I had hoped to find an organized response to the Abrams' piece. I disagree that it is a healthy exercise in skeptical inquiry. Skeptical inquiry does not involve putting forth unlikely theories and then supporting the theories with a misleading description of the evidence.
A long time friend of mine wrote me and linked to the article. I wanted to just send him a link to a response so he could decide how interested he was and how much he wanted to read. I didn't find that response, so I wrote him a fairly long response that very well might have exceeded his interest level. This is what I wrote him:
[Critiques, corrections and references will be appreciated]
Hi ,
On the story you linked to:
I was hoping to find an organized rebuttal. The article is horribly misleading while perhaps just treading inside the line of absolute false hood.
A small example, The shop owner that testified that he had seen them the day following the murder:
This was part of the police claim that Knox and Sollecito had used bleach to clean up the apartment and that they had bought bleach from this guy. Except: There is no evidence of crime scene clean up with or without bleach and especially a crime scene clean up by Knox and Sollecito. The man that allegedly saw them couldn't produce a receipt for their purchases, his employees denied that they were in the shop, it is unlikely that the man could have recognized Knox at all given how short a time she had been in town and the man didn't come forward until he was contacted by a journalist months after the murder.
Abrams' theory that they might not have murdered Kercher but were in the apartment when the murder occurred is total crap. First, although it is not generally known to the general public Knox and Sollecito have a pretty good alibi for when it is very likely the murder occurred. The autopsy showed that none of Kercher's last meal had entered her intestines before she was killed. Based on what I've read and tend to believe about this fact, the time of death had to be before 10 PM and it is very unlikely that it was that late. Guede's time of arrival which can be roughly established because he was caught on camera and because he mention's a woman's scream at 9:20 PM. Altogether the evidence suggests a time of death somewhat earlier than 9:30 a time at which an analysis of Sollecito's computer activity suggests that somebody was in Sollecito's apartment, presumably Sollecito and Knox.
But the most important reason to reject Abrams theory is that it is from crazy land. There is no evidence that Sollecito knew Guede at all and the evidence is that Knox had only the briefest of interactions with Guede when he visited the apartment before the murders and perhaps in the bar where she worked. There are no telephone calls between Knox and Guede or Sollecito and Guede that show up in any of their phone logs. So Abrams theory is that two young lovers who have just met, find themselves in an apartment where a brutal murder is being committed and they decide to hide the fact from the police? With what possible motivation? There is none unless one decides that despite all the evidence to the contrary Knox and Sollecito are not what they seem to be and they were involved in some sort of conspiracy with Guede. But this is a conspiracy for which there is zero evidence and which is completely out of character for Knox and Sollecito as demonstrated by their lives before and after the crime.
It is hard for me to edit myself with regard to this post. I doubt that you have enough interest in the case for me to justify a long response, which is the reason that I was hoping to find an organized response to Abrams' article that you could read or not read at your leisure. There is also the problem that you should be rightly skeptical of information that I supply since I have a strong point of view about this and without providing the references to back up what I claim here there is, from your point of view, good reason to be skeptical of what I claim.
There are strong arguments against the reliability and interpretation of the evidence that has been put forth against Sollecito and Knox and I can't even summarize those briefly enough to include them in this email but one thing I noticed since I have been reading and thinking about this case is this: Guede went dancing and actually stayed in town for a few days after the murder. If he had accomplices or in Abrams' theory possibly uninvolved witnesses wouldn't the fear of his accomplices turning on him or the witnesses just talking to the police cause him to flee immediately?
The aspect of this case that might interest psychologist [friend's name] the most is the alleged Knox confession. This is not a confession at all. After hours of interrogation the police ask Knox to imagine that she is at the crime scene with Lumumba, the man she is charged with falsely accusing. Knox complies and manages to produce a story about being in the apartment as Kercher is murdered and covering her ears with her hands to block out the sound of the screams. When the police manage to extract this bogus statement from Knox they announce that they have solved the crime and they have proof that the people that they thought were guilty are guilty. Except that Lumumba, the man that they coerced Knox into naming has an airtight alibi. So they were wrong about Lumumba, but instead of considering the possibility that they were wrong completely they create a fantasy scenario that Guede the obvious murderer had accomplices and those accomplices had to be Knox and Sollecito. As an aside, after a full night of sleep Knox makes a written statement where she completely withdraws everything that she had said the night before about Lumumba.
This is some information about Guede, the actual murderer:
http://murderofmeredithkercher.com/merediths-killer-rudy-guede/[qimg]https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/images/cleardot.gif[/qimg]
