Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Charlie Wilkes]

Quote: I have said several times on this board and on others that I believe Rudy went in through the front door, either with or without Meredith's cooperation.

I happen to think the same thing but then I can't get past why he would stage a break-in.

He wouldn't stage a break-in, and he didn't stage a break-in. He really and truly broke in through that window.

Massei's motivation is instructive for what it doesn't mention. Massei sketches a scenario in which an intruder would have to go to elaborate lengths, with two climbs up the wall, to get through that window. He never mentions the concrete planter that is almost level with the window and within reach of it:

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

Even if one of the shutters was closed, it wouldn't impede entry. Guede would have climbed on the planter, grabbed hold of the eve and swung across, planting a foot on the windowsill. He had the shutter as a convenient hand-hold. He pushed the window open and jumped in. He didn't have to come up from underneath and slither over broken glass. He probably didn't need to break the window, but he didn't know it was unlatched because the frame was warped and swollen so it didn't close all the way.

 

[JREF2010]

The entire floor wasn't covered in blood. Just because he didn't step in any the first time isn't proof of anything. After he finished cleaning himself up he may have realized he still had to get Meredith's keys so he could exit through the front door. It's not unthinkable that in his haste to escape he accidentally stepped in some blood, unbeknownst to him. His thought process at that point was probably just to get the heck out of there. I believe his motive in washing up was to get home unnoticed, not to cover up traces of a crime.

From Rudy's diary:

Again, not unthinkable that in his haste to leave he simply didn't notice he had stepped in blood. Most of your questions revolve around the presumption that because Rudy tried somewhat to clean himself up that he would also have tried to remove traces of himself at the crime scene. I think there's a big difference there. I believe all the cleaning up he did was on himself in order to walk back home unnoticed, and that he was not concerned with trying to clean up any of the actual traces he'd left of himself in the cottage.

I agree, I also think these bloody tennis shoeprints were not obvious. No one on the morning of the Nov 2 noticed them, and it was daylight.
Its most likely the prints were so faint, everyone was walking on Rudys bloody tennis shoeprints early on before the body was found.

The night of Nov 1, these prints could have easily gone unnoticed by Rudy. He said it was very dark in the cottage.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Thanks Charlie, but those photos don't answer my question. How could someone with a lot of blood on the bottom of their bare foot (feet?) not leave bloody footprints leading from Meredith's room to the bathroom where one eventually ended up on the bathmat?

It couldn't happen. If you look at the trail of shoe prints Guede left between Meredith's room and the kitchen, each print became fainter and covered a smaller portion of the sole. It would be the same way with a bare foot. The print on the mat has a faded appearance, but it is uniform. It was made with bloody water rather than undiluted blood - like the dried splash marks on the bidet.

The murderer removed his right shoe when he used the bidet to clean up, and he left that print before putting the shoe back on his foot. It's the only explanation that makes sense, no matter who you think it was.

 

[Scorpion NITE]

Quote from Mary H: ''...I have said several times on this board and on others that I believe Rudy went in through the front door, either with or without Meredith's cooperation...''

I happen to think the same thing but then I can't get past why he would stage a break-in.

That's an interesting point. It may have been addressed in the thread previously but I certainly cannot recall what was said (if anything).

Mary, if you believe that Rudy went in through the front door rather than the window, how do you explain the window etc - was that staged by Rudy and, if so, why? (Apologies if I am asking you to repeat something you may have explained previously)

Does anyone else have any theories on this?

Thanks.

 

[Mary_H]

"I have said several times on this board and on others that I believe Rudy went in through the front door, either with or without Meredith's cooperation."

I happen to think the same thing but then I can't get past why he would stage a break-in.

The police said the break-in looked staged to them, but who knows what that means. What does a staged break-in say to the police that an authentic break-in doesn't say? The only thing that comes to mind is that some murderers stage break-ins so it will look like their victim was killed by a stranger, rather than by someone who knew them. Maybe Rudy did have that in mind.

There are several possible explanations for the broken window -- Rudy could have come in through it, as many believe; he could have thrown the rock before the murder to see if anyone was home; he could have thrown it after the murder to intimidate Meredith, or for staging; he could have had an accomplice who stood outside and threw the rock as a signal; someone completely separate from the whole operation could have thrown the rock; and on and on. We may never know; in my opinion, it has nothing to do with Amanda and Raffaele.

Even if Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the accidental slaying of Meredith, as described in the Massei report, why would they ever think to stage a break-in, when they have absolutely no history of being interested in or knowledgeable about criminal activity? It certainly would never occur to me, and I don't think it would occur to them, either. You've just killed somebody and then you deliberately take another step that not only wastes time but also entails the possibility of leaving more clues about yourself at the scene? How would this type of activity make sense in light of the many accusations of a careful clean-up in other parts of the cottage?

If, by some fluke, Amanda and Raffaele were savvy enough to carefully utilize the ruse of a staged burglary, then surely they would have been savvy enough to vandalize or steal something from Filomena's bedroom.

 

[Amazer]

Bear in mind that the only "solid" evidence we have for a staged break-in relies on the word of police at the scene, who didn't document their claimed observations with photographic or video evidence. The claim that there was no glass below the window and that all the glass in Filomena's room was on top of the mess cannot be verified: the only evidence for those claims is the word of investigating police.

Filomena? Didn't she have something to say about what she found in her room?

We know the investigators were incompetent on some points (proper DNA evidence collection procedure, computer forensics) and unethical on some points (lying to Amanda about her HIV tests, leaking false claims to the media). Believing with certainty that the break-in was staged relies on believing with certainty that the police were not incompetent or unethical upon this particular point, and I don't think any rational person can have certainty about that, given what we know.

Not an absolute certainty perhaps, but in my opinion enough certainty to eliminate reasonable doubt on this issue.

Given that Rudy has a known criminal history for breaking into buildings in exactly this way, and that it's not unreasonable to assume that he got away with these sorts of break-ins several times for each time he was caught red-handed, he probably had substantial practise climbing into broken windows. Guilters try to ridicule the idea that a fit young man who had done it often before could have climbed into that window, but there's nothing unlikely about the idea.

That's a false characterization. No one one the "guilters" side has claimed that it couldn't be done. What has been claimed is that the evidence that is available to us is inconsistent with someone climbing through the window.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Computer activity at 21:10 is already strong evidence of his innocence, since Meredith was probably stabbed around then if not earlier and it would take time to get from his house to the murder scene. Computer activity at 21:26 puts him well into the clear. A plausible case that he was at home until at least 21:49 makes it incredibly unlikely he could possibly have been involved in any way.

And then of course we have the people whose car broke down at the entrance to the garage across the street, where they waited for a tow truck for half an hour or more starting at 10:30. They saw no lights or signs of anyone coming or going. Thus, Massei's narrative has Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy showing up around 11:30, at least 4-1/2 hours, and probably closer to 5-1/2 hours, after Meredith ate the dinner that had not begun to empty out of her stomach.

Let's review:

Knife - doesn't fit the wounds, doesn't make sense to carry, DNA below machine threshold.

Bra fastener - swept into a pile of debris, handled by two people of whom one had visible grime on the fingers of his/her gloves.

Postal police - claimed to have arrived 20 minutes before Raffaele called 112, proven to be a lie, not mentioned in Massei's voluminous report.

Bleach receipts - lie fed to media to make the case sound better than it is.

Harry Potter book - lie fed to media to make the case sound better than it is.

Luminol footprints - tested negative for Meredith's DNA, prosecution failed to disclose for a year and a half that TMB tests were also performed with negative results.

Bathmat footprint - No proof either way, but the big toe looks exactly like Guede's big toe, not at all like Raffaele's.

Break-in - staging theory supported by no evidence, merely claims of authorities, including Massei who fails to mention the concrete planter within reach of the window.

Witnesses - Shopkeeper recruited by reporter a year after he told police he had no information of value, homeless alcoholic who has testified for the prosecution in two other murder trials, Albanian crack head whose story is laughable, old lady who doesn't know what time she supposedly heard a scream.

False statements by suspects - extracted under duress during interrogations which supposedly were not recorded or transcribed by police who recorded everything else.

Time of death - no proof, but the most reliable forensic evidence suggests it was early in the evening when Amanda and Raffaele had an alibi.

Motive - none. Even Massei admits that.

There's the "mountain of evidence," stone by stone.

 

[Fine]

Bear in mind that the only "solid" evidence we have for a staged break-in relies on the word of police at the scene, who didn't document their claimed observations with photographic or video evidence. The claim that there was no glass below the window and that all the glass in Filomena's room was on top of the mess cannot be verified: the only evidence for those claims is the word of investigating police.
* * *

______________________

Well, Filomena confirmed--- in her court testimony--- that some of the glass was on top of the mess. And since there was open floor space not covered by the "mess" (Filomena's belongings) I don't think anyone claimed that all the glass was on top of the mess.

Here's what Peter, at his Truejustice site, said at the time of Filomena's testimony of February, 2009:

"Filomena said there was glass on top of the pile of clothes. Her laptop was among the clothes. 'I remember that in lifting the computer I realised that I was picking up bits of glass because there were bits of glass on top and it was all covered with glass.' " (Peter's source may have been the Italian media.)

Or are you wondering, Kevin_Lowe, whether there were fragments of glass on top of the mess as well as fragments under the mess, and the cops ---and only the cops---confirmed that there were no fragments under the mess? If this is the issue---whether all the "glass was on top"---I've wondered about that too. Anyone know whether the Forensic Police addressed this issue in their testimony, or DECLARATIONS, to the court? Still,.... what lonewolf-burglar scenario would leave glass on top of and beneath the "mess"?

///

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Again, not unthinkable that in his haste to leave he simply didn't notice he had stepped in blood. Most of your questions revolve around the presumption that because Rudy tried somewhat to clean himself up that he would also have tried to remove traces of himself at the crime scene. I think there's a big difference there. I believe all the cleaning up he did was on himself in order to walk back home unnoticed, and that he was not concerned with trying to clean up any of the actual traces he'd left of himself in the cottage.

There are certain things you can tell from the evidence, but you have to guess at the details, and there is an element of chance in the mix.

The important question with regard to the footprint on the mat is how it came to be there. I don't think one can sustain the premise that it was made by someone who stepped in blood in Meredith's room and then tracked it into the bathroom. It doesn't have that appearance. It's uniform, but light in color, consistent with bloody water that has dried. The splashes in the basin and on the rim of the bidet are the same. The killer either stepped on a towel that was wet with bloody water, or he had bloody water on his foot, or possibly on a sock, after rinsing it in the bidet. He may have been rinsing blood off his pant leg, and water ran down into his shoe, so he removed it. We can't know the details, but we should be able to agree that it was made by someone who was cleaning himself (as opposed to the crime scene) in the bathroom.

We have a clear pattern of evidence in this case. The broken window is in fact one of two plausible options for a forced entry, with the other one being the balcony. All the other windows are either totally unreachable or had bars on them. We have the unflushed toilet in a bathroom where no blood was found, suggesting that Guede used the toilet before the murder, and inviting the obvious proposition that it may have been left unflushed because he did not wish to signal his presence before he struck. We have an 8:56 attempt by the victim to call her sick mother, with no further attempt made. We have Guede's bloody fingerprints on Meredith's pillow, Guede's DNA inside Meredith's vagina, Guede's DNA on her purse, Guede's DNA on her bra, Guede's DNA on the sleeve of her sweatshirt, Guede's bloody shoe prints in her room and running down the corridor toward the exit.

Against that, we have zero physical trace of Amanda Knox in Meredith's room, and we have one highly dubious and compromised trace of Raffaele's DNA on her bra fastener. And we have absolutely no reason whatever to think Amanda or Raffaele would want to harm Meredith, much less aid and abet Guede in a brutal sexual homicide.

 

[Chris C]

Quote: I have said several times on this board and on others that I believe Rudy went in through the front door, either with or without Meredith's cooperation.

I happen to think the same thing but then I can't get past why he would stage a break-in.

If rudy went in through the front door, he tossed a rock through the window to check and see if anyone was home.

 

[LondonJohn]

I didn't predicate my argument on suggesting either of you were "contradicting honest research". You were citing supposed facts on digestion as if they were carved in stone. I said many times I have yet to find any article which described basing TOD on stomach contents as any sort of exact science whatsoever and everything I'd found warned of the limitations in doing so yet you continued to post the same conclusion over and over without stating where or why you found this particular conclusion so authoritative. I asked for links and was given abstracts to which I asked for more information, which you surely must have had if you were placing such great faith in what you had read. However twice now you have evaded the issue by throwing it back to me. I still contend that if you are expecting people just to take your word for it that doesn't fly. I want the meat of the analysis and form my own opinion. Your continued evasiveness just makes me think you did not even read the complete articles whose abstracts you posted links to or even go beyond that in your research.



You accused me of basing my analysis purely on gastric emptying times because I mentioned it in these terms in my post which also suggests you didn't read the study I posted which, as in almost all articles on the subject, also dealt with the half-emptying time you say I've ignored. Why is my research irrelevant and yours not?

Besides, I'm not the one claiming to be the expert on this, you are. I research to see if I can find information myself when someone posts something as you did, describing your findings as the definitive word on the subject.

Oh and, you're very welcome of course.

Remind me who it was that said this, then:

"....as surely one of you actually downloaded the full articles in order to be so confident and be able to so authoritatively put down anyone who tries to do honest research and comes up with differing results to yourselves."

It wasn't you, was it?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

How did Rudy climb through the window and ransack Filomena's room without leaving a single fingerprint, any DNA or a footprint anywhere in the room?

Not that the police were able to find, anyway. I'm not sure why you think he should have necessarily left any of those things, unless he was handling things roughly (to shed skin cells) or touching smooth surfaces (to leave fingerprints).

It's not like he killed someone in there.

Filomena? Didn't she have something to say about what she found in her room?

Nothing I'm aware of that conclusively shows that the window was broken after the room was rifled through.

Not an absolute certainty perhaps, but in my opinion enough certainty to eliminate reasonable doubt on this issue.

We've established already that our personal understandings of what should constitute reasonable doubt are wildly different. For myself, the word of people who are known to be dishonest to a degree and incompetent to a degree, who have the opportunity and indeed the obligation to record hard evidence but somehow fail to do so, does not constitute proof of anything beyond reasonable doubt. Even if they honestly believed it was a faked break-in, I am far from convinced that they are competent to accurately make such determinations given the lack of relevant evidence.

That's a false characterization. No one one the "guilters" side has claimed that it couldn't be done. What has been claimed is that the evidence that is available to us is inconsistent with someone climbing through the window.

Okay. Either way you're wrong. The evidence is not inconsistent with someone climbing through the window, it's just that there's no particular evidence around the window either way whether someone did or not.

I am not anti- or pro-AK; at this point I am really trying to decide. I'm just sayin' we do have that other testimony.

One of my biggest problems with the whole case is, it seems to me, to be pro-AK, you must throw out a serious amount of evidence. Mistaken witnesses, shoddy police work, incompetent lab techs, etc. I have a hard time reconciling the fact that all of those people would have to have been mistaken, incompetent, lying, etc.

I already cited the Kiszko case as an exact parallel: thousands of pages of bad "evidence" that Kiszko did it, along with a coerced confession and malicious perjury from members of the public who came forward to finger him, all ending in the conviction of a man who could not possibly have been guilty. (The real killer was caught long afterwards by DNA evidence).

How does it happen? Well to begin with, all too often police take it as their job to amass every possible scrap of incriminating "evidence" whether or not it has any real evidentiary value, but do not take it as their job to lift a finger to look for exculpatory evidence once they have fixated on a suspect. Once they have decided someone is guilty confirmation bias takes over and almost everything is seen as evidence of their guilt, and exculpatory evidence is ignored or even outright concealed (as in the Kiszko case, and quite possibly in this case with the mysterious disappearance of the records of Amanda's interrogation, the mysterious frying of all the suspects' hard drives and so on). After all, if you know they are guilty you don't want them to get off just because of a pesky bit of evidence that makes them look innocent, do you? Best to make it vanish.

However in the end it comes down to this: What is more improbable? That the Perugia police fell into the same trap that the Kiszko prosecution did, and went full-bore after an innocent suspect? Or that the laws of physics conspired to halt Meredith's digestion, ping mobile phone towers Meredith's phone had never pinged before, and falsify the computer records that put the accused at home when Meredith died? The first is unusual but not impossible. The second is literally impossible. The universe doesn't work that way, whatever Massei thinks about the matter.

 

[LondonJohn]

BTW, Danceme, here's a link to my recent post related to T(1/2) and T(lag) times for stomach emptying in healthy adults:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6239386#post6239386

I don't understand your argument about abstracts vs the whole paper. The abstract is constructed to contain the key results of the paper, and since the abstracts I've quoted from contain the timings I'm looking for, that will suffice. The information contained in the abstract is not going to be contradicted - or even qualified - within the main body of the paper.

 

[LondonJohn]

______________________

Well, Filomena confirmed--- in her court testimony--- that some of the glass was on top of the mess. And since there was open floor space not covered by the "mess" (Filomena's belongings) I don't think anyone claimed that all the glass was on top of the mess.

Here's what Peter, at his Truejustice site, said at the time of Filomena's testimony of February, 2009:

"Filomena said there was glass on top of the pile of clothes. Her laptop was among the clothes. 'I remember that in lifting the computer I realised that I was picking up bits of glass because there were bits of glass on top and it was all covered with glass.' " (Peter's source may have been the Italian media.)

Or are you wondering, Kevin_Lowe, whether there were fragments of glass on top of the mess as well as fragments under the mess, and the cops ---and only the cops---confirmed that there were no fragments under the mess? If this is the issue---whether all the "glass was on top"---I've wondered about that too. Anyone know whether the Forensic Police addressed this issue in their testimony, or DECLARATIONS, to the court? Still,.... what lonewolf-burglar scenario would leave glass on top of and beneath the "mess"?

///

In my view, the condition of Filomena's room has very low evidential value with regard to trying to prove a staging. This is because the Postal Police officers and Filomena herself trampled all over the room and moved items around extensively before the room was sealed as a crime scene (and, astonishingly, the police are actually exonerated by Massei for having done so!!).

If the room had been preserved - as would be normal practice even if this were only a suspected burglary, let alone a suspected burglary with a missing person, a locked door, and blood traces - forensic teams might have had a better shot at determining exactly what did happen in Filomena's room. As it is, however, the Postal Police and Filomena destroyed any chance of that happening.

 

[RoseMontague]

______________________

Well, Filomena confirmed--- in her court testimony--- that some of the glass was on top of the mess. And since there was open floor space not covered by the "mess" (Filomena's belongings) I don't think anyone claimed that all the glass was on top of the mess.

Here's what Peter, at his Truejustice site, said at the time of Filomena's testimony of February, 2009:

"Filomena said there was glass on top of the pile of clothes. Her laptop was among the clothes. 'I remember that in lifting the computer I realised that I was picking up bits of glass because there were bits of glass on top and it was all covered with glass.' " (Peter's source may have been the Italian media.)

Or are you wondering, Kevin_Lowe, whether there were fragments of glass on top of the mess as well as fragments under the mess, and the cops ---and only the cops---confirmed that there were no fragments under the mess? If this is the issue---whether all the "glass was on top"---I've wondered about that too. Anyone know whether the Forensic Police addressed this issue in their testimony, or DECLARATIONS, to the court? Still,.... what lonewolf-burglar scenario would leave glass on top of and beneath the "mess"?

///

Actually it was Filomena herself that said glass was also under the clothes and in the middle of the clothes. Just another case where the court picks the part it wants to hear and completely ignores the evidence it does not want to hear. From Raffaele's appeal pg 231 (Google translated)

231
The ruling, however, has neglected other statements of that witness who
reported: "that was a mixture and then the spot there if I just (...) was
a mixture of glass, clothes, glasses (...) Yes, they [the glasses] also below, but also
were above "(p. 41 statements Romanelli).
These claims were completely and inexplicably ignored in
that ruling was limited to only report one side of the deposition of
Witness without giving account further clarification provided.

 

[Chris C]

How did Rudy climb through the window and ransack Filomena's room without leaving a single fingerprint, any DNA or a footprint anywhere in the room?

How did Knox help Rudy rape and murder Meredith without leaving a single fingerprint, dna or footprint in the room she was killed in. Matter of fact the prosecution never even proved the footprints outside of Meredith's door were Knox's. There was no dna in them. They could have belonged to anyone that lived there. How did Amanda stage a break in without leaving finger prints or footprints in Filomena's room. How did Knox clean up the crime scene and remove all traces that she helped with the murder and not remove the traces of Rudy. Plus the sink was left unclean, what person performs a cleanup and doesn't clean a sink with blood in it. How could knox have performed a cleanup without leaving smear marks that the Luminol would have detected. Why did the prosection charge rudy with sexual assault and not test the semen stain?
My opinion is he threw a rock through the window to check to see if anyone was home and entered through the front door.
\

 

[Chris C]

And then of course we have the people whose car broke down at the entrance to the garage across the street, where they waited for a tow truck for half an hour or more starting at 10:30. They saw no lights or signs of anyone coming or going. Thus, Massei's narrative has Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy showing up around 11:30, at least 4-1/2 hours, and probably closer to 5-1/2 hours, after Meredith ate the dinner that had not begun to empty out of her stomach.

Let's review:

Knife - doesn't fit the wounds, doesn't make sense to carry, DNA below machine threshold.

Bra fastener - swept into a pile of debris, handled by two people of whom one had visible grime on the fingers of his/her gloves.

Postal police - claimed to have arrived 20 minutes before Raffaele called 112, proven to be a lie, not mentioned in Massei's voluminous report.

Bleach receipts - lie fed to media to make the case sound better than it is.

Harry Potter book - lie fed to media to make the case sound better than it is.

Luminol footprints - tested negative for Meredith's DNA, prosecution failed to disclose for a year and a half that TMB tests were also performed with negative results.

Bathmat footprint - No proof either way, but the big toe looks exactly like Guede's big toe, not at all like Raffaele's.

Break-in - staging theory supported by no evidence, merely claims of authorities, including Massei who fails to mention the concrete planter within reach of the window.

Witnesses - Shopkeeper recruited by reporter a year after he told police he had no information of value, homeless alcoholic who has testified for the prosecution in two other murder trials, Albanian crack head whose story is laughable, old lady who doesn't know what time she supposedly heard a scream.

False statements by suspects - extracted under duress during interrogations which supposedly were not recorded or transcribed by police who recorded everything else.

Time of death - no proof, but the most reliable forensic evidence suggests it was early in the evening when Amanda and Raffaele had an alibi.

Motive - none. Even Massei admits that.

There's the "mountain of evidence," stone by stone.

One small correction. The footprints that the prosecution tried to say where Knox's tested negative for any dna.

Was meredith still wearing the outfit she left her friends house in?

 

[Alt+F4]

Not that the police were able to find, anyway. I'm not sure why you think he should have necessarily left any of those things, unless he was handling things roughly (to shed skin cells) or touching smooth surfaces (to leave fingerprints).

Amanda said Filomena's door was closed when she (Amanda) returned to the apartment. Rudy would have to have touched the door to close the door behind him.

It's impossible that he left no fingerprints on that door but left fingerprints everywhere else. He was never in Filomena's room.

 

[Alt+F4]

In my view, the condition of Filomena's room has very low evidential value with regard to trying to prove a staging. This is because the Postal Police officers and Filomena herself trampled all over the room and moved items around extensively before the room was sealed as a crime scene (and, astonishingly, the police are actually exonerated by Massei for having done so!!).

Doesn't matter, the truth remains that nothing was taken. A burglar goes to the trouble of throwing a rock through a window, climbing in the window and takes....nothing!

I don't think the position of the glass means anything because yes, Filomena moved things around in her room. Why? Because she wanted to see if any of her possessions had been stolen. She had to take the time to look through her stuff to see if anything was missing. But guess who immediately knew that nothing was missing, even though he had never been in that room....Raffaele!

 

[Alt+F4]

As best I can make out, the prosecution looked at Raffaele's hard drive and claimed that the last computer activity was at 21:10. However the defence, once they had a copy of his hard drive contents and installed it on a properly configured same-model MacBook, showed that this claim was incorrect and that a Naruto movie file had in fact been opened at 21:26. (What a surprise, the prosecution got the facts wrong again).

As far as I can ascertain a Naruto episode shorn of ads is about 23:xx minutes long. Thus if he actually watched the episode (and everyone agrees the crime was unpremeditated and hence he can't have been trying to set himself up with an alibi) his location is confirmed until 21:49.

Wow, what an alibi! If this was true you would think either Amanda or Raffaele would have mentioned this considering they were facing a life sentence for murder.

In none of their statements to authorities, their families, their friends or in their prison diaries has watching Naruto on the night of the murder ever been stated. It won't work on appeal.

Computer activity at 21:10 is already strong evidence of his innocence, since Meredith was probably stabbed around then if not earlier and it would take time to get from his house to the murder scene.

The walk from his apartment to hers is about 10 minutes so even if they left his apartment at 9:10 they could be at hers by 9:20, just in time to walk in on the attack, which is what I think happened. It's good to you say "his innocence" because it's ridiculous that "human interaction" on a computer explain the whereabouts of two people.