Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Magister]

One wonders if the police have ever apprehended either of these characters and checked out the owner of the white car?

IIRC unidentified fingerprints and DNA plus a possible semen stain were found in Meredith's room.
Incidentally last month Perugian police arrested 22 Albanian mafia drug traffickers after a major 2 year operation.
Is it too fantastical to suppose Rudy is covering up for them?
The beating he received in prison could have been a reminder of the consequences if he was to divulge the truth.

 

[Magister]

I make it a habit not to believe anything a convict has to say. They use statements like these as bargaining chips in their imprisoned lives. "Give my sister a job, and I'll blab (lie) about this" sort of thing.

I believe only the first statements Rudy made to a friend before he was arrested. After he obtained lawyers nothing is believable. His attorneys (and all attorneys) work for the best interest of their clients, and also their own reputations.

I understand, but interesting that one mafioso would shop his own brother who was on the run.
What about Omerta?

 

[Fine]

* * *
Amanda’s DNA on the handle of the knife is strictly meaningless, because it cannot be dated. There is no reason to believe it was not deposited when Amanda cooked with it. Meredith’s DNA profile on the knife is undermined by the lack of blood on the blade, the failure of ILE to look for blood by disassembling the knife, and by the increased chances of contamination when performing LCN profiling in a lab that is not specifically designed for this purpose.

* * *

Halides, I'm confused. I don't get what you're saying, or suggesting, here. I've read several times now that the cops were negligent in not "disassembling" the kitchen knife. But it appears to me that the knife was never assembled, meaning the handle-grip was not attached to the knife in any mechanical manner (such as rivets). Apparently, it was plastic and molded onto the knife. Here's a photograph of the knife...

And if the handle grip was molded on, in one piece, clearly it could not be disassembled from the rest of the knife. Okay, it could be cut through in several places, with, say, a hacksaw. But, more importantly, is the defense requesting ---or should the defense be requesting---that the knife now be so "disassembled"? It would seem that if there was indeed an oversight in not "disassembling" the knife, the defense would wish to have that oversight corrected. Correct?

///

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Colonel Garofano and the knife

Halides, I'm confused. I don't get what you're saying, or suggesting, here. I've read several times now that the cops were negligent in not "disassembling" the kitchen knife. But it appears to me that the knife was never assembled, meaning the handle-grip was not attached to the knife in any mechanical manner (such as rivets). Apparently, it was plastic and molded onto the knife. Here's a photograph of the knife...

[qimg]http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/gallery/image.php?mode=medium&album_id=21&image_id=222[/qimg]

And if the handle grip was molded on, in one piece, clearly it could not be disassembled from the rest of the knife. Okay, it could be cut through in several places, with, say, a hacksaw. But, more importantly, is the defense requesting ---or should the defense be requesting---that the knife now be so "disassembled"? It would seem that if there was indeed an oversight in not "disassembling" the knife, the defense would wish to have that oversight corrected. Correct?

///

Fine,

When told that the knife was not disassembled, Colonel Garofano said, "Pity." See p. 369 in Darkness Descending. Perhaps the base of the blade could be pried away from the plastic handle in some way to look for blood in the crack. I do not know what the defense is requesting. It is possible that after two years, it is too late, but perhaps it could still be tested. Allow me to point out that the defense has not been successful in obtaining everything it asked the prosecution to provide.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Halides, I'm confused. I don't get what you're saying, or suggesting, here. I've read several times now that the cops were negligent in not "disassembling" the kitchen knife. But it appears to me that the knife was never assembled, meaning the handle-grip was not attached to the knife in any mechanical manner (such as rivets). Apparently, it was plastic and molded onto the knife. Here's a photograph of the knife...

I've owned several with similar handles, a couple of which have eventually fallen apart on me. I think you're right, and that the blade is only attached to the handle by a tang which the handle is moulded around.

Possibly when they come out of the factory there is no space at all between the tang and the handle, but the failure mode for that kind of knife in my limited experience has always been the tang working its way out of the handle, after years of the metal tang working away against the relatively soft plastic moulded around it.

So I imagine it's quite possible that after some use there is space or cracking around the join so that blood could get in there and so evade cleaning.

And if the handle grip was molded on, in one piece, clearly it could not be disassembled from the rest of the knife. Okay, it could be cut through in several places, with, say, a hacksaw. But, more importantly, is the defense requesting ---or should the defense be requesting---that the knife now be so "disassembled"? It would seem that if there was indeed an oversight in not "disassembling" the knife, the defense would wish to have that oversight corrected. Correct?

I'd just clamp the blade and then twist the handle off - they aren't meant to take that sort of abuse.

I couldn't find any discussion of the issue in Raffaele's appeals documents, so I'm unsure if the defence is requesting any such thing.

I'd like to see the knife disassembled and tested, of course. More data is always good. However I suspect that a negative result would not be taken as proof of innocence or anything like that, in the absence of some very compelling expert testimony that blood definitely would have been found in the handle if it had been the murder weapon. So I could see why the defence might think they had better things to do, since in a worst-case scenario it could prove it was the murder weapon (which would be fascinating for us but bad for the defence lawyers) and in a best-case scenario it does little or nothing to exonerate their clients.

If I were in their shoes I also wouldn't want anything further tested by the lab where Stefanoni works, since there is an obvious conflict of interest there. So it would have to go elsewhere for independent analysis, if it were to be a good risk for the defence, and possibly they can't arrange that.

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't think that the defense pathologists were either of these things, necessarily. PM Mignini moved the time of death back in his closing remarks. By putting the time of death back, PM Mignini was trying to make parts of his story work, but the stomach contents problem got worse by doing so.

It's not true. The defense pathologists were not caught off-guard. The ToD already had a long story and discussions. Prof. Introna and Bacci worked a lot on the point and talked at lenghts of the state of digestion, Lalli was asked opinions about his timings in putting tie closures on the duodenum, the various experts discussed the reliability of the parameter of the state of digestion/stmach emptying.

But it is worth bearing in mind that there have been other judges who dealt with the case without dealing with Amanda and Raffaele's involvement. The 9 judges who wrote the verdict on Rudy Guede never stated a ToD at 23:30. Judge Micheli, who didn't believe Rudy, nevertheless didn' accuse him of lying about his timings, as Rudy said he left the cottage a few minutes after 22:30.

 

[Justinian2]

There were a lot more strange coincidences and "impossibles" than in Perugia.
Another similarity is that Lindy's behavior was scrutinized. She was acting strangely, didn't show grief properly, showed no remorse, looked straight into the camera etc.
All the errors Amanda repeated.

Perhaps I share the same Irish, Scotch, English and German genes that Amanda has because I understand her perfectly and know she is telling the truth.

When I was young and good health, sometimes I would feel faint when the blood vessels dialitated due to heat and standing still for awhile. A lot of soldiers faint when standing at attention for a long time. My solution wasn't cartwheels, but touching my toes. I would touch my toes when under stress.

Same for her other mannerisms; I understand them all because I understand myself.

The only difference is, I would have punched a few of the police. My only felony charges came from fighting the police when they got nasty (3 or 4 times)

 

[Trigood]

So you mean that there is zero probability that Amanda's DNA landed in that areas not during crime but some other time. How do you estimate that probability?

I cannot estimate it in numeric value, as I am neither a DNA expert nor a statistician. However, I can, as a scientifically literate, educated person, estimate that the likelihood of AK's DNA being in even one of exactly those three spots (five, in the whole house) is very small. People do not generally leave their DNA around their house, on every surface. Dead skin cells that exfoliate do not generally have DNA. To get my DNA on my sink, for instance, I would have to rub my fingers on the sink, or wash my hands quite vigorously, and the DNA would probably wash down the drain, unless contained within a drop of blood of someone I had just murdered.

Then, realize that each instance of improbability must be multiplied by each other instance, as statistics tell us (I may not be a statistician, but I have taken both undergrad and graduate level statistics classes). Thus a small, very tiny improbability multiplied by itself 5 times, is almost infinitesimal.

If each instance were, say, one chance in ten-thousand (that's just a rough estimate; it would be much less for Amanda's DNA to be on Filomena's floor); multiplied five times by itself, that gives (10^-4)^5 = 10^-20. That's one chance in 10^20, or one chance in 100 quintillion.

Perhaps you don't like my individual odds. I'd still say it's about 1 in 100 chance. Then (10^-2)^5 is 10^10, or one chance in ten billion.

(Okay, so I did estimate it in numeric value. So, sue me. )

Odds not good that Amanda's DNA got there by chance, in other words.

You mean you can't see Amanda's DNA getting onto the knife handle in an innocent way? I can think of a few quite probable ways.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It was not in an area that I normally rub a knife handle, even when using it -- it was in the little area under the nub where the handle joins the blade. In other words, it was more where someone might press really hard (with their thumb and first finger) as they were stabbing someone.

And I can't think of any probable way in which Meredith's DNA would get on the blade, unless it was used to murder her.

I didn't neglect it, I thought you stated DNA is sufficient. Do we also need to prove that Amanda staged the crime-scene and locked the door to find her guilty?

You're twisting my words. You asked me under what conditions I would say that DNA was sufficient. Then I stated them, and added all the other evidence that proves them guilty.

This isn't a game. The evidence exists that exists. I didn't make it up, and I take it all into account.

I may have emphasized the DNA evidence in one of my posts, when responding to the stomach/TOD arguments, because I believe it's extremely strong evidence, that contravenes any silly argument about exactly when the crime took place. That's not the same as saying that only the DNA evidence is important.

Maybe it holds maybe not, but lone wolf scenario holds together and fits the evidence much better. See you later

Yes, the Lone Wolf. The wall-climbing, levitating-over-glass-strewn-window-panes Rudy who held Meredith, sexually abused her, stabbed her with two different knives, and smothered her mouth, all with his Amazing Two Arms. Who locked the door (for no reason) as he was leaving her room, without turning around. Who broke into the house and stole nothing. Who was friends with Amanda (by her own admission).

Yeah, that story. Holds together real well.

 

[Mary_H]

Originally Posted by act1roson

What I would like to know, to be clear, is where this forum discussed this issue originally, the murder room crime scene, and how there is no fingerprints, footprints, hair samples, or DNA of Amanda Knox? And, why wouldn't a forum such as this discuss this for pages, unless it has more interest in arguing the details of Amanda Knox's non-related private life on Nov 1-2 instead of her guilt or innocence?

You are shining a light on an important point. No one, not even the guilters, has ever disputed the police's findings that there was no evidence of Amanda in the room where the murder took place.

<snip>I am struggling to find how and when the suspicion of Miss Knox became overwhelming to the investigators to declare in Italian newspaper La Repubblica November 10, 2007 "The investigating judge Claudia Matteini is categorical: the evidence gathered by prosecutor Giuliano Mignini leave no room for doubt. Patrick Diya Lumumba, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are the killers of Meredith Kercher..."

Now this is a subject that has been brought up before, but it goes nowhere and then the subject is changed. The debate's usual path:

Question: The police had no evidence against Amanda and Raffaele when they brought them in for questioning. So what had raised their suspicions to the point that they wanted to bring them in?

Answer from the guilters: Amanda and Raffaele's alibis didn't match and they lied repeatedly.

Question: Yes, their alibis did match. Can you describe the lies that took place before the two were brought in for questioning?

Answer from the guilters: Uhhhh.......something about phone calls.......

It is obvious that on November 10, 2007, the DNA evidence had not been processed (due to the indictment of Lumumba in the press), yet 3 people had their names trashed.

Based on the evidence they had that Nov 10, thousands of innocent Perugians could have also been brought up on this murder charge if they had not used their computers, cell phones, or had rock solid alibis, etc. during night time hours when the typical person was sleeping. (Correction: computer hard drives wouldn't have mattered - they would have been fried at the lab.)

I doubt we'd be here if a waitress down the street had garnered the attention of Giobbi. They could have plucked one of her kitchen knives and gotten the same results, and from what I see of the interpretation of the bra clasp with the unidentified DNA of several people, said waitress could have magically been tied to it also.

All true, and an indictment of the arrests, prosecution and trial.

And this forum continues to discuss where Amanda Knox was when she received her message from Lumumba telling her work was slow and she wasn't needed, as if that could help anyone understand the crime better.

 

[JREF2010]

One more detail, that came to me when I remembered the swabbing videos.


Do we need to assume that the DNA was properly collected too?

I think this is one issue that can be proven with a video. The bra clasp clip was a video proving that not all pieces were handled well. Why they didn't just put the bra clasp in the bag is a most bizarre thing to watch. Instead they rub the critical evidence, then pass it for someone else to rub the bra clasp, then they drop it on the floor and then place it in the bag.

Its actually like viewing a video of how NOT to collect DNA evidence.
How embarrassing it must be for those in the bra clasp film.

I give the police points for filming it at least, and not destroying it to save face. This shows honesty on their part to allow everyone to see their gross mistakes on film, imo.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

I have a couple of questions for Charlie Wilkens:

1. Do you have the first Rinaldi report? I mean the April 2008 Rinaldi's Report, focused on the bathmat print, which I assume would contain also the famous "L. Robbins grid"?

2. Do you know whose shoewears left the prints on paper sheets in Filomena and Meredith's room?

I have posted both parts of Rinaldi's report:

http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rinaldi1.pdf
http://www.friendsofamanda.org/rinaldi2.pdf

The first of these has pictures of the shoe prints found on paper. There are several of them, but he only identifies where one of them was found. As far as I know, they don't match any shoes that were examined, and no one has tried to link them to the crime.

Perhaps you can examine these reports and provide us with a summary.

 

[Mary_H]

I think this is one issue that can be proven with a video. The bra clasp clip was a video proving that not all pieces were handled well. Why they didn't just put the bra clasp in the bag is a most bizarre thing to watch. Instead they rub the critical evidence, then pass it for someone else to rub the bra clasp, then they drop it on the floor and then place it in the bag.

Its actually like viewing a video of how NOT to collect DNA evidence.
How embarrassing it must be for those in the bra clasp film.

I give the police points for filming it at least, and not destroying it to save face. This shows honesty on their part to allow everyone to see their gross mistakes on film, imo.

LOL, JREF -- I agree. I think they filmed it on purpose, though. For all we know, they brought the bra clasp to the room deliberately to film themselves "finding" it -- you notice we never actually see them find it, though; that has already happened before the start of the video.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

I cannot estimate it in numeric value, as I am neither a DNA expert nor a statistician. However, I can, as a scientifically literate, educated person, estimate that the likelihood of AK's DNA being in even one of exactly those three spots (five, in the whole house) is very small. People do not generally leave their DNA around their house, on every surface. Dead skin cells that exfoliate do not generally have DNA. To get my DNA on my sink, for instance, I would have to rub my fingers on the sink, or wash my hands quite vigorously, and the DNA would probably wash down the drain, unless contained within a drop of blood of someone I had just murdered.

Got a source for that?

I seem to recall that, contrary to proper procedure, we can see in videos the DNA swabs being scrubbed about quite liberally, not applied just to the one spot where the blood fell. Obviously the more of the floor you scrub with a swab, the more likely you are to pick up DNA left lying around by someone who uses the bathroom regularly.

Then, realize that each instance of improbability must be multiplied by each other instance, as statistics tell us (I may not be a statistician, but I have taken both undergrad and graduate level statistics classes). Thus a small, very tiny improbability multiplied by itself 5 times, is almost infinitesimal.

...and a large probability (which you have not ruled out) multiplied by itself five times is still reasonably likely.

If each instance were, say, one chance in ten-thousand (that's just a rough estimate; it would be much less for Amanda's DNA to be on Filomena's floor); multiplied five times by itself, that gives (10^-4)^5 = 10^-20. That's one chance in 10^20, or one chance in 100 quintillion.

Perhaps you don't like my individual odds. I'd still say it's about 1 in 100 chance. Then (10^-2)^5 is 10^10, or one chance in ten billion.

(Okay, so I did estimate it in numeric value. So, sue me. )

Odds not good that Amanda's DNA got there by chance, in other words.

If we're pulling numbers out of our backsides, an eight in ten chance multiplied by itself five times is a three in ten chance.

If we're not pulling numbers out of our backsides, where's your citation for these odds?

For that matter, why would Amanda's non-blood DNA necessarily be mixed with Meredith's blood anyway, even if she was involved? Humans aren't water-soluble. I've not yet seen a convincing explanation for why the mixed DNA results are evidence of guilt even if taken at face value.

Since there is strong evidence (the bathmat footprint, the towels and Rudy's own statement) that Guede washed himself off in that bathroom without leaving DNA traces in the remaining blood, even if you believe Knox and Sollecito were involved I see no reason to think it's even likely that washing blood of oneself would lead to a nice detectable mix of blood and one's own DNA everywhere.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. It was not in an area that I normally rub a knife handle, even when using it -- it was in the little area under the nub where the handle joins the blade. In other words, it was more where someone might press really hard (with their thumb and first finger) as they were stabbing someone.

And I can't think of any probable way in which Meredith's DNA would get on the blade, unless it was used to murder her.

You might want to discuss the issues with contamination and proper procedures for LCN DNA testing with halides1 before you make claims like that. The whole basis for those procedures is to exclude the otherwise real possibility of contamination, and those procedures were not followed in this case.

In any case, we are talking about Amanda's DNA, not Meredith's. Amanda's DNA could perfectly well have gotten on to the knife by perfectly innocent means even if it were the murder weapon.

Yes, the Lone Wolf. The wall-climbing, levitating-over-glass-strewn-window-panes Rudy who held Meredith, sexually abused her, stabbed her with two different knives, and smothered her mouth, all with his Amazing Two Arms. Who locked the door (for no reason) as he was leaving her room, without turning around. Who broke into the house and stole nothing. Who was friends with Amanda (by her own admission).

Yeah, that story. Holds together real well.

It would really help you out to read this thread more thoroughly, we've whacked all these moles.

The wall shows signs of someone climbing it, Hendry's reconstruction of a possible and indeed probable mode of entry requires no levitation, a single knife could be compatible with every wound made, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that every spot of DNA and every wound on Meredith was inflicted simultaneously by a gang or an octopus, locking the door makes perfect sense to delay discovery of the body and indeed did so (briefly), and Rudy was not friends with Amanda in any normally used sense of the word.

These are the sorts of arguments that only sound good after way too long in the echo chamber.

 

[act1roson]

Yes, the Lone Wolf. The wall-climbing, levitating-over-glass-strewn-window-panes Rudy who held Meredith, sexually abused her, stabbed her with two different knives, and smothered her mouth, all with his Amazing Two Arms. Who locked the door (for no reason) as he was leaving her room, without turning around. Who broke into the house and stole nothing. Who was friends with Amanda (by her own admission).

Yeah, that story. Holds together real well.

The wall climbing was a piece of cake: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOOlUR9Cg1Q

What is your issue with the glass?

Only one knife was used; millions if not billions of knives in the world are compatible to the wounds.

Single men smother, rape and murder every single day, even strong women are victims. Lana Turner's teen daughter killed Johnny Stompanato with one quick stab of a knife.

Guede had a reason to lock the door - delay discovery as long as possible. Who cares whether he turned around?

He stole cell phones and money; his DNA was in the purse. He may have had an original plan to steal more, but Meredith came home unexpectedly.

Amanda and Meredith barely knew his name. They may not have even known his last name.

 

[colonelhall]

"Your perspective implies that no one acting in good faith would question the verdict, so the people who are doing so must be paid shills."

My perspective is that plenty of people have questioned the verdict,, but only their poiint of view is put across on shows such as Oprah.

 

[act1roson]

LOL, JREF -- I agree. I think they filmed it on purpose, though. For all we know, they brought the bra clasp to the room deliberately to film themselves "finding" it -- you notice we never actually see them find it; that has already happened before the start of the video.

The timing of the bra clasp discovery is, well, what is the word?

"Kercher's bra clasp, discovered at the scene of the murder six weeks later and revealed to the press the morning after a defense expert demolished other material evidence on a national television show"

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1943553,00.html#ixzz11e3DiAlq

 

[Mary_H]

"Would you have it that the increasing pro-Amanda media coverage constitutes a suppression of the truth? Do you imagine that David Marriott has the power to persuade journalists and broadcasters of lies?"

Yes!

The fact is that this woman has been unanimously convicted of murder in a trial that lasted some months. There has been a 400 plus page sentencing report published.

In spite of this, most television shows appear to approach each new story from the point of view that she has been unjustly convicted and is deserving of our sympathy.

Whilst I do not deny people's right to challenge the verdict, I do believe that television should not allow them unfettered access to the airwaves. If they are to make a challenge, then they should be examined rigourously. This is just not happening.

As a viewer, why should I accept the murderer's mother's view of events? Why should I accept the view of an armchair sleuth like Steve Moore? Just because he says that "some people believe that the police tampered with the evidence" doesn't make it true.It is just his opinion and he is someone with absolutely no connection to the case.

If a television show invited one of the moderators of TJFMK to say that they were convinced of Knox's guilt and that many people agree with them, MaryH would be outraged. I, for one, would have some sympathy for her, unless someone like Steve Moore was invited to challenge her.

Marriott is not paid for nothing!

colonelhall, I am not sure any TV shows invited Steve Moore out of the blue. I think someone who works in the industry probably contacted various networks, showed them what Steve had done on Injustice in Perugia, and the networks were interested enough to interview him. They didn't have to put him on the air, but once they interviewed him and liked what they saw, in combination with his background, they put him on.

As we have discussed before, the guilters are more than welcome to do the same. Use your connections, use your expertise, ask the networks for equal air time. Why hasn't this happened yet?

Have any of you written to Clint Van Zandt? He is also a former FBI agent, with a background similar to Steve Moore's, including retirement after 25 years with the bureau. Toward the beginning of the case, Van Zandt suggested that he believed Amanda was guilty. If he still feels that way, that would be the ideal debate -- two 25-year-FBI vets, face to face. I notice Van Zandt is available for speaking engagements, so he must have time.

http://premierespeakers.com/clint_van_zandt

 

[Draca]

Meredith's clothes

Draca I will answer what questions I can. Maybe others can contribute answers to the other questions.

I am not sure that Meredith's sweatshirt/jacket was turned inside out. Her jeans were turned inside out (Stefanoni, motivations). The red sneakers she was wearing were not bloody from photos I have seen. Rinaldi included a photo of Puma sneakers in his report (I am assuming they are the same shoes recovered from the bedroom) - and if there is blood on them it is not evident and of small quantity. Photos of the sneakers at the crime scene do not show them bloody but you cannot see the bottoms of the shoes (Rinaldi's photo does include one shoe bottom which might have what looks like two drops of blood but I am not sure).

facebook.com/pages/Amanda-Knox-and-Raffaele-Sollecito/106344459390034?v=photos#!/photo.php?pid=383948&id=106344459390034

facebook.com/pages/Amanda-Knox-and-Raffaele-Sollecito/106344459390034?v=photos#!/photo.php?pid=383943&id=106344459390034&fbid=158997610791385


In the above photos the first one clearly shows that the jacket was turned inside out. This same jacket had Rudy Guede's DNA on the left cuff an was found on the floor by the wardrobe and Meredith's body. AND unbelievably was left behind and only retrieved and tested on Dec 18Th.

The second photo shows the clothes that were found on the floor with Meredith. In the upper right hand corner is the jacket by the wardrobe, hidden by the comforter in this photo. Down from that by a rug that got pushed across the floor are the shoes - you can see a bit of the red from the Pumas. The shoes were near a lot of blood but only had a bit on them. Also on top of the rug is the beige cloth purse that Meredith used that night. In the middle of the loop of the purse you can see one of the socks. Continuing on clockwise are the brown underwear, bra and jeans. Her long sleeved t-shirt was pushed over her breasts. Everything that Meredith was wearing that night was surrounding her body. Rudy Guede pulled the jacket off of her and inverted the sleeves. The shoes were found in the same area with one still tied. If she had removed the jacket and shoes before the attacked they wouldn't have been found also surrounding her body.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

"Your perspective implies that no one acting in good faith would question the verdict, so the people who are doing so must be paid shills."

My perspective is that plenty of people have questioned the verdict,, but only their poiint of view is put across on shows such as Oprah.

And Oprah is a billionaire. Marriott can't buy her. She did that program because she believes Amanda and Raffaele are innocent.

 

[RoseMontague]

"Referring finally to the position of Diya Lumumba’s statements of November 6 Knox Amanda is very important, since they attest to the presence within Meredith’s bedroom at the time of his murder when the same cry.
Such statements are confirmed, albeit indirectly, in some objective data regarding just the opening hours of the pub Le Chic, because while Lumumba at the hearing of validation claimed to have opened the space of one afternoon in November at approximately 17:00 to 18:00, the first tax receipts are being carried out from 22:29 hours nor the suspect and reused to give any logical explanation to this fact, not being able stao provide precise information on possible customers who could confirm his presence at the time before 22:29 hours, could hardly qualify as a precise indication therefore useful for the necessary evidence to have identified with the person who uses only one name would entered her room at 20.00 without adding or his telephone number or other identifying elements, although it has called a friend.
There is more to note that when this court addressed the suspect that dispute, the same remained some minutes in silence and then sought to justify this “vacuum” They come on the assumption that the receipts issued but not when ordering when the customer leaves the premises.
Even this justification does not hold because it does not explain why from 18.00 to 22:29 There are no receipts and these begin to be constant with frequency from 22:29 hours until closure.
Further substantiated the closure of the premises before that time is found in the statements one of the regulars, this volcano Gerardo Pasquale, who heard a summary information On 7.11.2007, reported that the evening on November had noticed at around 19.00 that restaurant was closed as well as he could see that fact even later to return the pizzeria.
Also as regards the text of the message that the suspect sent to the 20.30 to Amanda there are discrepancies between what is reported by the girl and what the predicted; Indeed while the girl spoke of a message which was that the local sights would remained closed and therefore should not have to go to work, Patrick say they have written that evening there was no need of its few customers collaborative absence.This may seem like a fact of little importance when in reality it is not absence a substantial difference between the two messages, it is likely that Patrick had intended actually not to open the room thinking that you can spend the night with Meritith, then, since the evolution of facts, has seen fit to open the pub for specially established an alibi."


_______________________


This doesn't strike me as faulty logic, Rose. Just considerable misinformation. (Such as Amanda's accusation that Patrick had killed Meredith!) And you can thank Amanda for creating the discrepancy between her version of the test message from Patrick and Patrick's version of the same text. Initially Amanda was telling the cops ---and Raffaele too--- that the text message had said that La Chic would stay closed ("rimasto chiuso") the night of November 1st. This discrepancy was ---apparently--- due to Amanda's lack of fluency in Italian. (See her 1:45 AM signed DECLARATION and Raffaele's Diary.)

///

I don't disagree with the areas you have highlighted Fine. I thought it was interesting how the rest of the evidence was presented to fit with possible involvement on the part of Patrick, particularly the receipts and the question of opening/closing of the bar and possible attempt to establish an alibi. His guilt just sounds so convincing when done that way, and innocent (but in retrospect true) explanations made to look contrived.