Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Dan O.]

Looks like you have made some improvements and additions since I last saw your timelines, and I was saying even then you had some of the best timelines I have seen anywhere. I think it is clear that you have made an effort to be very objective with this, in contrast to other timelines I have seen from both sides. For that reason I don't think I will make any suggested changes using the appeals as a source. Good job, as far as I am concerned.

I'll add anything that is reasonably sourced (and you can too). If the appeal lists any events with known times that aren't here or aren't well sourced here I'd like them included.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'll add anything that is reasonably sourced (and you can too). If the appeal lists any events with known times that aren't here or aren't well sourced here I'd like them included.

Quoting from the translated Raffaele appeal from RoseMontague's docstoc page:

5. No mention of a media file att CALLS Opening Naruto
episode 101 "on Thursday, 1 November 2007 at 21:26.
Obviously, that method, if a file is not found during
initial selection (ie if three dates are not in the interest period), it
is excluded from the search results later restricted, even if he has a
the other two dates during the period of interest.
30
Following further investigation made by defense counsel,
after the definition of first instance, using for the first
Once a system and built the same version as the one used by Raffaele
Dunning, ie Mac OS X 10.4.10 (Build 8R2232), it was possible to obtain
correct data display key information acquiring
importance for the decision.
Like to point out, in fact, that the judgment placed at 21:10:32
the last operation performed by Raffaele Sollecito in the day of 1
November 2007.
Indeed, searching with Spotlight in version 10.4.10 was
detected at least one file "Naruto ep 101.avi" which is not present in
advice of the police post, but whose date of last opening is Thursday
1 November 2007 at 21:26 (ie in the period examined by the police
Postal: 1st November 2007 18:00 - November 2, 2007 8:00 am).
The date of their last (Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 10:18:38) and last
editing this file (Tuesday, 6 November 2007 at 13:28:09) corresponds to a
period coinciding with the removal of the laptop from the home of Raffaele
Dunning, during which activities are detected on that laptop
witnessed by the file system logs.
In light of the circumstances, it requires further investigation
computer Raffaele Sollecito to ascertain interactions
actually occurred on his computer, between 1 and 2 November 2007, under
Article. 603, first paragraph, cpp

Two points there. One, someone opened the file "Naruto ep 101.avi" at 21:26 on the night of the murder.

Two, the reason the police didn't include this in their own evidence appears to be that they accessed that file themselves when Raffaele's laptop was in their hands, then they turned around and gave the court a list of all the files that (according to the file system) were last accessed on the night of the murder in the time period they decided was relevant. Since they had accessed "Naruto ep 101.avi" themselves after that point, it was not included in that list.

So chalk up another act of police incompetence or malice which hid relevant, exculpatory information from the court.

 

[Chris C]

Including on a Q tip?
Now how would Amanda's DNA get mixed with Meredith's blood on a Q tip for God's sakes?

If knox got Meredith's blood on her, how was it possible for knox not to leave her dna on meredith? If your saying knox left her dna in the blood when she washed it off, then why does the bloody footprint on the mat by the sink not match knox's foot? Who left the footprint and why didn't they leave dna in the sink? Also Knox's dna profile wasn't the only dna profile in the blood. There was a 3rd females profile in Kerchers blood. Why are they not charging that 3rd person for murder? How could a 3rd female get her dna on the Q tip for God's sakes?

 

[loverofzion]

If knox got Meredith's blood on her, how was it possible for knox not to leave her dna on meredith? If your saying knox left her dna in the blood when she washed it off, then why does the bloody footprint on the mat by the sink not match knox's foot? Who left the footprint and why didn't they leave dna in the sink? Also Knox's dna profile wasn't the only dna profile in the blood. There was a 3rd females profile in Kerchers blood. Why are they not charging that 3rd person for murder? How could a 3rd female get her dna on the Q tip for God's sakes?

The bloddy footprint matched Raffaelo's foot.
Much of their prints were cleaned and revealed under luminol.

I don't understand what your problem is with the fact that AK's DNA was mixed with Meredith's.
do you?

 

[loverofzion]

If knox got Meredith's blood on her, how was it possible for knox not to leave her dna on meredith? If your saying knox left her dna in the blood when she washed it off, then why does the bloody footprint on the mat by the sink not match knox's foot? Who left the footprint and why didn't they leave dna in the sink? Also Knox's dna profile wasn't the only dna profile in the blood. There was a 3rd females profile in Kerchers blood. Why are they not charging that 3rd person for murder? How could a 3rd female get her dna on the Q tip for God's sakes?

There was no thrid person's DNA on the q tip.
Whatever are you talking about?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

The bloddy footprint matched Raffaelo's foot.

We've discussed this very recently. The bloody footprint matches Rudy's foot much better than Raffaele's, as you can tell from the prosecution photos and as you can tell very clearly from better-lit photos.

Much of their prints were cleaned and revealed under luminol.

I just told you that the prints found with luminol did not test positive for blood, and hence nobody knows for certain when they were deposited or what substance gave the positive luminol reaction.

I don't understand what your problem is with the fact that AK's DNA was mixed with Meredith's. do you?

Those results prove nothing, because Amanda's DNA could have been deposited there at any time by perfectly innocent means.

 

[Dan O.]

Quoting from the translated Raffaele appeal from RoseMontague's docstoc page:



Two points there. One, someone opened the file "Naruto ep 101.avi" at 21:26 on the night of the murder.

I'll add the Naruto file access. Thanks.

Two, the reason the police didn't include this in their own evidence appears to be that they accessed that file themselves when Raffaele's laptop was in their hands, then they turned around and gave the court a list of all the files that (according to the file system) were last accessed on the night of the murder in the time period they decided was relevant. Since they had accessed "Naruto ep 101.avi" themselves after that point, it was not included in that list.

You can't actually say that the police accessed the Naruto file because any manual access from the Finder would have also updated the Spotlight metadata tag kMDItemLastUsedDate. Some event however did cause the file to be opened so that the filesystem recorded last access time was updated. I could speculate on what that event could be but at a minimum Raffaele's laptop must have been awoken from sleep by opening the lid or pressing a key.

 

[Chris C]

There was no thrid person's DNA on the q tip.
Whatever are you talking about?

I guess you haven't read the appeals or stefanoni's testimony. If you had, you would know about the profile of the 3rd female. You see thats one of the aspects you hardly ever see anyone discuss about this case. If contamination isn't possible on either Knox's dna in meredith's blood or sollecito's on the bra clasp, then how did a 3rd unidentified female's dna get mixed with the blood samples in the bathroom and 3 unidentifed peoples dna on the bra clasp. Plus even the dna the prosecution claims is Sollecito's is highly contested. One of many reasons there should be an independent party examine the DNA evidence in this case. To many unidentified samples in this case. Semen, Bra Clasp, and the Blood in the bathroom. Especially considering your charging someone with sexual assault and dont test a semen sample that appears to be smeared.

 

[Malkmus]

The bloddy footprint matched Raffaelo's foot.
Much of their prints were cleaned and revealed under luminol.

I don't understand what your problem is with the fact that AK's DNA was mixed with Meredith's.
do you?

It wasn't a match. It was inconclusive. And why on earth would Raf point out his own (literally) bloody footprint to police?!

 

[katy_did]

You can't actually say that the police accessed the Naruto file because any manual access from the Finder would have also updated the Spotlight metadata tag kMDItemLastUsedDate. Some event however did cause the file to be opened so that the filesystem recorded last access time was updated. I could speculate on what that event could be but at a minimum Raffaele's laptop must have been awoken from sleep by opening the lid or pressing a key.

I'd guess it was because the police were browsing the web and a P2P program was open at the same time, thus causing the last access time for the file to update...

 

[Fulcanelli]

Someone recently linked to a statement from the interpreter, who said that she was called between 11 and 11.30 and asked to come into the station. Now, assuming that the three police officers spent 20-30 minutes talking to Amanda in the waiting room before taking her into an interrogation room, that means the informal interrogation started between 10.30 and 11 (which fits with Amanda's conversation to Filomena at about 10.30, which she ends by saying "Someone wants to talk to me"). So the interrogation started between 10.30 and 11, not at midnight; and for the first hour and a half to two hours she didn't have an interpreter.

Amanda was doing cartwheels at 11 pm (see court testimony), so unless you're trying to suggest Amanda was doing cartwheels WHILE she was being interrogated, I think we can say her informal questioning began some time after 11 pm

The interpreter was there from the beginning.

Did you ever notice that the PMF timeline doesn't indicate why they believe an event happened at a certain time? Many of the times, such as the start of the interrogation, are pure conjecture.

I also note that you don't understand the coercive nature of the police interrogation. Politely asking questions to clear up a few points doesn't take a dozen police officers. It may take that many if the goal is to intimidate a suspect using a tag team technique.

No more then three or four people were present at Amanda's questioning and one of those was the interpreter. This is from Amanda's own testimony. I don't know where you get the 'twelve' figure from. I suspect it's due to the fact that twelve officers filed suit. That doesn't mean they were all there questioning Amanda. I suspect those officers were spread over the two sessions, some being present during the 1:45 statement while others were present (although taking no active role) during the 5:45 voluntary statement, while others during the 1:45 statement were acting as runners passing messages between Raffaele's questioning. All of those filed suit. But the fact is only three or four took any active role in Amanda's questioning...Amanda herself in court stated there were "three or four policeman".

You acknowledge that Amanda was "officially" declared a suspect at 1:45. Did she sign the statement after she became a suspect? Was her lawyer present when she signed that statement at 1:45? Was her lawyer present for the subsequent interrogation which ended with another statement being signed at 5:45?

A lawyer is not a requirement to sign a witness statement.

I can't understand why she thinks we've never discussed this before or why we would be afraid to answer it now, as obviously I'm about to. I'd also like to put it out there now that I don't shy away from any questions relating to my standpoint on this case, and welcome any and all questions.

Hey, Malkmus, before according to you, there were no caveats (weak or otherwise) for the evidence against Rudy all of a sudden you accept there are but they are weak, even though many are exactly the same caveats frequently used for the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. And wow, all of a sudden CONTEXT is important, but it only should be applied to Rudy's evidence and not Raffaele's and Amanda's? You are a wag

Anyway, Yummi on PMF has actually responded to your post above over on PMF. It's quite a good read:

http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=60222#p60222

Amanda lives there. That is an innocent explanation for her DNA being found anywhere in that house (especially given the poor collection techniques demonstrably used by Stefanoni).

Do you now acknowledge that the positive DNA results for Amanda mixed with Meredith's blood prove nothing? If not, why not?

Amazing how none of the other people who "lived there" or visited, left profiles in Meredith's blood...not even Filomena in her own room. Maybe it's because Amanda has 'American DNA', it's just superior to everyone else's?

I'd go further. The accumulated physical evidence firmly places Guede in the girls' cottage at or very shortly after the murder. Now, Guede has a story which largely exonerates him of any involvement in the murder itself. But if one is to believe this story, then one has to believe that Guede "tended" to Meredith as she died, yet neglected to call for help of any kind. And one has to believe that Guede was traumatised by what he'd seen happen to Meredith, yet went out clubbing shortly afterwards. And one has to believe that Guede's only guilt the following day was in not getting help for Meredith, yet he took off immediately by train to Milan then onwards to Germany, in what can only be termed a classic flight from the scene.

It's about as believable as turnip juice

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Amazing how none of the other people who "lived there" or visited, left profiles in Meredith's blood...not even Filomena in her own room. Maybe it's because Amanda has 'American DNA', it's just superior to everyone else's?

Or she was a "good shedder", or she was just unlucky. Since no control samples were taken, we will never know.

That's one question you haven't satisfactorily answered, but would you care to try the rest?

1. How do you explain the fact that all of Meredith's last meal was still in her stomach, and none of it was in her bowel, if she was undisturbed until 10pm and died after 10pm? This is completely inconsistent with everything we know about human digestion. Estimating time of death by stomach contents is imprecise to a degree, but not to anything like the degree needed to explain this.
   
2. How do you explain the fact that Meredith's mobile phone pinged a tower in between her house and the final resting place of her phones at 22:13, if she was not murdered until 23:30 or similar? Meredith's phone had never pinged that tower before so while it was physically possible for her phone to reach that tower from her room, it would never actually do so in the normal course of things. This is nigh incontrovertible evidence that at 22:13 the killer had left her house and was en route to the place where they dumped her phones.
   
3. How do you explain the fact that the characteristics of Amanda's "confession" (vagueness, doubts about its authenticity, obvious errors of fact, conformity with police theories at the time, later retraction) match with those of an internalised false confession, a well-recognised and objectively documented psychological phenomenon? There is no evidence Amanda knew enough about such false confessions to fake one so convincingly, and indeed if she knew enough to fake one she would almost certainly know that such confessions often lead to the confessor being convicted. If it is highly implausible that she faked an internalised false confession, the only alternative was that this was a real internalised false confession.
   
4. Do you acknowledge that since Meredith died long before 23:30, the witnesses who claim to have heard a scream at about that time cannot have been hearing Meredith scream, and that this destroys the claim that these witnesses confirm Amanda's internalised false confession because they heard the scream Amanda described? If not, why not?
   
5. If you believe Curatolo's testimony, how do you explain the fact that the computer records provided by the police show that an episode of Naruto was opened on Raffaele's computer at 21:26, which would have lasted for at least twenty minutes, covering the time period when Curatolo very specifically claims to have seen them out of the house?
   
6. If you still believe Curatolo's testimony, and cannot present scientific evidence to dispute the time of death based on Meredith's stomach contents, doesn't Curatolo give Amanda and Raffaele an alibi?
   
7. If you do not believe Curatolo's highly specific testimony, what alternative do you suggest to the obvious hypothesis that Curatolo was a police stooge who committed perjury, and that his whole statement was false?
   
8. Do you acknowledge that Amanda's DNA on the "double DNA" knife proves absolutely nothing regarding her guilt or innocence, because it could have been deposited on the handle by completely innocent means? If not, why not?
   
9. Do you acknowledge that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood found in the house proves absolutely nothing, because it could have been deposited by completely innocent means before Meredith's death? If not, why not?
   
10. Do you acknowledge that without this DNA evidence, absolutely no forensic evidence links Amanda to Meredith's murder at all?
    
11. What hard evidence do you have that there was a staged break-in given that we have Filomena's statement that there was glass on the floor of her room as well as on top of her clothes? The fact that nothing was stolen from this room is not evidence of a staged break-in, the lack of fingerprints or DNA from Rudy in that room is in no way unusual even if he did search the room without gloves, and the unsupported word of police who did not document their observations is not hard evidence.
    
12. Do you acknowledge that the police destroyed the evidence, in the form of the Spotlight metadata for Stardust on Raffaele's computer, which could potentially have confirmed their alibi, that they were at home at the prosecution's alleged time of death?
    
13. Finally, doesn't it ever strike you as weird that Mignini "figured out" that this was a once-in-history three-way sex crime more or less on sight, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that theory? Isn't it just a bit convenient that when absolutely all the forensic evidence failed to confirm his theory, miraculous and unreproducible LCN DNA evidence gathered at the eleventh hour popped up out of Stefanoni's lab to save his theory, but they refuse to show their raw data or their log files? Isn't it cause for concern that the best evidence for the prosecution can't be reproduced and they refuse to show their work, and that the vital piece of evidence that could have confirmed Amanda and Raffaele's alibis (the Spotlight data for Stardust) was destroyed by police?

Thanks in advance. Take as long as you need.

 

[Malkmus]

Hey, Malkmus, before according to you, there were no caveats (weak or otherwise) for the evidence against Rudy all of a sudden you accept there are but they are weak, even though many are exactly the same caveats frequently used for the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. And wow, all of a sudden CONTEXT is important, but it only should be applied to Rudy's evidence and not Raffaele's and Amanda's? You are a wag

Anyway, Yummi on PMF has actually responded to your post above over on PMF. It's quite a good read:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=60222#p60222

Fulcanelli, good to see you back. What I wrote was "creating 'caveats' for Rudy's evidence is an easy task, but meaningless when put into context."

I never said I consider any of what you listed to actually be caveats, and as I said I consider it meaningless. What I said was that "you" can create caveats out of whatever you like, it doesn't mean they're actually weaknesses in his evidence. They're not caveats when we know for a fact that Rudy was there that night and with Meredith when she died. You listing the collection date of Rudy's DNA samples, or the weakness of his DNA in Meredith's body is like applying that same logic to Joran Van Der Sloot's latest victim: We know he was the one in the room with her, we know what he did with her, so no reason to doubt any of it.
The caveats I listed for Amanda and Raf's evidence are not subjective, they can actually make a difference in their appeals. Not so for Rudy. What you perceive as the same weaknesses in Rudy's evidence won't make a bit of difference because his involvement in the murder is indisputable.

Why doesn't Yummi come here and engage with us?

 

[loverofzion]

By trying to evade the direct questions you stated that Amanda and Raffaele were "suspects" before they were brought in for questioning on Nov. 5th. Is that really what you intended to do?





If the author of the PMF/TJMF timeline wants to argue its accuracy here they will need to create an account and come here in person to argue it. Arguments by proxy are forbidden per the JREF membership agreement.

If you wish to discuss the timeline, I don't need the PMF/TJMF version since I have my own:

1 November 2007

00:02:41 Raffaele called father using landline (262 sec) - Massei Report pg 343
00:41:49 Amanda calls unidentified person (local number) (20 seconds) - Massei Report pg 345
00:57:20 Amanda receives SMS from Raffaele
cell Via dell'Aquila 5-Tower sett.3 Aqueduct - Massei Report pg 345
01:04:58 Amanda receives call from 075/9660789
(cell located in Piazza Dante 26) - Massei Report pg 345
15:48 Meredith texts her English friends that she will be delayed in meeting with them (PT)
16:50 Raffaele is called by his father.
Time established by phone records on Raffaele Sollecito page.
16:56 Raffaele is called by his father.
Time established by phone records on Raffaele Sollecito page.
18:21:15 VLC was launched to play the multimedia file Amelie.avi - Massei Report pg 325
18:27:50 Meredith (Vodafone) sent an SMS to 348-4673711 engaging the cell Piazza Luppatelli week. 7.
(The signal is received at Via della Pergola 7.) - Massei Report Pg 348
18:29:05 Meredith received a text message from 388-8921724 (hooking the same cell as above)
19:30 TG3 news report starts; Guede claims he left home shortly after the program started.
Source Micheli report. "Coming to the evening of 1 November, R. remember leaving the house as he began the TG3 regional".
19:53 First sighting of figure thought to be Guede on car park CCTV camera, adjusted forward 12 minutes per the defence's theory.
He is walking through the car park towards the cottage. CCTV time stamp is 19:41. [1]
20:18:12 Lumumba sent text message to Knox saying she didn't need to come to work.
Time established by phone records on Amanda Knox page.
(cell Aqueduct Street Eagle 5-wk. 3) - Massei Report pg 345
Amanda and Raffaele start watching Amelie (129min)
(time? source?)
20:22 Second sighting of figure thought to be Guede on car park CCTV camera, adjusted forward 12 minutes per the defence's theory.
He is walking from left to right along the street, past the car park on the right and the cottage on the left. Fits with Guede's claim to have arrived at the cottage around 20:30. CCTV time stamp is 20:10. [2]
20:35:48 Knox responds with text message to Lumumba.
Time established by phone records on Amanda Knox page. Message is "See you later, Good evening" in Italian.
(cell Via Berardi area 7) - Massei Report pg 345
20:40 Amanda and Raffaele at RS's place.[3]
Jovana Popovic of Serbia said Sollecito had agreed to drive her to a bus station in Perugia the night of the murder. ... Popovic went to Sollecito's house at 8:40 p.m. to tell him she no longer needed to go, and Knox opened the door to take the message, the Serbian woman testified. (Did Amanda answer the door because Raffaele was on the phone?)
Amanda says this was before they started watching Amile (Amanda testimony)
Raffaele was supposed to drive her to the station around midnight.
"AK: Later on, she came back and talked with Raffaele, and Raffaele explained to me that she didn't need to be driven to the station any more." about the time they were having dinner. (Amanda testimony)
20:42:56 Raffaele is called by his father, talks for 3 1/2 minutes.
Time established by phone records on Raffaele Sollecito page.
(cell Beradi Way Area 7) - Massei Report pg 339
20:45 Meredith leaves residence of Robyn Butterworth at Via Bontempi, 22 and walks with Sophie Purton.
(PT=20:45)
Time approximate, based on Sophie's statement that she arrived home in Via del Lupo at 20:55.
20:55 Sophie Purton arrives home in Via del Lupo.
Source Micheli Report. "On 17 November, P[urton] made a new prosecuting magistrate deposition...correcting the time that she was back in Via del Lupo, recalling that it was still 20:55".
20:56 Phone call from Meredith's phone to mother, cut off almost immediately.
"In evidence on Friday, Stefano Sisani, of the Perugia flying squad, revealed that a call to Kercher’s mother, Arline, in Coulsdon, Surrey, was made from her mobile at 8.56pm on the night of November 1. She used the phone daily to call her mother, who was ill. The call was cut off before she got through" (Times Online, March 22, 2009) [4]
Theory that call was cut off by attack is unlikely, as Meredith would still be near Sophie's flat at this time. More likely explanation is that call was dropped because of poor signal in tight medieval streets.
Logged in phone memory - Massei Report pg 350
21:05 Sighting of figure thought to be Meredith on the car park CCTV camera, CCTV time adjusted forward 12 minutes per the defense's theory.
The figure is walking from left to right on the same side of the street as the cottage. CCTV time stamp was said to be 20:43 in early news reports (when the figure was thought to be Amanda); later reports of 20:41 are possibly a confusion with Guede's sighting at 19:41. Fits with Sophie's arrival home at 20:55, and the interrupted call at 20:56. [5][6]
21:05 Kercher arrives at cottage
Time approximate, based on walk since leaving Sophie. Also matches up with female figure seen walking towards cottage gate on car park video at 20:43. Prosecution claims clock is 10 minutes fast, see 13:34 on Nov. 2 for why it's probably 12 minutes slow. Video available on web is cropped and doesn't show camera timestamps.
21:10 Last human interaction with RS's computer during this night.
Testimony of police expert Marco Trotta at trial[7]\
21:10:32 last access to the file Amelie.avi - Massei Report pg 325
21:58 Attempt to call voice mail (from phone memory)
Massei Report pg 350
22:00 Kercher's phone attempts to call Abbey Bank.
Source Micheli Report. Call fails because 44 prefix for UK not used.
22:13 Kercher's mobile phone had received a picture message.
Source Micheli Report. Connected via cell area of Ponte Rio - Montelaguardia. Cell tower may not be significant.
(Massei Report pg 348) GPRS (internet) lasting 9 seconds to the IP address 10.205.46.41
22:30 Black man running up stairs near cottage.
Time approximate, Alessandra Formica and boyfriend are descending the stairs of via della Pergola that lead to viale S.Antonio, where their car is parked and where the cottage is. Suddenly a guy who walks in the rush, coming up, bumps into them and runs away. At trial she says "I can rule out that the guy could be Rudy Guede".[8]
22:30-23:00 - Car breakdown at exit to parking garage across from cottage.
Time approximate. Pasqualino Coletta (the driver) testified that nothing out of the ordinary happened during this time.[9]
23:00 Mechanic comes for broken down car.
Time approximate. Gianfranco Lombardi was there for about 10 minutes, noticed a dark colored car parked outside Meredith's place, but nothing suspicious.[10]
[edit]2 November 2007

02:00 Guede spotted at a local nightclub.
Source?
06:02:59 Raffaele's phone receives SMS from Francesco Sollecito
(cell Via Beradi area 7) Massei Report pg 339, 342
09:24 Raffaele receives call from father (248 seconds) - Massei Report pg 342
09:29 Raffaele receives call from undisclosed caller (38 seconds)
09:30 Raffaele call from father (cont?) (cell Via Belardi week. 7) - Massei Report pg 342
10:30 Knox returns to cottage.
From Knox testimony.
12:07:12 Knox calls Meredith's phone with UK number (16 seconds).
Time from phone records on Amanda Knox page.
(cell Eagle Street 5-Torre sett.9 Aqueduct) Massei Report pg 346
12:08:44 Knox call Filomena Romanelli (68 seconds).
From Knox phone records.
(cell 5-Torre dell'Aquila Via Aqueduct sett.3) - Massei Report pg 346
12:11 Knox calls phone Meredith borrowed from Filomena.
From Knox phone records.
12:11:02 Meredith (Vodafone) received call from Amanda (3 seconds) call directed to voicemail
(Vodafone committed by users of Meredith is located in Strada Vicinale S. Mary of the Hill area 1 )
from Massei Report pg 346, 348
12:11:54 (4 seconds) Amanda repeats call to Meredith UK phone
from Amanda's phone record
(cell 5-Torre dell'Aquila Via Aqueduct sett.3) Massei Reoprt pg 348
12:20:44 Filomena calls Amanda.
From Knox phone records
(cell 5-Torre dell'Aquila Via Aqueduct sett.9) Massei report pg 348
12:34:56 Filomena calls Amanda (48 seconds)
From Knox phone records.
(cell Piazza Lupattelli week. 7) Massei Report pg 348
12:35 Postal Police inspector claims to have arrived at cottage.
Looked at his watch according to testimony. (source?)
12:35 Raffaele calls service center to recharge minutes
(cell Piazza Lupattelli week. 7)
12:38 Raffaele receives SMS confirmation
(cell Piazza Lupattelli week. 7)
12:40 Raffaele receives call from father (67 seconds)
(cell Square Lupattelli week. 7)
12:46 Postal Police sent off from their HQ after the second phone arrived.
Source?
12:47:23 Knox calls her mother, Edda Mellas. (88 seconds)
From Knox phone records. No mention of police being at cottage. (source?)
(cell cell Piazza Lupattelli week. 7) Massei Report pg 348
12:50:34 Raffaele Sollecito calls his sister Vanessa Sollecito (39 seconds).
Source phone records on Raffaele Sollecito page. Vanessa, a lieutenant in the Carabinieri, tells RS to dial 112.
(cell Square Lupattelli week. 7)
12:51:40 Raffaele Sollecito calls 112, Italian emergency number. (169 seconds)
From RS phone records.
(cell Eagle Tower Aqueduct sett.l)
12:54 RS makes second call to 112. (57 seconds)
From RS phone records.
(cell Square Luppatelli week 7)
13:00 Postal Police arrive.
Car park video shows black car driving past a couple of times, then someone walking across the street at 12:48. Adjust 12 minutes as camera time was off.
Car in video is a black Fiat Punto.[11] Same vehicle police claimed to have been driving at trial. (Source?)
Arrival could also be interpreted at 12:41 camera time, actually 12:53. While RS was phoning 112.
13:05 Filemena and friends get to cottage.
Estimated, Source?
Meredith's door is kicked in, postal police kick everybody out
13:17:10 Meredith's (Vodaphone) received call from 447853133067 (1 second)
(cell Vicinale S. Maria della Strada Collina week. 7) - Massei Report pg 338
13:24:18 Knox calls Edda again. (2.7 min)
From Knox phone records. Mentions police have arrived (source?).
(cell Piazza Lupattelli week. 7) Massei Report pg 347
13:27:32 Knox calls Seattle. (0.4 min)
From Knox phone records.
(cell Piazza Lupattelli week. 7) Massei Report pg 347
13:29:00 call from police, lasts 5 minutes.
From Knox phone records. (Asking directions?)
(cell Piazza Lupattelli week 7)
13:34 Carabinieri arrive?
Assuming end of phone call for directions is same as arrival time. If true, parking lot camera is about 12 minutes slow. Prosecution has been claiming it's 10 minutes fast, but has never explained why.
13:40:12 Raffaele receives call from father
(Cell 5-Torre dell'Aquila Via Aqueduct sett.l)
13:50 Raffaele receives call from father (178 seconds)
(cell Piazza Lupattelli week 7) - Massei Report pg 342
13:58:33 Knox calls Edda. (One second call)
From Knox phone records.
13:59:06 Knox calls Seattle. (5.9 min)
From Knox phone records.
(cell Piazza Lupattelli week. 7)
14:33 Raffaele receives call from father (21 seconds)
14:46:14 (102 seconds) Knox is called by Aunt Dorothy Craft, her mother's cousin living in Germany.
Fron Knox phone records.
(no cell location is given) Massei Report pg 347
15:13:43 Meredith's Vodafone receives second call from 447853133067 (5 seconds)
(no cell location is reported) - Massei Report pg 338, 348
15:30 Knox signs a statement at police station.
Mentioned in trial testimony.
15:31:51 Amanda receives SMS from 389/1531078
(cell Via Cappuccinelli 5 / seven. 2 where is located the police) Massei Report pg 347
17:01 Raffaele receives call from father (164 seconds)
(cell Via Cappuccinelli 5 / seven. 2, corresponding to the location of the police headquarters in Perugia)
17:42 Raffaele receives call from father (97 seconds)
​

This is a portion of the timeline that I have compiled. It is definitely incomplete and there may be errors. If anyone has additions or corrections I would appreciate the update.

Yea there's a problem.
Raffi dear never made the call to 112 until AFTER the postal police had arrived.
Very ingenious aren't you.

 

[loverofzion]

I guess you haven't read the appeals or stefanoni's testimony. If you had, you would know about the profile of the 3rd female. You see thats one of the aspects you hardly ever see anyone discuss about this case. If contamination isn't possible on either Knox's dna in meredith's blood or sollecito's on the bra clasp, then how did a 3rd unidentified female's dna get mixed with the blood samples in the bathroom and 3 unidentifed peoples dna on the bra clasp. Plus even the dna the prosecution claims is Sollecito's is highly contested. One of many reasons there should be an independent party examine the DNA evidence in this case. To many unidentified samples in this case. Semen, Bra Clasp, and the Blood in the bathroom. Especially considering your charging someone with sexual assault and dont test a semen sample that appears to be smeared.

No there is no other innocent explanatinof how Amanda's DNA was found mixed with Meredith's BLOOD.
What explnation do you have for that?

And for your information, Rafi's DNA was clearly and abundantly found on Meredith's bra clasp. Any innocent explanationfor that do you think?
It was never proven otherwise.

 

[loverofzion]

We've discussed this very recently. The bloody footprint matches Rudy's foot much better than Raffaele's, as you can tell from the prosecution photos and as you can tell very clearly from better-lit photos.



I just told you that the prints found with luminol did not test positive for blood, and hence nobody knows for certain when they were deposited or what substance gave the positive luminol reaction.



Those results prove nothing, because Amanda's DNA could have been deposited there at any time by perfectly innocent means.

I guess the luminol revealed the footprints in turnip jiuce then?

And yes the footprint was obviously way too small to have been Rudy's footprint.(RS wore a 42, RG a 46). This one was compatible with size 42.

 

[loverofzion]

A disinterested observer can rely on his intellect, analytical ability, life experience and knowledge of the facts to determine whether any given individual is unable to recall pertinent events. Recollection of pertinent events is not really at issue here, though, is it? Amanda recalled what she did the night of the murder. She did not recall what the police told her to recall, because it didn't happen.

In addition to her allegedly lying, what is it that you do hold as evidence for judgment of Amanda's character? As halides1 implies, offering examples will increase your credibility.

Well she blew off her relatives' plum job in Germany ,instead decided to split without bothering to inform anybody.
She was citedc by the police for rock throwing and raucous behavior in Seattle.
She had sex with an older man on a train while her younger sister waited in the compartment.
She was a thrill seeker and did drugs with her paramour and partner in the crime, most decidedly harder than just cannibas..
She was obnoxious, disorderly, inconsiderate and generally a blowhard.

But most of all, she murdered and then lied- and is continuing to lie- about her part in it.

And innocent people don't change their alibis no matter what the police suggest.
Whew you guys really pick and choose what you read don't you all.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Or she was a "good shedder", or she was just unlucky. Since no control samples were taken, we will never know.

That's one question you haven't satisfactorily answered, but would you care to try the rest?

1. How do you explain the fact that all of Meredith's last meal was still in her stomach, and none of it was in her bowel, if she was undisturbed until 10pm and died after 10pm? This is completely inconsistent with everything we know about human digestion. Estimating time of death by stomach contents is imprecise to a degree, but not to anything like the degree needed to explain this.
   
2. How do you explain the fact that Meredith's mobile phone pinged a tower in between her house and the final resting place of her phones at 22:13, if she was not murdered until 23:30 or similar? Meredith's phone had never pinged that tower before so while it was physically possible for her phone to reach that tower from her room, it would never actually do so in the normal course of things. This is nigh incontrovertible evidence that at 22:13 the killer had left her house and was en route to the place where they dumped her phones.
   
3. How do you explain the fact that the characteristics of Amanda's "confession" (vagueness, doubts about its authenticity, obvious errors of fact, conformity with police theories at the time, later retraction) match with those of an internalised false confession, a well-recognised and objectively documented psychological phenomenon? There is no evidence Amanda knew enough about such false confessions to fake one so convincingly, and indeed if she knew enough to fake one she would almost certainly know that such confessions often lead to the confessor being convicted. If it is highly implausible that she faked an internalised false confession, the only alternative was that this was a real internalised false confession.
   
4. Do you acknowledge that since Meredith died long before 23:30, the witnesses who claim to have heard a scream at about that time cannot have been hearing Meredith scream, and that this destroys the claim that these witnesses confirm Amanda's internalised false confession because they heard the scream Amanda described? If not, why not?
   
5. If you believe Curatolo's testimony, how do you explain the fact that the computer records provided by the police show that an episode of Naruto was opened on Raffaele's computer at 21:26, which would have lasted for at least twenty minutes, covering the time period when Curatolo very specifically claims to have seen them out of the house?
   
6. If you still believe Curatolo's testimony, and cannot present scientific evidence to dispute the time of death based on Meredith's stomach contents, doesn't Curatolo give Amanda and Raffaele an alibi?
   
7. If you do not believe Curatolo's highly specific testimony, what alternative do you suggest to the obvious hypothesis that Curatolo was a police stooge who committed perjury, and that his whole statement was false?
   
8. Do you acknowledge that Amanda's DNA on the "double DNA" knife proves absolutely nothing regarding her guilt or innocence, because it could have been deposited on the handle by completely innocent means? If not, why not?
   
9. Do you acknowledge that Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood found in the house proves absolutely nothing, because it could have been deposited by completely innocent means before Meredith's death? If not, why not?
   
10. Do you acknowledge that without this DNA evidence, absolutely no forensic evidence links Amanda to Meredith's murder at all?
    
11. What hard evidence do you have that there was a staged break-in given that we have Filomena's statement that there was glass on the floor of her room as well as on top of her clothes? The fact that nothing was stolen from this room is not evidence of a staged break-in, the lack of fingerprints or DNA from Rudy in that room is in no way unusual even if he did search the room without gloves, and the unsupported word of police who did not document their observations is not hard evidence.
    
12. Do you acknowledge that the police destroyed the evidence, in the form of the Spotlight metadata for Stardust on Raffaele's computer, which could potentially have confirmed their alibi, that they were at home at the prosecution's alleged time of death?
    
13. Finally, doesn't it ever strike you as weird that Mignini "figured out" that this was a once-in-history three-way sex crime more or less on sight, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that theory? Isn't it just a bit convenient that when absolutely all the forensic evidence failed to confirm his theory, miraculous and unreproducible LCN DNA evidence gathered at the eleventh hour popped up out of Stefanoni's lab to save his theory, but they refuse to show their raw data or their log files? Isn't it cause for concern that the best evidence for the prosecution can't be reproduced and they refuse to show their work, and that the vital piece of evidence that could have confirmed Amanda and Raffaele's alibis (the Spotlight data for Stardust) was destroyed by police?

Thanks in advance. Take as long as you need.

Easily dealt with.

1. Stomach content is not an accurate method for determining TOD, relying on a range of factors. As such, iy must only be used in combination with other elements, as was done in this case. TOD was after 11 pm.

2. That cell tower also covers the cottage. "never pinged the phone before"? And the records you're using go back how long?

3. A completely leading question based on your own arbitrary subjective opinion. Her interrogation matches someone telling 'lies', it is not similar to what you claim.

4. Another leading question which assumes your self imposed ROD is accepted. It is not. Meredith was murdered after 11 pm, as was established in the trial.

5. The cartoon (Nurato). You people are talking of this as though it is something 'new'. It is not. It was argued by the defence in the pre-trial under judge Micheli and rejected. Just as it was not accepted in the trial. The last human interaction on Raffaele's computer was around 21:10. Activity after that period did not require human interraction and was automated.

6. Again, a leading question which presumes your altered TOD is accepted, it is not. There are many forms of evidence of which scientific evidence is only one kind. It is not a requirement that Curatolo's testimony be supported with "scientific evidence".

7. Another leading question. See above.

8. It is not Amanda's DNA on the handle alone that us the evidence. It is her DNA on the handle combined with Meredith's DNA on the blade. Since Raffaele and Amanda were the only individuals with access to the knife (unless you want to blame the cleaning lady) and both their alibis are entwined, one of them used that knife on Meredith. The DNA on the handle indicates that person was Amanda. There is no other DNA on that handle.

9. Amanda's DNA mixed with Meredith's blood combined with the absence of anyone else's is a clear indicator of guilt.

10. No, there is also the knife and her footprints in Meredith's blood.

11. The break-in was clearly staged per the in depth evidence and reasoning cited for it in the Massei Report, which I refer you to. Some of the glass being under clothing as well as in top, IF Filomena actually did state that (which I'm not entirely convinced of), is easily explained. The stagers of the break-in would have been in the room, so their feet would have been in the room, right by the window where the floor was covered with items they'd strewn on the floor, Some of these items no doubt would have been knocked or kicked about as they moved in that area, causing some items to shift onto previously exposed parts of the floor that had glass on them.

12. No, since the police worked with a copy of the data on Raffaele's drive, not with the original drive.

13. If you think that's the 'first three way sex crime in history' there's no helping you. They found the evidence they needed because they searched the crime scene. I fail to see why conspiracy theories are required. Indeed, you could take the time to explain in such an event, why they didn't plant or fabricate strong evidence as opposed to (as you've been arguing for months) weak evidence and how that makes any kind of logical sense.

Over to you.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Fulcanelli, good to see you back. What I wrote was "creating 'caveats' for Rudy's evidence is an easy task, but meaningless when put into context."

I never said I consider any of what you listed to actually be caveats, and as I said I consider it meaningless. What I said was that "you" can create caveats out of whatever you like, it doesn't mean they're actually weaknesses in his evidence. They're not caveats when we know for a fact that Rudy was there that night and with Meredith when she died. You listing the collection date of Rudy's DNA samples, or the weakness of his DNA in Meredith's body is like applying that same logic to Joran Van Der Sloot's latest victim: We know he was the one in the room with her, we know what he did with her, so no reason to doubt any of it.
The caveats I listed for Amanda and Raf's evidence are not subjective, they can actually make a difference in their appeals. Not so for Rudy. What you perceive as the same weaknesses in Rudy's evidence won't make a bit of difference because his involvement in the murder is indisputable.

Why doesn't Yummi come here and engage with us?

I see, so you never said this?

It doesn't seem strange to you that each piece of forensics evidence, and even most of the circumstantial evidence against Amanda and Raf comes with some sort of glaring caveat? Unlike the evidence against Rudy which is cut and dry and has no caveats.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6272251&postcount=4810

There's no mention of 'easy' in that line. And funnily, the caveats which can be used for Rudy's evidence which you have now claimed are 'easy' are the ones that have been made for Raffaele and Amanda. And now also, you claim you never agreed with those caveats? So, you don't agree that the bra clasp being collected 47 days later means it was contaminated and/or fabricated? You don't believe that Amanda and Raffaele telling lies is NOT an indicator of guilt? You don't believe that if an alternate explanation is 'possible', that is reasonable doubt? You don't believe that aside from the clasp, the absence of forensic evidence of Amanda and Raffaele proves innocence?

What then, ARE your caveats to explain their evidence away? Just so we're all clear, you understand.

How are the caveats for Amanda and Raffaele not subjective when they are made only in isolation and in regard to the context? Why should context only be applicable to Rudy?

In the case of Raffaele and Amanda, the 'context' is that a range of evidence places multiple persons at the scene, a range of evidence places Raffaele and Amanda at the scene along with Rudy, including but not limited to, witness testimony forensic evidence, their behaviour, their lack of and conflicting alibis and multiple lies...that is the context.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I guess the luminol revealed the footprints in turnip jiuce then?

And yes the footprint was obviously way too small to have been Rudy's footprint.(RS wore a 42, RG a 46). This one was compatible with size 42.

Neither was Rudy walking around barefoot