Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Lionking, I wasn't even talking about any posts in this thread. I was referring to how a debate like this will develop, in the absence of one side presenting evidence for the case they are making.

This has happened in other threads, demonstrably. This one is in danger of going the same way, if those who believe in the guilty verdict simply rely on the fact of the verdict to support the belief.

Rolfe.

I agree. For those that are now joining the discussion, the current debate would seem to be one of the side for innocence presenting evidence that the judgment of the court was flawed and the side for guilt making an occasional snarky comment.

There are some decent arguments for guilt in the previous 50,000 or so posts, many of those arguments are no longer valid with new information and evidence that has been revealed over time.

The best remaining argument for guilt is Amanda's false accusation, Raffaele's contradictory and admittedly false statements, and very questionable DNA evidence on the knife and bra clasp.

Most don't even bother with defending some of the theories presented in the Massei report, it has become of more value to those arguing for innocence, in my opinion. Some of the better theories coming out on other sites represent a radical departure from Massei.

 

[RoseMontague]

I'm not after an exact time of death, I'm after a reasonable timeline of the murder that conforms to the evidence, shows AK and RS are guilty, and actually makes sense. The scientific literature I have read puts food as passing from the stomach within a certain time, now one poster has indicated that digestion comes to a halt if you are attacked, but this is something that to me requires proof, which wasn't given. Just saying that "there are many factors to be considered" doesn't magically make things vanish, these factors need to be shown and then we can see if they can be taken into consideration, based on the evidence we have.

For instance, claims that Meredith was attacked and tortured for two hours should be able to be backed up by evidence of such torture. I believe that it should be possible to use the evidence to build a timeline for guilt, but instead of getting help to do this with pointing to the evidence like was done when I created a plausable innocent timeline, I keep getting stonewalled and handwaved at. That's not very incouraging because I firmly believe that if there is enough evidence to declare someone guilty, it should be easy to show how it all fits together.

I have tried to figure it out myself from reading places like TJFMK, but I quickly found that much of the information was well out of date and has now been shown to be wrong or discredited, which makes it even harder to piece things together.

So far I'm not getting a lot of help from one side.

DanO's timeline to follow:

· Amanda spent the night away from the cottage (presumably at Raffaele's place) and went "home" on Nov 1st. (From Amanda's Testimony)
· 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)
· 16:00-17:00 Amanda leave the cottage (From Amanda's testimony)
· 16:50 Raffaele is called by his father.
Time established by phone records
· 16:56 Raffaele is called by his father.
Time established by phone records
· 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.
· 22:00 (aprox) Hoax bomb threat call to Elisabetta (villa where phones were recovered)
(Massei Report pg 13)
· 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
· 21:26 Spotlight metadata shows "Naruto ep 101.avi" file is opened on Raffaele's laptop. (from Raffaeles appeal)
the last access time recorded in the filesystem is on Nov. 6th after Raffaele is in police custody.
· 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
· 06:22 Screensaver on Raffaele's computer kicks in marking the end of human activity on the computer for the night. (from appeal documents, unverified)
· 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
· 12:12:35 Filomana calls Amanda. (36 seconds)
From Knox phone records
· 12:20:44 Filomena calls Amanda. (65 seconds)
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) (UK Mobile)
(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.
· 13:30 Monica Napoleoni, Deputy Commissioner of the state police, and the staff from 118 arrive - Massei Report pg 95
· 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)
· 14:30 Inspector Brocci arrives at crime scene and starts setting up -Massei Report pg 99
· 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)

 

[PhantomWolf]

I agree. For those that are now joining the discussion, the current debate would seem to be one of the side for innocence presenting evidence that the judgment of the court was flawed and the side for guilt making an occasional snarky comment.

Very true. If I handled the Apollo Hoax claims the way some of those supporting guilt are doing here, then it'd be way less convincing to the lurkers. I understand it can be a pain going over things again, but then think about how many time I have answered the "No Stars" question in the last 10 years....

There are some decent arguments for guilt in the previous 50,000 or so posts, many of those arguments are no longer valid with new information and evidence that has been revealed over time.

From the points listed in the judgement, I would likely have agreed.

Meredith's DNA on the knife
Raffaele's DNA on the Bra Clip
Amanda and Raffaele see outside the cottage shortly before the murder
Clean up activities
Staged burglary

Just that alone makes it seem a slam dunk. Trouble is that it all apparently falls apart when scrutinised closely.

The best remaining argument for guilt is Amanda's false accusation, Raffaele's contradictory and admittedly false statements, and very questionable DNA evidence on the knife and bra clasp.

Which seem to all be failing one by one.

Most don't even bother with defending some of the theories presented in the Massei report, it has become of more value to those arguing for innocence, in my opinion. Some of the better theories coming out on other sites represent a radical departure from Massei.

I'd be interested in hearing these.

 

[PhantomWolf]

DanO's timeline to follow:

Thanks, I have read DanO's timeline. The trouble is that it doesn't cover the time of the murder very well at all, and what I want to do is try and establish what was happening in the cottage between 9:00pm and 1:00am the next morning.

I believe that the evidence should be able to allow us to determine this as long as we let it speak without forcing our own bias onto it.

 

[lionking]

Very true. If I handled the Apollo Hoax claims the way some of those supporting guilt are doing here, then it'd be way less convincing to the lurkers. I understand it can be a pain going over things again, but then think about how many time I have answered the "No Stars" question in the last 10 years....



From the points listed in the judgement, I would likely have agreed.

Meredith's DNA on the knife
Raffaele's DNA on the Bra Clip
Amanda and Raffaele see outside the cottage shortly before the murder
Clean up activities
Staged burglary

Just that alone makes it seem a slam dunk. Trouble is that it all apparently falls apart when scrutinised closely.



Which seem to all be failing one by one.



I'd be interested in hearing these.

So you came here not as someone interested in asking questions and entering into a debate, but someone with your mind firmly made up? this seems to be the case.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So you came here not as someone interested in asking questions and entering into a debate, but someone with your mind firmly made up? this seems to be the case.

One has to wonder if what you read is actually what others have written. How do you get that I have firmly made up my mind? I've spent the last goodness knows how many pages saying that all I have been getting is one side and I want to get the other to compare them. Sheeze. If instead of dodging every question and making stuff up, you actually were willing to help out with seeing the evidence for the "guilty" claims, then after comparing both I might accept your view, just as I might not. Currently however, with almost nothing from one side, all I have go with is what those who believe in innocence have put on the table.

If I am leaning towards innocence it's purely because currently there is nothing convincing me otherwise and no one willing to do so.

 

[Matthew Best]

It seems to me that the main difference between those who believe in Knox/Sollecito's guilt and those who believe in their innocence (or that their guilt has not been sufficiently demonstrated) is that the former put much more weight on Knox's confession/accusation and Sollecito's various writings than the latter do.

Once you're convinced that (for example) it's supremely unlikely that an innocent person would ever say to police that they were at the cottage when the murder was committed and even accuse a completely innocent person of committing the crime, then you're backed into a corner whereby all the other evidence means next to nothing. It doesn't particularly matter that the DNA evidence is looking weaker and weaker, or that the time of death makes it vanishingly unlikely that Knox/Sollecito were present when Kercher died, or that the eyewitness evidence has been revealed to come from an unreliable heroin addict who isn't sure what day it was, or that whatever forensic evidence there is was either badly stored, or badly collected - none of that matters because you don't believe an innocent person has an innocent reason to "confess".

That seems to me to the main sticking point for the so-called "guilters".

 

[Danceme]

Rose, there's been much discussion in the past on what Amanda told her mother about what was happening at the cottage in the 12:47 phone call. However there's never been a single discussion as far as I can remember on what Raffaele told his father in the 67 second call at 12:40. This obviously took place in the cottage because it was after the last call with Filomena wherein Amanda described the broken window etc. What testimony was there on this, do you know?

Could the emphasis on what Amanda told her mother "when nothing had happened yet", as Comodi described it, be at all related to what Raffaele had told his father at roughly the same timeframe? ie: were there contradictions hence the intense questioning by Comodi of Amanda about that call during trial. Was Dr. Sollecito even asked about that call?

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks, I have read DanO's timeline. The trouble is that it doesn't cover the time of the murder very well at all, and what I want to do is try and establish what was happening in the cottage between 9:00pm and 1:00am the next morning.

I believe that the evidence should be able to allow us to determine this as long as we let it speak without forcing our own bias onto it.

That is a hard one. My opinion is that the best TOD for the side of guilt to present is one around 9:45PM. This ignores Curatolo's testimony and if Nara heard a scream she is confused on the day or time. It gives Amanda and Raffaele just enough time to get over there, meet Rudy and participate in the assault and it fits in much better with the stomach contents TOD discussion. The playing with the phones afterwards, Rudy's statements that he left around 10PM, Amanda and Raffaele busted the window and trashed Filomena's room and then left as well before the broken down car/tow truck arrival with nobody seeing or hearing anything from the cottage at that time. Amanda returned the next morning to find nobody had reported the broken window or returned to the cottage to discover the crime and ended up having to pretend to discover it herself (with Raffaele's help).

I still see no motive to present that makes sense to me, but whatever.

 

[RoseMontague]

Rose, there's been much discussion in the past on what Amanda told her mother about what was happening at the cottage in the 12:47 phone call. However there's never been a single discussion as far as I can remember on what Raffaele told his father in the 67 second call at 12:40. This obviously took place in the cottage because it was after the last call with Filomena wherein Amanda described the broken window etc. What testimony was there on this, do you know?

Could the emphasis on what Amanda told her mother "when nothing had happened yet", as Comodi described it, be at all related to what Raffaele had told his father at roughly the same timeframe? ie: were there contradictions hence the intense questioning by Comodi of Amanda about that call during trial. Was Dr. Sollecito even asked about that call?

IIRC, it was discussed in a magazine article here but I can't find any related translations in my files. Meaning, any help would be appreciated.

http://issuu.com/sergiopisani/docs/la_piazza_di_giovinazzo_dicembre_2009

 

[spartacus]

from what i can see online, it would seem that "sociopath" is no longer a diagnosis supported by the dsm. If i enter "sociopath" as a search team on wikipedia (english),


there are listed diagnosis criteria (cited according to the dsm iv-tr = 301.7):

a) there is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring for as long as either childhood, or in the case of many who are influenced by environmental factors, around age 15, as indicated by three or more of the following:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest;
making death threats
2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeatedly lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure;
serial lying, writing articles about self on examiner.com
3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead;
4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults;
repeated and prolonged verbal assaults, i am going to tear you apart, etc
5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others;
see above; formed attachments with lgbt people with fake terrel williams and then had tw kill self and grieving people continued to correspond with fake mom and daric
6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations;
7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another;
see above
b) the individual is at least 18 years of age.
He is actually 21
c) there is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.
This is unknown
d) the occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.
doesnt look like it in my p.o.

If the criteria listed above accurately describe the accepted clinical interpretation for antisocial personality disorder, then i only see a2, and perhaps a1 or a3, although a3 is obviated in this case by b and a1 is dependent upon the nature of pertinent law, as grounds for making such a public accusation.

Do you have further evidence to support your claim?

so i guess technically we would need more info. I don't really see what difference it makes unless you want to take up his cause, in which case i say go ahead, be my guest

 

[LondonJohn]

it cannot be ruled out by stomach contents data though. it is not reliable enough.

lxxx

Yes it is reliable enough. Easily reliable enough to rule out an 11.40 ToD, and almost certainly reliable enough to rule out any ToD later than 10pm.

Either you don't understand the underlying scientific data, or you don't want to understand it. Either way, you're wrong to have made the statement above. And, for the record, Knox's/Sollecito's defence teams were wrong and remiss not to have argued far harder on this point in the original trial (one of quite a few important mistakes that they made, in my opinion). I suspect that if it gets this far, the defence teams will be far better prepared to argue this point in the appeal.

 

[Chris C]

this is true. they were localised to indicate being held by multiple attackers according to the prosecution.

lxxx

Really, she was restrained and repeatedly beaten? Broken ribs or arms? Cut marks from being hit by a fist? Broken fingers? Teeth knocked out? Broken Nose? Localized bruises from being hit in the same spot over and over?

 

[LondonJohn]

Very much agree and certainly helps to understand why 50,000++ of their civil and polite inputs go absolutely nowhere



See above 'inputs' and please ponder ....'Pots and kettles black' ,per chance ??






To you, we may charitably assume ??

And a post that consists entirely of the one line below, you do accept as meeting your self dictated criteria of interesting and informative ????



Oh Kaaaaay;
I got it now...interest and information transference depends on which side of the argument a poster is on.....




Another.... very much agree

Wonder if Mary has carefully watched and statistically tabulated them as meticulously and as scrupulously as she had from that often derided here, 'horrible hate filled' PMF Forum

Are YOU going to participate in the actual debate about the case too, or are you also merely content to offer some sort of "commentary" on the board discussions from the sidelines? Care to offer some evidence in support of your position on the case, or are you too embarrassed to try to argue it by now....?

 

[Chris C]

it cannot be ruled out by stomach contents data though. it is not reliable enough.

lxxx

When considering ToD, in this case, think of a bullet being fired from a gun. There is only so far it can travel before it hits the ground. The ToD being determined using the stomach contents in this case can only travel so far. 11:30 excedes it, because there was nothing found in the duodenum. Your talking about atleast 5 hours without anything being emptied into the duodenum, possibly even longer.

 

[Dan O.]

That is a hard one. My opinion is that the best TOD for the side of guilt to present is one around 9:45PM. This ignores Curatolo's testimony and if Nara heard a scream she is confused on the day or time.

It also has to ignore the screensaver evidence brought up in the appeal showing continuous human activity on Raffaele's computer through the night until 6:02 am the next morning.

 

[LondonJohn]

Really, she was restrained and repeatedly beaten? Broken ribs or arms? Cut marks from being hit by a fist? Broken fingers? Teeth knocked out? Broken Nose? Localized bruises from being hit in the same spot over and over?

Not only that, but Lalli's autopsy report described only very mild bruising to the arms, and very slight defensive wounds to the hands, and no significant injuries to the main torso:

There were no noticeable injuries to the chest or abdomen.
The presence of two relatively slight areas of bruising, with scarce colouring and barely noticeable, were detected in the region of the elbow.
On the hands were small wounds showing a very slight defensive response.

(Massei, p112, English trans, my bolding)

It's also totally disingenuous to state - as Mr Pepys does - that these marks were "indicative" of Meredith being held by multiple attackers. The simple fact is that the marks and bruising are no more than compatible with Meredith being restrained by multiple attackers. They are also, of course, totally compatible with Meredith being restrained by just one person: Rudy Guede.

 

[Draca]

And, for the record, Knox's/Sollecito's defence teams were wrong and remiss not to have argued far harder on this point in the original trial (one of quite a few important mistakes that they made, in my opinion). I suspect that if it gets this far, the defence teams will be far better prepared to argue this point in the appeal.

What other mistakes do you think the defense made? I can think of a few.

1. Not showing that the bra was torn off instead of cut off.

2. Knox and Sollecito witnesses presenting different versions on how the neck wound was inflicted.


IDK, The Fix was in anyway. The PACK and the judge working together.

The defense gave some strong arguments and if they won Massei rewarded them by just dropping the subject instead of including it in the report. At the same time the prosection was allowed to lie, destroy and withhold evidence. It's hard for me to blame the defense for the outcome, even though they did make mistakes.

Do you think it would have made a difference to the outcome in the defense hadn't made those mistakes?

 

[RoseMontague]

It also has to ignore the screensaver evidence brought up in the appeal showing continuous human activity on Raffaele's computer through the night until 6:02 am the next morning.

Yes,
That would give Raffaele a solid alibi and Amanda by extension although perhaps not quite as solid. Personally I have had some computers that are so sensitive to any motion or movement that just having a fan running nearby will keep the screensaver from activation. For me it would depend on the exact actions that kept the screensaver from activation if that can be shown at all.

 

[Chris C]

Yes,
That would give Raffaele a solid alibi and Amanda by extension although perhaps not quite as solid. Personally I have had some computers that are so sensitive to any motion or movement that just having a fan running nearby will keep the screensaver from activation. For me it would depend on the exact actions that kept the screensaver from activation if that can be shown at all.

I would actually have to see this evidence to buy into. I don't use a screensaver, ever. Not even the power saver