Continuation Part 5: Discussion of the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito case

[yimyammer]

Mach,

Please provide the court documents as you refer to them. If they are made available in Italian, perhaps we can some here to at least read them and verify for content.

If you provide the translations please also make them available so the above mentioned people here can check for accuracy.

Thank you in advance.

Mega dittos!

 

[Grinder]

Briars, are you for real? Are people not allowed to wash their hands in their own homes? There is no evidence that compels the spots in Filomena's room to be associated with Meredith's murder. You and Massei are only arriving at that conclusion by starting with a presumption of guilt and assuming that every detail is evidence of that guilt.

The mixed DNA in F's room is a legitimate issue. I certainly don't come from a position of presumptive guilt, but find this evidence troubling, always have. Of course, people may wash their hands but usually the dripping from that remain in the bathroom.

What is it about some random spot in a home where someone lives containing their DNA that makes you say it is evidence of the crime? Is every such spot evidence of a crime? They found Amanda and Raffaele's DNA in the same spots in Raffaele's place. Which one of them murdered the other?

This is not up to your usual standards. The spot was found with Luminol so not exactly random. Do you have a list of spots around the house that were found with Meredith's DNA in them?

Seeing how Briars has exhausted the backing material for this talking point, he will either repeat the same material over again as a rebuttal or he will jump to another talking point.

Well, of course.

 

[Bill Williams]

Briars, are you for real? Are people not allowed to wash their hands in their own homes? There is no evidence that compels the spots in Filomena's room to be associated with Meredith's murder. You and Massei are only arriving at that conclusion by starting with a presumption of guilt and assuming that every detail is evidence of that guilt.

<........ sinister deletia ......>

Seeing how Briars has exhausted the backing material for this talking point, he will either repeat the same material over again as a rebuttal or he will jump to another talking point.

In defence of Massei, at least Massei was required to start with a presumption of guilt in writing his motivations report.

The panel 3 months' previous had, in fact, found the pair guilty. Regardless of what one might think about it, it is the Italian process to make the finding first THEN write out the rationale.

I mean, what was Massei going to do, reverse the finding of the court?

But it highlights for me the impossibility of writing out a comprehensive timeline of guilt that takes account of the evidence. Mr. Machiavelli who is posting here has been asked politely to provide one himself, given his view, and he has never done so.

He even went so far as to say that one was not necessary for the finding of guilt. Ah....... ok.

But what it let Massei to, I believe necessarily, was the need to invent things; invent things like presumably a motiveless Amanda carrying THAT kitchen knife for protection.

True, guilters say that this is something that Massei got wrong - both the finding that Knox and Solelcito had no motive, as well as the carrying of the knife innocently "for protection", guilter say they did have a motive and that they purposely carried that knife with intent.... "to teach Meredith a lesson," or some other such motive depending on which motive of Mignini's they believe in.

It's just strange reading guilters who actually need to tear down Massei's report, in order to rebuild a failed prosecution's case.

But in fairness to Massei, Massei was required to assume guilt by nature of the Italian legal process. In some sense I am glad it is this way, because Massei had to do what the likes of Machiavelli would never do in a million years.... put together a convincing, comprehensive timeline of the crime which involves the two students.

Re: the mood I am in. I wonder if the de novo appeals trial in Florence will be interested at all in creating a comprehensive timeline of this crime which puts the two students at the crime scene? If Machiavelli is correct, and one actually does not need to, then the mood I am in suggests that the fix is already in. Because the even Machiavelli has to concede that Massei felt the need to offer such a thing in his 2010 motivations report.

What Machiavelli won't concede is that Massei failed miserably. Should I relist the 11 things that even Massei finds as factual (like no mixed-blood, no motive for the students, no psychopathology for the students, no prior relationship with Guede.... etc.)?

Contrary to what Massei found as factual, Machiavelli has Rudy Guede operating as Knox's pimp, and claims he can prove it.

 

[Machiavelli]

What Machiavelli won't concede is that Massei failed miserably. Should I relist the 11 things that even Massei finds as factual (like no mixed-blood, no motive for the students, no psychopathology for the students, no prior relationship with Guede.... etc.)?

It's so obviously self-evident that your assertions are false. Even I recently pointed out how nonsense it is - for example - to claim tha Massei found as a 'factual finding' that the two suspects had 'no psychopathology' (did also Micheli and Borsini-Belardi found out that Rudy suffered of no psycholathology? Or did the Arizona court found out that Jodi Arias suffered of no psychopathology?). If you had just the tiniest grasp about principles of law you would just keep far away from such wild assertions, and you would just acknowledge first sight how nonsense they are.

Contrary to what Massei found as factual, Machiavelli has Rudy Guede operating as Knox's pimp, and claims he can prove it.

You are again misquoting me. I never said this. I even expliticly said the contrary - I stated that Guede could not be a pimp, but at best a client - and I also stated that Knox could not not have been a prostitute (at least not a professional - a prostitute does not work for fun), and I was quite clear. But this is what you usually do. You can't help but falsely attribute statements that were not made, whether it's me or Massei.

 

[Machiavelli]

What do you mean by trial papers? I assume what you are referring to is only available in Italian?

Obviously the trial papers are only available in Italian.
the trial papers include the very documentation that you have available too, and that you may read attentively. For example, those who claim the defence were denied access to EDF documentation by Stefanoni, should just read the legal papers more carefully - and also learn to distinguish the defence claims from hte actual doucmentation.
But besides the trial papers - some of them I ought not make public without permission, but you could easilly aske them to the Knox family - there is an array of Italian press sources available. Why for example, nobody read about what Vecchiotti and Conti stated about Stefanoni providing them all datat their requested, praised her laboratory for being fully cooperative and handing over everything...?

 

[Bill Williams]

Contrary to what Massei found as factual, Machiavelli has Rudy Guede operating as Knox's pimp, and claims he can prove it.

You are again misquoting me. I never said this. I even expliticly said the opposite. But this is what you usually do. You can't help but falsely attribute statements that were not made, whether it's me or Massei.

So what did you say about this? You are not denying you said it, just that you are misquoted. What nuance is missing? This is a great time to set the record straight, rather than just offering assertions.

Also, what motive will the new Florence prosecution go with?

1) The Satanic rite theory, which acc. to guilter author Barbie Nadeau, Manuela Comodi threatened to quit the case if Mignini went to trial with it?

2) The sex-game gone wrong theory?

3) The "Revenge - Teach Meredith a lesson" theory?

4) or the theory that Massei found as factual, that there was no motive for AK and/or RS, it's just that the got caught up in Rudy's motive and made a "choice for evil"?​

Which theory will they go with?

 

[Antony]

No I mean on IIP, where the rare people who post making a case for justice are targeted with ad hominem insults or racist slurs.

"Making a case for justice" are you? No you are not. In any case, it's pretty lame claiming to have "proven" something in another forum, without any reference to it, as though that settles a point here. Nobody in this forum has any obligation to go hunting in another location for an unspecified posting of yours, claimed by you to be proof of your point.

The "ordinary news reportin"? What the heck the 'ordinary news reporting' is?
You should read the trial papers and know a bit of law instead of followint US media coverage.

You make the mistake of assuming I post from the US. The location information ("London, England") under my user name should be a clue, here.

But no, it is just evidence versus foolish claims.

Of course, this is true, but in reverse of the sense you are trying to make out. It's the accusations against Amanda and Raffaele that are the "foolish claims". There is certainly no genuine evidence to back them up. Unfortunately, in the Massei trial the foolish claims were taken seriously; whether the Supreme Court was swayed by foolish claims is a question that will be answered by June 24.

And this is noting but the propaganda narrative. There is a case of dirty information campaign here, as well as the systematic twisting by a defence campaing af any piece of truth. But this only flies in the American public. None of those argument could exist in the Italian context where the trial is hold, and these 'arguments' in fact simply do not belong to the actual trial. Simply none of these make sense, these are retorics, these claims are all false or their meaning is crooked by ignorance and rethoric.

You know, when you get excited, your writing style and command of the English language is noticeably different. It gives the impression that there is someone else typing the response than the cool, linguistically correct author of most of your posts.

So, Machiavelli, do you disagree that the mandatory recordings of the Nov 5-6 interrogations of Amanda, Raff, and Patrick Lumumba are missing? Do you disagree that the bra clasp was allowed to rust by the scientific police? Or is this just a "propaganda narrative"?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

The obvious question is "Evidence?" You have Amanda walking/running between Raff's and the Cottage a total of four times, and yet the ILE went through the security footage of the cameras between the two places and never found any sign of them. How did they manage to travel back and forth four times, likely running at least twice, and no-one saw them and no cameras captured them doing this?

That camera only takes pictures when the car park let's in a car or one exits, it's highly unlikely late at night it would record much, it didn't record Rudi's trips to and fro, neither Meredith's, not where you could say for sure who it was. Where are the pictures showing when Amanda and Raff left in the afternoon of the 1st.

How do they talk? Let's assume that Rudy comes up to Amanda wanting the bathroom, she speaks poor faltering Italian, he doesn't speak English at all. How do they manage to communicate so well?

I believe he does speak a little English, didn't talk with Meredith about that football game, England vs Ivory Coast? Amanda speaks better Italian than you want to admit, no she is not fluent, but she can pick up boys with little trouble. She can get by just fine, language is not a problem here.

There is a lot going on here. Firstly, we know that Rudy drank from a carton of Orange Juice. When did he do this in your timeline? I find it hard to believe he did it after the attack and not even someone with terrible manners is going to grab a carton and drink from it in someone else's home when the owners are right there. For me this would only happen if the owners were not there, so done when Rudy was alone, but the only time you have him alone is during the attack.

Rudi said that yes, but I thought it was said that there was no orange juice in the fridge, find a quote other than Rudi's that supports this because if we have to believe everything Rudi and Amanda say, then she is guilty.

Next we have Amanda and Meredith arguing. The only evidence for this is from Rudy, not exactly a reliable source. He also claims that the two were arguing in Italian, which is how he knew what they were saying. Trouble is again, Amanda's Italian was extremely poor and if she and Meredith were arguing it would be far more logical that they would do so in the language that was native to them both, English.

Again, who said they argued in Italian for one, and secondly, it's 'he said she said', some of which I'm sure will be true and some for sure will be lies. If you wish to believe he heard them argue in Italian, fine, again she's guilty.

Then you have Rudy jumping off the toilet and attacking Meredith because..... Well really there is no reason, the action is totally irrational. Rudy has zero reason to intervene even if Amanda and Meredith were arguing. There is also no evidence of an attack in the lounge, so Rudy would have had to jump off the loo in the other wing, run through the lounge, down the hallway passed Amanda and into Meredith's room to attack her. This makes zero sense no matter how you slice it.

Why does any man ever intervene between two girls fighting, and why would that guy pick a side?, this is Rudi were talking about, maybe you hold him in some higher regards than I do, but this Rudi, and we both know what he does next.

So rather then telling Rudy to stop, or attacking him for attacking her friend, or calling the police and telling them a visitor has gone loco (which he'd have to do to attack Meredith in the first place in this scenario) she walks/runs back to the Kitchen, puts her hands over her ears, and prays that Rudy doesn't come after her next?

She's stoned remember, so stoned apparently that she can't remember almost everything that happens that night, these are her own words and yes, I find them highly unlikely unless there booze and harder drugs involved, but she does state this, she is almost completely out of it.

So suddenly getting a rush of courage, instead of running back to help her friend and tell Rudy to get out, or grab the phone and call the police all while yelling that she is calling the police, Amanda flees and rather then getting help from a nearby home, she runs all the way back to Raff's.

No phone to grab, remember, the phone in the cottage is not hooked up, her phone she has testifies that she has turned it off, it likely still at Raff's, and where is a Newby home, Raff's is only 5min or less away, running, I believe anyone would head there. Again, she does not think this is to be a murder or a rape, she thinks Rudi is only beating up Meredith and they are not that close, look how Amanda acts after Meredith's death, not exactly grieving.

Raff, instead of getting one of his many combat style knives, gets a kitchen knife and then instead of calling the police asking them to meet them back at the Cottage, they just run back to try and do....

Yes, two young drugged up kids made a bad choice, this was the one and only chance to do the right thing and they make a bad decision, now, later on the part when they talk about calling the police they will know that is no longer an option because they should have done it here.

Apparently nothing, well from Amanda's part because she's so scared that she ran all the way back to the Cottage with Raff, but won't go in. Really? If she was too scared to go back in with Raff, why would she be willing to go back to the Cottage at all? Make a little bit of sense, please.

Raff's her 'HERO', didn't you hear her say that and of course she's going back with Raff, what is she suppose to do, it's her house, her not going back is what would make no sense.

So brave enough to go in to confront Rudi, that courage dissolves when he actually confronts him, despite being armed. And why would he say "black man found, black man guilty" if he had no idea what had happened at this point, and clearly Rudy was guilty of whatever had happened?

Rudi said he said that, how am I or anyone going to know what was said? I suspect Raff was scared ******** when he went in there, this lock boxing champ that can't kick in a door is not going to stay and confront anyone, he's not the hero you or Amanda think he is.

And again they fail to get help, and worse, Rudy knows that they know he just killed someone and both can identify him, but rather than dealing with them, or running, he stays, and then when he does leave he goes dancing before finally fleeing. How does this make any sense?

I believe they really had one chance to call the police and they blew it, had they called after, the police are going to ask why they didn't call sooner and then Amanda herself will be implicated, Raff is trying to save his new love. Good luck with that.

The problem here is that you are trying to incorporate Toto's testimony which has been pretty well destroyed. The man was high on Heroin and clearly couldn't tell what was going on or even which night was which. Building your theory on testimony that is as stable as a jello in an earthquake is not a sane idea.

His testimony is not destroyed, only in the eye's of the PIP. A year after the fact he say's disco buses were there means nothing, he's there every night, he did not mix up the nights because Amanda and Raff were not there the night before. If he was on heroin, good for him, he can remember what happened that night while both Amanda and Raff smoke a joint and all memory fails them.... but PIP's believe them, why do you get it both ways?

Sure, have you got anything that actually makes some sort of sense to anyone except those desperate to make a story fit or those that are insane? You know, like one that real rational humans might actually follow and not poorly scripted puppets?

No PIP will understand, I realise that, you can only see it from one angle like I've said before. What really is unbelievable here is in order for PIP's to be correct, at least 50 plus people, the likes of police, layers, judges, hobo's, store owners, the CSI team and so on, have to be liars, dishonest, stupid, and inept in their jobs, willing to plant evidence and contamination not once but at least twice. They also have to believe a young girl who admits to being so stoned that she herself does not know exactly what happened that night. Yes, if you can believe all this, and more, you can be a PIP as well, I'm sorry, but I have a little more sense than that, so do a great many others. The problem I have is deciding what is a fair sentence for them. I did say earlier, time served but with her and her book, making money from this, I going to go with more time, she needs to come clean and quit her lying first.

 

[Bill Williams]

Machiavelli - this is your "clarificationl" that you claimed means that you never said Guede was Amanda's pimp.

No, I said Amanda's cell phone was found in the hands of some drug dealers, who also had this habit of giving drug in exchange of sex. And I know this practice is extremely frequent among many student girls who are normally not prostitutes. I also consider that this scenario is plausible with regard Amanda Knox - because of her age, location, people she attended, her habit of drug use and her emphasis on casual sex - and I think it is totally logical to consider it as a plausible scenario.

About her possible relation with Guede, I want to point out the following elements: Guede attended the same house where she lived; he was a close friend of a young man who lived downstaris; he used to spend his time in the basketball court which is on the route between her daily walk between home and language school back and forth every day; the basketball court is only 90 mters from Amanda's hose door and 60 meters from where she had university classes; they admitted of knowing each other, they had met more than once in more than one place; Guede was sexually attracted by Amanda, he liked her a lot (he was not interested in Meredith); Guede and Amanda atnded the same pubs and the same places in the city; Amanda wrote in her MySpace page that on her arrival in Perugia, in a bar near the University of Foreigners she met the "most beautiful black man" she had ever seen, and they promised to each other they would meet again as she would come back from Germany (black men attending bars in via Garibaldi are not so many; and Knox never revealed the name of this guy).

Because of elements listed above, I think assuming Guede and Amanda dated each other is a perfectly reasonable scenario. It is not proven, but it is perfectly plausible. You can well hypothsyze it if you already have evidence on Knox and you want to complete the picture with some scenario of the crime.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

there is no excuse not to perform a confirmatory test

Just a couple of points as its late. First you can't wave away a deposit of DNA and blood that Massei said was deposited simultaneously in Filomena's room. That was a random blob co mixed in a room that belonged to neither girl. You are taking liberty to call it a semen stain when that was never determined to be that. It could have been urine from the victim. Knox did not retract her statement , it took her how many weeks to realize it couldn't really have been Lumumba. She contradicts what Donnino said about her interrogation. She was treated well, offered refreshments and a nap. Donnino's testimony was completely credible unlike Amanda's.

Massei's attempts to date the deposition of DNA run counter to an axiom of DNA forensics (he's a judge not a scientist, but I still think he should know better). The complete text of Ms Knox's second memoriale is in her book, and portions of it are found in Follain's book. Links to her two letters to her lawyers have just been provided. The facts contradict your assertions. The putative semen stain is at least as likely to be semen as the luminol-positive areas are likely to be blood. I recently demonstrated that confirmatory blood tests are roughly as sensitive as luminol; therefore, there is no excuse for not using one in the areas in Filomena's room.

 

[yimyammer]

Obviously the trial papers are only available in Italian.
the trial papers include the very documentation that you have available too, and that you may read attentively. For example, those who claim the defence were denied access to EDF documentation by Stefanoni, should just read the legal papers more carefully - and also learn to distinguish the defence claims from hte actual doucmentation.

Just to clarify, by trial papers, do you mean all evidence presented in court, transcripts, etc?

Is this information available to the general public in Italy?

But besides the trial papers - some of them I ought not make public without permission, but you could easilly aske them to the Knox family - there is an array of Italian press sources available.

Why do you feel you need permission to make some of these documents public (this question is not meant to be adversarial so please don't take it as such)?

I have no access to the Knox family, so I don't know how I could get info from them.

Why for example, nobody read about what Vecchiotti and Conti stated about Stefanoni providing them all datat their requested, praised her laboratory for being fully cooperative and handing over everything...?

I'd love it if you could post anything you have with a link that could clarify this issue. I'm willing to look the facts in the eye and let them take me wherever they should

 

[Antony]

...
If he was on heroin, good for him, he can remember what happened that night while both Amanda and Raff smoke a joint and all memory fails them.... but PIP's believe them, why do you get it both ways?

But their memory didn't fail them. That's only what the police bullied them into saying during the illegal interrogations. At all other times they corroborate each other's story - that they were at Raff's flat the whole evening and night, until Amanda returned to the cottage late the following morning.

No PIP will understand, I realise that, you can only see it from one angle like I've said before. What really is unbelievable here is in order for PIP's to be correct, at least 50 plus people, the likes of police, layers, judges, hobo's, store owners, the CSI team and so on, have to be liars, dishonest, stupid, and inept in their jobs, willing to plant evidence and contamination not once but at least twice.

Your problem is that there is actually massive evidence that they are liars, corrupt and inept. There is actually nothing coherent or consistent about any of the "evidence" claimed against Amanda and Raff.

When it is shown that police have invented evidence (the non-existent scratch in the kitchen knife), destroyed evidence (the computer hard-drives) and concealed evidence (the missing interrogation tapes), it's no good saying "oh, you have to believe that they are liars to say this."

They also have to believe a young girl who admits to being so stoned that she herself does not know exactly what happened that night.

See above. It's not because we have any inclination of believing stoned girls over policemen - it's that her story has more credibility than the police story. Is that hard to understand?

 

[Briars]

You featured the change in whether she saw the purse or not in a few recent posts. You say it is important because added to the window, blood drops and other things it makes the scene more urgent. You ignore that they did call multiple people including the police. Also, you ignore that the police waited for Filomena to have her friend break the door down.



The purse conversation is a major topic on a discussion board over there. The PGP have written about minor points for years. In fact just yesterday a rabbit was positing that without the purse she didn't see why Amanda was concerned at all.

The inexplicable panic about getting into Meredith's room is incredibly damning. If you'd banged on the door and looked through the keyhole and seen nothing, a logical assumption would of course be that Meredith isn't there. Why on earth would AK be so frantic to get in?

As I recall Filomena was one of the last to arrive. At that point there was that discussion of whether Meredith usually locked her door or almost never according to Filomena. Filomena in a matter of how many minutes after her arrival confirmed the importance of the missing phones and locked door? The few minutes of her anguish and opening the door was a different scene from all the time Amanda and Sollecito wasted. Maybe the PP had been confused by what Meredith's habits were and Filomena straightened them out. Of course the PGP look at cumulative minor points after 5 years of discussing the case. The major points have been discussed as well .

 

[Briars]

Here's another minor point that's related to their story. They spend time banging on the door , try to look in from the outside, peer in the keyhole but don't try her phone once at the cottage? You see a purse on the bed but don't try calling her phone to see if its in the locked room . The room where Sollecito claimed he tried to break down the door. Making sense of all aspects of a defendant's story and alibi is important.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

But their memory didn't fail them. That's only what the police bullied them into saying during the illegal interrogations.

Ya, Re-read Amanda's trial testimony, 'I don't remember' is the line she uses the most.

Your problem is that there is actually massive evidence that they are liars, corrupt and inept. There is actually nothing coherent or consistent about any of the "evidence" claimed against Amanda and Raff.

And that is what you have to believe to be a PIP, it's utterly amazing. I could see a couple, perhaps a few, but the number you guys have it truly amazing.

When it is shown that police have invented evidence (the non-existent scratch in the kitchen knife), destroyed evidence (the computer hard-drives) and concealed evidence (the missing interrogation tapes), it's no good saying "oh, you have to believe that they are liars to say this."

Yes, when you add it to all the others you say, it really is unbelievable, to me anyway.

See above. It's not because we have any inclination of believing stoned girls over policemen - it's that her story has more credibility than the police story. Is that hard to understand?

Not hard to understand, but hard, very hard, to believe.

 

[Bill Williams]

As I recall Filomena was one of the last to arrive. At that point there was that discussion of whether Meredith usually locked her door or almost never according to Filomena. Filomena in a matter of how many minutes after her arrival confirmed the importance of the missing phones and locked door? The few minutes of her anguish and opening the door was a different scene from all the time Amanda and Sollecito wasted. Maybe the PP had been confused by what Meredith's habits were and Filomena straightened them out. Of course the PGP look at cumulative minor points after 5 years of discussing the case. The major points have been discussed as well .

What time did AK and RS waste? Even Judge Massei puts that Raffaele called the carabineiri before the postal police arrived? If it weren't for AK Filomena would never have arrived at all. A guilty AK and RS would simply have taken the phones from the PP in the parking lot, said they would give them to Meredith, and send the PP on their way. What they did instead was invite them into the cottage and help explain the weird state it was in. Even then, the PP did not suspect what was behind Meredith's door, even refused to beat the door down!

However, it is true that Filomena's arrival was a game changer. It was two fold, it was her room which had been broken into, with nothing stolen, and it was Filomena who put 2 + 2 together about Meredith being without the phones.

My view it that it is highly prejudicial to, then, conclude that AK and RS "wasted" time while they were the ones responsible for Filomena being there in the first place, and arriving there at all.

The major points have been discussed and discounted. There are no reliable superwitnesses and the DNA is bunk.

The minor points comprise, "all the other evidence", which is all there is left for hobbyists to bat around. Did she or didn't she smell blood? Did she or didn't she see the purse through the keyhole? There is simply no unifying, comprehensive narrative that pulls all this together that implies guilt. After 5 1/2 years no one has provided one.

Briars - you could be the first. Go for it!

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's another minor point that's related to their story. They spend time banging on the door , try to look in from the outside, peer in the keyhole but don't try her phone once at the cottage? You see a purse on the bed but don't try calling her phone to see if its in the locked room . The room where Sollecito claimed he tried to break down the door. Making sense of all aspects of a defendant's story and alibi is important.

Don't forget to add, after all of that, about a half hour later when the door is finally broken down, they are nowhere to be seen, 'having already done their part'.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

What time did AK and RS waste? Even Judge Massei puts that Raffaele called the carabineiri before the postal police arrived? If it weren't for AK Filomena would never have arrived at all. A guilty AK and RS would simply have taken the phones from the PP in the parking lot, said they would give them to Meredith, and send the PP on their way. What they did instead was invite them into the cottage and help explain the weird state it was in. Even then, the PP did not suspect what was behind Meredith's door, even refused to beat the door down!

However, it is true that Filomena's arrival was a game changer. It was two fold, it was her room which had been broken into, with nothing stolen, and it was Filomena who put 2 + 2 together about Meredith being without the phones.

My view it that it is highly prejudicial to, then, conclude that AK and RS "wasted" time while they were the ones responsible for Filomena being there in the first place, and arriving there at all.

The major points have been discussed and discounted. There are no reliable superwitnesses and the DNA is bunk.

The minor points comprise, "all the other evidence", which is all there is left for hobbyists to bat around. Did she or didn't she smell blood? Did she or didn't she see the purse through the keyhole? There is simply no unifying, comprehensive narrative that pulls all this together that implies guilt. After 5 1/2 years no one has provided one.

Briars - you could be the first. Go for it!

Of course things happened once Filomena arrived, they had to, imagine had Raff kicked that door down and they discovered Meredith's body, if they were guilty, they would not be the ones kicking that door in, much better having someone do the deed for them and to top it off, if they did know what was behind that door, I highly doubt they would want to see it again. This may also explain why they were outside waiting for the police to arrive on a cold Nov morning, remember Amanda complaining about the cold an hour later when she had to borrow Raff's jacket and later find a car she could sit in because of the cold.

 

[GWCarver]

Don't forget to add, after all of that, about a half hour later when the door is finally broken down, they are nowhere to be seen, 'having already done their part'.

The police were there, and they refused to break down the door - they didn't even try. Maybe they are the real killers.

 

[Briars]

Massei's attempts to date the deposition of DNA run counter to an axiom of DNA forensics (he's a judge not a scientist, but I still think he should know better). The complete text of Ms Knox's second memoriale is in her book, and portions of it are found in Follain's book. Links to her two letters to her lawyers have just been provided. The facts contradict your assertions. The putative semen stain is at least as likely to be semen as the luminol-positive areas are likely to be blood. I recently demonstrated that confirmatory blood tests are roughly as sensitive as luminol; therefore, there is no excuse for not using one in the areas in Filomena's room.

I notice you dance around the deposit in Filomena's by using the uncertainty of mixed blood plus the stain that the defense brought up too late. What if it was only her DNA co-mixed in a random spot in Filomena's room. How did it get there? Not cohabitation.