the traces in question.

Nonetheless, even if we deem the attribution certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal, since it may show also a posthumous touching of that blood, during the probable attempt of removing the most visible traces of what had happened, maybe to help cover up for someone or to steer away suspicion from herself, but not contributing to full certainty about her direct involvement in the murderous action.


Any further and more pertaining interpretation in fact would be anyway resisted by the circumstance – this is decisive indeed – that no trace linkable to her was found on the scene of crime or on the victim’s body, so it follows – if we concede everything – that her contact with the victim’s blood happened in a subsequent moment and in another room of the house.

Whichever way you look at it, it is damning. Bearing in mind blood dries within sixty minutes, she must have been there within one hour of the death, if posthumous. Marasca clearly state, if she was not a direct murderer, she at the very least cleaned up afterwards, 'maybe to help cover up for someone or to steer away suspicion from herself'.

Hence to quote the recent Florence Court of Martuscelli, Masi & Favi 10 Feb 2017, recently upheld 28 June 2017 by the Supreme Court:

Many facts connected with the complete reconstruction of the event, exclude that Guede could have acted alone (Page 26 of the cited decision), and at the same time “as for the whereabouts of
Amanda Knox, whose presence in the dwelling, site of the murder, is clearly certain in the case,
consistent with her admissions, contained also in her hand-written account.” (Page 45 of the
decision).


In regard to Sollecito “The picture of the evidence which emerges from the
impugned judgment is marked by intrinsic unresolved contradictions...It remains,
nonetheless, a strong suspicion that he was actually present in the house at Via della
Pergola on the night of the murder, but at a time, however, that cannot be determined.


On the other hand, given the certainty of the presence of Knox in that house, it is hardly
credible that he was not with her.” (Page 49 of the decision)


If therefore the fact that Knox was in the house 7 Via della Pergola at the time when young Meredith Kercher was killed constitutes a fact of absolute and indisputable certainty; it is evident that the statements
made by Sollecito that she was with him all evening on 1 November 2007 are false, and
that one cannot believe his statements that he couldn't remember what he and Knox were
doing from the evening of 1 November 2007 until the following morning.

It is logical to
assume that she, returning to her boyfriend immediately after having helped someone she
knew (Guede) and others murder her flatmate, would have been greatly distraught, a
circumstance which would have allowed Sollecito to remember well what happened that
night even if he had never set foot in the house where the serious crime had happened.

Further:

It does appear clear, in the light of the judicial truth established in the acquittal ruling
concerning the indisputable presence of Knox in 7 Via della Pergola at the time of the
murder, that if Sollecito had immediately said, without later changing his story, that the
young woman had been far away from him during that time, and if he had told in a
precise way the time at which she had arrived at his house and also her condition [11 ->]
at that time – presumably upset or even extremely distraught, his legal situation would
certainly have been different. It seems probable that he would not have even become a
suspect, or even so, not seen as withholding information or lying in his statements. If he
did become a suspect, the need for preventive custody would have been absent or much
less important, inducing the judges to apply, at the worst, a less restrictive custody order.


Similarly, the need for custody would have been lesser if he hadn't tried making up a
quickly disproved alibi, for example the claimed telephone call from his father, or if he
had explained the incompatibility of his statements with objective facts revealed with
certainty during the investigation, such as the use of his computer at 05:32 and of his cell
phone at 06:00.


These early morning factors, in the order made by the Court of Review
issued 24 days after the start of his detention, were considered by the judges to be
symptomatic of a night spent not sleeping quietly, but of a sleepless night, indirectly
demonstrating that extraordinary events had happened and which the suspect had,
however, always wanted to keep quiet about.

If then, he himself had been present that night in the house at 7 Via della Pergola, as the
acquittal judgment has conjectured, saying that “There remains, nevertheless, a strong
suspicion that he was actually present in the house in Via della Pergola on the night of the
murder, at a time, however, which is not possible to determine. On the other hand, given
the indisputable presence of Knox in that house, it is difficult to believe he wasn't there
with her” (Page 49 of the decision) the impact on his request for a declaration by the court
on the infliction of a penalty and the long time he was detained is still more obvious. In
fact, if he had intervened only after the homicide, he should have told the investigators,
and could have thus explained not only the lies in his statements, but above all the
reasons, aside from having participated in the murder, for his traces found at the scene
(although these are different traces from those initially attributed to him) which he could
have left at a later date. He could then have become a suspect for the crime of aiding and
abetting, but this would not have resulted in a custody order.

In effect, Raff lied for Amanda, and the only reason why would he was in it together with her.

In fact in his first signed statement to the police he confessed that when he'd said they'd been together all evening and night at his flat, he told a 'sack of ****' and he had no idea where she was between 20:45 and 01:00 on the murder night.

He underlined at a press conference with Bongiorno ahead of the 2011 appeal he 'could not vouch for Amanda's whereabouts on the night of the murder'.

So, it is unequivocal she was at the murder scene.

 

[Vixen]

He was arrested and taken to the police station. According to PGP favorite, Follain:


Follain, John. A Death in Italy: The Definitive Account of the Amanda Knox Case (Kindle Locations 2456-2460).

The only reason he wasn't charged and tried was because the Milan prosecutor, after calling the Perugia police, said to let him go. So stop with this "he wasn't charged or tried" nonsense as if that's some kind of evidence that he didn't have a history of criminal activity.

The PGP like to point out the fact that Sollecito carried a pocket knife as so many countless men do but ignore that Guede carried a tool made specifically for breaking glass in emergencies. Yep, hundreds of thousands of people around the world carry train/car emergency glass breaking tools with them just like pocket knives.

Read her actual testimony in court under oath.

 

[Bill Williams]

If we read Marasca in context we have:



Whichever way you look at it, it is damning. Bearing in mind blood dries within sixty minutes, she must have been there within one hour of the death, if posthumous. Marasca clearly state, if she was not a direct murderer, she at the very least cleaned up afterwards, 'maybe to help cover up for someone or to steer away suspicion from herself'.

Hence to quote the recent Florence Court of Martuscelli, Masi & Favi 10 Feb 2017, recently upheld 28 June 2017 by the Supreme Court:



Further:



In effect, Raff lied for Amanda, and the only reason why would he was in it together with her.

In fact in his first signed statement to the police he confessed that when he'd said they'd been together all evening and night at his flat, he told a 'sack of ****' and he had no idea where she was between 20:45 and 01:00 on the murder night.

He underlined at a press conference with Bongiorno ahead of the 2011 appeal he 'could not vouch for Amanda's whereabouts on the night of the murder'.

So, it is unequivocal she was at the murder scene.

It's amazing that you conclude that it is unequivocal when Marasca Bruno wrote clearly in 2015 the exact opposite:

Nevertheless, even if attribution is certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal as a demonstration of posthumous contact with that blood.......... that her contact with the victim’s blood happened in a subsequent moment and in another room of the house​

But what would this thread be if posters didn't purposely make texts mean the exact opposite of what they write.

 

[Vixen]

It's amazing that you conclude that it is unequivocal when Marasca Bruno wrote clearly in 2015 the exact opposite:

​

But what would this thread be if posters didn't purposely make texts mean the exact opposite of what they write.

What is not clear about:

Nonetheless, even if we deem the attribution certain, the trial element would not be unequivocal, since it may show also a posthumous touching of that blood, during the probable attempt of removing the most visible traces of what had happened, maybe to help cover up for someone or to steer away suspicion from herself, but not contributing to full certainty about her direct involvement in the murderous action.

together with:

It does appear clear, in the light of the judicial truth established in the acquittal ruling
concerning the indisputable presence of Knox in 7 Via della Pergola at the time of the murder, that if Sollecito had immediately said, without later changing his story, that the
young woman had been far away from him during that time, and if he had told in a
precise way the time at which she had arrived at his house and also her condition [11 ->]
at that time – presumably upset or even extremely distraught, his legal situation would
certainly have been different.

Clear now?

 

[Bill Williams]

What is not clear about:



together with:



Clear now?

What is clear is that when Marasca-Bruno write about the "judicial truths" they phrase it as upthread.

When they discuss the actual evidence before the Nencini court, they say:

in the form of an inquiry aimed at ascertaining the possibility of (Sollecito's) alleged presence in the house on via della Pergola at the time of the murder.​

9.3 During the analysis of the aforementioned elements of evidence, it is certainly useful to remember that, taking for granted that the murder occurred in via della Pergola, the alleged presence at the house of the defendants cannot, in itself, be considered as proof of guilt.​

On this point it is certainly contradictory and manifestly illogical to [on the one hand] acknowledge (at f. 91) the unreasonableness of hypothesizing the participation in such a “gory” murder in complicity with a stranger in ruling out any notion of involvement on the part of flatmates Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti (who, certainly, did not know Guede), and [on the other hand] not extend the same argument to Sollecito, who turns out never to have even met the Ivorian.​

9.2 The aspects of the objectively contradictory nature [of evidence] can be, as shown below, illustrated for each defendant, in a synoptic presentation of the elements favourable to the hypothesis of guilt and of the elements against it, as they are shown, of course, by the text of the challenged ruling​

Everything after Section 9.2 is a simple repetition of each and every "hypothesis for guilt" as claimed at the Nencini trial, as well as those which were elements against that guilt. Including what you've cherrypicked from your post.

Nice try. But it is good that you now feel compelled to deal with the text. That's an improvement.

 

[Stacyhs]

He did not break in: FACT. The nursery school head testified under oath Rudy did not break in. He was never charged with breaking and entry, or trespass, or burglary. EVER. To this day. And never has been.

The fact you have to dissemble, despite being corrected on numerous occasions - and the court documents in this are readily available - proves you have no confidence in your professed belief in the kids' 'innocence'.

Read her actual testimony in court under oath.

I did:

DEFENSE – Avv. Rocchi – Do you know how he got into your nursery school?

WITNESS – Well, at the time the entrance door was a little defective and there was no gate and in fact later I had a gate installed for safety, but at the time the door was a bit defective and it opened if you kicked it, but this was only known by... us or those who worked in the school knew.

And then in fact the police made him open his rucksack and inside the rucksack we noticed he had taken a meat knife from our kitchen.

So what part of what I said did she not support in her testimony?

 

[bagels]

A knife armed trespassing criminal carrying known stolen loot from a break-in through an upper window smashed with a large rock found covered in blood at the scene of a stabbing featuring an apparent break-in through an upper window smashed with a large rock.

*puts on Sherlock Holmes thinking cap for 10 years straight*

But what could it mean??

 

[TruthCalls]

What is not clear about:



together with:



Clear now?

Vixen, you really are a piece of work. You've spent countless hours copy/pasting hundreds (if not thousands) of lines of text from motivation reports as well as applying your own interpretation to those reports yet in all that time you STILL have not provided one shred of evidence that would in any way suggest Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands. Nothing, nada, zilch. Why is that?

Hint: That was a rhetorical question. We all know there is NO evidence so it's not possible for you to provide any. What's amusing is how much bandwidth you manage to consume avoiding the question.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's amazing how many questions go unanswered no matter how many times they are asked. One would begin to suspect it's because they cannot be answered without putting a bid old dent in the PGP litany.

 

[LondonJohn]

I did:





So what part of what I said did she not support in her testimony?

Hehehehehehe classic. And, in its own way, entirely emblematic of what's constantly happening in a wider context in this thread. One group of people relies on evidence-based argument, reasoned analysis, and no wish/need to be bound to an a priori conclusion (with the consequence that if new evidence and good analysis leads towards a modification or even total reversal of the current conclusion, that is what will readily be done); while another group of people seemingly pulls "facts" out of their backsides at will, and argues based (again, seemingly) almost entirely upon appeals to their own bias and preconceived conclusions.

As a French person would not say: quel surprise.

 

[LondonJohn]

Vixen, you really are a piece of work. You've spent countless hours copy/pasting hundreds (if not thousands) of lines of text from motivation reports as well as applying your own interpretation to those reports yet in all that time you STILL have not provided one shred of evidence that would in any way suggest Amanda washed Meredith's blood from her hands. Nothing, nada, zilch. Why is that?

Hint: That was a rhetorical question. We all know there is NO evidence so it's not possible for you to provide any. What's amusing is how much bandwidth you manage to consume avoiding the question.

In my utterly fruitless attempts to find any court except Massei believing that the evidence showed Knox must have washed Kercher's blood from her hands (the extraordinary police video showing clearly the incompetent CSI swabbing the sink in long (>10cm) sweeping motions conclusively and irreversibly makes a mockery of this assertion anyhow...), I came across this incredible piece of "reasoning" from Chieffi that I hadn't noticed before, regarding Kercher's call home to her mother at just before 9pm on the night of the murder:

...it sounds entirely implausible that one can establish an alternative reconstructive hypothesis on the basis that because the victim did not repeat her call home, it must because she was attacked. The fact that her parents didn't answer could have reminded (Kercher) that they had a commitment that evening and she might try again much later, as an example of a reason for not calling back not to do with the attack.


The number of massive errors within just this small paragraph is astonishing. Chieffi is manifestly unaware that:

a) The attempted call from Kercher did not even connect - it was an attempted call which failed; therefore this is not a situation of the intended recipient "not answering" - the recipient's phone never even rang in the first place (the attempted call was almost certainly made shortly after Kercher parted from her friend Sophie Purton, at a time when she was walking down a narrow street with tall stone-built buildings on each side, where mobile phone reception was provably poor and variable);

b) Kercher's parents had been divorced for many years by that point (and Meredith and her siblings lived with their mother, with occasional access from their father);

c) Kercher did not call her "parents" at just before 9pm on the night of her murder - she called her mother;

d) Kercher's mother would near-impossibly have had a "commitment" that evening, since she was suffering kidney failure, needed dialysis several times per week, and was virtually housebound/bedbound at all other times (certainly at 8pm UK time);

e) Kercher called her mother every day (partially on account of her mother's poor health), and had not yet called her that day;

f) 8pm is obviously not a late time of day, even for someone with a reasonably serious illness - but this issue in itself tends to negate Chieffi's "argument" that Kercher might have decided to attempt to re-phone her mother (not "parents") at a significantly later time; a reasonable interpretation of the situation is that 9pm (UK time, = 10pm Italy time) would be verging on too late in the evening to phone a frail, middle-aged person with kidney failure - instead, logic suggests that when Meredith Kercher tried and failed to call her mother at just before 9pm (8pm UK time), she would have redialled fairly soon thereafter.


Sometimes I wonder whether you can either buy yourself a place in the Italian judiciary, or whether you can perhaps win a place by throwing hoops at skittles.........

 

[Bill Williams]

In my utterly fruitless attempts to find any court except Massei believing that the evidence showed Knox must have washed Kercher's blood from her hands (the extraordinary police video showing clearly the incompetent CSI swabbing the sink in long (>10cm) sweeping motions conclusively and irreversibly makes a mockery of this assertion anyhow...), I came across this incredible piece of "reasoning" from Chieffi that I hadn't noticed before, regarding Kercher's call home to her mother at just before 9pm on the night of the murder:

Massei heard from expert after expert who commented on the Dec 18 SP-video, showing the bra-clasp being handed from technician to technician without any obvious change of gloves - only to be shown replaced onto the floor and photographed, as if that was the spot on which it had been found.

Every expert testifying in front of Massei who commented said that what they'd seen on the video would have ruled out the clasp as meaningful evidence, simply because of its handling - but Massei instead ignored it all and turned the "Raffaele's DNA on the clasp" as a judicial fact.

But back to the "blood on the hands."

1. Massei said (in 2010) that whoever left the bloodmarks on the bathroom lightswitch must have had bloodsoaked hands.

2 "And it is probable - not necessary, but probable - that during the following act of scrubbing the hands to remove the blood, he/she left the mixed trace consisting of Meredith’s blood and of cells which had been removed by rubbing during the act of washing. An entirely probable outcome given the likelihood of the act of scrubbing, yet not a necessary one, since the running water which was used in the shower stall or in the bidet or in the sink, or in several of these sanitary fittings, might well have rinsed away the washed-up blood and the cells which had been lost during this washing."

3. "While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data (Dr. Stefanoni explained the impossibility of determining the date, the succession or the simultaneity in the depositing of the components of the mixed trace specimen and the impossibility of attributing the haematological component to one or the other of the contributors), the information previously put forward provides answers which are entirely consistent with the circumstantial evidence that has emerged and which the Court considers convincing."​

So, once again in the face of even "Dr." Stefanoni's caution to the court, Massei ignores the caution and "considers it convincing". Massei would not even listen to the "expert" most friendly to the court. Massei finds this judicially-convincing, even while conceding:

"While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data....."​

We now know why Marasca-Bruno also chided lower-court judges for making rulings based on their hunches, rather than the evidence.

That, gentle readers, is the sum-total of the evidence against Amanda Knox that she, "sloughed blood from her hands," which the later-Marasca-Bruno courts finds so convincing that it says that......

...... even if this is true, all it proves is that Knox had been in the cottage at a later time and in some other room, different to the murder room.

Read that quote again. That could very well have not even been Meredith's blood.

 

[Bill Williams]

So, once again in the face of even "Dr." Stefanoni's caution to the court, Massei ignores the caution and "considers it convincing". Massei would not even listen to the "expert" most friendly to the court. Massei finds this judicially-convincing, even while conceding:

"While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data....."​

We now know why Marasca-Bruno also chided lower-court judges for making rulings based on their hunches, rather than the evidence.

That, gentle readers, is the sum-total of the evidence against Amanda Knox that she, "sloughed blood from her hands," which the later-Marasca-Bruno courts finds so convincing that it says that......

...... even if this is true, all it proves is that Knox had been in the cottage at a later time and in some other room, different to the murder room.

Read that quote again. That could very well have not even been Meredith's blood.

I will go one step further (pure speculation, I concede) than that, "it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data.....", as observed by even the first convicting court!

When one considers that Mignini ordered that the body temperature NOT be taken in situ, at the crimescene..... when one considers that the presumed-semen stain on the pillow under the victim's bare hips was not even tested.... when one considers that the Scientific Police did not forensically test the outside of the victim's bedroom door (doorhandle, etc.), when one considers that they had to wait until Dec 18 for a second forensic sweep of a hopelessly compromised crimescene, then 46 days old....

The police and prosecutor were not even interested in generating scientific data.​

The less there was of scientific data, the more the court was able to speculate. This was exactly one of the criticisms that the 2015 Marasca-Bruno report aimed at the whole court process - judicial hunches, became judicial truths, and replaced actual evidence.

This whole canard, "Knox wiped Meredith's blood from her hands," is one of them. Massei readily admits, "While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data....." to come to that conclusion, he comes to that conclusion anyway, because of the way he views the overall circumstantial nature of this crime.

There's a case to be made that this was purposeful - the less evidence allowed, the more the judges could speculate.

 

[Bill Williams]

It is ironic that Vixen tries her best to offer a forensic accounting of evidence related to her continual claim, "Knox washed the victim's blood from her hands,".....

Even the original convicting court said in 2010:

"While it is not possible to use the genetic scientific data....."​

..... to come to this conclusion, Vixen tries to offer genetic scientific data anyway.

 

[Vixen]

Hehehehehehe classic. And, in its own way, entirely emblematic of what's constantly happening in a wider context in this thread. One group of people relies on evidence-based argument, reasoned analysis, and no wish/need to be bound to an a priori conclusion (with the consequence that if new evidence and good analysis leads towards a modification or even total reversal of the current conclusion, that is what will readily be done); while another group of people seemingly pulls "facts" out of their backsides at will, and argues based (again, seemingly) almost entirely upon appeals to their own bias and preconceived conclusions.

As a French person would not say: quel surprise.

I'm sure, with concerted effort you, too, can be, 'one of the group of people relies on evidence-based argument, reasoned analysis, and no wish/need to be bound to an a priori conclusion (with the consequence that if new evidence and good analysis leads towards a modification or even total reversal of the current conclusion, that is what will readily be done'.

It's easy: get rid of 'hypothetical situations' and conjecture; read the court documents; put aside ego and emotions; approach it as one would a mathematical puzzle, logically, objectively and dispassionately. Look at the facts found by the trial court.

 

[Vixen]

In my utterly fruitless attempts to find any court except Massei believing that the evidence showed Knox must have washed Kercher's blood from her hands (the extraordinary police video showing clearly the incompetent CSI swabbing the sink in long (>10cm) sweeping motions conclusively and irreversibly makes a mockery of this assertion anyhow...), I came across this incredible piece of "reasoning" from Chieffi that I hadn't noticed before, regarding Kercher's call home to her mother at just before 9pm on the night of the murder:

...it sounds entirely implausible that one can establish an alternative reconstructive hypothesis on the basis that because the victim did not repeat her call home, it must because she was attacked. The fact that her parents didn't answer could have reminded (Kercher) that they had a commitment that evening and she might try again much later, as an example of a reason for not calling back not to do with the attack.


The number of massive errors within just this small paragraph is astonishing. Chieffi is manifestly unaware that:

a) The attempted call from Kercher did not even connect - it was an attempted call which failed; therefore this is not a situation of the intended recipient "not answering" - the recipient's phone never even rang in the first place (the attempted call was almost certainly made shortly after Kercher parted from her friend Sophie Purton, at a time when she was walking down a narrow street with tall stone-built buildings on each side, where mobile phone reception was provably poor and variable);

b) Kercher's parents had been divorced for many years by that point (and Meredith and her siblings lived with their mother, with occasional access from their father);

c) Kercher did not call her "parents" at just before 9pm on the night of her murder - she called her mother;

d) Kercher's mother would near-impossibly have had a "commitment" that evening, since she was suffering kidney failure, needed dialysis several times per week, and was virtually housebound/bedbound at all other times (certainly at 8pm UK time);

e) Kercher called her mother every day (partially on account of her mother's poor health), and had not yet called her that day;

f) 8pm is obviously not a late time of day, even for someone with a reasonably serious illness - but this issue in itself tends to negate Chieffi's "argument" that Kercher might have decided to attempt to re-phone her mother (not "parents") at a significantly later time; a reasonable interpretation of the situation is that 9pm (UK time, = 10pm Italy time) would be verging on too late in the evening to phone a frail, middle-aged person with kidney failure - instead, logic suggests that when Meredith Kercher tried and failed to call her mother at just before 9pm (8pm UK time), she would have redialled fairly soon thereafter.


Sometimes I wonder whether you can either buy yourself a place in the Italian judiciary, or whether you can perhaps win a place by throwing hoops at skittles.........

Chieffi is simply giving a plausible reason why Mez may not have called back. It can't be assumed that she was being attacked precisely at that time, 'because it was the last call she ever made'.

That's all.


Chieffi is <fx gestures upwards> up there.

And you are...?

 

[Vixen]

What is clear is that when Marasca-Bruno write about the "judicial truths" they phrase it as upthread.

When they discuss the actual evidence before the Nencini court, they say:

​

​

​

​

Everything after Section 9.2 is a simple repetition of each and every "hypothesis for guilt" as claimed at the Nencini trial, as well as those which were elements against that guilt. Including what you've cherrypicked from your post.

Nice try. But it is good that you now feel compelled to deal with the text. That's an improvement.

You have the tenacity of a pit bull terrier, I'll say that of you.