• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation Part 2 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Diocletus said:
Agreed. The one thing that gets me, though, is that we have confirmed activity at 8:58 (possibly corresponding with the start of the attack), and (if Rudy is speaking truthfully/accurately, which is a big if) a scream at 9:10 possibly as late as 9:20. Is it really possible that she was attacked at 8:58 but waited for 12 or even 22 minutes to scream? It seems like the most logical time for a scream would be at the initiation of the attack, when she was surprised.

If it is the case that she waited for 12 or 22 minutes to scream, then perhaps this suggests that this was a period during which an escalating sexual assault was occurring. And, that this escalating sexual assault for some reason culminated in a scream that caused Rudy to make the first cut?

So my questions are 1) why no scream at the commencement of the attack, and 2) what caused the scream that would have preceeded the knife cut? Is it possible that the delay does suggest the involvement of a second person--a Rudy friend?
Click to expand...

The aborted or dropped phone call home was at 8:56PM. We had a poster here that argued that an actual scream in a case like this was very rare. I never saw any documentation but if anybody has something on this I would be interested.
Click to expand...
 
RoseMontague said:
I have no issue with those supporting guilt doing so in a debate or a discussion of the facts. It is the attempt to quiet those that give opinions of innocence that exceed the boundaries of a discussion board that I find hard to comprehend.

ETA: An example would be sending letters and emails to a poster's employer in an attempt to silence them.
Click to expand...

Evidence?
 
RandyN said:
I think some "expert" actually had the nerve to suggest that the stress changed the digestion process ala Sherlock. Of course that it ridiculous. The additional evidence is no follow up phone call by MK to her mother. So 8:58 or so is it. She never took off her coat or shoes. She never turned up the heat yet. She ignored her wet laundry in the wash machine. No text messages which were her normal pattern. All these additional circumstantial things point to a TOD around 9:05 - 9:15 PM Also Rudy actually says in Skype 9:10 to 9: 20 for the loud scream. This was misinterpreted as later time. So I’m sticking with TOD 9:15
Click to expand...


In fact, Guede makes two claims in Skype call tabout the time of the scream: he firstly indicates that it took place at "something like 9.00-9.20", then he modifies this to "something around 9.20-9.30".

In the original Italian, the conversation goes as follows. Guede has just described going to the bathroom, hearing the scream, then running out from the bathroom with his trousers still down:

Benedetti: Eh ma, si ho capito, ma dico tipo questo dov'e... quindi a che ora pensi che e successo, che ne so...

Guede: Verso le nove, le nove e venti, perche intanto che ci siamo messi a parlare tutte queste cose

Benedetti: (unintelligible)

Guede: Penso le nove e venti, le nove e mezza cosi… eh... allora io quando ho sentito urlare, ma, io dico ha urlato talmente forte che si poteva sentire anche per strada, Giacomo, ha urlato fortissimo.
Click to expand...


This translates to:

Benedetti: Oh, but if I understand (correctly), I mean where did this....I mean, what time do you think this (the scream) happened? I don't know...

Guede: Something like nine, nine twenty, because in the meantime we had started to talk about all those things

Benedetti: (Unintelligible)

Guede: I think something like nine twenty, nine thirty... uhh ... then I when I heard the scream, I'm telling you she screamed so loud that you could hear it in the street, Giagocomo, it was super-loud.
Click to expand...


So Guede is clearly modifying the time of the scream, to provide for any time between 9.00pm and 9.30pm, although his last words suggest a revision to 9.20-9.30pm. It's also interesting that he makes a point of saying that the scream was so loud that it could be heard in the street. This suggests to me that Guede was afraid that someone actually had heard the scream at some point between 9.00 and 9.30pm, so he wanted to make sure that it was included in his version of events.
 
Last edited:
RoseMontague said:
The aborted or dropped phone call home was at 8:56PM. We had a poster here that argued that an actual scream in a case like this was very rare. I never saw any documentation but if anybody has something on this I would be interested.
Click to expand...

Phone records are absolute and precise but Guede had no watch to know exact time. Guede needs the scream in his narrative as a reason for him jumping out of the loo, thus it's not clear if he also tries to cover any potential ear-witnesses.
 
Last edited:
LondonJohn said:
In fact, Guede makes two claims in Skype call tabout the time of the scream: he firstly indicates that it took place at "something like 9.00-9.20", then he modifies this to "something around 9.20-9.30".
Click to expand...

In the first statement, can we tell whether he is saying either:

1) 9 . . . :20, or

2) 9:00 or 9:20?

In the first option he would be initially saying nine . . ., and then finishing his statement by specifying twenty after nine (instead of 9:00)

In the second, he would be giving a range of between 9:00 and 9:20.
 
RoseMontague said:
Diocletus said:
The aborted or dropped phone call home was at 8:56PM. We had a poster here that argued that an actual scream in a case like this was very rare. I never saw any documentation but if anybody has something on this I would be interested.
Click to expand...


I think it's entirely reasonable to suppose that the initial confrontation consisted of nothing more than raised voices. And it's also (in my view) entirely reasonable to suppose that if Guede gained control of Meredith with a knife at her throat, she wouldn't have screamed at that point either.

My best guess (and one which I think is totally reasonable) is that the initial confrontation occurred at or very shortly after 8.56pm. I think there was a period of verbal confrontation (about 3-5 minutes), perhaps during which Guede attempted to talk his way out of the situation. After that, i think Guede made a physical move on Meredith - perhaps as she indicated that she was going to call the police. I think that if he had produced his knife at that point, Meredith would probably have remained relatively submissive - which would be her logical best option if she thought that Guede either wanted to show her he meant business, or if she thought Guede wanted to forcibly obtain her keys (and maybe also rob her

I think that once Guede got her onto all fours, he started the preparations for his sexual assault, by removing his trousers and starting to remove her clothing - doing so with one hand while the other hand held her round the neck with the knife against the side of her neck. I think that Meredith might have resisted at this point, when she realised that a sexual assault was inevitable. I believe that she either screamed at that point, or that she struggled and Guede made the first stab into her neck, which is what made her scream out (on balance, i tend towards the latter). Either way, I think the scream is what made Guede perform the deeper fatal stab wound.

So I think that it's entirely reasonable to tally an initial confrontation at (or very shorty after) 8.56pm with a loud scream at some time after 9pm, and for that scream to have been virtually concurrent with the fatal stab wounds to the neck.
Click to expand...
 
tsig said:
Evidence?
Click to expand...

School teacher Michael Wiesner is the most recent example. If you are interested you can research it yourself. There have been several others.

I know that halides1 that posts here has been threatened (elsewhere) with this tactic of writing his employer in an attempt to silence him.
 
TheNooch said:
I mean she doesn't look like a killer to me.

I once saw a video of Charles Manson, and Amanda Knoz is no Charles Manson.
Click to expand...

You're right - she only killed one person, instead of six. Well, technically Manson didn't kill anyone, he just ordered the killings. So, one could argue that Knox is actually worse than Manson.
 
Diocletus said:
The one thing that gets me, though, is that we have confirmed activity at 8:58 (possibly corresponding with the start of the attack),
Click to expand...

Putting Meredith in the cottage at 8:56 when the phone call home was aborted is dependent on the presentation of the time stamp on the CCTV footage of Meredith crossing the street and adjusted for the slow CCTV clock determined by the captured arrival of the police.. Nobody has yet produced a frame from this footage showing the actual time stamp, we only have the presentation in court that alleged what time it occurred. If the prosecution had already adjusted this time assuming a fast CCTV clock, Meredith would actually be crossing the street around 9:05 so the aborted call would have already been passed.

There should exist a full frame from that CCTV footage that shows the CCTV clock time with the figure crossing the street. The police had to collect this in order to get the images we've seen. Is there some reason the prosecution felt it was necessary to loose this evidence before they made their presentation in court?
 
Diocletus said:
In the first statement, can we tell whether he is saying either:

1) 9 . . . :20, or

2) 9:00 or 9:20?

In the first option he would be initially saying nine . . ., and then finishing his statement by specifying twenty after nine (instead of 9:00)

In the second, he would be giving a range of between 9:00 and 9:20.
Click to expand...


The answer is that it's ambiguous. Guede was talking in fractured, colloquial Italian (as many people would when talking with a friend on the phone in any case). He firstly says words to the effect of "Something like nine, nine twenty" - which could either mean "Something like nine, or, now I think about it more, nine twenty", or it could mean "Something between around nine and nine twenty". I tend towards the latter, especially as he modifies it further in his next reply to Benedetti by estimating the time of the scream at "Something around nine twenty, half past nine".

I personally think that all Guede can remember is that the scream occurred at some time between 9.00 and 9.30, and that his slightly more considered guess is that it was at some time between 9.20 and 9.30. I very much doubt whether he had an eye on the time during all this: I suspect that his last time reference would have been either just before or after he entered Filomena's room (in order to keep a running note of how long he had been inside the cottage), or perhaps when he was sitting on the toilet. I'm not even sure if he was wearing a watch. He very likely wasn't carrying a mobile phone, which would have been a potential source of the time.
 
Dan O. said:
Putting Meredith in the cottage at 8:56 when the phone call home was aborted is dependent on the presentation of the time stamp on the CCTV footage of Meredith crossing the street and adjusted for the slow CCTV clock determined by the captured arrival of the police..

There should exist a full frame from that CCTV footage that shows the CCTV clock time with the figure crossing the street. The police had to collect this in order to get the images we've seen. Is there some reason the prosecution felt it was necessary to loose this evidence before they made their presentation in court?
Click to expand...

That is interesting, and makes sense re: when she returned home.

As for the proclivity of the prosecution to lose/destroy evidence? Well, I certainly think there is a competency issue, and there are several examples of this.

But the removal of a timestamp from an image is something different. It seems like it would be more of an intentional act, akin to evidence-tampering. Ordinarily, though, I would presume that the defense has the actual footage, and it is just us (on the outside) who do not know of the time-stamp. But in this case . . . I'm not so sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom