Continuation Part 4: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[codyjuneau]

The mop

Just curious. Does anyone know why Stefanoni took the mop that was stored in the hall closet into Meredith's bedroom?

 

[acbytesla]

Is it a push or a pull?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=7461[/qimg]

It's not so much a button, but some kind of control.

Pull.

no push,

no pull,

no push

Well having an unusual control in an unusual location is a reason why it wasn't automatically or reflexively flushed.

Another reason why the pooh doesn't mean anything.

 

[RandyN]

Tesla way to put up and knock down straw men. Have I ever said anything about not being first through the door? No. Did I ever mention that pointing out the poop was an issue? No.

I think it is reasonable to question why she didn't mention the scene immediately on returning to the flat. Does that make her a murder (sic)? No.

You may think it is reasonable to question why she didn't mention it....but can you cite any proof at all that she did not? I think you are guessing about non facts. Just as silly an argument as Briars puts forth.

As for the toilet, Knox testifies as to how she notices it (the poo)... it is related to the odd "flat" bowl ...something Anglo calls "the pan". Later she "thought" the poo was gone and became scared because who would have flushed it???

Grinder to be clear...there can be silly arguments here...but not not silly members... no matter how strongly you feel spanked. I would hope you can understand the difference about that.

You wish to argue about circumstances that you have no way of verifying as if they are odd but true facts all while discounting real evidence, even if circumstantial, that bolsters an fairly accurate TOD. Full outer wear including jacket and shoes when attacked (the blood is the proof) is not a silly assumption used to make any sort of PIP opinion just to prove a PGP wrong. These are circumstantial facts of the case. Facts we know to be true.

You OTOH wish to pretend to understand as fact if and when Knox mentions crap to her BF, and from your guess you find something odd about her behavior. That is evidence of nothing. In fact that is silly.

For the record, I am not and never have been a FOA... although I recall donating to the cause of aide for travel for the family. I was not invited to Vashon. And I didn't get the T-shirt either.

I do have an opinion if what you claim is true about Knox failure to mention the poo first thing though....I happen to think she is a bit of a space cadet. Sollecito too. Super intelligent people often are a bit "spacy"...

Briars...do you happen to know if Knox was menstruating during the period... arrrgh...of Oct 31 and after? There are all sorts of wrappers and papers and even more frequent showers...just due to that little issue.

 

[RandyN]

Dbl post

 

[acbytesla]

First, let me say that I'm not attacking Grinder and I am not suggesting that he is making arguments regarding who went through the door first or last either. My point has been that these details about the pooh and the open front door may mean something, but there is no way to determine what they mean. They are curious aspects of the case, nothing more.

Everyone is trying to read details that are unreadable. There is real probative evidence in this case. Instead, Briars says Amanda is guilty based on nothing but his gut. He finds meanings in ink blots like the pooh and the open door.

I've asked Briars about the time of death and the cell phone evidence and he disappeared. I asked him about whether he thought the time of death was after the 10:13 GPRS cell event. That one phone call is a significant piece of evidence in this case and Briars has no opinion about it. Instead, he talks about why the toilet wasn't flushed?

Why Briars?

 

[Antony]

First, let me say that I'm not attacking Grinder and I am not suggesting that he is making arguments regarding who went through the door first or last either. My point has been that these details about the pooh and the open front door may mean something, but there is no way to determine what they mean. They are curious aspects of the case, nothing more.

Everyone is trying to read details that are unreadable. There is real probative evidence in this case. Instead, Briars says Amanda is guilty based on nothing but his gut. He finds meanings in ink blots like the pooh and the open door.

I've asked Briars about the time of death and the cell phone evidence and he disappeared. I asked him about whether he thought the time of death was after the 10:13 GPRS cell event. That one phone call is a significant piece of evidence in this case and Briars has no opinion about it. Instead, he talks about why the toilet wasn't flushed?

Why Briars?

This is one of the most frustrating, but also intriguing, aspects of this case: why is it that so many people continue to cling to an irrational belief in the utterly spurious prosecution, long after all the excuses have become unsustainable?

I only started following this case after the Massei verdict, and I didn't need to know much about it to see it for what it was. Apart from the circumstances of the arrests, the other thing that told me that it was an injustice is that of all the people screaming "guilty!" none of them was prepared to discuss any genuine evidence - so Briars's reticence is nothing new in the history of the argument.

 

[Bill Williams]

This is one of the most frustrating, but also intriguing, aspects of this case: why is it that so many people continue to cling to an irrational belief in the utterly spurious prosecution, long after all the excuses have become unsustainable?

I only started following this case after the Massei verdict, and I didn't need to know much about it to see it for what it was. Apart from the circumstances of the arrests, the other thing that told me that it was an injustice is that of all the people screaming "guilty!" none of them was prepared to discuss any genuine evidence - so Briars's reticence is nothing new in the history of the argument.

Both sides accuse the other of "not arguing the evidence." Both sides accuse the other of "confirmation bias". Both sides accuse the other of starting with their conclusion to prove the conclusion they end up at.

There are three websites that represent the guilt side. The thing about those sites is that, and I believe this claim I make to be factual, they do not allow discussion. The facts that offer in support of guilt are without exception what the prosecution claims. Any other content is banned.

My conclusion is that guilters simply do not want ANY discussion, really, that contradicts Mr. Mignini and his theories of this case.

Therefore, while quick to criticize folk for contradicting Mignini and Judge Massei (for the conviction) as some sort of anti-Italy thing, the things they say about Hellmann and his court are just as bad. They dost complain too much on that score.

But they also have to ignore a lot of Massei's findings of fact, too. The point is, they follow Mignini and Mignini alone.

2013 will not be a good year for Mignini. Either way, the SC ruling to come 25 March will be disastrous for him. If the SC confirms the acquittals and overturns the calunnia conviction, then this disaster is obvious.

But what everyone misses is this: if the SC overturns one, two, or all three of the acquittals and returns them to an appeals' court for re-trial, that new court will be in Turin or Florence, as evidenced by what's happening with all the other satellite prosecutions. They are being turned over to other jurisdictions in the main for obvious reasons of conflict of interest.

What will happen to Mr. Mignini then? Yes, it will draw out things more - one can only feel for the Kerchers on this.... but what about Mignini? His sins will be examined by another court. And the evidence which guilters get stuck on as so persuasive will not stand.... because it has NOT withstood any judicial scrutiny that is at arms'-length from the Perugian echo-chamber.

That's the trouble isn't it. As long as the "facts of the case" remain within arms'-length of Mr. Mignini then it goes the way guilters like. Take it beyond arms'-length and there are acquittals all around, save for Guede.

So what do they really have? Read this thread, and go to those other sites. Right now all they have are toilet-flushing theories in one bathroom, when the real issue is the shoddy forensic collection of blood and DNA in the other bathroom.

"Briars's reticence is nothing new in the history of the argument," is true... the only thing I can add, is that there is now no way that guilters CAN put together a comprehensive timeline of this crime which implicates A and R. Which is why they don't try, and why they focus on one or two inherently unexplainable anomalies.

 

[Briars]

Why make assumptions? Are there rules as to what questions or points people want to bring forward at this time? There was opportunity and lack of alibi to have the aggression towards Meredith start by 10pm and finished before 10:30. I lean towards those earlier times rather then later after 11. I've also talked about TOD and the fatty meal/with stress delaying digestion.The girls claimed they finished all eating just an hour before they left, whatever stress Meredith encountered at the cottage could have halted digestion for over an hour. I've mentioned the full DNA profile on the clasp and how I think it got there. I find it interesting how the talk about that DNA used to revolve around contamination or outright planting. Now its slowly morphed so its not even his DNA! just like the children's game of telephone. I'm interested in the actions and the story of the morning shower because it shows deception. When they should have been on their way to Gubbio Amanda needs to get a mop for a bit of water that could have been dried with a rag. She needed to take another shower but was not concerned enough by the open door , blood , cold house and missing Meredith? Its a story that has evolved , the boogie was added Dec 18th. Sollecito had made adjustments in his book to cover the discrepancy of the wide open door in Filomena's room. It is a story just like the finger prick , fish blood, dripping ear... Come up with a reason why people tell stories that are innocent and we can talk. Don't blame Mignini because the stories started well before he was involved. I think you or Grinder asked whether Filomena would try Meredith's locked door while she was away in England as a bonus question. I know I would have being naturally curious.

 

[anglolawyer]

Why make assumptions? Are there rules as to what questions or points people want to bring forward at this time? There was opportunity and lack of alibi to have the aggression towards Meredith start by 10pm and finished before 10:30. I lean towards those earlier times rather then later after 11. I've also talked about TOD and the fatty meal/with stress delaying digestion.The girls claimed they finished all eating just an hour before they left, whatever stress Meredith encountered at the cottage could have halted digestion for over an hour. I've mentioned the full DNA profile on the clasp and how I think it got there. I find it interesting how the talk about that DNA used to revolve around contamination or outright planting. Now its slowly morphed so its not even his DNA! just like the children's game of telephone. I'm interested in the actions and the story of the morning shower because it shows deception. When they should have been on their way to Gubbio Amanda needs to get a mop for a bit of water that could have been dried with a rag. She needed to take another shower but was not concerned enough by the open door , blood , cold house and missing Meredith? Its a story that has evolved , the boogie was added Dec 18th. Sollecito had made adjustments in his book to cover the discrepancy of the wide open door in Filomena's room. It is a story just like the finger prick , fish blood, dripping ear... Come up with a reason why people tell stories that are innocent and we can talk. Don't blame Mignini because the stories started well before he was involved. I think you or Grinder asked whether Filomena would try Meredith's locked door while she was away in England as a bonus question. I know I would have being naturally curious.

Not sure who the 'you' is in this post. As far as I'm concerned you can bring up what you want. It's you guilters who disallow debate on your own boards and never hang around to finish an argument.

Can you explain how you know the bathmat story only came up for the first time on 18 Dec? That sounds interesting.

 

[Grinder]

You may think it is reasonable to question why she didn't mention it....but can you cite any proof at all that she did not? I think you are guessing about non facts. Just as silly an argument as Briars puts forth.

Every account I have seen has Amanda mentioning "the scene" not the poo until after having some breakfast with Raf.

As for the toilet, Knox testifies as to how she notices it (the poo)... it is related to the odd "flat" bowl ...something Anglo calls "the pan". Later she "thought" the poo was gone and became scared because who would have flushed it???

This makes it seem I'm talking about what I don't care about the poo. I'm saying the key is the wide open door. As stated above an open door is disconcerting and in fact Amanda states that she did bring it up with Raf and wanted him to check it out. I think it odd she took as long as she says and I think it can be left at that. I have never said it took to long for her to be innocent. I do believe when reviewing the accounting of happenings that this detail could legitimately raise a real or figurative eyebrow.

Grinder to be clear...there can be silly arguments here...but not not silly members... no matter how strongly you feel spanked. I would hope you can understand the difference about that.

Ouch, ouch Thanks for the thought. Ouch.

You wish to argue about circumstances that you have no way of verifying as if they are odd but true facts all while discounting real evidence, even if circumstantial, that bolsters an fairly accurate TOD. Full outer wear including jacket and shoes when attacked (the blood is the proof) is not a silly assumption used to make any sort of PIP opinion just to prove a PGP wrong. These are circumstantial facts of the case. Facts we know to be true.

I do know that she didn't immediately call Raf and have him come or even return to his place and immediately turn around. I do not discount the stomach contents, the times of phone activity or even the woman that saw "Rudi" bump into her date. I think the clothing argument has no weight without some testimony that Meredith always immediately took off jackets, no matter how cool the evening, and slipped into a housecoat or some other such information. If the PG argument hinged on her taking her jacket off even though the inside of the house could have been just above 50 F I doubt you'd be opposing my stance. Yes, there is no doubt that she was wearing her jacket, which proves only she was wearing her jacket and shoes. Show me proof that she always did remove them no matter what and you have something solid, otherwise nothing. I said it before that I still keep the temp low and wear warm clothes in the winter while inside. I had students living in one of my mansions (Anglo that's for you ), okay a house, and they didn't heat the house resulting in moisture damage to the bathroom. They thought leaving the window open would dry out the bathroom.

You OTOH wish to pretend to understand as fact if and when Knox mentions crap to her BF, and from your guess you find something odd about her behavior. That is evidence of nothing. In fact that is silly.

Poo not the issue. The issue was that she had breakfast first and only mentioned it later. Not a giant deal just odd enough to raise those eyebrows.

For the record, I am not and never have been a FOA... although I recall donating to the cause of aide for travel for the family. I was not invited to Vashon. And I didn't get the T-shirt either.

I'll use my connections to get that set right. Out of T-shirts but how about a coffee cup?

[quoteI do have an opinion if what you claim is true about Knox failure to mention the poo first thing though....I happen to think she is a bit of a space cadet. Sollecito too. Super intelligent people often are a bit "spacy"...[/quote]

First part yes, I don't see any evidence of super intelligence. She seems to have a knack for languages other than English

 

[christianahannah]

Is it a push or a pull?
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=597&pictureid=7461[/qimg]

It's not so much a button but some kind of control.

The metal piece which looks like a nail (?) you push up to flush. So in that respect it acts like a button. You can control the amount of time a flush would last (I think).

Pull.

no push,

no pull,

no push

Well having an unusual control in an unusual location is a reason why it wasn't automatically or reflexively flushed.

Another reason why the pooh doesn't mean anything.

Well, it may be dependent on where one lives whether a flush mechanism is unusual or not.

Whether that has any meaning at all depends on whether one believes Rudy's story or not.

 

[acbytesla]

Why make assumptions? Are there rules as to what questions or points people want to bring forward at this time? There was opportunity and lack of alibi to have the aggression towards Meredith start by 10pm and finished before 10:30. I lean towards those earlier times rather then later after 11. I've also talked about TOD and the fatty meal/with stress delaying digestion.The girls claimed they finished all eating just an hour before they left, whatever stress Meredith encountered at the cottage could have halted digestion for over an hour. I've mentioned the full DNA profile on the clasp and how I think it got there. I find it interesting how the talk about that DNA used to revolve around contamination or outright planting. Now its slowly morphed so its not even his DNA! just like the children's game of telephone. I'm interested in the actions and the story of the morning shower because it shows deception. When they should have been on their way to Gubbio Amanda needs to get a mop for a bit of water that could have been dried with a rag. She needed to take another shower but was not concerned enough by the open door , blood , cold house and missing Meredith? Its a story that has evolved , the boogie was added Dec 18th. Sollecito had made adjustments in his book to cover the discrepancy of the wide open door in Filomena's room. It is a story just like the finger prick , fish blood, dripping ear... Come up with a reason why people tell stories that are innocent and we can talk. Don't blame Mignini because the stories started well before he was involved. I think you or Grinder asked whether Filomena would try Meredith's locked door while she was away in England as a bonus question. I know I would have being naturally curious.

So you say that the attack happened between 10 and 10:30. Good, at least we are getting closer. My question to you again is where was Meredith's cell phone during the 10:13 GPRS cell phone event?

Please explain why it connected to a cell tower more than 1700 meters away while two cell towers less than 200 meters away provided substantially better coverage? Do you understand how cell tower base stations manage what frequency, time slice and antennas are assigned to handle calls?

That call did not happen anywhere near the cottage. Do you acknowledge this point Briars?

 

[acbytesla]

The metal piece which looks like a nail (?) you push up to flush. So in that respect it acts like a button. You can control the amount of time a flush would last (I think).



Well, it may be dependent on where one lives whether a flush mechanism is unusual or not.

Whether that has any meaning at all depends on whether one believes Rudy's story or not.

That type of toilet is very unusual for someone who lives in Western Washington like Amanda, probably not so unusual for Perugia.

 

[Grinder]

There was opportunity and lack of alibi to have the aggression towards Meredith start by 10pm and finished before 10:30.

Actually if you take the Curatolo testimony as orginally given he gives them an alibi from about 9:30 to just before midnight. Mignini later got him to be more vague but his account would have them in the plaza going to the cottage to kill and back to the plaza to stare at the cottage. Not credible. They don't need an alibi and most people wouldn't have one for those times other than being at home. I would have exactly the same alibi for last night for those times.

I lean towards those earlier times rather then later after 11. I've also talked about TOD and the fatty meal/with stress delaying digestion.The girls claimed they finished all eating just an hour before they left, whatever stress Meredith encountered at the cottage could have halted digestion for over an hour.

The earlier time takes Nara out of the mix along with Curatolo and that takes the running foot noises out. Are you arguing that digestion only moves food into the duodenum after one stops eating? They ate a somewhat slow to digest meal but from 6 to 9 would be long enough to have something in the duodenum. Stress wouldn't start until someone attacked. The earliest they could have attacked was after 9:20 but they were in the plaza at 9:30 and for long enough for Curatolo to notice them, which means 10 would be the earliest for the stress which means 4 hours after eating.

I've mentioned the full DNA profile on the clasp and how I think it got there. I find it interesting how the talk about that DNA used to revolve around contamination or outright planting. Now its slowly morphed so its not even his DNA! just like the children's game of telephone.

Well if you say it's morphed it must be so. Chris H will undoubtedly tackle this but one of the reason people may have changed on this is additional files finally released. No movie script would try to pass off coming back 47 days after the initial gathering and "find" what had been found before but seemingly forgotten or kicked under the bed or whatever the story is. Briar, they forgot to take part of the bra that was cut or torn when removed from the murder victim. Can you with a straight face say "no problem"?

Doesn't seem beyond belief that this late in game piece is the only piece of evidence with his DNA or identifiable print in the whole place besides the cigarette?

I'm interested in the actions and the story of the morning shower because it shows deception. When they should have been on their way to Gubbio Amanda needs to get a mop for a bit of water that could have been dried with a rag. She needed to take another shower but was not concerned enough by the open door , blood , cold house and missing Meredith?

Missing Meredith not really that big of a deal as she could have stayed with friends. Since there is no evidence that the mop was used to clean anything but the spill, why is it suspicious? They "shouldn't" have been on their way to Gubbio. They didn't have reservations at Locanda del Cantiniere. They weren't meeting anybody. It was a 45 minute drive.

It shows deception because...? I wouldn't have advised her to shower there after finding the door open but the blood was minimal and the house was probably cool often and the water was heated.

Its a story that has evolved , the boogie was added Dec 18th. Sollecito had made adjustments in his book to cover the discrepancy of the wide open door in Filomena's room. It is a story just like the finger prick , fish blood, dripping ear... Come up with a reason why people tell stories that are innocent and we can talk. Don't blame Mignini because the stories started well before he was involved. I think you or Grinder asked whether Filomena would try Meredith's locked door while she was away in England as a bonus question. I know I would have being naturally curious.

I have heard that she only discussed the use of the mat just before the 18th. However if she knew she had stepped on the floor with only one foot dipped in blood why didn't they mop up the tiny hallway? Where are the footprints or evidence of removal in Meredith's room?

Grinder asked about the locked door but not while she was in England. The story goes that Filomena said M never locked her door except when in England, but Amanda said M locked the door more often and even after a shower. Not withstanding that lying about the door being locked would not get the police to discover the body which was her plan, why would Amanda lie about it? How would F know that M's door was never locked unless she opened it when it was closed when M was out?

You make it a practice to try roommates doors when they are away, nice.

 

[acbytesla]

I've also talked about TOD and the fatty meal/with stress delaying digestion.

The girls claimed they finished all eating just an hour before they left, whatever stress Meredith encountered at the cottage could have halted digestion for over an hour.

Provide a scientific citation for this contention about digestion and how food passes through to duodenum.

I've mentioned the full DNA profile on the clasp and how I think it got there. I find it interesting how the talk about that DNA used to revolve around contamination or outright planting. Now its slowly morphed so its not even his DNA! just like the children's game of telephone.

I'm not an expert on DNA but Chris is, so we'll let him address this.

I'm interested in the actions and the story of the morning shower because it shows deception.
When they should have been on their way to Gubbio Amanda needs to get a mop for a bit of water that could have been dried with a rag.

Why should they have been on the way to Gubbio? Maybe Amanda want to do it right and clean Raffaeles whole floor while she was at it. And how do you know how much water was there?

She needed to take another shower but was not concerned enough by the open door , blood , cold house and missing Meredith?

Why should Amanda be so concerned with an open door? There really was hardly anything amiss. Barely enough to get anyone thinking. The living room did not appear as if anything was amiss. Neither was the bathroom except a few drops of blood on the floor and a unflushed toilet. And why should Amanda be so concerned that Meredith was not there? Meredith was an adult, fully capable of taking care of herself. And Amanda had had known Meredith for a month. Maybe Meredith was with Giaccomo or Sophie or Robyn. Amanda wasn't Meredith's mother.

You're reading clues that certainly demonstrate that something might be amiss. But the difference is that you know that Meredith lay dead behind a locked door. You have the advantage of hindsight. Maybe Amanda's mind was preoccupied. Maybe Amanda was stoned, maybe she's just dumb. But neither you nor I know what was going through Amanda's mind on that November 2nd morning.

You're seeing deception because you're looking for deception. You have hardly provided evidence of deception, merely your opinion that there was deception.

Again, I'm going to ask. Where was Meredith's cell phone at 10:13?

 

[Bill Williams]

She needed to take another shower but was not concerned enough by the open door , blood , cold house and missing Meredith?

Why should Amanda be so concerned with an open door? There really was hardly anything amiss. Barely enough to get anyone thinking. The living room did not appear as if anything was amiss. Neither was the bathroom except a few drops of blood on the floor and a unflushed toilet. And why should Amanda be so concerned that Meredith was not there? Meredith was an adult, fully capable of taking care of herself. And Amanda had had known Meredith for a month. Maybe Meredith was with Giaccomo or Sophie or Robyn. Amanda wasn't Meredith's mother.

You're reading clues that certainly demonstrate that something might be amiss. But the difference is that you know that Meredith lay dead behind a locked door. You have the advantage of hindsight. Maybe Amanda's mind was preoccupied. Maybe Amanda was stoned, maybe she's just dumb. But neither you nor I know what was going through Amanda's mind on that November 2nd morning.

You're seeing deception because you're looking for deception. You have hardly provided evidence of deception, merely your opinion that there was deception.
Again, I'm going to ask. Where was Meredith's cell phone at 10:13?

The highlighted parts cannot be overstated, acbytesla.

It is this point which demonstrates that Briars preconceived notion about and focus on Amanda alone, and 20/20 hindsight - why all this exposes Briars' reasoning process. Briars assummes the conclusion, then surprise surprise puts things together that reaches that very same conclusion.

Proof of this?

The proof is that it was not just Amanda who was not concerned. Neither Raffaele, nor the postal police (Battistelli, etc) nor Filomena or her male-friends were really that concerned.

Look at Filomena's reaction. Filomena thought to herself, acc. to Follain who purposely gives the most damning account of things towards Amanda: (p. 63, 'A Death in Italy') "Filomena told her friend what Amanda had said: the girl was 'the most cretina [stupid] of the all'. How could she calmly have a shower after finding the door open and blood in the bathroom? It made no sense."

But note, this is based on information Amanda has given Filomena over the phone BEFORE Filomena can see things for herself. Filomena has not yet seen the cottage. Filomena is reacting to Amanda's own increased worry, a worry that obviously did not happen earlier when Amanda, slow on uptake as always, started worrying herself.

But the key is - when Filomena arrives she is as confused as anyone, certainly as confused as the postal police. (As an aside, even Follain makes mention of Filomena "rummaging through her room," which hardly leaves the room in a state where (later) investigators have an 'in situ' condition denoting a staged break-in!)

But the point is that even Filomena herself does not really worry about what's behind Meredith's locked door until she puts together the fact that Meredith is without her cell-phones. Indeed, that's why the postal police are there, to return recently discovered phones to their owners.

It's then and only then that Filomena, and Filomena alone, wants someone to kick down Meredith's door. Up until then NO ONE sees the scene as pointing to what they ultimately find.

This is what I mean by the preconceived and undue focus on Amanda at this point. Everyone is confused about what the scene means. Why, then, does Briars not suspect Battistelli, who himself was not concerned - indeed, some say he even contaminated the crimescene himself by lifting the blanket off of Meredith in her room.....

Once again, Briars approaches this focussing solely on Amanda:

She needed to take another shower but was not concerned enough by the open door , blood , cold house and missing Meredith?

The point is, no one was "concerned enough" until Filomena put two plus two together about the phones.

This is the clearest demonstration of Briars' confirmation bias - bringing a conclusion to the analysis (ie. Amanda did it) to prove that Amanda did it.

If Briars cannot see this, then that is not our loss. Fortunately, the Italian legal system eventually DID see it the way it should be seen.

 

[Welshman]

Both sides accuse the other of "not arguing the evidence." Both sides accuse the other of "confirmation bias". Both sides accuse the other of starting with their conclusion to prove the conclusion they end up at.

There are three websites that represent the guilt side. The thing about those sites is that, and I believe this claim I make to be factual, they do not allow discussion. The facts that offer in support of guilt are without exception what the prosecution claims. Any other content is banned.

My conclusion is that guilters simply do not want ANY discussion, really, that contradicts Mr. Mignini and his theories of this case.

Therefore, while quick to criticize folk for contradicting Mignini and Judge Massei (for the conviction) as some sort of anti-Italy thing, the things they say about Hellmann and his court are just as bad. They dost complain too much on that score.

But they also have to ignore a lot of Massei's findings of fact, too. The point is, they follow Mignini and Mignini alone.

2013 will not be a good year for Mignini. Either way, the SC ruling to come 25 March will be disastrous for him. If the SC confirms the acquittals and overturns the calunnia conviction, then this disaster is obvious.

But what everyone misses is this: if the SC overturns one, two, or all three of the acquittals and returns them to an appeals' court for re-trial, that new court will be in Turin or Florence, as evidenced by what's happening with all the other satellite prosecutions. They are being turned over to other jurisdictions in the main for obvious reasons of conflict of interest.

What will happen to Mr. Mignini then? Yes, it will draw out things more - one can only feel for the Kerchers on this.... but what about Mignini? His sins will be examined by another court. And the evidence which guilters get stuck on as so persuasive will not stand.... because it has NOT withstood any judicial scrutiny that is at arms'-length from the Perugian echo-chamber.

That's the trouble isn't it. As long as the "facts of the case" remain within arms'-length of Mr. Mignini then it goes the way guilters like. Take it beyond arms'-length and there are acquittals all around, save for Guede.

So what do they really have? Read this thread, and go to those other sites. Right now all they have are toilet-flushing theories in one bathroom, when the real issue is the shoddy forensic collection of blood and DNA in the other bathroom.

"Briars's reticence is nothing new in the history of the argument," is true... the only thing I can add, is that there is now no way that guilters CAN put together a comprehensive timeline of this crime which implicates A and R. Which is why they don't try, and why they focus on one or two inherently unexplainable anomalies.

A question I have raised is if the prosecution had such a mountain of hard evidence and a very strong case against Amanda and Raffaele, why is that on the guilter sites, no one is allowed to question the prosecution's case and no debate is allowed. If there was such strong evidence against Amanda and Raffaele, the guilters should have no fear debating the case and answering questions regarding flaws in the prosecution's case. I find it disgusting that on the TJMK/PMF hate sites, Amanda and Raffaele are accused of killing Meredith and are subject to relentless villification but they will not engage in debate.

 

[acbytesla]

You are so right Bill. (mutual admiration society). I respect the arguments about the DNA even though I fully believe that this evidence was clearly contaminated, but I have so much difficulty with the arguments that Amanda was lying based on the poop or the open door.

All these mind readers that are so sure of their ability to perceive other people's thoughts and intentions.

My problem right now is the cell phone evidence and how clearly it proves that Meredith's cell phone was no where near the cottage at 10:13. That it was probably 400 meters away from the cottage.

 

[Briars]

So you say that the attack happened between 10 and 10:30. Good, at least we are getting closer. My question to you again is where was Meredith's cell phone during the 10:13 GPRS cell phone event?

Please explain why it connected to a cell tower more than 1700 meters away while two cell towers less than 200 meters away provided substantially better coverage? Do you understand how cell tower base stations manage what frequency, time slice and antennas are assigned to handle calls?

That call did not happen anywhere near the cottage. Do you acknowledge this point Briars?

I don't think Guede tossed the phones, His story has him alone at the cottage , and leaving around 10:30. That story matches with the witness who he nearly runs into on the stairs. The time of 10:30 matches the story of when the car from Rome broke down. A 10 minute walk, someone not Guede could have left while Meredith was mortally wounded tossed the phones and activated the connection while they landed.

 

[acbytesla]

I don't think Guede tossed the phones, His story has him alone at the cottage , and leaving around 10:30. That story matches with the witness who he nearly runs into on the stairs. The time of 10:30 matches the story of when the car from Rome broke down. A 10 minute walk, someone not Guede could have left while Meredith was mortally wounded tossed the phones and activated the connection while they landed.

According to Rudy the murder took place around 9:20 or 9:30.

And the guys in the car said they didn't see anything. Did Rudy just run by them and they didn't see him?

You're saying that Amanda and Raffaele had already been there and gone by 10:13? That they left Raffaele's flat at what time? 9:10? 9:20? 9:30? So Curatolo's testimony is out.

And then what happened? That Amanda and Raffele walked the ten minutes to the cottage murdered Meredith quickly and then hurried out of the cottage to ditch the phones leaving Rudy at the cottage? Rudy then leaves on his own and goes to his friends house? Then Amanda and Raffaele come back and stage a break in? You talked about the logistics of the next morning. Can't you see that the logistics of this is nonsensical?

Why? Why would Amanda and Raffaele get up from their cozy lover's apartment and together run to the cottage to murder Amanda's roommate that neither really knew very well? Why would Raffaele do that? He knew Amanda for what? A week? Why would Amanda do that? Did the romantic comedy Amelie whip them both into a psychotic frenzy? Or do you think marijuana made them drug crazy and they didn't know what they were doing?

Do you really believe that it was over sex?
Or 300 Euros?
Or some non-existent tension that nobody attested to in court?
Only the day before Meredith drew a tattoo on Amanda. Doesn't sound like real tension to me.