LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
You're correct in your recollection that it was Stilicho. He has completely showed his true colours in his subsequent dismissal of you, your views, your experience and your qualifications, once you turned out to unequivocally validate the ToD issues being argued by some of us here. His arguments on this issue are most definitely not sceptical (or rational) by any reasonable definition of the term...
You're correct. Many (most?) pro-guilt commentators are continually confusing and conflating two issues: 1) the additional evidence/testimony allowed by Hellmann in the appeal trial; and 2) the argument phase of the appeal trial - which not only hasn't even started yet, but will also be based upon all the evidence/testimony from both the Massei and Hellmann courts.
And, as you so rightly say, there's actually enough evidence and testimony on the record from the Massei trial to make a highly coherent and persuasive argument for a ToD well before 10pm (and most likely before 9.30pm). Heck, even the expert witness testimony from all parties regarding the autopsy stomach/intestinal contents - even though most of the experts weren't as well-informed on this precise subject as they might have been - points indisputably to a ToD before 10.30pm. And in fact since the expert pathologists actually contradict each other, I think the defence will get some mileage out of preferring the testimony of the police's own pathologist who perfomed the PM on Meredith, who said that food starts to leave the stomach within 2-3 hours of the start of the meal. this of course would put the ToD between 9pm and 9.30pm.
And the medical evidence/testimony is amply supported by other areas of evidence/testimony from Massei's court: the fact that Meredith never attempted to call her mother back; the fact that she was wearing her outside clothes and shoes when attacked; the apparent fact that she had not yet looked at the textbook that she had specifically borrowed to read that evening and which she'd promised to return the following morning; the clothes left in the washing machine; and the mysterious phone activity on her UK phone at around 10pm, which is entirely inconsistent with Meredith "messing around" on her own phone - as per Massei's ludicrous ruling on the subject (not to mention the fact that if Meredith were indeed "messing around" on her mobile phone an hour after she returned to the cottage, why on Earth wouldn't she have called her mother from the same phone at some time in that preceding hour?).
In addition, we also now have the evidence from Guede's Skype call, in which he attempts to weave a narrative of innocence but in which he can reasonably be expected certain key elements to have been observed by witnesses outside the cottage. The most important of these elements is Meredith's scream. Guede is very careful to place this scream at "9.20-9.30 or so", and is also then careful to tie this into his visit to the bathroom. It therefore seems entirely reasonable to suggest that Meredith did indeed scream at around this time, and that Guede was concerned that someone outside the cottage might have heard the scream and noted the timing (he even goes so far as to say in the Skype call that the scream "was loud enough to be heard from the street"). I therefore believe that Guede's timing of the scream can be construed as accurate, and it adds yet further weight to a pre-9.30 ToD.
Last edited:
