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

[LondonJohn]

The only thing laughable here is your attempt to deal with (ignore) the Bracchi - advanced state of digestion issue with a wall of text/your informed opinion.

But carry on – there may be another 25% correction in the offing

.

What on Earth are you talking about?

Are you not aware that the testimony of Bracchi that you quoted entirely supports the assertion that Meredith Kercher was killed between 9pm and 10.30pm? (And that it also strongly tends to refute the claim that Meredith Kercher died any time after 10.30pm.

Shall I go through the maths for you? (I thought it was simple arithmetic, but I guess there's no accounting for below-average maths skills):

Meredith started eating the pizza meal at some time between 6pm and 6.30pm.

6pm + 3 hours = 9pm
6pm + 4 hours = 10pm
6.30pm + 3 hours = 9.30pm
6.30pm + 4 hours = 10.30pm.

So perhaps the class can tell us the answer to the following: if the food matter in the victim's stomach was of 3 to 4 hours' digestion, and the victim started her meal at some time between 6pm and 6.30pm, at what time did digestion stop?

Hey, let's make it a multiple choice!

Here goes! Is the correct answer:

a) Between 9pm and 10.30pm

b) Between 9pm and 11.30pm

c) Between 10.30pm and 11.45pm

d) Knox is guilty, the bitch! None of this matters!


Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

 

[platonov]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Are you not aware that the testimony of Bracchi that you quoted entirely supports the assertion that Meredith Kercher was killed between 9pm and 10.30pm? (And that it also strongly tends to refute the claim that Meredith Kercher died any time after 10.30pm.

Shall I go through the maths for you? (I thought it was simple arithmetic, but I guess there's no accounting for below-average maths skills):

Meredith started eating the pizza meal at some time between 6pm and 6.30pm.

6pm + 3 hours = 9pm
6pm + 4 hours = 10pm
6.30pm + 3 hours = 9.30pm
6.30pm + 4 hours = 10.30pm.

So perhaps the class can tell us the answer to the following: if the food matter in the victim's stomach was of 3 to 4 hours' digestion, and the victim started her meal at some time between 6pm and 6.30pm, at what time did digestion stop?

Hey, let's make it a multiple choice!

Here goes! Is the correct answer:

a) Between 9pm and 10.30pm

b) Between 9pm and 11.30pm

c) Between 10.30pm and 11.45pm

d) Knox is guilty, the bitch! None of this matters!


Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

I would say
a or b but mostly (part of) d

Drop the word bitch and emphasize the bolded part.

 

[Matthew Best]

And yet you keep arguing it. I wonder why.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Errrr what???

1) Why would Knox get in league with Guede - a man whom there is zero evidence that she had ever done more than exchange pleasantries with in mixed company - to steal the rent money of her housemate?

I'll just add to this that they didn't even have a common language. Amanda's Italian was very poor at this time and Guede's English was nonexistent.

I guess they could have worked out a burglary plot in sign language, or charades, or something.

 

[RoseMontague]

You might find it very interesting and instructive to read accounts of Filomena's words and actions in the immediate aftermath of the murder. The evidence shows that uppermost in Filomena's mind was also the question of the rent and the accommodation situation. Then you might reconsider your ill-judged and unsceptical interpretation of Knox's concern about rent/accommodation. You might also (though probably not) come to realise that your analysis of the entire case is predicated on confirmation bias and willful misinterpretation of evidence, dominated by your a priori assumption that Knox (and Sollecito) is culpable for involvement in the murder.

Yes. The transcript of the intercepted call between her and Filomena shows that it was actually Filomena talking to the rental agency and discussing the rental contract with her lawyers.

 

[Strozzi]

What on Earth are you talking about?

Are you not aware that the testimony of Bracchi that you quoted entirely supports the assertion that Meredith Kercher was killed between 9pm and 10.30pm? (And that it also strongly tends to refute the claim that Meredith Kercher died any time after 10.30pm.

Shall I go through the maths for you? (I thought it was simple arithmetic, but I guess there's no accounting for below-average maths skills):

Meredith started eating the pizza meal at some time between 6pm and 6.30pm.

6pm + 3 hours = 9pm
6pm + 4 hours = 10pm
6.30pm + 3 hours = 9.30pm
6.30pm + 4 hours = 10.30pm.

So perhaps the class can tell us the answer to the following: if the food matter in the victim's stomach was of 3 to 4 hours' digestion, and the victim started her meal at some time between 6pm and 6.30pm, at what time did digestion stop?

Hey, let's make it a multiple choice!

Here goes! Is the correct answer:

a) Between 9pm and 10.30pm

b) Between 9pm and 11.30pm

c) Between 10.30pm and 11.45pm

d) Knox is guilty, the bitch! None of this matters!


Anyone? Bueller? Bueller? Anyone?

LondonJohn, I'm stumped and if I get it wrong it will show that I'm a dunce. Will you make this an "open book" test?

 

[Dan O.]

at this time and Guede's English was nonexistent.

I hate to inflict this on you but I seem to have no other way to show you the truth.

 

[RoseMontague]

And yet you keep arguing it. I wonder why.

I don't. It is obvious that 9-10PM is your window for TOD. It is also pretty obvious that some posters are trying to get a reaction rather than a discussion.

 

[Strozzi]

Yes. The transcript of the intercepted call between her and Filomena shows that it was actually Filomena talking to the rental agency and discussing the rental contract with her lawyers.

In fact, Filomena understood what losing access to her home meant. So much so that against police orders to stay out she dashed back into her room to grab her laptop, possibly disturbing glass particles and maybe stepping on/smearing the dirt shoeprint that Rudy's shoe left on the floor near her laptop.

 

[Matthew Best]

I don't. It is obvious that 9-10PM is your window for TOD. It is also pretty obvious that some posters are trying to get a reaction rather than a discussion.

The guilter position seems to be: it doesn't matter if you can prove that Kercher was killed when Knox was elsewhere, she is guilty so she must have managed it somehow, even if it was physically impossible. She's a witch after all.

 

[JREF2010]

I don't think there's any chance whatsoever that Guede will ever now say the truth: that he was the sole assailant, and that neither Knox nor Sollecito had anything to do with it.

If he was allowed to move away from Italy, tempted with loads of money, I wouldnt put it past him to tell the real story.

It would be hard to believe no doubt, but wouldnt it explain a lot of questions like the bathroom mat and the smeared blood on the light switch. etc..etc.. ?

I dont know the stats on confessions of murderer's, who've been given the Fast Food Track option though...released in a few short years with a free college degree. I think even John Kercher had asked Rudy to tell the truth at one point, while Maresca had defended Rudy from speaking in Hellmans courtroom. right?

 

[Desert Fox]

RandyN, I believe a blockbuster movie showing the truth from the defendants' view is the most effective tool. Just think of the chilling interrogation scenes, with Mignini and Giobbi in the control room listening live to the interrogation - you know, the interrogation that was not recorded. Translate it into multiple languages. If it is done well, 150 million educated people will see it.

Think of the scene that took place in the street outside Hellman's court when he acquitted the defendants. The men in the crowd shouting "Vergogna" (shame) for not convicting them. Show that true news footage - then zoom in on the faces and match them to snapshots of actual Perugia police officers.

I agree that a movie would be the best tool to get people convinced

 

[sunmaster14]

We'll never know more than what the evidence tells us

If he was allowed to move away from Italy, tempted with loads of money, I wouldnt put it past him to tell the real story.

It would be hard to believe no doubt, but wouldnt it explain a lot of questions like the bathroom mat and the smeared blood on the light switch. etc..etc.. ?

I dont know the stats on confessions of murderer's, who've been given the Fast Food Track option though...released in a few short years with a free college degree. I think even John Kercher had asked Rudy to tell the truth at one point, while Maresca had defended Rudy from speaking in Hellmans courtroom. right?

At this point, I doubt he can recall the whole truth. Human memories are notoriously fragile and malleable. There is scientific evidence that every time one accesses a memory, it changes. On top of that Guede is probably a psychopath, which no doubt exacerbates the problem of confabulation. I suppose he probably still knows that Knox/Sollecito were not there and had nothing to do with the murder, but his sincere recollection of the evening probably deviates greatly from the truth at this point.

 

[Strozzi]

If he was allowed to move away from Italy, tempted with loads of money, I wouldnt put it past him to tell the real story.

It would be hard to believe no doubt, but wouldnt it explain a lot of questions like the bathroom mat and the smeared blood on the light switch. etc..etc.. ?

I dont know the stats on confessions of murderer's, who've been given the Fast Food Track option though...released in a few short years with a free college degree. I think even John Kercher had asked Rudy to tell the truth at one point, while Maresca had defended Rudy from speaking in Hellmans courtroom. right?

Rudy submitted to interrogation for 7 hours in the presence of his lawyer by Mignini for 7 hours. What did he say and when did he say it? Was the transcript of his interrogation provided to Amanda's and Raffaele's defense attorneys?

 

[Desert Fox]

Yes, but he also said he was innocent as well.

In many cases the first statements are the best to us in my opinion
In his fist skype call, he admitted to being there but tried to minimize it.
Good example, you get pulled over and the cop asks "How fast were you were going"
Speed limit is 50 and you respond 55 or 60 even though you were doing 70.
You are trying to minimize it.
More important though is that he does not place Amanda there at all.
Otherwise, he would simply have gone "Amanda and some guy did it, I tried to save her life."

 

[js202]

No, this is incorrect. Rudy steals MK's cash and kills her (inadvertently or not) takes off in a panic. Amanda finds her body later that night or in the early morning. Ultimately, she finds Rudy's poop and she knows that it is his. She decided that the poop is the smoking gun that will set her free from the mess that she is in (her plan to have Rudy steal MK's cash and stage a break in while she is at work with an alibi). AK locks MK's door and cleans up any visible blood in the hallway and doors. She needs to do this so that she can setup the discovery of Rudy's poop in the bathroom so that she can show it to the police as soon as they arrive. In Amanda's mind, this is THE evidence that will exculpate her. Once the police find this, she thinks she will be in the clear. How does she find it?? She comes home, needing to "take a shower". This shower in turn, leads her to the other bathroom because she needs to blowdry her hair, which leads to the discovery of Rudy's poop. This is the evidence that is finally causes her to panic and call the police. Police see the poop and in Amanda's mind, she is free and clear. She could not have been involved. The poop, for Amanda, was the most important piece of evidence and she needed to be the first to discover it before her roommates came home to flush it away. That is why she decides to take the shower and call the police. The blood in the bathroom is just enough to add to the escalating evidence of a breakin. Open door, a little blood, stranger's feces in the toilet >> call police and show them the poop. And what was her motive in planning a fake robbery with Rudy? She wanted to break her contract with the landlord so that she could move in with Raff (for free rent) who she had met just 2 weeks prior, someone with a nice apartment and money to spend on her. Motive was clearly money for both of them. A plan gone completely awry. And AK also staged the breakin and the rape scene to point everything to Rudy. Read Amanda's email home on Nov 4. Her motive is there in the last paragraph, it is very telling of her mindset. "Secondly, we are going to talk to the agency that we used to find our house and obviously request to move out." And she also says: "It kind of sucks that we have to pay the next months rent, but the owner has protection within the contract." Wow, her supposed friend just died and she is concerned with a months rent. Callous, insensitive, and selfish. Keep reading that sentence and think about how many times Amanda repeats "my friend" in her book.

I read this as parody. Was that your intent?

 

[Matthew Best]

I read this as parody. Was that your intent?

You've heard of Poe's Law, I take it?

 

[Desert Fox]

It is not a picture of someone who is traumatized, when an event like this SHOULD be. Most of Meredith's friends quit school and went home!! She is not concerned about a murder that happened to her roommate where she lived? She is not traumatized, concerned about safety with a killer on the loose? No, she is only concerned with her original motive - moving in with Raff for free rent. If my "friend" just got brutally killed, I would certainly not complain to the whole world about having to pay an extra month's rent. I am pointing out her frame of mind - it is not concerned with other people, only hers.

One of my brothers died a few years ago. . . .He had a little money in his estate. Yes, the family discussed the status of the money.
Ultimately, life has to go on and practical matters and practical matters intrude.

Tell you one even closer to now. I had to put my dog to sleep last week.
Had her since around 2000 and she had been my walking companion for many years. Wasn't doing well the last couple of days. Could have taken her to a vet Thursday but waited an extra day until almost first thing Friday morning to take her to Animal Control because they are far cheaper.

 

[js202]

It is not a picture of someone who is traumatized, when an event like this SHOULD be. Most of Meredith's friends quit school and went home!! She is not concerned about a murder that happened to her roommate where she lived? She is not traumatized, concerned about safety with a killer on the loose? No, she is only concerned with her original motive - moving in with Raff for free rent. If my "friend" just got brutally killed, I would certainly not complain to the whole world about having to pay an extra month's rent. I am pointing out her frame of mind - it is not concerned with other people, only hers.

How do you explain that Ms. Knox's bank account was flush with cash, more than sufficient to pay her rent at the cottage for the remainder of her time there? Rather inconvenient to any preposterous theory that Ms. Knox hired Rudy Guede to rob Ms. Kercher, no? (!!)

Is your theory that Ms. Knox was also the engineer behind Guede's previous break-ins in Perugia and Milan? Do you realize this is groundless lunacy?

 

[katy_did]

At this point, I doubt he can recall the whole truth. Human memories are notoriously fragile and malleable. There is scientific evidence that every time one accesses a memory, it changes. On top of that Guede is probably a psychopath, which no doubt exacerbates the problem of confabulation. I suppose he probably still knows that Knox/Sollecito were not there and had nothing to do with the murder, but his sincere recollection of the evening probably deviates greatly from the truth at this point.

There was quite an interesting article posted on IIP a while back about Guede, by one of the Spanish people who knew him in Perugia. Unfortunately it's in Spanish, but from what I can make out it describes the various lies he was telling (almost a fantasy life) even before the murder. I believe it also mentions he kept quite a number of computers in his room, which is odd given his lack of income...

It wouldn't surprise me if he'd almost convinced himself he isn't responsible for the murder at this point. Certainly, as you say, his memory of it would probably deviate greatly from the reality.