I would like to draw people's attention to what I think is a new point relating both to time of death and the sequence of events. This emerges from a discussion over at IIP. Look at this photograph of the victim's shoes as found at the crime scene:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=277492512275227&set=pu.106344459390034&type=1
You can see the left shoe is untied and the laced section evenly separated but the right remains tied and the knot appears to have been yanked. Two different methods of removing the shoes have been employed. The suggestion is that Meredith was removing her shoes when attacked.
Another photograph shows her notebook and what looks like a course book on the bed near to the wall. The book may be the one she borrowed from Robyn.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=277509728940172&set=pu.106344459390034&type=1
These items are where one might expect to find them if, having been left on the bed on top of the duvet, they had been tipped towards the wall by the lifting of the duvet at the open side, prior to removal for use in covering the body.
These two things suggest that Meredith spent no time lying on her bed (on top of notebook and book) and was attacked at a very precise point, while in the act of removing her shoes. They would suggest no kitchen confrontation and, I believe, an attack very shortly after her return home when, on any view, Amanda and Raffaele could not have been anywhere near the scene.
That is indeed very interesting, and potentially very relevant. I would, however, place a slightly modified interpretation on the way the shoes and their laces were found.
I think the single most important thing is that the two shoes were removed in different ways. One was clearly unlaced, and the other was pulled off with the laces still tied (and, as you say, there appears to have been possible pulling stress on the knot). Now, the important thing about this in my opinion is that it's reasonable to say that almost nobody elects to remove laced-up shoes in a different manner for each shoe. Some people pull both shoes off, leaving the laces tied (especially if they are in a hurry or very tired etc), and others bend down, untie the laces of both shoes, and remove both shoes in the "conventional" manner. It would make no sense whatsoever for someone to take the time to bend down but only unlace one shoe*.
Therefore, I think the evidence from Meredith's trainers suggests one of two different things: either
a) Meredith was in the midst of removing her shoes when she was confronted by her assailant, and she had unlaced only her right trainer by that point.
b) Meredith had not made any attempt to remove her trainer prior to the confrontation, but the assailant removed them himself during the attack in a panicked way by unlacing one trainer and pulling the other one off without unlacing it.
It's worth remembering that the assailant (let's call him "Guede") would have needed to remove Meredith's shoes in order to remove her jeans, in order to facilitate a sexual assault or rape. And it's also worth remembering that Meredith had planned to read a study textbook before going to sleep, and that there was some indication that she might have intended to lie on/in her bed to do so. If that's the case, she would almost certainly have removed her trainers before lying on her bed (and definitely if she intended to get into bed). The apparent fact that she had not yet fully removed both trainers when she was confronted/attacked therefore tends to indicate that the confrontation/attack took place pretty shortly after Meredith arrived home.
In short, I think the different lace configurations on the trainers points towards the firm suggestion that Meredith was probably attacked shortly after arriving home. That's because the different configurations tend to suggest that someone other than Meredith was involved in the removal of at least one of the trainers, and because if Meredith had been attacked long after arriving home, the evidence suggests she would have removed her trainers before that point (and that therefore the trainers would both have been removed in the same way).
* Although there is always the possibility that someone could be intending to pull both shoes off without unlacing, and being able to remove the first shoe in this way, but that the second shoe was too tightly laced to be able to remove it without unlacing it - therefore necessitating an unlacing of the second shoe. That's a possibility in this case (albeit a small one), and it means that we can't treat the shoes as conclusive evidence of anything at all. Meredith might, after all, have done just this: come in, decided to remove her trainers without unlacing, removed the right trainer successfully in this way, but couldn't pry the left trainer off in the same way, forcing her to reach down and untie the laces of that trainer. If that had happened, the trainers would also have been in the condition in which they were found the following day.
), which led to it consequently rusting and becoming useless as evidence.
