Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
One could speculate that she might have had a snack when she got home. The coroner could not accurately determine the time of death because the investigation was bungled at the start. The normal procedure is to insert a thermometer into the victim's liver and chart the temperature at regular intervals, so they can plot the curve backward to the time of death. In this case, they didn't do that, and they didn't let the coroner into the room until 12 hours after the body was discovered.

Charlie are the above facts cited by you part of the court testimony?

Meredith had a dessert of apple crumble midway through watching the movie (after the dinner meal of pizza). How would this affect the time of death?
 
Danceme,

I do not wish to comment on your intentions, but your argument has no force. All Amanda’s testimony means is that Raffaele, who took the call from the police on 5 November, did not tell her that she was supposed to come in. Either the police failed to tell him, or he failed to tell her. In either case it in no way negates that Dr. Giobbi did summon them, according to his sworn testimony.

Let’s get back to the genesis of this discussion. Bucketoftee asked for evidence that the police lied. I pointed to the false police claims, and I used Frank Sfarzo’s blog to identify three police officers who said that Amanda was not summoned, assertions that are flatly contradicted by Dr. Giobbi. And now I think it is time for you, fine, and bucketoftee to set down your king on this issue.

From reading Frank's blog I have been unsure of the events surrounding Giobbi's summons of both Amanda and Raffaele to the Questra.

And Edgardo was sure, and provided even details to make his version credible. I'm mathematically sure that I gave that order, in that moment our attention was on Amanda and Raffaele, I decided that we needed to hear them together in order to study their reactions. We called them and they were eating in a pizzeria. Indeed, Edgardo, it adds up.

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/05/giobbi-i-gave-order.html

I thought Amanda and Raffaele were eating at a friend's house when he was phoned to come to the Questra the evening of 5 November.

There are pizza receipts of Raffaele's for 4 November (time approximately 5:30). Did they also eat at a pizzeria on 5 November?
 
Hello everyone!

Just a quick note to say Hi. I hope to make a small contribution every so often to the debate on here regarding this intriguing case. Have spent months reading the entire thread (and, sometimes, re-reading sections...lol) but haven't plucked up the courage to join JREF until this week!

I have also read copious amounts on PMF and Perugia Shock, but feel JREF is more suited to me, if I am to submit any comments, musings etc.

Not really sure where to start, so I will sit back awhile (again) and read through at leisure, until I can contribute to the actual discussion!

P.S. For the record, I am still 'sat on the fence' somewhat, though leaning towards LJ's assertion of an 'unsafe conviction' due to a number of reasons, many mentioned in this thread itself by a number of regular posters.

Thanks for indulging me.

Kind regards,
Scorpion NITE.

Welcome Scorpion NITE,
You read it all? I feel your pain.
 
dinner on 5 November

From reading Frank's blog I have been unsure of the events surrounding Giobbi's summons of both Amanda and Raffaele to the Questra.



I thought Amanda and Raffaele were eating at a friend's house when he was phoned to come to the Questra the evening of 5 November.

There are pizza receipts of Raffaele's for 4 November (time approximately 5:30). Did they also eat at a pizzeria on 5 November?

Christiana,

To the best of my knowledge Raffaele and Amanda were eating with a friend or friends, but I do not remember where they were. Raffaele asked for permission to finish eating, which was grudgingly granted.

I'd like to ask the officers who rebuked Amanda for coming in that evening a question. Amanda was scared to be alone (and not unreasonably), so where was she supposed to go?
 
_______________________

LondonJohn,

Marco Quintavalle did not testify ---"with confidence" or otherwise--- that Amanda had purchased bleach from his shop the morning of November 2, 2007. Here is what he said in his trial testimony, translated by Nick Pisa:

"I can't remember if she bought anything. A few hours later I heard about the murder and then a few days later I saw Amanda's picture in the newspaper and I recognised her as the same girl."

See: Telegraph

///

Hey Fine. Interesting observations and such. Hey, I was just wondering...a few weeks ago you mentioned that it was against the law to carry pepper spray in Seattle. As I recall, many people cited the relevant statute, but you continued to persist that this was wrong somehow. Please do let us know if we'll ever get a thorough explanation on that point so that it might make more sense to those of us who are still a little dumbfounded. Thanks in advance.

HB

///
 
That still doesn't make it honest to claim that "receipts for bleach" were found, if none of the receipts represent any evidence any bleach was purchased. Especially if there is no other evidence that bleach was used for anything relevant. Your point does not appear to me to excuse the Perugia police for starting this lie or excuse anyone else for repeating it.


But the receipt dated March 21 was found in a CONAD bag and one of the bottles of bleach had a CONAD price sticker. This proves Amanda and Raffaele purchased the bleach to cover up after the murder.:boggled:

The ERT made such a production out of finding this receipt. After initially finding the receipt and going through all the other used grocery bags in the drawer, they pick this bag up again and pull out the receipt again to display it. Then to make sure everyone knows that the receipt came from that bag they flash back and forth between the receipt and the bag, showing the receipt, showing the bag, showing the receipt, showing the bag; oh, did you see this receipt? Here is the CONAD bag it was found in! Then they put the receipt back in the bag and put just this bag back in the drawer and hover over it as if composing the snapshot of the discovery to present in court.

It's like they actually believed they found a smoking gun with this receipt. Could they have been so deluded to the point of hallucinating that this receipt showed a purchase after the murder?


They also waisted no time going to the press. The Republica reported the bleach find the very same day. Two days later, the Republica in an astonishing display of truth telling prints that the receipts prove the purchase of 2 bottles of bleach well before 10am Nov. 2nd. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
SB on PMF has just made the extraordinary suggestion that perhaps Knox left the shop hurriedly without paying........because she thought she might have been recognised.

If Amanda visited the shop on the morning of 2 November it is possible she was concerned about being recognized. One of Quintavalle's associates, Marina Chiriboga, was also employed by Raffaele as his housecleaner.

Chiriboga worked as Raffaele's housecleaner until September 2007 (I think this date is correct) when she left due to pregnancy. I do not know if she resumed as Raffaele's housecleaner after delivering her child or if she and Amanda knew each other.

A possible reason Quintavalle may have questioned Chiriboga concerning Amanda being in the store that morning is that he would want to make sure that the customer had been waited on and if they had purchased anything.
 
no glittering generalities, please

Stilicho,

Some time ago on the previous thread you said that my DNA citations did not show what I claimed they did. Would you give me specific examples of what you meant? Your comment lacked detail and did not make any sense to me.
 
I am very much enjoying SomeAlibi's authoritative and painstakingly accurate "grand theories" over on PMF. They have all stood up to the slightest scrutiny - which is fortunate, owing to the theatrical flourishes with which they have been presented. The latest one about the lamps in Meredith's room is superb, and is a perfect example of unbiased analysis coupled with ruthless attention to detail. More of the same, please.
 
But the receipt dated March 21 was found in a CONAD bag and one of the bottles of bleach had a CONAD price sticker. This proves Amanda and Raffaele purchased the bleach to cover up after the murder.:boggled:

The ERT made such a production out of finding this receipt. After initially finding the receipt and going through all the other used grocery bags in the drawer, they pick this bag up again and pull out the receipt again to display it. Then to make sure everyone knows that the receipt came from that bag they flash back and forth between the receipt and the bag, showing the receipt, showing the bag, showing the receipt, showing the bag; oh, did you see this receipt? Here is the CONAD bag it was found in! Then they put the receipt back in the bag and put just this bag back in the drawer and hover over it as if composing the snapshot of the discovery to present in court.

It's like they actually believed they found a smoking gun with this receipt. Could they have been so deluded to the point of hallucinating that this receipt showed a purchase after the murder?


They also waisted no time going to the press. The Republica reported the bleach find the very same day. Two days later, the Republica in an astonishing display of truth telling prints that the receipts prove the purchase of 2 bottles of bleach well before 10am Nov. 2nd. :rolleyes:
Did the police go to Quintalalle's to ask about the receipt dated March 21? Did they ask for any other receipts? Like for ones dated just after the murder? I ask this because I saw claims somewhere else that the police would not have asked Quintalalle for any cash register receipts but given the police interest in the bag found at Raffaele's it seems very likely that they would have asked.

Did Quintavalle provide the police with all the cash register receipts?
 
Charlie are the above facts cited by you part of the court testimony?

Meredith had a dessert of apple crumble midway through watching the movie (after the dinner meal of pizza). How would this affect the time of death?

The stomach is actually a very clever and advanced organ. It churns the food up, mixing it with stomach acids and enzymes to break everything down into a thick liquid called chyme. The stomach is capable of manipulating food products which are at different levels of primary digestion, making it able to cope with a "grazing" ingestion as well as large "meal"-type feeding.

So, in answer to your question, the mid-movie dessert of apple crumble would have made pretty much no difference to the way in which the pizza would have been treated in the stomach. The stomach would have recognised the additional food intake, and would have released additional acid/enzymes to break down this new food. But the breaking down of the pizza would have continued at the same rate. As soon as the pizza was converted into chyme, the stomach would have recognised this, and it would have passed the chyme down through the duodenum (the very first part of the small intestine), then into the small intestine proper.

But what we appear to know of the autopsy report is that there were still recognisable pieces of the constituents of the pizza in Meredith's stomach, and that there was no chyme matter in the duodenum or the top of the main small intestine. This therefore implies that a) the stomach acid/enzymes had not yet broken down the pizza fully into uniform unrecognisable chyme, and b) none of the chyme from the pizza meal had yet passed out of the stomach into the duodenum.

And this in turn implies that Meredith's time of death was within 3 hours (maximum) of her eating the pizza meal - regardless of the apple crumble she may have eaten mid-movie. Since the other girls testified that Meredith ate the pizza at around 6pm, and we know that Meredith was still alive just before 9pm, this implies a time of death at around 9pm (or 9.30pm at the very latest).

My current thinking is actually that Meredith was killed very shortly after the aborted phone call to her parents in the UK, which took place just before 9pm. I think that Meredith may have arrived home (with her phone still linked to a base station that she had passed on her route home), and called her parents as she was going into her room. I think she may have intended to have a leisurely chat with them from her bedroom, before doing a little work and getting an early night. I think that either she may have terminated the call herself because she heard/saw someone in the house, or the assailant may have forced the termination of the call. I think that the attack may have ensued quickly, meaning that Meredith was dead by 9.05-9.10pm.

And, of course, this theory implies that someone was already inside the house when Meredith arrived home. I think that this someone may have been Rudy Guede, who I think may have been in the large bathroom when Meredith arrived home. I think Guede may have tried unsuccessfully to leave quietly via the front door (unsuccessfully since Meredith would have locked the door behind her with her key after entering the house). I think that the confrontation between Guede and Meredith may have occurred as a result of Guede being unable to leave the house silently. Once Meredith saw and identified Guede, I think his demeanour would have changed. He now had a witness who could identify him, whose keys he wanted, and whom he was sexually attracted to......
 
If Amanda visited the shop on the morning of 2 November it is possible she was concerned about being recognized. One of Quintavalle's associates, Marina Chiriboga, was also employed by Raffaele as his housecleaner.

Chiriboga worked as Raffaele's housecleaner until September 2007 (I think this date is correct) when she left due to pregnancy. I do not know if she resumed as Raffaele's housecleaner after delivering her child or if she and Amanda knew each other.

A possible reason Quintavalle may have questioned Chiriboga concerning Amanda being in the store that morning is that he would want to make sure that the customer had been waited on and if they had purchased anything.

No, she wasn't re-employed as his housekeeper. So Knox would never have known her in her capacity as Sollecito's girlfriend of one week. Chiribonga has never stated that she knew Knox in any way - a detail which I feel certain would have surfaced if true.

As a separate issue, Chiribonga said she had not seen Knox. Yet Chiribonga was manning the register, IIRC. So this heavily implies that Knox did not purchase anything. Which leaves shoplifting or leaving with nothing as the two options. And neither of these two options makes much sense to me.
 
Hey Fine. Interesting observations and such. Hey, I was just wondering...a few weeks ago you mentioned that it was against the law to carry pepper spray in Seattle. As I recall, many people cited the relevant statute, but you continued to persist that this was wrong somehow. Please do let us know if we'll ever get a thorough explanation on that point so that it might make more sense to those of us who are still a little dumbfounded. Thanks in advance.

I don't see the relevance of this "gotcha" to the Amanda Knox/Meredith Kercher case. You could argue this goes to Fine's personal credibility, but in this thread in particular unsupported assertions do not get far regardless of who makes them. Perhaps you could drop this one in the interests of focusing on the thread topic?

I am very much enjoying SomeAlibi's authoritative and painstakingly accurate "grand theories" over on PMF. They have all stood up to the slightest scrutiny - which is fortunate, owing to the theatrical flourishes with which they have been presented. The latest one about the lamps in Meredith's room is superb, and is a perfect example of unbiased analysis coupled with ruthless attention to detail. More of the same, please.

The PMF crowd really do love his presentations too: he's iconic, in his own way, of the culture there. You couldn't ask for a better demonstration of the broader applicability of Nathan Poe's famous dictum.

A question for the thread in general: Is there any hard evidence that puts Meredith Kercher's time of death later than 9:30? This was one of the points I planned to stake out over at PMF if they didn't ban me, because it appears to me that the prosecution's entire castle in the air falls to Earth if Meredith Kercher's death can't be pushed back to a time consistent with Amanda and Raffaele getting there and hanging around for a fair while before murdering her.

If there isn't any such hard evidence, the entire edifice falls over. You can have all the circumstantial evidence you like linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime (although I think we've now called all of it into serious question), but if the crime you are trying to link them to took place when they couldn't possibly have been there, then they still couldn't have been there.

(They are very sensitive about this point over at PMF: I saw one person being threatened with the ban hammer just for starting to move in this direction, which is one of the reasons I didn't expect a long stay).
 
I don't see the relevance of this "gotcha" to the Amanda Knox/Meredith Kercher case. You could argue this goes to Fine's personal credibility, but in this thread in particular unsupported assertions do not get far regardless of who makes them. Perhaps you could drop this one in the interests of focusing on the thread topic?

Sorry you feel that way. Maybe no relevance to the case, but to the discussion, I see the relevance. And I disagree, unsupported assertions seem to have gone quite far here, for quite some time. I don't see anything wrong with gotchas.
 
Charlie are the above facts cited by you part of the court testimony?

Meredith had a dessert of apple crumble midway through watching the movie (after the dinner meal of pizza). How would this affect the time of death?

I don't know what the apple crumble may have revealed. I believe testimony on this subject was closed to the public and the media, ostensibly to protect the victim's privacy. But the inability of the coroner to determine the time of death was discussed in early media coverage. Here is an excerpt from a story in the Telegraph:

Dr Lalli said he had carefully recorded the original autopsy with photographs and video.

However, it has emerged that Dr Lalli was only able to get access to Miss Kercher's corpse more than 24 hours after the crime was committed.

Consequently, the time of her death had to be guessed from the remains of food in her digestive system.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1570573/Meredith-Kerchers-family-plead-for-funeral.html

This is consistent with the police video, which shows Lalli entering the room and conducting an examination of the body about 12 hours after it was discovered.
 
But the receipt dated March 21 was found in a CONAD bag and one of the bottles of bleach had a CONAD price sticker. This proves Amanda and Raffaele purchased the bleach to cover up after the murder.:boggled:

The ERT made such a production out of finding this receipt. After initially finding the receipt and going through all the other used grocery bags in the drawer, they pick this bag up again and pull out the receipt again to display it. Then to make sure everyone knows that the receipt came from that bag they flash back and forth between the receipt and the bag, showing the receipt, showing the bag, showing the receipt, showing the bag; oh, did you see this receipt? Here is the CONAD bag it was found in! Then they put the receipt back in the bag and put just this bag back in the drawer and hover over it as if composing the snapshot of the discovery to present in court.

They did the same thing with the German Harry Potter book they found at the cottage:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/potter_cottage_dec_18.jpg

They told the media that this proved Amanda was lying. She said she was reading Harry Potter in German at Raffaele's apartment, but here we see the book was found at her cottage. They actually got some traction with this story. But they left out one key fact... they also found a German Harry Potter book at Sollecito's apartment, a month earlier:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/potter_rs_apt_nov_16.jpg

They had gone public with a dramatic theory, and they were on a desperate hunt for anything that would support their claims. When they couldn't find it, they resorted to brazen lies.
 
I don't see the relevance of this "gotcha" to the Amanda Knox/Meredith Kercher case. You could argue this goes to Fine's personal credibility, but in this thread in particular unsupported assertions do not get far regardless of who makes them. Perhaps you could drop this one in the interests of focusing on the thread topic?



The PMF crowd really do love his presentations too: he's iconic, in his own way, of the culture there. You couldn't ask for a better demonstration of the broader applicability of Nathan Poe's famous dictum.

A question for the thread in general: Is there any hard evidence that puts Meredith Kercher's time of death later than 9:30? This was one of the points I planned to stake out over at PMF if they didn't ban me, because it appears to me that the prosecution's entire castle in the air falls to Earth if Meredith Kercher's death can't be pushed back to a time consistent with Amanda and Raffaele getting there and hanging around for a fair while before murdering her.

If there isn't any such hard evidence, the entire edifice falls over. You can have all the circumstantial evidence you like linking Knox and Sollecito to the crime (although I think we've now called all of it into serious question), but if the crime you are trying to link them to took place when they couldn't possibly have been there, then they still couldn't have been there.

(They are very sensitive about this point over at PMF: I saw one person being threatened with the ban hammer just for starting to move in this direction, which is one of the reasons I didn't expect a long stay).

I thought the time of death must have been determined by the time that the Amanda and Raffaele did not have an alibi, not by science or common sense. Mignini's efforts to get the correct timing out of Curatolo and finally getting it right once after getting it wrong a dozen times is a good example of this. The one right time in his testimony is considered reliable, the others are ignored.

There was a beginning of a discussion at PMF regarding the cell phone records as covered in Raffaele's appeal but that was seen as an attempt to move the time of death and was strongly discouraged. Certainly the time of death should be in the 9pm to 10pm range based on the time of Meredith's last meal but Massei seems to rely on any experts that stretch this to a later time and ignore those experts that seem to give the conventional wisdom on this and an earlier time of death.

They also wanted the time of death to fit not only Curatolo's suspect testimony but also the miracle ear lady hearing that scream. The appeal points out that her recall of the events of the following morning are completely incorrect yet her recall of the scream the night before is seen as reliable. I see at PMF now they are denying the conflict with Quintavalle's testimony saying that information is coming from a conspiracy site (Bruce) despite a much similar thing being relayed by one of their own posters and the information being available in the appeal documents. Massei seems to take a similar approach as PMF, just pretending nothing is wrong with Quintavalle's testimony and his bogus one year later meme of they didn't ask him about Amanda is taken as credible over two other witnesses, one being a police officer who both indicated he was asked about Amanda.
 
If Amanda visited the shop on the morning of 2 November it is possible she was concerned about being recognized.

You have a point, but it is part of a larger point that you don't seem to grasp. The the operative word is "IF." IF Amanda was involved in the murder, then why indeed would she risk being seen anywhere near the crime scene? IF she wanted to clean up evidence (although there is no indication that anyone did) then why not use the cleansers available in the cottage, which were conveniently stored in a cabinet in the hallway?

It is discouraging to see intelligent people waste so much time trying to work out the details of a fable that makes no sense. Amanda was having the time of her life in Italy. She has no history of violence or aggression, she had no reason to harm Meredith, and she would have been horrified had anyone so much as suggested the idea. This whole thing is a big, fat, painfully obvious frame-up, designed to protect the reputations of officials who very publicly announced a dramatic theory that is both wrong and stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom