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

Status
Not open for further replies.
AmyStrange said:
-


-

What's James Randi's opinion on this whole matter?

Is it feasible to try and get him to write up a press release expressing his opinion with a link to a new petition when the time would be calculated to do the most good?

d

PS Senator Marie Cantwell from Washington State has already gone on record with this so maybe that is another alternative method?
-
Click to expand...

Being that he is a doctor, might we consider get Steve Novella interested as well.
 
Samson said:
Amanda is asked and confirms on her blog the the ILE tested all their clothing for blood, and could find no missing clothes. This all stands to reason.
There is a long list of missing evidence, much of it to be deduced because it would have been produced.
1. Blood on their possessions.
2. Anything incriminatory in their tapped communications.
3. Evidence of communication with Guede.
4. Motive
5. Evasive behaviour after the crime.
6. Criminal history.
7. Financial stress.
8. CCTV footage at the time of the crime.
9. Witnesses presenting in a timely fashion.
10. Footprints in the bedroom.
11. Meaningful evidence the break in could have been simulated from inside.

I would suggest one or more of above to be necessary ingredients in a safe conviction.
Click to expand...

Samson, let me add to that that Amanda and Raffaele were closely inspected upon arrest and had no physical injuries - no scratches, bruises, cuts, scrapes, pulled hair, blackeye, fat or bloody lip. Rudy sliced the underside of his fingers which is an injury occuring when a gripping hand slips along a knife blade.
 
Linda Kasabian and other speculative psychological crap

-

Samson said:
Amanda is asked and confirms on her blog the the ILE tested all their clothing for blood, and could find no missing clothes. This all stands to reason.
There is a long list of missing evidence, much of it to be deduced because it would have been produced.
1. Blood on their possessions.
2. Anything incriminatory in their tapped communications.
3. Evidence of communication with Guede. 4. Motive5. Evasive behaviour after the crime.
6. Criminal history.
7. Financial stress.
8. CCTV footage at the time of the crime.
9. Witnesses presenting in a timely fashion.
10. Footprints in the bedroom.
v
I would suggest one or more of above to be necessary ingredients in a safe conviction.
Click to expand...
-

Thank you Samson,

from a purely psychological point of view, to me, if they're guilty, I wish I had been a fly on the wall watching this unfold.

What the FREAKIN'ELL were they thinking?

Drug use to the point it escalated to three people psychologically agreeing to kill someone, and then after the drugs wear off, two of them not ratting each other out or even leaving any evidence behind except a bra clasp that has three other unique DNA identities on it also, collected 6 weeks after the first forensic collection in a very three stooges way?

AND in six days no less, and a language barrier that could choke a horse?

I've done a lot of research on serial killers and even some spree killers and even know a lot about basic homicide investigation theory but the only time I've seen the above even close to happening or even theorized was the Norfolk Four, and that's equally unbelievable to me.

The only other example that comes close is the Charles Manson case, but most of those people knew each other for more than six days... except Linda Kasabian... hmmm? Although, I believe she knew them for more than six days.

What was going on in her head while all that was going on, plus she was such a quiet person? She must have had one hell of a fascinating psychology going on in her head at the time.

Motive may not be needed for most people, but that's what psychologist and criminal profilers live for, or so I've heard. I'd like to know myself. I'd rather discuss that than any old timeline.

If Raffaele and Amanda are guilty, what in hell were they and Rudy thinking? A drug escalation doesn't apply unless you are willing to explain why AFTER the drug escalated them, why is it still escalating them?

And if it's drug escalation, you also then can't use Amanda's weird behavior as proof, because the drugs would explain it.

And let's talk about Amanda's weird behavior for a minute. I know I personally think she looks creepy, but that and weird behavior after someone dies is not proof of a thing.

What I want to see as proof of this is a video from every single GUMPer here who believes weird behavior after death proves guilt, a video from the last funeral and wake you went to that shows how every person that attended acted normally,
d

PS Mariners won again... I know it's still spring training, but I see some definite improvement in the hitting department... could be a good year for the Mariners... Can you say possible World Series winners here?
-
 
anglolawyer said:
Dan

I am totally confused about Patrick and his phone(s). Did he have one or two? If two, did the cops find them both or not? If not, why not (rhetorical - unless you happen to know)? I bet that second phone was hidden together with the knife in his kitchen drawer where nobody would ever think to look.
Click to expand...


What I know is that Patrick had one phone that he always kept at the bar (according to his interview with Frank). The police found only one phone that had adifferent (nearly sequential) sim than the sim that he sent the text exchange with.

I remember reading in an interview with Frank that Patrick had two phones on the same number. This however might be an extrapolation from an old google-fish translation of the same article. I had confirmed though that such a plan was available from Patrick's provider at the time.
 
An Open Post to Sherlock Holmes

-

You've downgraded Raffaele and Amanda from murdering Meredith to just being involved somehow because of some of London John's arguements, and this is what I'm assuming is your current belief, and hopefully I'm correct?

Because, I'm using that as my beginning assumption as follows:

To me the TOD probabilities proving it was as early as 9:30 or earlier, does not preclude Amanda sneaking over later after Rudy theoretically gets rid of the cells at 10:15 (and coming down from the adrenalin high from killing Meredith or trying to keep her alive or whatever, and then realizing he's busted anyway, and deciding to go back to look for more cash and maybe a little more heave ho) and comes back, and while he's doing that behind Meredith's locked door, Amanda comes to grab something she's forgotten or wants and hears really scary noises coming from behind Meredith's door, and being scared enough by them to just leave and go back and not say anything to Raffaele because he was kind of dozing in and out at the time, and he didn't even realize she was gone. I've watched Amelie while smoking some pot and I found myself dozing a couple times also.

She jimmied the door so she could get back in quickly, as I've done in a few apartment buildings with a front door that locks automatically (if I couldn't find a back door to do it to), and when she got back, for some reason didn't tell Raffaele and once she decided that, she couldn't back up on it for obvious reasons.

To me, it explains some of the odd video behavior of Amanda because to me she looks like she's got a lot on her mind while Raffaele is trying to hug and give her little love kisses outside her apartment.

Plus, it kind of explains her confession/ accusation/ statement better than anything else I've heard or read anywhere else,

Thank you SH for at least keeping the skeptical (Spidey) senses open for tingly skepticism,

d

-
 
Last edited:
Generally, gut instincts are actually bad when judging people. Better to go with what the evidence actually shows. People just sometimes act weird and making too much of it just leads to blind alleys. Everything I have read about serial killers is that many are extremely personable.

I can create some kind of story narrative where the Norfolk Four are somehow involved in the murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko, maybe Danial Williams witnessed the murder or walked in and saw the body. Maybe, but that is basically just idle speculation. The fact is that the DNA evidence simply does not support him at the crime.

The cops much of seen some type of strange behavior so that they interrogated him for so many hours after all.
 
Last edited:
Exactly D

-

Desert Fox said:
Generally, gut instincts are actually bad when judging people. Better to go with what the evidence actually shows. People just sometimes act weird and making too much of it just leads to blind alleys. Everything I have read about serial killers is that many are extremely personable.

I can create some kind of story narrative where the Norfolk Four are somehow involved in the murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko, maybe Danial Williams witnessed the murder or walked in and saw the body. Maybe, but that is basically just idle speculation. The fact is that the DNA evidence simply does not support him at the crime.

The cops much of seen some type of strange behavior so that they interrogated him for so many hours after all.
Click to expand...
-

Speculative psychological crap maybe MIGHT give you something to go on when you've got nothing else, but once the REAL evidence points somewhere else, you have to be able to depersonalize or re-evaluate what your feelings tell you...

Otherwise what's to stop any of us (or all of us or a select powerful group) from going all Minority Report and locking everyone or anyone who looks like a killer or criminal up... just in case... and screw REAL justice,

d

-
 
AmyStrange said:
-

You've downgraded Raffaele and Amanda from murdering Meredith to just being involved somehow because of some of London John's arguements, and this is what I'm assuming is your current belief, and hopefully I'm correct?

Because, I'm using that as my beginning assumption as follows:

To me the TOD probabilities proving it was as early as 9:30 or earlier, does not preclude Amanda sneaking over later after Rudy theoretically gets rid of the cells at 10:15 (and coming down from the adrenalin high from killing Meredith or trying to keep her alive or whatever, and then realizing he's busted anyway, and deciding to go back to look for more cash and maybe a little more heave ho) and comes back, and while he's doing that behind Meredith's locked door, Amanda comes to grab something she's forgotten or wants and hears really scary noises coming from behind Meredith's door, and being scared enough by them to just leave and go back and not say anything to Raffaele because he was kind of dozing in and out at the time, and he didn't even realize she was gone. I've watched Amelie while smoking some pot and I found myself dozing a couple times also.

She jimmied the door so she could get back in quickly, as I've done in a few apartment buildings with a front door that locks automatically (if I couldn't find a back door to do it to), and when she got back, for some reason didn't tell Raffaele and once she decided that, she couldn't back up on it for obvious reasons.

To me, it explains some of the odd video behavior of Amanda because to me she looks like she's got a lot on her mind while Raffaele is trying to hug and give her little love kisses outside her apartment.

Plus, it kind of explains her confession/ accusation/ statement better than anything else I've heard or read anywhere else,

Thank you SH for at least keeping the skeptical (Spidey) senses open for tingly skepticism,

d

-
Click to expand...

Perhaps having the girl in the room next to her raped and murdered when she has just moved to a foreign country might explain why she was a little distracted?
 
Planigale said:
Perhaps having the girl in the room next to her raped and murdered when she has just moved to a foreign country might explain why she was a little distracted?
Click to expand...

You just want to take the most plausible explanation . . . Shame on you :D
 
I think it is worth remembering that gastric emptying is not the only evidence favouring an earlier ToD. MK would have phoned home, the crime obviously prevented this. The later it gets the less likely it is that MK would not have phoned home. Especially as she had attempted so to do on the way home. This gives an effective upper limit for ToD of 22.15 (received call on MK phone - probably no longer in flat); and given time for phone to get out of house this in reality gives a ToD before 22.00. So we remain with a ToD between 21.00 and 22.00 earlier more likely than later. This matches ToD as per gastric emptying and ToD as given by the only eye witness RG. This is the real way to use circumstantial evidence; several pieces that corroborate one another, and though individually none are strong the correlation is.
 
Planigale said:
I think it is worth remembering that gastric emptying is not the only evidence favouring an earlier ToD. MK would have phoned home, the crime obviously prevented this. The later it gets the less likely it is that MK would not have phoned home. Especially as she had attempted so to do on the way home. This gives an effective upper limit for ToD of 22.15 (received call on MK phone - probably no longer in flat); and given time for phone to get out of house this in reality gives a ToD before 22.00. So we remain with a ToD between 21.00 and 22.00 earlier more likely than later. This matches ToD as per gastric emptying and ToD as given by the only eye witness RG. This is the real way to use circumstantial evidence; several pieces that corroborate one another, and though individually none are strong the correlation is.
Click to expand...


Yes, you make an important point. The Stomach/duodenum evidence is pretty conclusive in establishing probable ToD, and it's unimpeachable in establishing that the ToD cannot possibly have been later than 10.30.

But, as you say, this evidence is supported and strengthened by a whole host of other evidence, ALL of which is highly indicative of a ToD long before 10.30pm. In addition to the things you've pointed out (no further attempt to call her mother, phone outside cottage at time of 10.13pm reception of GPRS message, Guede conspicuously mentioning a scream at "9.20-9.30"), there are others: the failure by Meredith to unload her laundry from the machine; the fact that Meredith was still wearing her outer clothes and shoes, when she had told her friends that she planned to get an early night and do some reading in bed; the fact that the book Meredith had borrowed from her English friend to read that night was still conspicuously unread; the inexplicable button-pushing activity on her UK phone at around 10pm (which Massei ridiculously and incredibly rationalised away as Meredith "messing around").

Frankly, the sheer volume of evidence pointing in only one direction means that there's only one reasonable conclusion to reach regarding time of death: Meredith Kercher was confronted, attacked and killed some time between 9pm (when she arrived home) and 10pm, and most probably in the first half of that time period: between 9pm and 9.30pm.
 
Dan O. said:
What I know is that Patrick had one phone that he always kept at the bar (according to his interview with Frank). The police found only one phone that had adifferent (nearly sequential) sim than the sim that he sent the text exchange with.

I remember reading in an interview with Frank that Patrick had two phones on the same number. This however might be an extrapolation from an old google-fish translation of the same article. I had confirmed though that such a plan was available from Patrick's provider at the time.
Click to expand...

Let's assume he was not nutty enough to have two sims that he swapped back and forth in just the one phone (and before anybody pipes up, as they usually do here, to say that's exactly how they operate, I say in advance: I don't believe you). It follows he had two cell phones. At 6.30 a.m. on 2nd November 2007 where were they? One in the bar and one in his jacket pocket? Both were potentially crucial to the investigation. Are we agreed about that? It follows we should find evidence about the content of both phones. So where is it?
 
LondonJohn said:
Yes, you make an important point. The Stomach/duodenum evidence is pretty conclusive in establishing probable ToD, and it's unimpeachable in establishing that the ToD cannot possibly have been later than 10.30.

But, as you say, this evidence is supported and strengthened by a whole host of other evidence, ALL of which is highly indicative of a ToD long before 10.30pm. In addition to the things you've pointed out (no further attempt to call her mother, phone outside cottage at time of 10.13pm reception of GPRS message, Guede conspicuously mentioning a scream at "9.20-9.30"), there are others: the failure by Meredith to unload her laundry from the machine; the fact that Meredith was still wearing her outer clothes and shoes, when she had told her friends that she planned to get an early night and do some reading in bed; the fact that the book Meredith had borrowed from her English friend to read that night was still conspicuously unread; the inexplicable button-pushing activity on her UK phone at around 10pm (which Massei ridiculously and incredibly rationalised away as Meredith "messing around").

Frankly, the sheer volume of evidence pointing in only one direction means that there's only one reasonable conclusion to reach regarding time of death: Meredith Kercher was confronted, attacked and killed some time between 9pm (when she arrived home) and 10pm, and most probably in the first half of that time period: between 9pm and 9.30pm.
Click to expand...

Of course this is right but all these indicators could still be overcome by stronger evidence going the other way. What do we have? The scream and Toto. Why did nobody conduct a sound test to see if it's even possible for a scream from inside the apartment to be heard at Nara's? I just don't believe it. But why not just settle it? Channel 5 showed she could not hear running feet which already undermines her evidence. And Toto was a clown whose evidence cannot be reconciled with anything out here in the world of common sense (making him a perfect candidate for showing up the ISC as a parcel of fools or knaves).

Like I said, it's all a question of weight. The early TOD evidence weighs more than the later stuff. The guilters then resort to 'all the other evidence' and around we go again.
 
AmyStrange said:
-


-

What's James Randi's opinion on this whole matter?

Is it feasible to try and get him to write up a press release expressing his opinion with a link to a new petition when the time would be calculated to do the most good?

d

PS Senator Marie Cantwell from Washington State has already gone on record with this so maybe that is another alternative method?
-
Click to expand...
As far as I know, Randi is elderly and not in the best of health. I don't believe he is taking on causes anymore, but I could be wrong.
 
Planigale said:
I think it is worth remembering that gastric emptying is not the only evidence favouring an earlier ToD. MK would have phoned home, the crime obviously prevented this. The later it gets the less likely it is that MK would not have phoned home. Especially as she had attempted so to do on the way home. This gives an effective upper limit for ToD of 22.15 (received call on MK phone - probably no longer in flat); and given time for phone to get out of house this in reality gives a ToD before 22.00. So we remain with a ToD between 21.00 and 22.00 earlier more likely than later. This matches ToD as per gastric emptying and ToD as given by the only eye witness RG. This is the real way to use circumstantial evidence; several pieces that corroborate one another, and though individually none are strong the correlation is.
Click to expand...

Not to be stupid, but what phone activity was at 22:15?
 
anglolawyer said:
Let's assume he was not nutty enough to have two sims that he swapped back and forth in just the one phone (and before anybody pipes up, as they usually do here, to say that's exactly how they operate, I say in advance: I don't believe you). It follows he had two cell phones. At 6.30 a.m. on 2nd November 2007 where were they? One in the bar and one in his jacket pocket? Both were potentially crucial to the investigation. Are we agreed about that? It follows we should find evidence about the content of both phones. So where is it?
Click to expand...


*Gets ready to duck and cover*

Yes, that's exactly how they operate :D

I have personally witnessed, many many times, people in Italy doing exactly this: picking up their cellphone, removing the back cover, removing the battery, removing the SIM, reaching into their pocket or bag to retrieve another SIM, placing that other SIM into the same handset, reassembling the handset.

I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that this is standard practice in Italy, and has evolved to become a cultural norm. I will have a quick shufty for corroborating evidence, but I know for certain from my own first-hand observations that this has long been an entrenched practice in Italy.

Of course, it's also entirely possible that Lumumba did have two separate handsets - one for each SIM. But it's not reasonable to assume this, and in fact it's reasonable to err on the side of one-handset-many-SIMs, since this is such common behaviour in Italy.

Fire away :D
 
Ampulla of Vater said:
Not to be stupid, but what phone activity was at 22:15?
Click to expand...


Meredith's UK handset received notification of an incoming GPRS message - most probably a photo. The evidence shows that the handset began to download this message, but that the download was manually cancelled.

Massei "reasoned" that this was compatible with Meredith realising that she might have to pay cross-border data charges for receiving the message, and therefore cancelled its download. However, when placed alongside all the other evidence, the high probability is that whoever killed Meredith (erm... Guede) had taken her phones, and had already tried unsuccessfully to turn off the UK phone (the odd button pushes around 10pm)*. As he walked back around the city walls, the still-on UK phone gave a sound and light alert to show an incoming GPRS message. He then pushed some buttons to try to silence the phone, which initially succeeded in instigating the download, but then succeeded in cancelling the download.


* He successfully managed to turn off Meredith's Italian phone, possibly because he was more familiar with the handset type and because the menus on the phone display would all have been in Italian. To this day, many pro-guilt commentators do not understand that the Italian phone was switched off and the UK phone was switched on.
 
anglolawyer said:
Of course this is right but all these indicators could still be overcome by stronger evidence going the other way. What do we have? The scream and Toto. Why did nobody conduct a sound test to see if it's even possible for a scream from inside the apartment to be heard at Nara's? I just don't believe it. But why not just settle it? Channel 5 showed she could not hear running feet which already undermines her evidence. And Toto was a clown whose evidence cannot be reconciled with anything out here in the world of common sense (making him a perfect candidate for showing up the ISC as a parcel of fools or knaves).

Like I said, it's all a question of weight. The early TOD evidence weighs more than the later stuff. The guilters then resort to 'all the other evidence' and around we go again.
Click to expand...


No, I'd argue that the stomach/duodenum evidence is unequivocal and unimpeachable evidence that ToD could not possibly have been later than 10.30pm. In my opinion, this is a factual certainty (unless the English friends were for some reason totally mistaken/lying (by a factor of hours) about when the meal was eaten, and/or Meredith had a grave gastrointestinal disorder that nobody was aware of and which was not indicated at autopsy).

And I would also argue that the stomach/duodenum evidence is very, very strong factual evidence in support of a ToD prior to (say) 9.45pm.

To me, the only thing the stomach/duodenum evidence cannot tell us with certainty is at what time between 9pm and 9.45pm Meredith was attacked, and it also leaves the minuscule - but extant - possibility that Meredith was attacked between 9.45pm and 10.30pm.

So if there were other evidence that pointed exclusively to a ToD later than 10.30pm, this would set up an insurmountable logical problem,since it would be totally at odds with other factual evidence (in the form of the stomach/duodenum evidence). It would be similar to watching a football match on TV and seeing the final result as Arsenal 2 Liverpool 0, then opening the newspaper the following morning to see the result listed as Arsenal 1 Liverpool 4.

In the case of Meredith Kercher's ToD, the stomach/duodenum evidence is the factual clincher. It's possible (though arguably illogical and unreasonable) to interpret the other ToD-related evidence as compatible with a post-10.30pm (or post-9.45pm) ToD. For example, it's possible that Meredith chose for some reason not to even attempt to re-phone her sick mother, at a time of evening UK time (8pm-9pm) that would have been entirely sociable to have done so. And it's possible that Guede had some other motivation for being so specific - yet incorrect - in his recall of the timing of the scream. And it's possible that Meredith might have decided to leave her damp laundry in the washing machine for a number of hours after getting home. And so on.....

But it's not possible that Meredith's pizza meal was still entirely in her stomach over four hours after she started eating it, and it's also vanishingly unlikely that it was still entirely in her stomach any more than 3.25 hours after ingestion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom