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

[anglolawyer]

I can't link it right now, buts it's on Amanda's blog site.

If the Cops really had not seen Patricks SMS to Amanda, imagine their surprise when Patrick subsequently gave them basically the same innocent story about the SMS. What to do now? Oh, I know! We'll point out to matteini how incriminating it is that Amanda said the the message said "don't come because I'm closed" whereas Patrick said that it said "don't become because there aren't enough customers". And, low and behold, the dopey judge took the bait.

Also, they withheld the dna results. What would matteoni have looked like with matching, innocuous stories on the text message, and exculpatory dna results. I bet they wouldn't have gone to jail for a year.

If they hadn't seen it then it must have got into the 1.45 statement as a result of her telling them about it but that is not how she describes it. She was shown the message and then immediately 'saw' Lumumba in the Piazza etc. Her account is supported by Donnino who describes something similar.

What specific DNA results did they have by the 8th? In fact, by the 7th is more like it.

I don't know enough about US extradition to know if the US Government would agree. My understanding is that Italy files paperwork. The Department of State or Department of Justice verifies that the necessary claims and documents are provided. With that, a federal authority would take Amanda into custody in the Seattle area and detain her at a federal facility in the Seattle area. An attorney for Amanda immediately files a writ of habeas corpus (it's already prepared, just in case) compelling the government to demonstrate to the federal court probable cause to arrest her.

At that point 100 journalists, TV crews, and Entertainment Tonight descend on Seattle, the White House, Department of State, Department of Justice, and the Italian Embassy in Washington. Bill Clinton speaks up. The federal court holds a hearing, at which point some very heavy hitter attorneys, backed by ex-FBI homicide investigators and profilers, a forensic engineer, DNA experts, a former State Court judge, extradition attorneys, challenge the detention on grounds of double jeopardy, human rights violations, physical abuse, psychological torture, use of Reid technique, etc.

Who knows, maybe a courageous retired Italian judge named Hellman might appear in Seattle as an expert witness to testify to the court that the Italian process is corrupted (that should be worth a movie, don't you think?). Maybe the Grand Master of the Masons will appear? Perhaps Edgar Snowdon says the NSA has recordings of PLE phone conversations detailing wrongdoing and a conspiracy to frame an innocent American.

Then Donald Trumph calls for a boycott of Italy and acbytesla cancels his order for the Lamborghini. And London John stops cooking pasta and dirtying his kitchen wall. And I threaten to cut my daughter's allowance if she even thinks of buying Prada. And ten percent of the American students preparing to study in Italy next semester decide they would rather go to Paris instead.

Then some Seattle billionaires decide to fund the innocent project. And that movie is finally made. Starring Lindsey Lohan as Andrea Vogt. And Pussy Riot riots! Right before the next elections. And Obama says if he had a blond daughter, she'd look like Amanda and be born in America.

Then Mastercard rolls out the "Visit Italy" legal insurance credit card benefit, consisting of a wallet card in Italian asserting your legal rights and a silk hankie printed with a map showing escape routes over the Alps to neutral Switzerland - and I get royalties.

Then Dennis Rodman says he's taking his North Korean squad to play an exhibition game in Perugia. That's when the **** hits the fan!

Where was I?

Patrick had 2 phones, 2 different sims with nearley identical IDs (only 1 digit different as disclosed in Matteini). These phones were on the same plan so calls and texts would go to both phones. Divulged in an interview with Frank, one of the phones was always left at the bar. Outgoing texts would be saved only on the sending phone. The outgoing text could have been on the phone the police never found.

In that case there would have been no need for Patrick to testify (as he did) that he had delete sent messages to make room for new ones. Where do you get it from that one of his phones was not found?

I thought it was the motive that was irrelevant....so now its the Motive and TOD that are irrelevant? ok, I'm trying to follow here. What is relevant cartwheels?

It's a moving target.

snip

I mean, I like Anglos theory and all...I just find it hard to believe those associated with this case were that intelligent frankly. Sneaky, slippery and willing to act corruptly? Sure just like their mafia teachers...but some of this sounds like PGP claiming Knox is at once an idiot and a mastermind both. When what she was actually is simply a younger naive young girl.

snip

Well, take a pew alongside Grinder and Leila and others who find things hard to believe even after all the evidence has been laid out. Three times now, we find Amanda saying she was shown Lumumba's message. De Felice blurts out they found messages from him fixing a meeting (the bit Grinder dismisses because the journalist was sent to China).

The cops knew about the exchange of texts but not the content. They knew they meant something. They forced her to admit to a meeting they knew had taken place at around the time Meredith got home (Amanda was not sure whether Meredith was at home when she and Lumumba got there) and they had a message that said 'see you later'. They blotted out what did not fit. As you can't delete half a text, they only told Matteini about half of Amanda's message. It took a long time before the rest of it (have a good evening) was put in the record.

They lost/destroyed the tape too.

 

[Planigale]

Novelli and Balding are probably two among the three top experts of bio-statistical methods applied to DNA forensics in Europe,

Not sure how you get a top three? What is your methodology? Taking FRS as being a top expert I would suggest Steffen L Lauritzen FRS, Peter Donelly FRS, Peter Green FRS, I would allow David Balding (not yet FRS)… not even pushing out of England.

Novelli appears to be a medical geneticist. I could find no publications by him on bio-statistical methods applied to DNA forensics or indeed bio-statistical methods in genetics generally or in statistics. I found one paper by him on forensic genetics;
'Whole genome amplification and real-time PCR in forensic casework.
Giardina E., Pietrangeli I., Martone C., Zampatti S., Marsala P., Gabriele L., Ricci O., Solla G., Asili P., Arcudi G., Spinella A., Novelli G.
BMC Genomics. 10 , 2009. Article Number: 159.'
So this claim seems to be very doubtful. That you assert something does not make it true. The problem is that it starts reflecting on your veracity in other areas.

 

[RandyN]

I never heard a thing about TOD.... or how RG went dancing... or his Skype confession.... or RS computers last use.... in fact they left a lot of stuff out.

Yes well sadly you never heard much about any of it in the trial either since the defense failed miserably to impeach the police, RG or any lying witnesses in 5 or so trials so far.

The defendants would have lost the first appeal without Zanetti asking all the important questions.

They needed to hire Maurizio Paniz. He is not afraid of BS prosecutors like Mignini and company. Instead they had a pregnant political lawyer, a title and business attorney and local yokel from the Perugia corrupt squad. All nice guys and girls BTW...just rotten, inexperienced murder defense lawyers.

This case is a corrupt joke and yet no one can point out in court the thousand things wrong with it? GTHOOH!

 

[Mary_H]

It was a still from the cartoon, labelled "Prosecution's reconstruction".

Actually, it is labeled "Prosecution Evidence."

It's at 10:45: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1...-on-the-murder-of-meredith-kercher_shortfilms

ETA: I see Samson has already posted the link. Thank you, Samson.

 

[Mary_H]

Oh, and btw. not even Vogt could bring herself to mention Toto, Nara, Koko or Quint. How about that?

Four beautiful people from two different countries.

 

[Mary_H]

The theory of the police is they arranged to meet, they met, then the dirty black killed her. They only had the timings prior to the interrogations. They knew a key holder was involved. They knew there was no burglary. They knew (don't ask me how) a black guy was in there somewhere. They knew about Patrick: they exchanged texts, he called her at the questura the night of the 2nd and they met face to face the morning of the 5th. On a hunch they get them in and when they look at her phone - Eureka! 'See you later'! That drives everything else out. Case closed! Sign here. They aren't bothered that his message said don't come to work. They even put that in the statement. Read the statement. It's right there! Then there is time to reflect. They got her to say she lied to Raffaele. She fave him an alibi. Face palm! All this is corrected by 5.45. You don't follow your own logic Grinder. I just set out what they already knew to be true. What's your version?

If it's of any importance, Patrick says quite clearly in the BBC doc that he told Amanda not to come to work.

Incidentally, he speaks in French, the official language of Congo. More reason to believe he never gave that interview to Lady Antonia Whatsername.

 

[Antony]

Antony,

Quintavalle's statement is not exactly a contradiction of Amanda's alibi. The time of the attack cannot possibly be 7:45 AM on 2 November. Personally, I would restrict the use of the term "alibi" to cover only this range of times, but I am not sure whether my usage of the term is universal or not. Curatolo contradicted their alibi but gave them a different one. I suspect that the writers were studiously vague for a reason.

I agree. What they stated on the programme was "witnesses placed them at the crime scene", if I recall correctly.

Calling the cartoon a reconstruction is dubious at best.

Several prosecution assertions which are unsupported by evidence were included, in terms which suggested they were factual.

 

[anglolawyer]

If it's of any importance, Patrick says quite clearly in the BBC doc that he told Amanda not to come to work.

Incidentally, he speaks in French, the official language of Congo. More reason to believe he never gave that interview to Lady Antonia Whatsername.

Thanks Mary. There is no dispute from any quarter that he told her not to come to work. The point is: what became of the inconvenient text that did not say, 'let's meet and go kill/harass/have some fun with Meredith'.

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ - I remember your point and I got it at the time. What are the mechanical actions she would have to go through to delete this message? Good question. And when did she do it? Her account is she noticed the message and replied straightaway, no doubt delighted she did not have to go to work. She might have been sufficiently anal, I suppose, to have deleted the incoming text at once, but, if she didn't, then when did she? Did she habitually engage in deleting sessions, maybe first thing in the morning? When? Would the SIM card keep a trace of what happened to the message?

The other thing is that this was neither the first nor the last time she said she saw Patrick's message. She had already said so on 10 Nov when speaking to her mother and she said so again when giving evidence. She has been persuaded that she deleted the message but she is wrong. She is, even now, still trusting the cops. As are people on this forum.

I realise that what I'm about to say is personal, but when I used a similar-functioning mobile handset, I used to manage my text messages in exactly the way that I described earlier - and to me, such an approach seems wholly logical and probable.

What I used to do was this: I used to try to keep my inbox saved messages low, for memory-capacity reasons. Therefore, if I received a text message, I would read it, and if I didn't want/need to reply to it, I would simply select "delete" from the options that accompany the message.

However, if I wanted to reply to the message, I would select "reply" (and would therefore not select "delete"). This would generate a blank message addressed to the person to whom I wanted to reply, and I would compose and send the message. Crucially at this point, the phone would then - once it had sent the reply - go all the way back to the home screen, rather than returning to the original received message (from where I would now have been able to delete it quickly and easily).

So in practice what would happen is that I would gradually build up a residual collection of messages in my inbox folder, consisting entirely of messages that I had chosen to reply to rather than delete straight away. Personally speaking, I would then periodically (perhaps every couple of weeks) go through the laborious process of deleting all of these messages in order to free up capacity.

With all that in mind, I find it entirely feasible that Knox might have engaged in exactly the same sort of system. And if she had, then there's every chance that Lumumba's "Don't come in because the bar is empty" text would still have been present in her inbox folder, since she had indisputably chosen to reply to that message (with the acknowledgement of it and the "see you later" sign-off) rather than to read it and then delete it straight away.

 

[LondonJohn]

Here you go

And I completely agree that this is a faithful and accurate rendering of what Knox can be heard to say on the audio. It's easily clear enough to hear her say "...the message that I was sent on the phone".

So either Knox was honestly misremembering this element in that 17th December interrogation (about six weeks after the fact), or she was deliberately lying, or she was accurately remembering. Either way, it's now beyond doubt that she was indeed claiming that Lumumba's incoming message was on her handset at the time of the fateful 5th/6th November police interrogation.

 

[RoseMontague]

Thanks Mary. There is no dispute from any quarter that he told her not to come to work. The point is: what became of the inconvenient text that did not say, 'let's meet and go kill/harass/have some fun with Meredith'.

That is certainly implied in the second statement and just hinted at in the first. It is clear to me that the purpose of both statements is for Amanda to implicate Patrick. When she says in the second statement that she replied to his message by saying I will meet you it is pretty obvious that his message would have asked about meeting her. The fact that she was also told to say the bar was closed in the first message is also a key to the frame up. If he really said not many customers so don't bother coming in that would indicate he was not leaving the bar. For this reason the message Patrick sent vanishes and a witness appears saying the bar was closed when he walked by. Of course, to journalists the witness expanded on this saying he was so out of it he could not remember where he went after that. LOL.

Is this what you are getting at?

 

[LondonJohn]

And, by the way, it's probably time to revisit the issue of who first brought up Lumumba's name.

For me, the evidence clearly indicates that Knox had not saved Lumumba's number on her handset as a contact number. In other words, when she received calls or texts from Lumumba, what showed on her handset screen was nothing more than his mobile number - since she had not assigned a name to that number.

However, it's also clear to me that Knox recognised Lumumba's number as belonging to him - in other words, if she got a call or a text, and it just showed the number of the sender/caller (e.g. 01234 567890), she was familiar enough with the number to know immediately that it was Lumumba calling/texting. Indeed, it was very possibly this level of familiarity with the number that resulted in Knox not going to the trouble of assigning Lumumba's name to this number and saving the details as a contact.

And therefore, when the police found these messages on Knox's mobile phone, all they would have seen was the number of the sender/recipient. Not the name "Patrick" or "Lumumba" or "Bar" or "Le Chic" or anything. So it would have been entirely natural and obvious for the police to ask for the identity of the person whos number that was. And consequently it was almost axiomatic that Knox would have replied "Patrick Lumumba", and that therefore she would by definition have been the first person to actually say Lumumba's name.

But that's entirely different from the suggestion that Knox might have plucked Lumumba's name out of nowhere. It's totally clear to me that the police had decided that the sender/recipient of those text messages was a participant in the crime - it's just that they couldn't know exactly who that person was until Knox told them. Lumumba's phone was a pay-as-you-go SIM, and (by the sounds of it) it was procured in a somewhat dodgy manner. Both of those factors would almost certainly mean that nobody - whether the mobile operator or the police - would have been able to know the identity of the person who owned/used that SIM card.

So yes: Knox was the first person to say Lumumba's name in that 5th/6th November interrogation. But only because the police didn't - and couldn't - know the identity of the person whom they (the police) had already concluded (from their reading of the text messages) had interacted with Knox via text that night. So if Knox had had an identical exchange of texts with a totally different person on the night of the murder*, it's my belief that the police would have jumped to the belief that that person was involved in the murder.


* Say, for example, Knox had had the following text exchange with a female friend:

Friend to Knox: "Can't do anything tonight - having dinner with friends then might do some coursework. Some other time perhaps?"

Knox to Friend: "OK. No problem. Have a good evening. See you later"

If the Friend was not stored as a contact in Knox's phone, I believe that the police would have rushed to exactly the same sort of misguided conclusion that they did regarding Lumumba.

 

[LondonJohn]

Antony,

Quintavalle's statement is not exactly a contradiction of Amanda's alibi. The time of the attack cannot possibly be 7:45 AM on 2 November. Personally, I would restrict the use of the term "alibi" to cover only this range of times, but I am not sure whether my usage of the term is universal or not. Curatolo contradicted their alibi but gave them a different one. I suspect that the writers were studiously vague for a reason.

I see what you're saying. But it's still fair to say (in my opinion) that if Quintavalle's testimony was reliable and accurate, it would be a significant factor in favour of Knox's (and Sollecito's by extension) guilt.

After all, why would an innocent Knox lie about a visit to Quintavalle's store early on the morning after the murder (if such a visit had actually happened)? In my view, the court would be perfectly entitled to conclude that the only reason Knox would have to lie would be if this visit was in some way related to criminal activity (in this case, the purchase or attempted purchase of cleaning supplies to clean the murder scene). It's extremely hard to conceive of a reasonable scenario where an innocent Knox would need to lie about this visit.

So I would say that if the court accepted Quintavalle's testimony as reliable and accurate, then this - in and of itself - would go a significant way to indicating the guilt of Knox (and Sollecito). Of course, the reality is that Quintavalle's testimony doesn't stand up to any sort of reasonable scrutiny. It's simply not credible, given the circumstances and context within which it was generated. And again - sad to say - I think that the defence lawyers failed badly by failing to properly demonstrate the total unreliability of Quintavalle's testimony in Massei's court. Once they had failed in this first trial, I think they were always playing catch-up in challenging Quintavalle in subsequent trials.

 

[anglolawyer]

That is certainly implied in the second statement and just hinted at in the first. It is clear to me that the purpose of both statements is for Amanda to implicate Patrick. When she says in the second statement that she replied to his message by saying I will meet you it is pretty obvious that his message would have asked about meeting her. The fact that she was also told to say the bar was closed in the first message is also a key to the frame up. If he really said not many customers so don't bother coming in that would indicate he was not leaving the bar. For this reason the message Patrick sent vanishes and a witness appears saying the bar was closed when he walked by. Of course, to journalists the witness expanded on this saying he was so out of it he could not remember where he went after that. LOL.

Can you tell me more? We are talking about vulpano pasquale I think.

Is this what you are getting at?

Yes.

 

[LondonJohn]

If it's of any importance, Patrick says quite clearly in the BBC doc that he told Amanda not to come to work.

Incidentally, he speaks in French, the official language of Congo. More reason to believe he never gave that interview to Lady Antonia Whatsername.

He does indeed say it. What's more important though is whether the police knew that he'd said that at the time of the 5th/6th November interrogation of Knox - and whether they subsequently deleted the evidence showing that he had done so (and that this was the information to which Knox was specifically replying in her "see you later" text) in order to preserve their thesis that Knox and Lumumba were setting up a meeting for that evening.


Regarding the last para of your post, in my view it is beyond all doubt that Lumumba did give an interview to the Mail, and that in that interview he did very specifically and explicitly talk about receiving racial and physical abuse at the hands of the police. I say that because for all the deviousness of the UK press, it would be unthinkable for them to publish those sort of accusations against authorities without being certain of their provenance and authenticity.

In this instance, therefore, I am virtually certain that Lumumba's words are on tape - a tape that will have been listened to by the Mail's lawyers. And on that tape, I believe that Lumumba says exactly those words that are attributed directly to him in the article. I am guessing that he didn't speak them in English (and whether he spoke them in French or Italian is somewhat moot), but I am certain that the English translation will have been triple-checked for accuracy.

It's inconceivable that the Mail would not have sought to protect itself legally in this way before publishing that story, in my opinion.

 

[katy_did]

And I completely agree that this is a faithful and accurate rendering of what Knox can be heard to say on the audio. It's easily clear enough to hear her say "...the message that I was sent on the phone".

So either Knox was honestly misremembering this element in that 17th December interrogation (about six weeks after the fact), or she was deliberately lying, or she was accurately remembering. Either way, it's now beyond doubt that she was indeed claiming that Lumumba's incoming message was on her handset at the time of the fateful 5th/6th November police interrogation.

Or she simply phrased it wrongly. To me it seems clear from the context she's talking about the message she sent to Lumumba, not the one he sent to her, because this is the message they were showing her immediately before she said Patrick's name. If there was nothing incriminating in the message - which there wouldn't have been if all it said was 'don't come into work' - why would they be showing it to her as proof she was lying? On the other hand, we know they misinterpreted the message she sent to him to mean they'd arranged a meeting, so it makes sense they would be showing her that message as they claimed she was lying about not going out, that she'd really met up with someone - the person she sent the message to.

Even if she didn't delete the message immediately, it seems likely she would have needed to do so over the next few days because she was getting so many calls and text messages about Meredith's murder. And really it's just hard to see she would've forgotten them showing her both Patrick's message and her message to Patrick, if it happened (and hard to see why the police would have deleted it also - there's no indication at this stage they didn't genuinely think they'd caught the murderers).

 

[anglolawyer]

And I completely agree that this is a faithful and accurate rendering of what Knox can be heard to say on the audio. It's easily clear enough to hear her say "...the message that I was sent on the phone".

So either Knox was honestly misremembering this element in that 17th December interrogation (about six weeks after the fact), or she was deliberately lying, or she was accurately remembering. Either way, it's now beyond doubt that she was indeed claiming that Lumumba's incoming message was on her handset at the time of the fateful 5th/6th November police interrogation.

And let's just add these two further instances, the first from a taped call to her mother on 10 Nov 2007 and the second in her trial testimony:

I said … that what happened was that everyone had left the room, at that moment one of the police officers had said: ‘I’m the only one that can save you, I’m the only one that can save you. Just give me a name.’ And I said: ‘I don’t know!’ And then they said, I said: ‘can you show me the message that I received from Patrick? Because I don’t remember having replied to him, and so they showed me the message and then I had said: ‘Patrick’. And then I thought of Patrick, of seeing Patrick, and so I thought that I had completely lost my mind, and I imagined him um of seeing him and ..

and

AK: … the interrogation process was very long and difficult. Arriving in the police office, I didn’t expect to be interrogated at all. When I got there, I was sitting on my own doing my homework, when a couple of police officers came to sit with me. They began to ask me the same questions that they had been asking me days…all these days ever since it happened. For instance, who could I imagine could be the person who killed Meredith, and I said I still didn’t know, and so what they did is, they brought me into another interrogation room. Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night. They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message, they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn’t remember doing. That’s when they started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone.

And to save poor old Grinder from slogging all the way over to Ground Report, here is the clincher from De Felice at the famous press conference:

"She crumbled. She confessed. There were holes in her alibi. Her mobile phone records were crucial."

He said Knox’s claims that she was elsewhere had been demonstrated to be false. The police found text messages on her phone from Lumumba, fixing a meeting between them at 8.35pm on the night Miss Kercher died.

Caso chiuso - except for the 'I really can't believe anyone would do such a thing' brigade which presently numbers Grinder, Randy and Leila among its members.

ETA - and Katy_did

 

[katy_did]

AK: … the interrogation process was very long and difficult. Arriving in the police office, I didn’t expect to be interrogated at all. When I got there, I was sitting on my own doing my homework, when a couple of police officers came to sit with me. They began to ask me the same questions that they had been asking me days…all these days ever since it happened. For instance, who could I imagine could be the person who killed Meredith, and I said I still didn’t know, and so what they did is, they brought me into another interrogation room. Once I was in there, they asked me to repeat everything that I had said before, for instance what I did that night. They asked me to see my phone, which I gave to them, and they were looking through my phone, which is when they found the message. When they found the message, they asked me if I had sent a message back, which I didn’t remember doing. That’s when they started being very hard with me. They called me a stupid liar, and they said that I was trying to protect someone.

Anglo, this one also works if you assume the message they found was the one Amanda sent to Patrick: they found her message, asked her if she'd replied (i.e. getting her to confirm or deny the fact she'd sent it, which they already knew she had), then when she denied it they thought they'd caught her in a lie and started accusing her of protecting someone, i.e. whoever she'd sent that message to. Before that point they'd been asking her what she did that evening, asking her to go through it hour by hour, so they probably had already got her to say she was supposed to work but that Patrick sent her a message saying she didn't have to (which is when they checked her phone and found the sent message, but not the incoming message which she'd suspiciously deleted...)

Besides, if she remembered seeing Patrick's message in her phone during her trial testimony, a year and a half after the interrogation, wouldn't she also remember it now?

 

[RoseMontague]

Can you tell me more? We are talking about vulpano pasquale I think.

the important thing was having a killer fit, so that when released the name of the Lumumba was recovered once a super-swift witness stated that the night of the murder managed by the local Zairean was closed. Il suo nome fu inserito nell'ordinanza d'arresto e lui fu cercato da tutti i giornalisti, giornalisti ai quali rilasciò questa dichiarazione: " Sì, mi pare che quella sera il locale fosse chiuso. Io verso le 19 sono uscito di casa e mi sembra che il portone del 'Le Chic' fosse chiuso. Fino a quando? Non so. Non mi ricordo cosa ho fatto quella sera ". His name was inserted in the order of arrest and he was sought by all journalists, to which journalists released this statement: "Yes, I think that that night the restaurant was closed. I pour the 19 I left home and I seems that the door of 'Le Chic' was closed. long? I do not know. I do not remember what I did tonight. " E grazie a lui tutti a giocare al " Dagli al Lumumba ", anche perché chi aveva passato quella maledetta serata nel suo locale ad ogni interrogatorio perdeva l'uso della memoria ed anticipava gli orari di uscita. And all thanks to him play "From the Lumumba", because those who had passed the damn evening at his club lost to every interrogation memory usage times and anticipated output.

LOL.

http://albatros-volandocontrovento.blogspot.com/2011/09/amanda-knox-se-la-knox-ed-il-sollecito.html
There were one or two other cites on this as well and I will try and track them down.

 

[RoseMontague]

Quote from Matteini...

Also as regards the text of the message that the suspect sent to the 20.30 to Amanda there are discrepancies between what is reported by the girl and what the predicted; Indeed while the girl spoke of a message which was that the local sights would remained closed and therefore should not have to go to work, Patrick say they have written that evening there was no need of its few customers collaborative absence.
This may seem like a fact of little importance when in reality it is not absence a substantial difference between the two messages, it is likely that Patrick had intended actually not to open the room thinking that you can spend the night with Meritith, then, since the evolution of facts, has seen fit to open the pub for specially established an alibi."