Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
Thanks, I thought I saw one at a some point.
I belive Christianahannah is asking when they first realized it wasn't collected and brought to the lab.
Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case
- Thread starter Chris_Halkides
- Start date
- Status
Thanks, I thought I saw one at a some point.
I belive Christianahannah is asking when they first realized it wasn't collected and brought to the lab.
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Of course, you could have just read about it in the New Members Hints and Tips thread under the "Help" menu on the right side under the banner.
Next thing you know, you'll figure out how to do imbedded multi-quoting
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
I have seen lists of evidence but these are not logs. A log is created contemporaneously.
My answer has been November 13/14 when someone opened the front door to the cottage without officially sanctioning an entry. But I can't prove it.
RandyN
Banned
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,877
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
The Perugia Shock archives I have are stored in Apples WebarchiveWP format. When opened in Safari they are just like the original since all the HTML is there. These should be useable on windows if you install Safari. On a Mac they are fully indexed which makes searching almost trivial. The wikipedia article mentions workarounds for other browsers. If anyone wants to experiment, drop me a PM and I can mail one out or give you a link.
codyjuneau
Muse
My opinion is that Rudy broke in through Filomena's window before Meredith got home.
However I will play devil's advocate and propose an alternate scenario where Rudy could have had an 'appointment' with Meredith.
Meredith's boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi lived downstairs and he was friends with Rudy. He also grew pot and Rudy was a drug dealer.
Meredith was tending Giacomo's pot plants and cat while he and the other boys that lived downstairs were away for the weekend. It is conceivable some body downstairs set up an appointment between Rudy and Meredith for some illegal transaction. I think it would necessarily have to be illegal otherwise the person who set up the appointment would not have kept quiet about it. Perhaps the person would be worried he is an accomplice to murder or something.
In this scenario Rudy would come on to Meredith. She would reject him. He would get insulted and angry and then attack her. Then afraid Meredith might have told someone about the 'appointment' or worried his friend will rat him out Rudy stages a burglary so it will look like someone broke in and murdered her.
Let me restate: My own opinion is that Rudy broke in through Filomena's window before Meredith got home. But I don't think it hurts to explore all possibilities.
BTW RW thanks for the multi quote tip.
RandyN
Banned
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,877
Thanks for the lesson Randy...I appreciate your PM before to try and improve my formatting but alas I have certainly failed that. I don’t venture too far away into the help area as I may never find my way back.
Now...from the last hearings does anyone else remember Stefanoni saying something to the effect that when the bra clasp was collected that it was always turned up in the same direction? I’m certain I remember this but I can not find it.
If someone does find that statement then I have found absolute proof to go with it that would confirm another lie by Stefanoni.
And Rose you are absolutely correct that if the Katie Crouch story can be confirmed it is HUGE! Cuz when we add it to the Daily Mail story then we have confirmation from two...yes TWO separate sources that PL is being paid and or threatened to keep quiet about his arrest and interrogation. He has now confirmed to two separate sources that he was beaten by police on Nov 6th 2007. Caalunga casuo closedia...(that’s pig Italian for those who wonder)
Now...from the last hearings does anyone else remember Stefanoni saying something to the effect that when the bra clasp was collected that it was always turned up in the same direction? I’m certain I remember this but I can not find it.
If someone does find that statement then I have found absolute proof to go with it that would confirm another lie by Stefanoni.
And Rose you are absolutely correct that if the Katie Crouch story can be confirmed it is HUGE! Cuz when we add it to the Daily Mail story then we have confirmation from two...yes TWO separate sources that PL is being paid and or threatened to keep quiet about his arrest and interrogation. He has now confirmed to two separate sources that he was beaten by police on Nov 6th 2007. Caalunga casuo closedia...(that’s pig Italian for those who wonder)
Dan O.
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,594
Let's generalize this scenario by removing the speculations of why and just say that Rudy entered through the front door with Meredith. Then we can analyze where there might be evidence that departs from the case where Rudy enters through the window before Meredith gets home.
The first noticeable departure will be all the activities that the window Rudy performed before Meredith enters has to be shifted to after the murder for the door Rudy or an explanation is needed for why Meredith is just standing around and doesn't even take off her jacket. If it happens after the murder, why is there no trail of blood.
So, let's take the toilet excursion for a start. Why no blood trail in the large bath? Or why didn't Meredith use this interlude to take off her jacket or call her mom?
Barbie Nadeau, describing the situation at the cottage shortly after Meredith's murder had been discovered on November 2, 2007..........
"Amanda and Raffaele...seemed only interested in themselves. Amanda was crumpled. Her hair was messy, and she was wearing wrinkled, faded jeans." (Angel Face, page 55.)
Here's a photograph of "crumpled" Amanda at the cottage that afternoon............
Was Amanda wearing wrinkled, faded jeans under her skirt???????
///
"Amanda and Raffaele...seemed only interested in themselves. Amanda was crumpled. Her hair was messy, and she was wearing wrinkled, faded jeans." (Angel Face, page 55.)
Here's a photograph of "crumpled" Amanda at the cottage that afternoon............
Was Amanda wearing wrinkled, faded jeans under her skirt???????
///
Last edited:
codyjuneau
Muse
Here is the way I look at it:
'Window Rudy' does not stage a burglary (its a real burglary).
'Door Rudy' has no reason to stage a burlgary (no one knew he was there)
'Appointment Rudy' has a reason to stage a burglary (he thinks someone might have known of the appointment).
(does this sound like a Seinfeld sitcom?)
The prosecution has argued only Raffaele and Amanda had a motive to stage a burglary.
'Appointment Rudy' refutes this. (other scenarios might also)
Your arguments denying an 'Appointment Rudy' are valid.
The prosecution cannot use your arguments to deny 'Appointment Rudy' without also denying 'Staged Burglary Raffaele and Amanda' since the arguments are similar.
I don't personally believe there was an 'Appointment Rudy'.
However he might be a useful concept to refute the inference that a staged burglary automatically implicates Raffaele and Amanda.
I'm not a trial lawyer so I have no idea if this would be of any use in court.
Mary_H
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2010
- Messages
- 5,253
Maybe he met her as she walked to the front door and asked her if he could use the bathroom, saying he had tried the guys downstairs but they weren't home. She let him in but wanted to wait for him to finish in the bathroom before settling in. She went into her bedroom so as not to appear to be "listening in," planning to give him a few minutes, then walk out into the living room to show him the door and lock it behind him. He makes it to her bedroom first and confronts her.
I am not terrible invested in this, it's just a possible answer to your question.
Kaosium
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,695
That must have been in response to the announcement of the 'clear cut' garage camera video the same day, right? So they must have had to give a copy of that 'clear cut' video to the defense? Well, that might be the end of that theory, though it's interesting I don't recall ever coming across a story in which Amanda's lawyers denounced the video as being as vague and unhelpful as it is, which I link for the benefit of those who may not have seen it.
Yes Randy I read that as well,Stefanoni claimed that the clasp lay on the ground turned up the entire forty six or so days
I have never doubted that Patrick Lumumba claimed and was beaten up during his interrogation,he has given the last four years crying about his fourteen days in jail,but has no problem helping keep two innocent students in jail for four years by lying,he is unashamedly willing to lie to the press to defame Amanda and hold her up to ridicule for a fee,he will stoop to any dept to get a slice of Raffaele's inheritance
He is a victim of Mignini and the Perugian police's incompetence but for me he is very willing to bully those in a worse position than himself,his actions over the last four years does not leave me feeling any sympathy for him,when as I expect Amanda and Raffaele are acquitted,not because of any justice in the Perugian system,but because publicity in Italy and internationally has embarrassed them enough that they will cut their losses and allow justice in probably this one case what will be Patrick Lumumba's next venture to make money out of Meredith Kerchers murder
Last edited:
Totally agree with all of that. When I first started looking at this case a month ago, one of my first thoughts was that if Amanda gets out, she should go and speak to Lumumba and apologise. Now I believe the opposite - Lumumba should go and apologise to Amanda, for lying on TV that the police treated him well (yeah, as if!), and for persecuting Amanda. He should be the first person that understands Amanda. He should consider her a fellow victim.
Fuji
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 338
I was the one who posted that recently at PMF. I deduced this based upon three items of evidence: 1) Knox claimed that the front door was open when she returned from Sollecito's flat, 2) the girls' upstairs accommodation was only a few hundred square feet in area, and 3) the recorded temperature for Perugia on 2 November 2007 varied between a low of 8º to a high of 15º Celsius.
There is no need to hypothesize about the purported frugality of the residents in regard to heating expenses - those three items establish the likelihood that the ambient temperature would have been around 10ºC in the flat when Knox supposedly had her shower.
But was there also no hot water?
Paninaro
Thinker
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2011
- Messages
- 187
But you don't really know, do you? What was the weather like that morning? Did the Police or anyone else make notice of the temperature inside the cottage when they arrived?
Four years after the event you draw conclusion of this kind without no real fact basis and think that this somehow shows not only Knox but also Sollecito's involvement in a murder?
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
There was a post on .org the other day from someone who (I think) claims to be a cardiologist. Whether that's the case or not, the poster was clearly ignorant of the application of known gastrointestinal physiology to the known facts of this case. Here is the meat of the post in question, plus my responses:
This is true (we'll ignore the rather credibility-detracting "JLOL" bit for now)
This is also true, up to a point, but is totally irrelevant in this particular case, as I shall now explain:
It may indeed. But not in this case. We know this for a fact because of two things: 1) Meredith's entire small intestine was empty except for a small amount of matter right at the far end; and 2) there was 500ml of semi-digested food matter found in the stomach at autopsy, with recognisable pieces of the pizza meal and the apple crumble dessert. Therefore it is correct to conclude that all of Meredith's last meal with her English friends was present in her stomach at the time of death. We can therefore write off this point as totally irrelevant to the case.
Again, it may indeed. But again, definitely not in this particular case. The reasons are exactly as the response to point 1 above. Meredith's last meal of pizza/apple crumble was demonstrably totally (or very nearly totally) in her stomach at the time of her death (judging from stomach contents volume and appearance). So again, we can write this point off as irrelevant.
Yes, up to a point. Firstly, extreme fear or trauma can slow down the digestive system, but won't completely stop it. It will stop as the body shuts down before death, but in this case that would have been only a matter of minutes before death. And this "explanation" completely overlooks the fundamental problem here: for this point to even stand a chance of being relevant for a ToD of 11.30-11.45, Meredith would have had to have been held in a state of extreme terror from around 9.30 (at the latest) until the time of her death. Only such a scenario could possibly result in Meredith's post-mortem stomach/intestinal contents resembling what might be found if Meredith had suffered a relatively abrupt death before 9.30pm. So we can write this one off too.
Oh dear.
I don't even see what this sort of appeal to anecdotal evidence has to do with the situation of extreme trauma and death. Have most people experienced extreme trauma or death in themselves or others? In any case, it's meaningless because we know full well that Meredith's last meal was totally (or very nearly totally) within her stomach at the time of death, and that none of it had either passaged through to her large intestine (or beyond) or out via vomiting (it's very highly likely that the piece found in the oesophagus was a raw mushroom that Meredith snacked on as soon as she returned home at 9pm, just prior to the attack).
Unfortunately this is just plain wrong, and is an ignorant (or mendacious) attempt to introduce bogus uncertainties into this issue. The undeniable fact is that Meredith's stomach/intestinal contents clearly indicated that the pizza (and apple crumble) that she'd eaten at her friends' house was still completely within her stomach. Furthermore, stomach/intestinal is sufficiently well-researched to know that 3 hours after the start of a meal is the practical upper limit for 100% of food to remain in the stomach, and that anything over 4 hours is to all intents impossible. Therefore, it is entirely reasonable to conclude that whatever happened to Meredith started after 9.00pm (when she arrived home) but before 9.30pm. And the overwhelming likelihood is that she was confronted, attacked and killed before 9.30: the likelihood of her being held in such a state of extreme terror between, say, 9.15 and past 11.00pm is not only ludicrously low, but also there would still have been gastric transit during this time period (albeit at possibly a slower rate).
We are actually fortunate that there are such individual circumstances in this case. We are fortunate to know that Meredith was still alive at 9pm: this gives us a solid start point for ToD. We are fortunate that this start point is already at the far end of possibility for stomach lag time. We are therefore fortunate to be able to determine from the combination of the stomach/intestinal contents, the meal start time, and the known data on stomach lag times, that Meredith almost certainly died between 9.00pm and 9.30pm. We are fortunate that this ToD is strongly supported by all the other known evidence: Meredith still wearing all her outdoor clothing and trainers; the failure of Meredith to call her mother back; the strange button pushes on Meredith's UK phone at around 10pm that are utterly inconsistent with Meredith being the one handling the phone at that time; the laundry left in the washing machine. We are fortunate that Guede made a point of mentioning the timing of a scream by Meredith ("around 9.20-9.30"), and that since he also made a point of saying that the scream was "loud enough to be heard from the street", it's reasonable to conclude that Guede was worried that someone outside the cottage might have heard - and timed - the scream, such that he felt it necessary to include it in his bogus version of events.
A few posts below this post on .org, Stilicho wrote the following response:
In response to this post, I would say that firstly various posters here who've worked on the ToD issue have discussed it with specialists in the field, including gastroenterologists and pathologists. All are in agreement with the view that ToD must have been far, far earlier than the Massei court's conclusions. Secondly, a pathologist actually posted on the JREF thread a while back, and stated that (s)he completely agreed with the arguments her on ToD. And thirdly, Rolfe (whom Stilicho used to hold in very high regard, until her view disagreed with his) is a very highly qualified veterinary pathologist, whose training also gives her a very good knowledge of human physiology. Rolfe has repeatedly stated that based on stomach/intestinal contents, a ToD beyond 9.30pm is massively improbable, and that any ToD beyond 10.00pm is essentially impossible.
Stilicho's final paragraph stands alone as an example of groupthink and confirmation bias. Stilicho himself knows very little about the scientific/medical issues related to ToD (in a recent .org post, he didn't realise that the pylorus is part of the stomach, not part of the duodenum or the rest of the small intestine). But he seems perfectly happy to be misled by someone who also appears not to understand the ToD argument properly. "We" do not need to know how or why we are wrong on the ToD issue, Stilicho. And that's because "we" are right. Oh, and the defence teams also know very well about the whole ToD issue: closing arguments and Hellmann's acquittal motivations report will show just how decent and persuasive an argument this is.
ETA: I just noticed that this poster also doesn't seem to know that the pylorus is an area of the stomach (the area closest to the junction with the duodenum). It's incorrect physiologically to write "from the stomach, through the pylorus into the duodenum": this clearly implies that the stomach and the pylorus are separate entities. Had the poster substituted "pylorus" for "pyloric sphincter" (the muscular valve joining the pylorus area of the stomach to the duodenum), that would have been correct. But that's not what was written. I'm beginning to wonder just how much this supposed doctor actually knows about the physiology of the human digestive system...
Last edited:
JREF2010
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2010
- Messages
- 1,786
Thanks for posting that!
I was wanting to read Franks older posts again, and they weren't posted yet on his new website.
very cool.....
- Status