I agree. SA used to place huge weight on the computer evidence showing the creation of the audio playlist at around 5.30am, But now when it appears that there might be computer evidence showing activity throughout the night up to and including this 5.30am interaction, a spot of ex-post rationalisation is suddenly in order........
By the way, Happy New Year! Best wishes from sunny Texas (oooooops, I mean drizzly London
)
There's nothing contradictory. There isn't any evidence of activity of
applications throughout the night, that's the whole problem. It was quoted that there is some sort of actvity from 9pm to 6am. But Amanda says she and Raffaele were in a "different" room, eating dinner at 9.30, 10pm. Where are the applications that were used between 9pm and 6am???? How did Raffy do it with his go-go gadgets arms if he was eating fish with Amanda, cooking, looking at split pipes. There's no internet activity, no programs. What exactly is he supposed to have been doing? Amanda considers that they made love and then reasserts that they
definitely did. Then she says they fell asleep together. BTW I do find this line that whenever Amanda makes even
categoric statements like no she didn't apologise to Patrick and yes they were in another room for a sustained period of time, yes they did make love and yes they went to sleep together, that if it doesn't help the latest and greatest piece of evidence then she must just have forgotten. That is not skeptical and it is deeply unsatisfying in front of juries.
But it's not a latest and greatest piece of evidence anyway.This is looking extremely suspiciously like it's screensaver type activity with no applications running otherwise those application event logs would be a MASSIVE piece of evidence in the case. Enough to reopen the case on the part of the police and prosecution long before the appeal as a clear indication of something corroborating at least one defendant's version. I think you're heading for a fall on this one as there's no activity on the PC at all until the 5.30 events. You expect a jury to believe the computer was "in use" but doing nothing whereas we have clear objective records of the computer being in use at other times?
As it is, I believe this is quite likely to be a big mistake in the defence case for the appeal. I would like to be facing the prosecution rebuttal of this. Nasty.
@Halides 1 Re the spontaneous declaration and stating it was an apology to the Kerchers, Amanda said that had been "wrong" to think that there was a right time or a wrong time to express sympathy to the Kerchers and she then corrected that. She then apologised to Patrick, which clearly she didn't need to do if she'd done it before. The question originally put to me was whether she had apologised TO Patrick. In cross-examination she said clearly and plainly "no" she had not and in the recent appeal hearing, it is quite clear that by her actions she similarly was correcting her other oversight.
At least now she is unequivocal that she was "wrong"- Edda will have to remember that since she's being out there saying it definitely wasn't the right time to reach out on TV, very firmly, only a handful of days before.
By the way, did you watch Clander's film at PMF where Amanda's Italian words are played with a simultaneous english translation? The modulation of her voice in the section on expressing her regret to the Kerchers is all wrong in my opinion. The pitching up at Meredith's death when she managed to do nothing like it in the first trial? It sounded deeply put on. It really should be watched / listened to. Others are of the same opinion. I consider this a big big gamble to have taken because if it didn't come across convincing to the jury, you have a major problem from the off. A real double or quits strategy that.
Also the flipside of Amanda's rambling opening about her being the least able to express herself is, of course, that it equally looks like an attempt to convince the court that yes she can be that flakey and that's why all the problems in what she said. Looks like alibi support in motion. It's not terribly convincing because of course she was reading from written notes when she did it - loads and loads of time to prepare. And what is clear is that after the rambling open, there wasn't anything unclear in what she said to the Kerchers or to Patrick at all - it
was all perfectly clear. So the performance is
internally inconsistent as well. Go and listen to it and watch the translation - it's not looking good from here.
Pure confirmation bias no doubt; "*********** bastards" as Amanda would say. Funny that - when she was in Questura, why did she assume that more than one person killed Meredith - bastards
plural? It's really rather rare to find a single woman murdered in her home and find out that more than one person did it. The automatic assumption would be a solo male killer. Would you say it? A strange thing to say indeed. It reminds me very much of her saying she had never invited Rudy to her house "before" in her bugged conversation with her dad. Nasty things those little slips.
She does give you lots of clues you know, but none of you can see it. I have to say, I do sit and wonder sometimes what your faces will be like if Rudy sings.
@ LondonJohn - I'm not much bothered but tomorrow, why not simply go outside to a well known road in West London and take a picture with the Sunday paper date clearly shown in it in the frame and the street sign and post it up there and then. Camera, mobile phone. I'm sure you have one. End of lengthy debate. There's no charge for the advice. You can do that, can't you?
