Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[RoseMontague]

Good point, but sometimes it really is that simple. If wool has been systematically pulled over many eyes about the stomach emptying timing, the defence may not really understand how clear cut it is.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the defence has to cover all the bases even if they think they have a killer argument in one point. They may believe the time of death is a sure thing, but suppose for some reason, the court fails to understand, and finds against them on that point? It can happen. They'd look awful stupid in that case if they'd put all the eggs in one basket.

I've heard a lot of special pleading trying to stretch the time of Meredith's death well beyond nine o'clock. But the fact remains, it's special pleading. What is the compelling reason why we have to consider wild improbabilities to allow Meredith to have died much later, when the stomach contents and Meredith's known movements all agree that around nine o'clock is the obvious time of death?

I haven't heard anything. We know of no sighting of her alive after that time. There's nothing inside the flat that shows she was alive and doing stuff after that time. There's no hermetically sealed zone that we know a murderer couldn't have penetrated at around that time. Why do we have to consider stomach pathology, or that her friends were wildly mistaken about the time of the meal, or a prolonged torture session, to allow the ToD to be later? We don't, as far as I can see.

Rolfe.

Even Rudy's own statements indicate he had already left Meredith's by the time the prosecution's TOD arrived. The cellphone records and the people with the broken down car are another indicator that Mignini's TOD is bogus. Mignini wanted Curatolo to break the alibi so the TOD got moved up to match his confused testimony.

 

[Chris C]

Any statement that a court verdict unarguably reflects objective truth is simply mindless. You can use the word sheeple if you want.

Judges and juries are fallible human beings like everybody else. They can be mistaken. They can be prejudiced. Or the truth can be the victim of the legal process, where admissibility and legal hair-splitting count for more than fact or logic.

We know for a fact that wrongful convictions occur. We can all reel off lists of people who were acquitted on appeal. Many of these people were the subject of discussions just like this before the appeal verdicts were announced. Court verdicts don't determine reality, and reality doesn't change because a verdict is overturned.

Justice is also supposed to be open and transparent. It should be possible for any reasonable person to understand why a particular verdict was reached, and why guilt was believed to be "beyond reasonable doubt". It's not an article of faith, you know. If it appears to many observers that there is indeed reasonable doubt, I would submit that something is wrong.

So yes, if you are simply stating that because a court decided something was so, then it unquestionably was so in reality, you are being a sheeple. If you can explain rationally why you believe the court verdict was indeed correct, then that's different of course. But a faith-based assertion of judicial infallibility is no more reasonable than a faith-based assertion of papal infallibility.

Rolfe.

Though many pro-innocence have tried to argue this point before, I would like to say well said.

 

[Antony]

Good lord Antony, I'm certainly not interested in rehashing every argument that's ever taken place here, because that is what it'll come to. You've been present anyway so you shouldn't have to ask such silly questions.

I think I know the arguments for guilt as well, and the so-called "evidence". It consists of:

• 2 items of DNA collected and/or analysed in highly suspect circumstances, which cannot be reproduced by independent investigators and which don't make sense as having been left during the commission of the crime;
• various readings of Amanda's DNA which are not incriminating because they are in her own home;
• a footprint claimed by the prosecution and their supporters to be of Raffaele's foot, but which looks to me more like that Rudy Guede;
• a couple of highly-dubious alleged sightings of the accused which seem to go against their alibi, but which don't say anything about the crime either;
• a woman who heard something in the night which doesn't even match the prosecution's claims; and ...
• ... err, that's it.

Is this your "body of evidence"? That's a pretty grand expression for a handful of factoids which don't have any coherent direction, and which are nowhere near enough to support the narrative of the crime claimed by the prosecution.

Suffice it to say there is, for me at least, enough of the inexplicable to doubt both innocence and guilt. Therefore I am undecided.

What's "inexplicable"? The police arrested 3 innocent people as an easy way of "solving" the crime, then lied through their teeth to get 2 of them convicted, in order to cover up their initial incompetence. What more is there to explain? This is something that happens over and over again in cases like these; it's only "inexplicable" to those who imagine that police statements can always be taken at face value.

I said the time of death arguments were the most convincing for innocence, yet I suspect there is something wrong with these arguments or the defense would only have this to argue and the appeal would be assured. Bring in several experts to testify on stomach contents, lag time, and so on, and the rest should be history, based on the level of conviction about this demonstrated here time and again.

The thing is, all of this was known at the first trial, but the trial judge decided to ignore it because it didn't fit with the pre-decided verdict.

And we can't say the defense just didn't think of this because we have the good family friend Charlie Wilkes here to convey the brilliant discovery. So what could be wrong with it? Why are they wasting time on DNA?

Odd question, in my view. Are you suggesting that evidence against one aspect of the prosecution case in some way weakens the evidence against another part of it? The point is, all of the prosecution case is complete tosh, and all of it deserves to be dismantled.

 

[RoseMontague]

I think I know the arguments for guilt as well, and the so-called "evidence". It consists of:

• 2 items of DNA collected and/or analysed in highly suspect circumstances, which cannot be reproduced by independent investigators and which don't make sense as having been left during the commission of the crime;
• various readings of Amanda's DNA which are not incriminating because they are in her own home;
• a footprint claimed by the prosecution and their supporters to be of Raffaele's foot, but which looks to me more like that Rudy Guede;
• a couple of highly-dubious alleged sightings of the accused which seem to go against their alibi, but which don't say anything about the crime either;
• a woman who heard something in the night which doesn't even match the prosecution's claims; and ...
• ... err, that's it.

Is this your "body of evidence"? That's a pretty grand expression for a handful of factoids which don't have any coherent direction, and which are nowhere near enough to support the narrative of the crime claimed by the prosecution.



What's "inexplicable"? The police arrested 3 innocent people as an easy way of "solving" the crime, then lied through their teeth to get 2 of them convicted, in order to cover up their initial incompetence. What more is there to explain? This is something that happens over and over again in cases like these; it's only "inexplicable" to those who imagine that police statements can always be taken at face value.



The thing is, all of this was known at the first trial, but the trial judge decided to ignore it because it didn't fit with the pre-decided verdict.



Odd question, in my view. Are you suggesting that evidence against one aspect of the prosecution case in some way weakens the evidence against another part of it? The point is, all of the prosecution case is complete tosh, and all of it deserves to be dismantled.

The strongest evidence for guilt remains Amanda's false accusation of Patrick, and Raffaele's load of bull, in my opinion. The rest of the evidence has either been discredited, is highly doubtful, or proves nothing.

 

[Kaosium]

I really don't know if they were involved, it's actually what keeps me reading here. I am most convinced of innocence by the time of death arguments and believe the defense should concentrate its efforts there, but i can't entirely discount the full body of evidence either. That may be a contradiction but there it is.

I followed the evidence and found it led straight back to the prosecution. You did a lot of work helpful to me regarding the 'bloody' footprints, did you ever follow that story all the way to the end? Do it yourself, I wouldn't expect you to just believe me, and you're halfway there. Find out the procedure used to test for blood employing luminol, TMB, and the lab confirmation test, then what Stefanoni said about the process in court and the nature of the chemiluminescence with what should be undiluted and blood diluted between the threshold of TMB and luminol. I found it very revealing regarding the prosecution's methods.

 

[Danceme]

Good point, but sometimes it really is that simple. If wool has been systematically pulled over many eyes about the stomach emptying timing, the defence may not really understand how clear cut it is.

Another thing to bear in mind is that the defence has to cover all the bases even if they think they have a killer argument in one point. They may believe the time of death is a sure thing, but suppose for some reason, the court fails to understand, and finds against them on that point? It can happen. They'd look awful stupid in that case if they'd put all the eggs in one basket.

I've heard a lot of special pleading trying to stretch the time of Meredith's death well beyond nine o'clock. But the fact remains, it's special pleading. What is the compelling reason why we have to consider wild improbabilities to allow Meredith to have died much later, when the stomach contents and Meredith's known movements all agree that around nine o'clock is the obvious time of death?

I haven't heard anything. We know of no sighting of her alive after that time. There's nothing inside the flat that shows she was alive and doing stuff after that time. There's no hermetically sealed zone that we know a murderer couldn't have penetrated at around that time. Why do we have to consider stomach pathology, or that her friends were wildly mistaken about the time of the meal, or a prolonged torture session, to allow the ToD to be later? We don't, as far as I can see.

Rolfe.

I have a lot of respect for your opinion on this Rolfe. The one thing we know Meredith did do was eat a piece of mushroom, or it was forced into her mouth. There was a fragment of mushroom in the opening of the lower stretch of her esophagus, in a state of non-digestion. (Dr. Lalli autopsy report, Massei p. 115) I've never known what to make of this given the mere seconds food is present in the esophagus after swallowing. What is your opinion? Did she pop a mushroom into her mouth and was simultaneously stabbed before the swallowing could finish? Or could it have been partly regurgitated during her ordeal? If so could it still be described as in a state of non digestion?

 

[souldonut]

Hi, souldonut. If you're interested (and have access to the broadcast) the "5th estate" episode you refer to is actually playing on CBC tv tonight.

I've previously seen it. Personally I don't find a lot of relevant similarities between this and the Kercher murder. What's alleged in the Winnipeg case- i.e. that a wife murdered her husband- does not require the fundamental suspension of disbelief that is necessary for the Migninny Three-Way Conspiracy in the Kercher case.

Based solely on what I saw on the "5th estate", I would hazard a guess that Ludmila Ilina is as likely as not to be responsible for the murder.

Dear Lane -
thanks for the heads up. This case seems very intriguing, although it doesn't seem to have generated much interest outside of Canada. I don't have access to the "5th estate" as it only seems to stream in Canada. However, there are a couple PDF files, openly available, that are accessible from the 5th estate page related to Ludmila Ilina's murder conviction: the autopsy report of her husband, and her original police statement prior to her being arrested. As a crime buff, I'm always fascinated by this stuff. Her statement is very interesting to read, and seems believable to me. (Maybe I'm just a sucker) Had she been guilty, she must be an insanely good liar throughout the interrogation, and the lack of a motive is notable. The police were certainly not capable of making her crack, and there were no holes in her story. Of course the same could be said about Captain Amanda, who under intense interrogation never provided anything factual about the murder she supposedly ring-lead. She's just a phenomenally good at lying to the police. I guess she learned how to deal with the cops this way hosting loud parties in Seattle.

On the other hand, I did have the chance to watch the 5th estate show entitled "the confession" (someone posted an FLV file of it, I think on IIP), about Russell Williams, and the incredible police interrogation leading to his arrest/conviction of two murders, various sex crimes, etc. (I can provide a link to the FLV file for anyone who has not seen it). The interrogation in this case was beautifully executed and yielded a full confession in a mere couple of hours, with only a single police officer conducting the interrogation. This was simply a model example of police work, and a demonstration of how a human guilty of a crime will act and succumb to a proper police interrogation, without >10 interrogators and being kept up all night. Mr. Williams is guilty as sin, and will be justly incarcerated for the rest of his life.

-souldonut

 

[Danceme]

I followed the evidence and found it led straight back to the prosecution. You did a lot of work helpful to me regarding the 'bloody' footprints, did you ever follow that story all the way to the end? Do it yourself, I wouldn't expect you to just believe me, and you're halfway there. Find out the procedure used to test for blood employing luminol, TMB, and the lab confirmation test, then what Stefanoni said about the process in court and the nature of the chemiluminescence with what should be undiluted and blood diluted between the threshold of TMB and luminol. I found it very revealing regarding the prosecution's methods.

Kaosium, I still have questions about the bloody footprints, especially the bloody bathmat print. Why is the bathroom floor devoid of blood yet the bathmat has numerous blood splotches and blood stains even to the very edge of the mat? and the virtually blood covered foot which made the print left no heel mark anywhere on the floor? Was the mat always in the bathroom? Or was it brought to Meredith's room and used there somehow before being laid back in front of the sink? Look closely at the mat blowups and you'll see the edge with blood directly to it. I find it curious no blood at all was found on the bathroom floor.
As far as the bare footprints revealed by luminol go, I think they were made with blood. Where that blood came from, not sure, maybe the bathmat, maybe from stepping in the bloody shoe prints. maybe from the murder room even!
I did a lot of reading on luminol and TMB and luminol is the more sensitive test so a negative TMB doesn't necessarily convince me they were not made with blood. The level of dilution versus the level of glow doesn't explain how luminol manages to detect bloodstains scrubbed clean, even years past.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You seem to be disagreeing with a trial by jury.

And you seem to be avoiding the point by introducing spurilous and logically tortured accusations.

How about instead of trying to deflect the burden of proof of your claim that the Courts should be accepted as an authority you address the two points I make and show that juries are in fact magically possessed by the ability to tell the truth just by being selected to sit in a seat, or that lawyers have to do a course in infaliably determining the truth before they can be selected as a judge.

Until you can show that those people who sit as jury and judges can determine the truth of the matter in a way far more expert than a lay-person can, your whole claim of authority is a massive fail, and even should you manage that, you still have the issue of showing consistancy of agreement amoungst experts before you can start to rely on any argument from authority.

Simply believing that a court's decision is true and factual is believing in blind-faith and the exact opposite of what any true skeptic should do.

 

[Mary_H]

You seem to be disagreeing with a trial by jury.

Actually, platonov was the one who disagreed with a trial by jury when he wrote:

Originally Posted by platonov:

Alt+F4 means well and that may be good advice but it's not strictly necessary.

There is a less time consuming method

If you can find a number of normally intelligent people on a a website who state that the conviction is unsafe/ridiculous/ a conspiracy that's all you need. Primary documentation is apparently for parrots and buffoons.

Remember that's how the holohoax and the faked moon landings etc were exposed.

And you, tsig, agreed with him.

 

[RandyN]

Amy Frost, Sophie Purton and Robyn Butterworth could not all agree as to what time Meredith started/ended eating (no reason for them to notice that). You have have no idea what time Meredith started eating. It could have been as late as 7:00 pm.

Sorry I know this is old. The police know very closely when the group started to eat or at least they could check. MK was said to arrive at 4PM. They chatted and looked at photos. These photos were on someone’s computer so that could certainly be looked up. They ate shortly after that. I personally think 5:30 was the start of the meal. It takes time to bake pizza and apple crumble. So they eat pizza first and while the oven is still warm they bake the apple desert. I think 5:30 is the best guess given the activity and unsure statements. They watched a long movie...(long and boring btw) and we are certain about what time they left. If they ate as late as 7 that would still make a TOD at around 10 and that leaves Meredith in her coat and shoes. It leaves her laundry untouched. It leaves her mother uncalled. And yet we must believe she played with her phone pushing random buttons for 1 1/2 hours or was somehow terrorized so completely that digestion stopped. Its all just too much. Way too much.

 

[Kaosium]

Kaosium, I still have questions about the bloody footprints, especially the bloody bathmat print. Why is the bathroom floor devoid of blood yet the bathmat has numerous blood splotches and blood stains even to the very edge of the mat? and the virtually blood covered foot which made the print left no heel mark anywhere on the floor? Was the mat always in the bathroom? Or was it brought to Meredith's room and used there somehow before being laid back in front of the sink? Look closely at the mat blowups and you'll see the edge with blood directly to it. I find it curious no blood at all was found on the bathroom floor.

Yikes! I'd say you have questions!

I take it you weren't very convinced by the reconstruction by Ron Hendry and the numerous probable answers to those questions in this and previous threads? That stuff bores me to tears personally, especially as I don't see what it has to do in the slightest with Raffaele or Amanda being involved in the murder. There's no evidence they were responsible for any of that, and I'm quite frankly not all that interested in retracing Rudy Guede's movements footstep by footstep as he kills a poor girl and cleans himself up. I'm leaving that part out of my 'movie.'

Are you of the opinion that without any evidence whatsoever Raffaele and Amanda were responsible for them, it still somehow implicates them? What if Rudy had done a real clean up, would that damn both Raffaele and Amanda automatically? Are you deeply suspicious of the covert operations of the lamp as well?

You know, they only tested the toilet paper for Rudy's DNA, the dump in the bowl went untested, thus it might be Raffaele's or Amanda's!

As far as the bare footprints revealed by luminol go, I think they were made with blood. Where that blood came from, not sure, maybe the bathmat, maybe from stepping in the bloody shoe prints. maybe from the murder room even!

What makes you think they were blood? Do you think Stefanoni lied about seeing the chemiluminescence pattern? Because if she didn't, then they can't be blood, they wouldn't glow like that if they were diluted to less than 1:1M (million) to fail the TMB test. If she lied about that, it would imply she not only failed to mention the negative TMB test, she also deliberately deceived the jury in order to pretend those footprints could have been blood. Being as they also could have found a way to attribute Amanda or Raffaele's foot to my avatar if they wanted to with that pattern of mendacity, doesn't that implicate the prosecution more so than the lovebirds cuddling a half-mile or so away?

I did a lot of reading on luminol and TMB and luminol is the more sensitive test so a negative TMB doesn't necessarily convince me they were not made with blood. The level of dilution versus the level of glow doesn't explain how luminol manages to detect bloodstains scrubbed clean, even years past.

It's kinda like the difference between spilling water on your carpet that has a splash of soda and maybe looks a little cloudy and dumping a glass of pure coke on it. You can scrub up the latter as best you can, but there might still be a bit of a stain, whereas the former you could probably let dry and never notice.

 

[Kaosium]

Sorry I know this is old. The police know very closely when the group started to eat or at least they could check. MK was said to arrive at 4PM. They chatted and looked at photos. These photos were on someone’s computer so that could certainly be looked up. They ate shortly after that. I personally think 5:30 was the start of the meal. It takes time to bake pizza and apple crumble. So they eat pizza first and while the oven is still warm they bake the apple desert.

I think 5:30 is the best guess given the activity and unsure statements. They watched a long movie...(long and boring btw) and we are certain about what time they left. If they ate as late as 7 that would still make a TOD at around 10 and that leaves Meredith in her coat and shoes. It leaves her laundry untouched. It leaves her mother uncalled. And yet we must believe she played with her phone pushing random buttons for 1 1/2 hours or was somehow terrorized so completely that digestion stopped. Its all just too much. Way too much.

Meredith could have died anytime after the food reached the stomach, the lack of contents in the duodenum is a limit to how late she died, not how early, that cut off is a little before 9:00 as she was seen alive then. Three hours is at the edge of probability, anytime earlier is actually more likely. I think a certain someone just wants to make LJ do one of his cool charts for 7:00 as he's already done them for 6:00 and 6:30, and probably one or more in between.

Then another one of his 'fans' swoops in to note the 10% chance (or whatever) for a ToD at 9:15 is different than the 3% he'd posted previously with the earlier ToD, which means she could have died as late as 9:45 with a 3% or so chance which he then tries to imply with endless embedded links means LJ must be lying, he must be guilty! Which just appears to piss him off, so he hammers the point home with Etonian precision and even cooler charts with Baysian probabilities included and finishes with a flourish by noting it doesn't make a damn bit of difference as everything else correlates with a ToD ~9:15 anyway and Raffaele and Amanda have an electronic alibi until 9:27 or so at the earliest, and that it would take a certain amount of time to die even if they ran at breakneck speed to get there when they put in Naruto and didn't watch it. LJ always wins.

In the process though certain tactics are revealed and it becomes more and more obvious to even the most casual observer who knows what they're talking about.

 

[RandyN]

I'll Play...

hazymoon
Playing devil's advocate, I'm trying hard to put together a scenario that would include a staging and still fit the evidence. This is how I could see that happening, please point out any holes you see;

Knox and Sollecito toss the room, pulling clothes out of the wardrobe onto the floor. One of them runs outside and grabs the large rock.


Ok so far but the room isn’t all that tossed if you really look at the mess that is normally there as can be evidenced under Filomena’s desk, on top of desk...this is not an organized neat freak at all. Kind of a slob really.

They open Filomena's window and tug the outer green shutters closed until the swollen wood catches on the sill, (if they weren't left in this position already by Filomena).


Nothing indicates the green shutters were ever closed at all. In fact Filomena wrote to the landlord that the green shutters were not able to close. They rubbed the sill which kept them from obtaining the latch position. The wind blows ...Nov is usually a very windy month. I expect these green shutters blew open and closed many times that night. Filomenas testimony is sketchy about these shutters. She is certain she opened them for light to dress on 1 Nov 2007. She does not recall if she closed them. She remembers being in a hurry. She remembers her room being messy.





Sollecito stands holding the window and it's wooden inner shade together in an open
position not quite 90 degrees, perhaps more like 60.


The glass pattern rules this out. This result would have glass dispersed towards the wardrobe. This scenario cant explain the flat edge pieces stacked on the left (facing out from inside) window sill. Nor does it allow the rock to recoil into the strange position where it finally rested. And a stager would put this rock in line with the window...not under a chair where before it knocked over a large black bag of clothes ripping the bag at the same angle of trajectory.


Knox stands near the end of the desk to avoid being hit by the flying glass and tosses the rock, hitting the window at an oblique angle to the inner corner, which dents and pushes glass into the inner wooden shade in the position we see it.


This particular section would work...but just this snippet.



The glass falls mostly beneath the window and on top of the piled clothing and the rock falls backward as well hitting the bag and crashing to the floor where small pieces break off.


No. Impossible. The glass would fall as such but the 9 lb rock would never recoil back across the room ...it would drop slightly outward from the inner shutter held position. The angle and distance the rock traveled are completely different from what this would have to be.


Sollecito quickly pushes the window back toward the sill as he exits from behind the window and the remaining loose glass falls out onto the sill.

Knox picks up a piece or two of glass covered clothing and shakes it in the direction of the blue rug to simulate a window broken straight on from outside, then tosses the articles back on the pile (accounting for glass both on top of and underneath clothing).

They then push open the outer green shutters and leave the room.


No way the flat edge pieces of glass are simply falling into place on the left sill. These pieces are held in place by the trim. They were removed by the direct action of a person. (they were picked out) The reason was to allow access to the latch.


A few known points... this was single strength glass (thin) easily broken. Often people want the burglar to enter the balcony but a sliding glass door is not easily broken. In fact they are tough and very dangerous to break. This was a Rudy entry.

No staging was ever necessary. The front door was wide open all night ...I’m surprised the broken down car people didn’t see that. Perhaps it was in the closed position. In any case the whole staged scene is crazy because it was never necessary. A actual break-in was necessary. The police originally thought staged because the outer shutters were 11 inches apart. It was too hard to toss a large rock thru this space. But these dumb police failed to consider that shutters move in the wind...let alone a burglar closing them after he enters to block the light he turns on to see the drugs and money he is looking for.

BTW...do you think Filomena or Laura reported their drugs missing? Both are known users.

Coming thru the window was not an acrobatic maneuver at all. I think Rudy pushed himself up with his arms and kneeled on the window sill or I should say half the window sill. When he moves one leg up and extends it into the room he trips on the TV wire and this is where the mess comes from. He steps in glass and this is where the piece found in MK room comes from.

Every single piece of known fact fits this perfectly. Its also the simplest explanation. Id like to see more Rudy DNA in this room but we know the police did little real examination here...so that can be expected.

The conclusion is no staged break-in. Maybe a real break-in and entry point or at the least a break-in only. The killer maybe was interrupted after breaking the window and before scaling the wall. As Meredith approaches he comes up from downstairs and expresses an urgent need of the bathroom. Or he rushes her at the door.
Or he simply entered the window...spends some short time in the flat ...gets a drink...takes a dump...and is suddenly trapped in the dark bathroom.

 

[Katody Matrass]

I disagree with your statement that "it works as well as one involving Rudy."

hazymoon's scenario accounts for the evidence all right (albeit by a somewhat tortuous exercise of imagination), but it fails on grounds of common sense and parsimony (Occam's Razor: Rudy was a breakin artist, Rudy probably broke in.)

I think it does not. It gives no explanation for the glass on the window sill, unless we expand it to include stagers picking up large shards from the window frame to pile it on the sill. It doesn't explain peculiar resting point of the rock. Finally I don't see a way someone could simply shake that much glass from that clothing, unless they shook every single piece, and then picked up pieces that landed inside the wardrobe, too.

I agree with Kaosium that simply throwing in the rock from the outside would make a much more plausible staging scenario.

 

[Katody Matrass]

Babycondor, you are certainly entitled to disagree, although if you find this scenario "tortuous" then I fail to see how you can find one involving Rudy's gymnastics not equally as tortuous.
As far as I can remember, Rudy's previous break ins involved climbing balcony railings, just like the one to the kitchen window at the cottage.

I really can't understand what problem do people see with this. Especially after seeing the climbing spiderman-lawyer photo series. Getting in through that window was a most straightforward thing imaginable - a feat any school kid would find easy.

 

[zeb]

I Pod and rudy

There is no way the break in was stage.
If may work in hollywood, but not in Italy.
Rudy did not know that Meredith was a fighter, this took him by surprize, so he had to stop her, so he just stabs her again, and again, and the rest is history.
If Meredith invited, Ruby in for sex, which I would like to point out, that was his own words, why would he take his I Pod to the toilet.
When I am going to get some rock and roll, like all men I would place my wallet, keys, and if I had an I POD, with me on the dresser, then undress.
The only time I take my I pod to the toilet, is when I am useing a public toilet, or in a bar.

 

[Antony]

The strongest evidence for guilt remains Amanda's false accusation of Patrick, and Raffaele's load of bull, in my opinion. The rest of the evidence has either been discredited, is highly doubtful, or proves nothing.

That may be the case, but my question was for Danceme, who hasn't offered an answer as yet, other than saying "I'm certainly not interested in rehashing every argument that's ever taken place" in his/her original reply. So what s/he meant by the "body of evidence" remains a question to be answered.

As for your 2 points, Amanda's "accusation" was disallowed (in theory) as evidence for a very good reason. I'm afraid Raff's "load of bull" is something I haven't quite grasped in terms of what he is alleged to have said, and what the circumstances were. Can someone give a clear account of it?

 

[PhantomWolf]

So previously I did a timeline based on innocence. I have done a lot of reading since then and I think I have got the guilty version offered by the Court and Prosecutor nailed down, please don't blame me if it doesn't make sense.

8:30ish Rudy arrives at the cottage and does something then hangs about the basketball court until 11:30.
8:56 - Meredith arrives back at the cottage, rings her mother, then changes her mind, goes and eats a mushroom instead.
9:10 – Amanda and Rafaelle leave his home heading towards the cottage
9:20 Amanda and Rafaelle arrive at the square and start discussing something
9:00 – 11:30ish – Meredith messes about in her room, reading a book before putting it back in her bag, fiddling with her phones.
11:20 – Amanda and Rafaelle leave the market square and head to the basketball courts where they met Rudy.
11:20 – 11:30 – Amanda, Rafaelle, and Rudy talk and decide to head to the cottage and get Meredith to join them in an orgy at knife point
11:30 - Amanda, Rafaelle, and Rudy head to the cottage, Rudy takes a drink of juice then heads to the bathroom, forgetting to flush.
11:35 - Amanda, Rafaelle, and Rudy head into Meredith's room and attack her, stabbing her. She screams.
11:40 – Amanda and Rafaelle run from the cottage. Rudy goes to the bathroom and gets towels and returns, attempting to stop the bleeding. He pulls off Meredith's jeans and touches her privates.
11:50 – Meredith dies, Rudy rifles through Merediths handbag, but doesn't take anything, then leaves, tracking diluted blood from the bedroom to the front door.
Time Unknown - Amanda and Rafaelle return to the Cottage. Rafaelle enters Meredith's room, pulls her top up, and cuts off her bra, he gets blood on his foot.
Time Unknown – Amanda goes into Filomeana's room and "trashes it". Rafaelle hops to the bathroom stepping onto the bathmat and then cleaning his foot in the shower.
Time Unknown – Amanda cleans up her bloody footprints, but not Rudy's. Rafaelle goes outside and find a suitable rock.
Time Unknown – Amanda and Rafaelle throw the rock through the window to stage the break-in, and scatter the glass about the room. Amanda gets some glass in her shoe as she does this.
Time Unknown – Amanda enters Meredith's room, covers Meredith, then takes the €300, the cellphones, and Meredith's keys, the glass from her shoe is left behind. She leaves, locking the door.
Time Unknown – Amanda and Rafaelle leave heading back to his place, leaving the front door open as they do. They discard the cellphones on the way.

If anyone thinks that they can offer suggestions for things I have missed or gotten wrong, suggestions, along with evidence, would be handy.

 

[Antony]

Kaosium, I still have questions about the bloody footprints, especially the bloody bathmat print. Why is the bathroom floor devoid of blood yet the bathmat has numerous blood splotches and blood stains even to the very edge of the mat? and the virtually blood covered foot which made the print left no heel mark anywhere on the floor? Was the mat always in the bathroom? Or was it brought to Meredith's room and used there somehow before being laid back in front of the sink? Look closely at the mat blowups and you'll see the edge with blood directly to it. I find it curious no blood at all was found on the bathroom floor.
As far as the bare footprints revealed by luminol go, I think they were made with blood. Where that blood came from, not sure, maybe the bathmat, maybe from stepping in the bloody shoe prints. maybe from the murder room even!
I did a lot of reading on luminol and TMB and luminol is the more sensitive test so a negative TMB doesn't necessarily convince me they were not made with blood. The level of dilution versus the level of glow doesn't explain how luminol manages to detect bloodstains scrubbed clean, even years past.

This is the explanation I've seen here, which I find immensely more convincing than Massei's assumption that the footprint was directly trekked into the bathroom and his implication that the intermediate prints must therefore have been cleaned up. Apart from anything else, the other prints in blood are all shoeprints, not bare footprints.

The killer got some blood on one leg of his trousers, and realised that if he went on his way without doing something about it, it would be a rather obvious indication of his deed.

The footprint, in blood/water mix, is from him rinsing this blood away in the bathroom. The rear part of the print is not from the outer side of the foot, but from the hem of the trouser leg after doing so, when he placed his bare foot on the mat with the heel raised - although the position of this "tail" of the print suggests the outer edge of the foot, when you look closely, it has an irregular outline which is unlike a normal footprint.

I think the assumptions made by the prosecution, the Massei court, and the pro-guilt supporters about this footprint illustrate the superficial nature of the "investigation" and the court verdict.