The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 25

[Vixen]

So I did! Thanks for pointing it out. Now corrected.

When I first considered the premise that Kercher might have called her mother that afternoon (and that that call might have been the last one made from her UK mobile before that aborted 8.56pm attempt), I did get to wondering: had this 8.56pm call perhaps also been related to the attack? Did the attacker (Guede) perhaps grab Kercher's phone as she took it out of her bag, accidentally dial the last dialled number (Kercher's mother), and then terminate the call?

Of course, as it turned out, Kercher didn't call her mother at all earlier that afternoon, and the number she attempted to reach at 8.56pm (her mother's home landline number) was totally unrelated to any other number with which Kercher had had communication earlier that day. So the original premise remains entirely intact and feasible: almost immediately after parting from Sophie Purton, Kercher attempted to call her mother at home, but the call failed - very probably owing to the local topography causing signal reception/transmission problems. And then Kercher was confronted and attacked by Guede very shortly after returning home to the cottage, before she had any opportunity to call her mother back.

Oh dear. We are back to speculation.

 

[LondonJohn]

Chieffi understood perfectly well. He was responding to the appeal which made the ludicrous claim that the last call signified time of death, by giving generic examples of why.

It matters not a jot whether it was a call to the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker. It doesn't change the thrust of his argument.

Sigh.

Well, firstly..... I'm sure Kercher's family would be delighted to hear you state that it didn't matter whether that failed 8.56pm call was to "the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker", rather than Meredith's sick mother. Lovely,

And it mattered significantly that the failed 8.56pm call was to Kercher's sick mother. Kercher made an effort to speak with her mother by phone every day (her mother was very ill, plus it was her mother alone - and not her father - who had raised Meredith from a very young age after her parents divorced). Kercher had not yet spoken with her mother that day. She'd spoken with her father that afternoon, but not her mother.

Given that it was around 9pm Italy time - 8pm UK time - this would seem a reasonable time to call someone at home who was sick but not at an intensive-care level of sickness. And that would appear to have been Kercher's motivation in attempting to call her mother at just before 8pm UK time, just after she parted from Sophie Purton and was walking back to the cottage.

Given all this context, it's a wholly valid defence argument that it is extremely surprising - and potentially indicative of an intervention depriving Kercher of free will - that Kercher did not simply call her mother's number again after arriving home. After all, if she (correctly) thought that it was appropriate (from the perspective of her mother's health situation) to call at 8pm, it would surely be just as appropriate to call again at, say, 8.10pm - once Kercher had arrived back, perhaps got something to drink, perhaps even got ready for bed.

Yet Kercher did not make any such repeated attempt to call her mother. It's entirely reasonable to suggest that this is evidence (not especially strong evidence on its own, of course, but evidence nonetheless, especially when added to other evidence) that Kercher was confronted and attacked shortly after arriving home - that is, before having the chance to call her mother back.

I'm sure Kercher would have had no second thought about trying again to call her UK butcher, baker or candlestick maker. Any call to those businesses (all of which would have already been closed at that time anyhow) could wait until the next day. But not Kercher's sick mother, with whom Kercher had not yet spoken that day.

And Chieffi dismissed this as a piece of circumstantial evidence using a crock of **** "argument" which was based on a number of critical material inaccuracies (all of which contributed to the the invalidity of his "argument").

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear. We are back to speculation.

Yeah - Knox and/or Sollecito stabbing Kercher in the neck is based on credible, reliable evidence pointing to the inescapable inference that a) Knox and/or Sollecito participated in the attack, and b) Knox and/or Sollecito held the knife/knives that were used to inflict the wounds on Kercher.

Riiiiight. Not speculation at all. Only speculation when it suits, huh?

 

[LondonJohn]

Like Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito? Why elsewhere do you believe (or claim to believe) they should be exempt from all this?

Unfortunately, police are under enormous pressure to solve a crime, and given soft-hearted jurors propensity to feel more sorry for the defendant than the victim, police have to ensure they have a watertight case.

The number of bastards who have got away with murder on a 'technicality', makes this imperative.

However, they have a code of conduct, have sworn an oath of integrity, have clear lines of authority. Each police officer will only have key information on a 'need to know' basis.

There is no point in beating up suspects or torturing them, as it only means they get away with the crime, thanks to bad cops.

Wow. Each and every paragraph here is either incorrect or inaccurate. (As it applies to Italy in its current disfunctional state of law enforcement, that is.)

As an aside, that last (risible) paragraph might make some of the Genoa G8 protesters chuckle (or, actually, the precise opposite). I heartily recommend that you read the recent excoriating ECHR interim judgement on the treatment of certain of those G8 protesters. And there are legion other examples in Italy. Even setting aside Knox and Sollecito.

 

[Vixen]

Yeah - Knox and/or Sollecito stabbing Kercher in the neck is based on credible, reliable evidence pointing to the inescapable inference that a) Knox and/or Sollecito participated in the attack, and b) Knox and/or Sollecito held the knife/knives that were used to inflict the wounds on Kercher.
Riiiiight. Not speculation at all. Only speculation when it suits, huh?

That is the chilling reality, as found as a fact by the trial court and the second instance appeal court.

Florence and Cassazione have just recently underlined it AGAIN, not five days ago that:

Amanda Knox was indisputably and with absolute certainty present at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

Marasca-Bruno state that if she was not the actually killer, then she would have been cleaning up to cover up for the person who did do it.

When will the penny drop...?

 

[Vixen]

LOL! I almost missed it.

I almost missed that in one sentence you have undercut the very claim you've been insisting on for months now - that the presence of Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom they shared could only have come from live-skin cells from Knox.

You claim that that was regarded as factual not only by the 2015 Marasca-Bruno court which acquitted the pair, but also by the 2010 Massei court which had convicted them.

What are you saying now? You're trying to claim that when Massei wrote his motiviations report in 2010, he meant that, "Where (the DNA in question) comes from is not necessarily essential."

Hoots! You've invalidated your own argument. I'll give you one thing, though, You have the tenacity of a pit bull terrier, before you eventually invalidate what you've been on about.

Massei did not labour the point of Amanda bleeding the same time as Mez, as Stefanoni and the prosecutor strongly believed, from the evidence.

This is because it is already proven it is Knox' DNA mixed in with Mez', from epithelial rubbing of Knox's hands. Knox confirmed it was her blood on the tap and that it was deposited during the relevant time period. (Ew.)

Well, it's just as well we can't physically lock jaws with each other then.

 

[Vixen]

Sigh.

Well, firstly..... I'm sure Kercher's family would be delighted to hear you state that it didn't matter whether that failed 8.56pm call was to "the butcher, the baker or the candlestick maker", rather than Meredith's sick mother. Lovely,

And it mattered significantly that the failed 8.56pm call was to Kercher's sick mother. Kercher made an effort to speak with her mother by phone every day (her mother was very ill, plus it was her mother alone - and not her father - who had raised Meredith from a very young age after her parents divorced). Kercher had not yet spoken with her mother that day. She'd spoken with her father that afternoon, but not her mother.

Given that it was around 9pm Italy time - 8pm UK time - this would seem a reasonable time to call someone at home who was sick but not at an intensive-care level of sickness. And that would appear to have been Kercher's motivation in attempting to call her mother at just before 8pm UK time, just after she parted from Sophie Purton and was walking back to the cottage.

Given all this context, it's a wholly valid defence argument that it is extremely surprising - and potentially indicative of an intervention depriving Kercher of free will - that Kercher did not simply call her mother's number again after arriving home. After all, if she (correctly) thought that it was appropriate (from the perspective of her mother's health situation) to call at 8pm, it would surely be just as appropriate to call again at, say, 8.10pm - once Kercher had arrived back, perhaps got something to drink, perhaps even got ready for bed.

Yet Kercher did not make any such repeated attempt to call her mother. It's entirely reasonable to suggest that this is evidence (not especially strong evidence on its own, of course, but evidence nonetheless, especially when added to other evidence) that Kercher was confronted and attacked shortly after arriving home - that is, before having the chance to call her mother back.

I'm sure Kercher would have had no second thought about trying again to call her UK butcher, baker or candlestick maker. Any call to those businesses (all of which would have already been closed at that time anyhow) could wait until the next day. But not Kercher's sick mother, with whom Kercher had not yet spoken that day.

And Chieffi dismissed this as a piece of circumstantial evidence using a crock of **** "argument" which was based on a number of critical material inaccuracies (all of which contributed to the the invalidity of his "argument").

Lovely piece of fantasising of what went through Mez' mind.

Unfortunately we have to reject the null hypothesis 'Meredith would have called her mother back within ten minutes' of a missed call, because:

As any mother will tell you kids do not ring often enough. It is wonderful kids take their mothers for granted knowing they will always be there, thus there is little or no anxiety by Sprog not ringing Mum or Dad frenetically.

Meredith was a thoughtful loving daughter and WOULD have rung up her mother when she had the chance. She kept her UK phone in her pocket just in case her mum needed to call her.

Only one person knew Mez had two phones. One stolen from her jeans pocket, or when it fell on the floor, and the other filched from her bag.

 

[LondonJohn]

That is the chilling reality, as found as a fact by the trial court and the second instance appeal court.

Florence and Cassazione have just recently underlined it AGAIN, not five days ago that:

Amanda Knox was indisputably and with absolute certainty present at the cottage when Meredith was murdered.

Marasca-Bruno state that if she was not the actually killer, then she would have been cleaning up to cover up for the person who did do it.

When will the penny drop...?

No. You failed to address the actual question. I'm not talking about what (faulty) courts created as "judicial facts".

I'll pose it actual pertinent question again. Hopefully more clearly this time. Here we go:

Is there actual EVIDENCE (credible, reliable evidence, that is) to support a conclusion that Knox and/or Sollecito held one or more of the knives that inflicted the stab wounds on Kercher's neck? Or is this merely speculation (aka "unsupported inference"), with no evidence base at all?

(If there IS credible, reliable evidence to support the conclusion that Knox and/or Sollecito held one or more of the knives that stabbed Kercher in the neck, please would you be so kind to direct me to it.)

 

[Stacyhs]

Wow. Each and every paragraph here is either incorrect or inaccurate. (As it applies to Italy in its current disfunctional state of law enforcement, that is.)

As an aside, that last (risible) paragraph might make some of the Genoa G8 protesters chuckle (or, actually, the precise opposite). I heartily recommend that you read the recent excoriating ECHR interim judgement on the treatment of certain of those G8 protesters. And there are legion other examples in Italy. Even setting aside Knox and Sollecito.

I wonder how Profazio, one of Sollecito's interrogators, managed to get not one, but two, confirmed false rape confessions from two completely innocent grown men two years later? I'm sure they were overcome by the tea and nibbles they were served.

Vixen's penchant for believing that police are always honest and strictly law-abiding, oath-following servants of the law is just more selective blindness based on confirmation bias. Does she forget that Napoleoni is currently charged with breaking the law and abusing her authority as a police officer? Or that Zugarini, one of Knox's interrogators, and another officer under Napoleoni were suspended for doing exactly that? Has she forgotten Lumumba's description of his own physically and mentally abusive interrogation?

From the UK Independent 04 Nov. 2016:

Out of 170 migrants in Italy interviewed by Amnesty, most voluntarily gave their fingerprints and reported no problems, but 24 people alleged having been subjected to ill-treatment by police.

Several others said unnecessary or excessive force had been used to make them give their fingerprints, the group added.

A man named only as Adam, a 27-year-old from Darfur, Sudan, told Amnesty that policemen beat him and subjected him to electric shocks with a stun baton after he refused to provide his fingerprints.

Adam claimed the officers then made him take off his clothes and pulled on his genitals with a tool. “They held me from shoulders and legs, took my testicles with the plier, and pulled twice,” Adam said. “I can’t say how painful it was.”

 

[LondonJohn]

Lovely piece of fantasising of what went through Mez' mind.

Unfortunately we have to reject the null hypothesis 'Meredith would have called her mother back within ten minutes' of a missed call, because:

As any mother will tell you kids do not ring often enough. It is wonderful kids take their mothers for granted knowing they will always be there, thus there is little or no anxiety by Sprog not ringing Mum or Dad frenetically.

Meredith was a thoughtful loving daughter and WOULD have rung up her mother when she had the chance. She kept her UK phone in her pocket just in case her mum needed to call her.

Only one person knew Mez had two phones. One stolen from her jeans pocket, or when it fell on the floor, and the other filched from her bag.

Once again, you entirely miss the point.

The point is this: given that Kercher made it a habit to phone her mother at home every day (a habit which apparently was all the more important to Kercher given her mother's poor state of health and living on her own), and given that Kercher tried to call her mother at home at 8.56pm on 1st November (having not spoken with her at all that day up to that point) but the call failed.......

...... is it or is it not reasonable to suspect that Kercher might have tried again to call her mother once she had arrived back at the cottage, and that this second attempt might have occurred fairly soon after Kercher's return to the cottage (given that it was 8pm in the UK, and it is reasonable to suspect that Kercher might not have wanted to phone her sick mother any later than, say, 9pm UK time)?

And if it is reasonable to suspect all of the above, then the empirical fact that Kercher made no further attempt to call her mother after that failed 8.56pm call can reasonably be assessed as (weak, but still notable) evidence that Kercher was prevented from making a second call attempt to her mother. And, in turn, this can reasonably be assessed as (weak, but still notable) evidence that Knox was either confronted or directly attacked some time shortly after arriving back at the cottage at around 9pm.

One need not impute any "fantasizing about what went through Mez' Mez's Meredith's Kercher's mind". After all, there's sworn testimony that she felt a need to phone her ill mother every day (wherever she possibly could). And it's evidentially clear that she hadn't phoned her mother on that particular day (1st November). And it's evidentially clear that Kercher tried but failed to call her mother at 8.56pm on that day. And it's reasonable to suggest that 8pm (UK time) would not generally be considered too late in the evening to call someone at home, even someone with Kercher's mother's health problems. So it's reasonable to suggest that Kercher might very well have made a second attempt to call her mother shortly after returning to the cottage (i.e. before it DID get too late in the evening (UK time) to call her mother).

Of course, there is another option to consider: that Kercher simply forgot to call her mother back. That is possible. However, given the supporting evidence, it's (IMO) reasonable to suggest that it's unlikely that Kercher would have forgotten, especially given that she clearly remembered to attempt that first call at 8.56pm.

And lastly, as I keep stating, this is not - in and of itself - strong evidence that Kercher was indeed confronted and attacked shortly after arriving home at the cottage. However, it does carry a certain weight, and when it's added to numerous other pieces of evidence and testimony (not least Guede's interesting placement of Kercher's loud scream - which Guede clearly thought might have been heard by people on the street or even in nearby apartments - at "9.20-9.30ish", and the stomach/duodenum/small intestine contents found at autopsy, matched with an understanding of what and when Kercher ate that evening), it certainly helps build a convincing picture of Kercher being confronted (by Guede) shortly after arriving back at the cottage, and having been attacked, assaulted and murdered (by Guede) before 9.30pm.

 

[Vixen]

No. You failed to address the actual question. I'm not talking about what (faulty) courts created as "judicial facts".

I'll pose it actual pertinent question again. Hopefully more clearly this time. Here we go:

Is there actual EVIDENCE (credible, reliable evidence, that is) to support a conclusion that Knox and/or Sollecito held one or more of the knives that inflicted the stab wounds on Kercher's neck? Or is this merely speculation (aka "unsupported inference"), with no evidence base at all?

(If there IS credible, reliable evidence to support the conclusion that Knox and/or Sollecito held one or more of the knives that stabbed Kercher in the neck, please would you be so kind to direct me to it.)

The knife.

 

[Vixen]

I wonder how Profazio, one of Sollecito's interrogators, managed to get not one, but two, confirmed false rape confessions from two completely innocent grown men two years later? I'm sure they were overcome by the tea and nibbles they were served.

Vixen's penchant for believing that police are always honest and strictly law-abiding, oath-following servants of the law is just more selective blindness based on confirmation bias. Does she forget that Napoleoni is currently charged with breaking the law and abusing her authority as a police officer? Or that Zugarini, one of Knox's interrogators, and another officer under Napoleoni were suspended for doing exactly that? Has she forgotten Lumumba's description of his own physically and mentally abusive interrogation?

From the UK Independent 04 Nov. 2016:

Let us know the outcome of their complaints.

 

[Stacyhs]

Lovely piece of fantasising of what went through Mez' mind.

Unfortunately we have to reject the null hypothesis 'Meredith would have called her mother back within ten minutes' of a missed call, because:

As any mother will tell you kids do not ring often enough. It is wonderful kids take their mothers for granted knowing they will always be there, thus there is little or no anxiety by Sprog not ringing Mum or Dad frenetically.

Meredith was a thoughtful loving daughter and WOULD have rung up her mother when she had the chance. She kept her UK phone in her pocket just in case her mum needed to call her.

Only one person knew Mez had two phones. One stolen from her jeans pocket, or when it fell on the floor, and the other filched from her bag.

I find it hypocritical that you comment about LJ's "fantasising of what went through Mez' mind" when you have repeatedly informed us of what (you think) went on in Knox's mind. We've even heard about her "adrenalin high" which you conjured up.

Your little story about kids not ringing up their mothers often enough does not pertain to Meredith who called her mother every single day due to her serious illness.

Any logical person (not blinded by confirmation bias) would accept that Meredith would normally have redialed her mother immediately when her initial call failed to go through. It makes no sense for her not to have done so. She dialed her initially because that's when she had the chance to talk with her. A failed call takes what? Thirty seconds or so? Do you think she suddenly lost the time and opportunity to redial within that 30 seconds for some reason? I do; Guede.

Your claim that "only one person knew she had two phones" is false. So did Filomena as she called both Meredith's phones on Nov 2.

 

[Bill Williams]

LOL! I almost missed it.

I almost missed that in one sentence you have undercut the very claim you've been insisting on for months now - that the presence of Knox's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood in the bathroom they shared could only have come from live-skin cells from Knox.

You claim that that was regarded as factual not only by the 2015 Marasca-Bruno court which acquitted the pair, but also by the 2010 Massei court which had convicted them.

What are you saying now? You're trying to claim that when Massei wrote his motiviations report in 2010, he meant that, "Where (the DNA in question) comes from is not necessarily essential."
Hoots! You've invalidated your own argument. I'll give you one thing, though, You have the tenacity of a pit bull terrier, before you eventually invalidate what you've been on about.

Massei did not labour the point of Amanda bleeding the same time as Mez, as Stefanoni and the prosecutor strongly believed, from the evidence.

This is because it is already proven it is Knox' DNA mixed in with Mez', from epithelial rubbing of Knox's hands. Knox confirmed it was her blood on the tap and that it was deposited during the relevant time period. (Ew.)

Well, it's just as well we can't physically lock jaws with each other then.

You've missed it. It is you who's claimed that Knox's DNA got in the mix via vigourous rubbing off of the victim's blood, so much so that live skin cells accounted for the DNA which was present. The way you put it is the, "epithelial rubbing of Knox's hands".

Even Massei said that this was not forensically & scientifically demonstrated - it's his inference, a hunch. It's got nothing to do with Knox allegedly bleeding at the same time as the victim.

Still, we are waiting for your "elegant proof" that the source of the DNA was the "epithelial rubbing of Knox's hands". Otherwise the collection video itself, in a bathroom Knox and the victim shared for weeks is enough to explain the mixing.

You'd destroyed your own argument. Where the DNA comes from is a very relevant question, esp. when sloppily collected in the bathroom they shared!

 

[Vixen]

Once again, you entirely miss the point.

The point is this: given that Kercher made it a habit to phone her mother at home every day (a habit which apparently was all the more important to Kercher given her mother's poor state of health and living on her own), and given that Kercher tried to call her mother at home at 8.56pm on 1st November (having not spoken with her at all that day up to that point) but the call failed.......

...... is it or is it not reasonable to suspect that Kercher might have tried again to call her mother once she had arrived back at the cottage, and that this second attempt might have occurred fairly soon after Kercher's return to the cottage (given that it was 8pm in the UK, and it is reasonable to suspect that Kercher might not have wanted to phone her sick mother any later than, say, 9pm UK time)?

And if it is reasonable to suspect all of the above, then the empirical fact that Kercher made no further attempt to call her mother after that failed 8.56pm call can reasonably be assessed as (weak, but still notable) evidence that Kercher was prevented from making a second call attempt to her mother. And, in turn, this can reasonably be assessed as (weak, but still notable) evidence that Knox was either confronted or directly attacked some time shortly after arriving back at the cottage at around 9pm.

One need not impute any "fantasizing about what went through Mez' Mez's Meredith's Kercher's mind". After all, there's sworn testimony that she felt a need to phone her ill mother every day (wherever she possibly could). And it's evidentially clear that she hadn't phoned her mother on that particular day (1st November). And it's evidentially clear that Kercher tried but failed to call her mother at 8.56pm on that day. And it's reasonable to suggest that 8pm (UK time) would not generally be considered too late in the evening to call someone at home, even someone with Kercher's mother's health problems. So it's reasonable to suggest that Kercher might very well have made a second attempt to call her mother shortly after returning to the cottage (i.e. before it DID get too late in the evening (UK time) to call her mother).

Of course, there is another option to consider: that Kercher simply forgot to call her mother back. That is possible. However, given the supporting evidence, it's (IMO) reasonable to suggest that it's unlikely that Kercher would have forgotten, especially given that she clearly remembered to attempt that first call at 8.56pm.

And lastly, as I keep stating, this is not - in and of itself - strong evidence that Kercher was indeed confronted and attacked shortly after arriving home at the cottage. However, it does carry a certain weight, and when it's added to numerous other pieces of evidence and testimony (not least Guede's interesting placement of Kercher's loud scream - which Guede clearly thought might have been heard by people on the street or even in nearby apartments - at "9.20-9.30ish", and the stomach/duodenum/small intestine contents found at autopsy, matched with an understanding of what and when Kercher ate that evening), it certainly helps build a convincing picture of Kercher being confronted (by Guede) shortly after arriving back at the cottage, and having been attacked, assaulted and murdered (by Guede) before 9.30pm.

Just as likely she encountered Knox and Guede, and later, Raff. She would then have quite reasonably resolved to call Mum when she was alone and rid of the unwelcome company foisted in her by her stalkers.

If she met Rudy on the way to the cottage then he had no need to climb up the sheer 12'4" wall.

 

[Vixen]

I find it hypocritical that you comment about LJ's "fantasising of what went through Mez' mind" when you have repeatedly informed us of what (you think) went on in Knox's mind. We've even heard about her "adrenalin high" which you conjured up.

Your little story about kids not ringing up their mothers often enough does not pertain to Meredith who called her mother every single day due to her serious illness.

Any logical person (not blinded by confirmation bias) would accept that Meredith would normally have redialed her mother immediately when her initial call failed to go through. It makes no sense for her not to have done so. She dialed her initially because that's when she had the chance to talk with her. A failed call takes what? Thirty seconds or so? Do you think she suddenly lost the time and opportunity to redial within that 30 seconds for some reason? I do; Guede.

Your claim that "only one person knew she had two phones" is false. So did Filomena as she called both Meredith's phones on Nov 2.

If I don't get through to my mother, I simply ring her an hour or two later.


I thought you said Rudy was hiding in the bathroom when she arrived?

How did Rudy know she had TWO phones to steal?

'Only one person at the scene' knew Mez had two phones to steal.

She was on an 'adrenaline high', as per about twenty eyewitnesses at the questura. Still buzzing next day when she did her cartwheels for the nice policeman.

 

[Stacyhs]

Let us know the outcome of their complaints.

Zugarini was suspended for her role by a judge in Feb. 2013.

Profazio's two false rape confessions extractions are also a matter of record.

Next attempt to skirt the issue, please...

 

[Vixen]

You've missed it. It is you who's claimed that Knox's DNA got in the mix via vigourous rubbing off of the victim's blood, so much so that live skin cells accounted for the DNA which was present. The way you put it is the, "epithelial rubbing of Knox's hands".

Even Massei said that this was not forensically & scientifically demonstrated - it's his inference, a hunch. It's got nothing to do with Knox allegedly bleeding at the same time as the victim.

Still, we are waiting for your "elegant proof" that the source of the DNA was the "epithelial rubbing of Knox's hands". Otherwise the collection video itself, in a bathroom Knox and the victim shared for weeks is enough to explain the mixing.

You'd destroyed your own argument. Where the DNA comes from is a very relevant question, esp. when sloppily collected in the bathroom they shared!

I am quoting Marasca-Bruno:

According to the slanderous statements of Ms. Knox, she had returned home in the company of Lumumba, who she had met by chance in Piazza Grimana, and when Ms. Kercher arrived in the house, Knox’s companion directed sexual attentions toward the young English woman, then he went together with her in her room, from which the harrowing scream came.

So, it was Lumumba who killed Meredith and she could affirm this since she was on the scene of crime herself, albeit in another room.

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.

Please ask if you have any further misapprehensions.

 

[Vixen]

Zugarini was suspended for her role by a judge in Feb. 2013.

Profazio's two false rape confessions extractions are also a matter of record.

Next attempt to skirt the issue, please...

Police are always suspended whilst under disciplinary investigation (cf Vanessa Sollecito).

She is still salaried and within the police force until such time that matter is heard.

 

[Stacyhs]

If I don't get through to my mother, I simply ring her an hour or two later.

That would make sense if the call went through and she didn't answer indicating no one was home. That is not the case here. The call never went through. Please don't tell me you would not immediately redial a dropped call.

I thought you said Rudy was hiding in the bathroom when she arrived?

I never said he was "hiding" in the bathroom. HE said he was in the bathroom when Meredith was attacked.
No one knows for sure exactly where Meredith was when she made that initial call. Perhaps she'd already walked into the house and locked the door, alerting Guede, and walked back to her bedroom. He left the bathroom without flushing the toilet as to not alert her and found the door locked. She placed her books and purse on her bed, took her phone and came out of her room heading for the living room to sit there and talk to her mother as she thought she had the place to herself. She had dialed her mother but it didn't go through and saw Guede before she could redial.

How did Rudy know she had TWO phones to steal?

He didn't at first. He saw the phone in her hand and found the other one while stealing her wallet from her purse. You know, the one that had his DNA on it. Not Amanda's. Not Raffaele's.

'Only one person at the scene'

See above.