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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.


I don't really know why people are even raising this as an option. Randi is all about debunking frauds in the areas of magic, mentalism, parapsychology and so on. That's all he's ever campaigned on (to my knowledge), and it's certainly the only area in which he's gained an international reputation for excellence and expertise.

To my mind, therefore, the question of miscarriages of justice is not something with which Randi would ever become involved, even if he were still taking on causes. And (perhaps more to the point) why would the media or politicians sit up and take much notice of a man who's only known for his outstanding work in a very specific area (debunking frauds) suddenly campaigning on behalf something like the Knox/Sollecito issue?
 
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.

Not long ago there was some discussion hypothesizing about how Guede didn't steal the phones, but the kids purposely took the phones so Meredith could not call for help. The theory, as I recall, was that one would not steal the phones and then toss them, as that is incompatible behavior. I thought it was possible that perhaps Guede stole the phones but then something occurred to cause him to subsequently toss them.

I then went to try to find the cell phone testimony, but I got sidetracked and ended up reading all sorts of testimony, and I forgot about my original goal of locating whether or not one of Meredith's phones maybe rang around 22:00, causing Guede to panic and get rid of the phones.

This downloading thing might have been the reason Guede ended up pitching the phones in that woman's yard.
 
Not long ago there was some discussion hypothesizing about how Guede didn't steal the phones, but the kids purposely took the phones so Meredith could not call for help. The theory, as I recall, was that one would not steal the phones and then toss them, as that is incompatible behavior. I thought it was possible that perhaps Guede stole the phones but then something occurred to cause him to subsequently toss them.

I then went to try to find the cell phone testimony, but I got sidetracked and ended up reading all sorts of testimony, and I forgot about my original goal of locating whether or not one of Meredith's phones maybe rang around 22:00, causing Guede to panic and get rid of the phones.

This downloading thing might have been the reason Guede ended up pitching the phones in that woman's yard.


This is also what I consider to be the most likely scenario. I think that Guede took Meredith's two mobile phones for one or both of these reasons: 1) he wasn't sure whether her injury was recoverable, and he didn't want her calling the authorities; and 2) he had fleeting thoughts of being able to realise some cash for selling the handsets.

I think the evidence shows clearly that Guede had tried - unsuccessfully - to turn off Meredith's UK phone (whereas he succeeded in turning off her Italian phone). I think that (as you say) as he was en route round the side of the city walls, the phone lit up and sounded an alert tone as the GPRS incoming message alert was set off. I think that this was probably the deciding factor for Guede: for him, the risk of drawing attention to himself if the phone was to go off again now outweighed any potential gains from selling the handset(s) at some later time.

I think he therefore decided to dispose of the handsets, and simply hurled them as far as he could into what he thought was a scrubby ravine where they would neither be heard/seen nor found (at least for some considerable time). But it just so happened that in the dark he had failed to see that there was actually a lone house on the side of the ravine, and that he had just happened to find the garden of that house with his throw.
 
I couldn't resist sharing a delicious howler that once more indicates a very particular mindset (irrational urge to employ confirmation bias at any cost) among a large proportion of pro-guilt commentators.

Knox wrote on her blog: "...it would have meant the murderer were still in the house when I took a shower." A whole host of pro-guilt commentators chose to leap upon this statement as a subconscious "slip" by Knox, in her use of the (as they chose to interpret it) pluralisation implied by the word "were". Ahaaa! they wrote: Knox is subconsciously telling us here that there was more than one murderer!

But then someone correctly had the courage and wisdom to point out that the use of the word "were" in this sentence is in fact a correct use of the subjunctive in the singular form. It's exactly the same rule as is applied to "If I were you...." - clearly the word "were" here does not imply pluralisation, since it explicitly refers to "I"

I found it particularly instructive that a number of pro-guilt commentators who have pretensions to academia (and in some cases to lang/lit academia) were so blinded by their confirmation bias that they didn't consider this, but instead chose to join in with the braying (and mocking) condemnation of Knox. It's only one illustration - but an ironic and rather amusing one - of how much of the pro-guilt commentary is riddled with fundamental logical fallacies, poor thinking skills, and sheer bitter vindictiveness.
 
-

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?
-

I' like to see some detailed assessments of the motives of Mignini, Commodi, Napoleoni, Stefanini, Giobi, Michelin, Massei, et al.
 
I then went to try to find the cell phone testimony, but I got sidetracked and ended up reading all sorts of testimony, and I forgot about my original goal of locating whether or not one of Meredith's phones maybe rang around 22:00, causing Guede to panic and get rid of the phones.

This downloading thing might have been the reason Guede ended up pitching the phones in that woman's yard.

If Amanda had done this in early Nov 2007 - started to look for one thing on her laptop and then gotten sidetracked and ended up reading all sorts of other things - it would be taken as evidence of her weird behavior or a dark psychological problem.

Ampulla, if you ever get sidetracked again on the computer I hope you will consider counseling. :p
 
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.

Nonetheless, I think it does no harm to emphasise the coherence of the evidence. I think that we need to emphasise that strength of the case is not in only the reliability of individual pieces of evidence but in their consistency.

Another example is evidence for RG being present at the time of the murder. Handprint in wet blood, shoe print in wet blood, multiple DNA results on MK clothes and body. All above being identified at time of initial crime scene investigation. Admission by RG as being present. Cuts on hand compatible with wielding a knife. Reported by friend to police as being probable culprit. All indicating presence at the time and place of the murder and that he had likely been vigorously wielding a knife that had slipped cutting his hand probably because the knife had become slippery with some liquid substance. Admission by RG that he disposed of clothes and shoes, but not revealing where (probably because knife is with them).

As compared with one DNA sample of RS found on a mishandled bra hook recovered 6 weeks later and subsequently rendered untestable due to poor storage by the forensic dept. With no time indication as to when DNA got on hook. No fingerprints. No shoe prints. No injuries. No blood stains or fibre transmission on clothes. A non identifiable blood stained footprint on a bathroom mat is not specific enough to provide identity although accepting Italian jurisprudence it is probably not sufficiently identifiable to absolutely exclude the possibility it was made by RS.

As compared with no DNA or other evidence of AK at site of murder. No fingerprints. No injuries. No shoe prints. No blood stains or fibre transmission on clothes. (Accepting presence of DNA in communal areas as non probative, and presence of blood in own bathroom as non probative - these samples giving no time stamp and proving no relationship to crime). So this leaves alleged footprints that are non identifiable in a luminol positive substance that has tested negative for blood by TMB and DNA. Although accepting Italian jurisprudence it is probably not possible to absolutely exclude the possibility that the smudges were made by AK, but the fact that many are TMB negative and PCR negative would seem to make it excessively unlikely they were AK blood.
 
And, as if by magic, documentary proof that one-handset-many-SIMs is a common practice in Italy:

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/static/archive/oftel/publications/research/2001/sim0701.htm

LOL. I still don't believe it but I have a fall back position anyway - that Patrick would simply have told them to check his other sim for the message. Also, I have picked it up that sometimes the data is stored on the handset itself, not the sim, so if he had two sims and one phone (an absurdity for which I would happily frame him for murder) it shouldn't necessarily matter.

My partner actually has one phone and two sims but the phone actually has slots for them both, which is rational and sensible :)
 
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.
I lack the qualifications to take issue with this. It is remarkable that the defences were unable to make out this point and yet another instance of the crappiness of their system because Hellman, IIUC, didn't bother looking at it and managed to come up with a silly TOD that was still too late.
I couldn't resist sharing a delicious howler that once more indicates a very particular mindset (irrational urge to employ confirmation bias at any cost) among a large proportion of pro-guilt commentators.

Knox wrote on her blog: "...it would have meant the murderer were still in the house when I took a shower." A whole host of pro-guilt commentators chose to leap upon this statement as a subconscious "slip" by Knox, in her use of the (as they chose to interpret it) pluralisation implied by the word "were". Ahaaa! they wrote: Knox is subconsciously telling us here that there was more than one murderer!

But then someone correctly had the courage and wisdom to point out that the use of the word "were" in this sentence is in fact a correct use of the subjunctive in the singular form. It's exactly the same rule as is applied to "If I were you...." - clearly the word "were" here does not imply pluralisation, since it explicitly refers to "I"

I found it particularly instructive that a number of pro-guilt commentators who have pretensions to academia (and in some cases to lang/lit academia) were so blinded by their confirmation bias that they didn't consider this, but instead chose to join in with the braying (and mocking) condemnation of Knox. It's only one illustration - but an ironic and rather amusing one - of how much of the pro-guilt commentary is riddled with fundamental logical fallacies, poor thinking skills, and sheer bitter vindictiveness.

This revelation of hers has had the opposite effect on me. I am now a convinced guilter on the basis of this one howler. I can just hear her screaming 'but I was using the subjunctive!' as she is taken down to the cells. :D
 
Was Laura there when the door was broken open?

IIRC, Laura was visiting relatives in Rome which is 2-1/2 hours south of Perugia. When Filomena called her upon discovery of the crime, Laura returned immediately to Perugia. IIRC, Laura was at the police station being questioned by late afternoon as well.

Laura immediately lawyered-up, but we should understand that both Filomena and Laura were junior attorneys at the same law firm in Peruiga. For them to get legal representation can be as simple as telling their boss or a colleague that a horrible crime has occurred at their home and he saying "I'll come with you". But it also means the attorney may be present in any questioning and his presence requires the police to not badger Filomena or Laura. The lawyer, observing the interview rather than being the one answering questions, is better able to pick up on any direct or subtle clues that the police have a suspicious agenda in their questions of Filomena or Laura, more than the normal desire to know where were you and what can you tell us about people Meredith may have known or male visitors to the house.
 
Last edited:
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.

I'm not sure that right, at least according to the defense guy. The message was deleted but when is unknown. I didn't see anything about cancelling the download. Either Guede deleted it or the postal police did.
 
The phone appears to have been tampered with. We should figure out what happened.
 
Last edited:
Notes

p72 the 8.56pm call went unanswered. If Arline Kercher had of answered, Meredith would have still been talking to her when she walked through the door.

p88 cops left one of the phones switched on till 7pm on nov 2

p89-93 is about the 10.13 mms and lana's garden. One of the phones hit a tree and fell. They were launched from the park. One landing 18 meters in.

p106-108 the phone was in park Sant'Angelo at 10.13pm

DOMANDA – Ora quello che a noi interessa, oltre tutta questa ricostruzione astratta che poi è il dato credo più importante a noi per gli accertamenti che interessano la Corte, è capire: secondo tutte queste ricostruzioni, celle e misurazioni e secondo la sua esperienza questo telefono cellulare quando è che è uscito dalla casa di Meredith? Siamo in grado di dirlo?
RISPOSTA – Vado alla sintesi del risultato e poi la posso spiegare. In base alla sintesi del risultato il telefono si sarebbe trovato nell'area per cui stabilito un orario che non è un orario di traffico particolare, anche la Polizia giudiziaria
ha fatto esami in relazione alla quantità di traffico e non ci dobbiamo preoccupare di quello, l'area in cui viene impegnata la
cella 30064 che si trova da questa parte e quindi escludendo un'area rurale da questa parte che non ci interessa, è l'area del parco Sant'Angelo. Allora dove? Che collegamento ci può essere? Non è l'area dove si trova la casa di Meredith e di
Amanda, perché dalle misure fatte vi spiegherò la situazione come è, e quindi si trovava comunque già distante dalla casa di via della Pergola. Quanto distante? Immaginiamo che alle 22.13...
DOMANDA – Allora prima, poi ci spiega le slide, però giusto per richiamare l'attenzione della Corte, perché poi tutta questa premessa serve per questa conclusione. Tutta questa sua ricostruzione sulla base degli atti della Polizia giudiziaria,
delle sue misurazioni a noi ci deve servire a qualcosa e non solo a sapere come funzionano le cose in astratto e ci deve servire a sapere come quando esce il telefonino. Siccome noi abbiamo un orario, 22.13, con una connessione GPRS, la domanda che a me alla quale mi interessa che lei risponde: premesso che esiste questo orario 22.13 con questa connessione secondo la sua ricostruzione e secondo le successive slide questa connessione è avvenuta quando il telefono era dentro casa di via della Pergola o fuori?
RISPOSTA – No, la connessione secondo me, e sono convinto quando lo dico, è avvenuta qua, mentre il telefono si trovava dentro parco Sant'Angelo, in prossimità del giardino di via della Pergola e verosimilmente è il motivo per cui il telefono è stato lanciato nel giardino di via della Pergola, diversamente non ci sarebbe neanche un motivo per lanciarlo lì. Secondo me è successo che il telefono ha ricevuto un messaggio MMS, il telefono è suonato, chi aveva il telefono si è ricordato in quel momento di avere un telefono che tra l'altro era la prova di un reato e ha pensato di liberarsene e se ne è liberato nel punto
in cui si trovava. Quindi alle 22.13 il telefono si trovava qua, si trovava più o meno qua, non può essere molto distante, ma il fatto che non potesse essere molto distante è dovuto alla compatibilità della copertura radio elettrica con quella cella, e la vedrete nel dettaglio dopo, e alla compatibilità con il lancio che non può essere 200 metri più là, ma deve essere nell'arco di pochi metri o pochissime decine di metri. A questo punto quando può essere uscito? Io posso retrodatare l'uscita dalla casa limitatamente al tempo di percorrenza, stiamo parlando di una percorrenza che può essere fatta, io l'ho fatta per via stradale, per di qui sono 800 metri circa, può essere fatta per via pedonale per di qui e ritornando sulla strada oppure può essere fatta per via pedonale tagliando per il prato. Giusto perché sia chiaro e poi dalle immagini delle foto si capisce meglio, passando per il centro di Perugia, soprattutto se dopo un evento del genere, quindi verosimilmente trafelato, magari insanguinato e quanto altro chi portava il telefonino che era di Meredith e quindi glielo ha tolto nel momento o nei momenti immediatamente prima o dopo l'omicidio di Meredith verosimilmente non voleva farsi vedere. A questo punto non sarebbe passato per il centro, sarebbe passato per l'esterno, potendo scegliere e conoscendo Perugia verosimilmente non lungo la strada che è il percorso più lungo ma magari lungo il parco Sant'Angelo che è il percorso più breve. Combinazione in questo percorso la cella che si riceve meglio di gran lunga di tutte le altre è la cella 30064 ed è quella a cui corrisponde il maggior valore del parametro C2 che è quello che causa la decisione per. Lungo parco Sant'Angelo il motivo per cui la persona sia arrivata qua, non sono e non voglio essere io a dirlo, ma in questo momento è successo qualche cosa, che il telefono che poteva essere abbandonato nel prato, in una siepe di parco Sant'Angelo, buttato giù da una ripa lungo la strada è finita in un'area ristretta che è il giardino. Alle 22.00 circa quando o dopo le 22.00 a novembre completamente buio il giardino non si distingue come una entità assestante, si distingue come una macchia, magari la macchia più grande della riva scoscesa che è dopo via Andrea da Perugia. Quindi verosimilmente l'intento di liberarsi dal telefono è corrisposto con un lancio che voleva farlo andare più lontano possibile e che l'ha portato in mezzo agli alberi senza sapere che al di là degli alberi c'era il giardino. Questa è la conclusione a cui sono giunto.

p124-127 30064 signal strength at the cottage.

p131

DOMANDA – Ma l'ipotesi più probabile è che il telefono era uscito?
RISPOSTA – Al 99 per cento la cella 30064 sarebbe stata scelta come cella servente tra i punti misurati nel parco Sant'Angelo, esiste una residuale possibilità nella casa di Meredith che può essere un punto percentuale, due, tre.
DOMANDA – La cella 30064 non si può dire che sia oggettivamente incompatibile con via della Pergola, in base a questi calculi che tengono conto del fattore C2 si può dire che è più probabile che si trovi al parco Sant'Angelo, come probabilità abbiamo il 99 per cento?
RISPOSTA – Guardi la probabilità si può misurare in questi termini e la cosa che vi potrei dire che a parco Sant'Angelo il divario con la cella più vicina è notevole, è notevolissimo,
quindi avrebbe impegnato quella senza andarne a cercare un'altra. Questo anche perché ovviamente ho tenuto nel debito conto i risultati delle misure che sono state fatte dalla
Procura e questo mi consente certamente di escludere che la cella 30064 fosse incompatibile con via Sperandio, cosa che emergeva all'altra parte.
DOMANDA – Ci sono altre precisazioni che vuole fare adesso?
RISPOSTA – No.
DOMANDA – Perché io avrei finito.
RISPOSTA – Ritengo da no.
 
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?


Perhaps they never got a search warrant. Patrick knows his rights. Once they make him a suspect he has a right to a lawyer and the police cannot search his bar without going before a judge with the evidence they have which is a little girl told them. They had the palm print on the pillow that didn't match. They had shoe prints that probably didn't match. Add a defense lawyer in the hearing and the prosecution would be torn to shreads and coughed out of court like a hair ball. The law allow them to hold Patrick as a suspect without further judicial review but they cannot move forward. The get the one cell phone that is on his person at the time of arrest but they don't even get to fry his computer.

Raffaele's flat was searched without a warrant because Raffaele invited them in. Technically this was an illegal search since Raffaele at the time was required to have legal representation. But in Raffaele's case at least they had evidence they could take before a judge: they had his shoe prints in blood in the murder room, they had a bloody footprint on the bath mat that they claimed was compatible and they had his pocket knife which matched the characteristics of what the police had told the press the day before was the probable murder weapon.
 
-

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.

AmyStrange, your scenario above looks like you're trying to rationalize something and you've got the most convoluted scenario. The only thing you left out is that the pizza crust lacked the proper amount of yeast and that the oven temperature was not accurate. Now we should be triple-guessing whether Filomena and Marco did come by after all or Laura's handyman friend snuck in. Perhaps Sophie meet up with Rudy at Merediths?

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.

A lot on her mind??? You don't think that the "look" you refer to could be because she was upset that her friend/housemate was just murdered?


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

AmyStrange, there is a better explanation why Amanda's confession is strange. It is called the "Reid technique". You may forget or do not account that it took her interrogators a long-time to get Amanda to stop saying the truth - that she wasn't at her cottage. The police worked on her for at least an hour and maybe more before Donnino arrived to try to get her to change her statement of facts because it did not support their theory that she must have been somehow involved (remember, they were tracking her and that suspicious African bar owner). Amanda was still saying the truth - that she wasn't at the cottage - an hour into the interrogation. Strong girl! - she held to the truth in spite of police shouting, accusations of "liar", threats to put her in prison for 30 years so she will never see her family again, and two hits from behind when Donnino finally arrived. It took Donnino to convince Knox that she was there but was just traumatized and did not remember it in order to induce Amanda to imagine fleeting visions. And even that only came in response to very specific questions such as "why did you not hear her scream" (answer: "because I would have convered my ears").

Mind-manipulating interrogation techniques explain her confession/ accusation/ statement better than anything else.
 
Last edited:
Notes

p72 the 8.56pm call went unanswered. If Arline Kercher had of answered, Meredith would have still been talking to her when she walked through the door.


The information that I have is that this call was only recorded in the phones memory and not picked up by the cell network. If the network had picked up this call there would have been a cell tower noted in the call detail record.

From the timeline in the "one true wiki":
20:56 Phone call from Meredith's phone to mother, cut off almost immediately.
"In evidence on Friday, Stefano Sisani, of the Perugia flying squad, revealed that a call to Kercher’s mother, Arline, in Coulsdon, Surrey, was made from her mobile at 8.56pm on the night of November 1. She used the phone daily to call her mother, who was ill. The call was cut off before she got through" (Times Online, March 22, 2009)
Theory that call was cut off by attack is unlikely, as Meredith would still be near Sophie's flat at this time. More likely explanation is that call was dropped because of poor signal in tight medieval streets.
Logged in phone memory - Massei Report pg 350
 
Perhaps they never got a search warrant. Patrick knows his rights. Once they make him a suspect he has a right to a lawyer and the police cannot search his bar without going before a judge with the evidence they have which is a little girl told them. They had the palm print on the pillow that didn't match. They had shoe prints that probably didn't match. Add a defense lawyer in the hearing and the prosecution would be torn to shreads and coughed out of court like a hair ball. The law allow them to hold Patrick as a suspect without further judicial review but they cannot move forward. The get the one cell phone that is on his person at the time of arrest but they don't even get to fry his computer.

Raffaele's flat was searched without a warrant because Raffaele invited them in. Technically this was an illegal search since Raffaele at the time was required to have legal representation. But in Raffaele's case at least they had evidence they could take before a judge: they had his shoe prints in blood in the murder room, they had a bloody footprint on the bath mat that they claimed was compatible and they had his pocket knife which matched the characteristics of what the police had told the press the day before was the probable murder weapon.

And don't forget: they got the dna results on 11/6 (maybe 7) ruling out lumumba as the rapist.

I think that Dan is right, and they never did get a search warrant because they knew they didn't have sufficient cause against lumumba. Didn't stop them from keeping him in jail, though. What they hell kind of a system is that? We have enough evidence to wiretap and jail you, but actually can't come up with enough evidence to justify a search? Really?
 
Perhaps they never got a search warrant. Patrick knows his rights. Once they make him a suspect he has a right to a lawyer and the police cannot search his bar without going before a judge with the evidence they have which is a little girl told them. They had the palm print on the pillow that didn't match. They had shoe prints that probably didn't match. Add a defense lawyer in the hearing and the prosecution would be torn to shreads and coughed out of court like a hair ball. The law allow them to hold Patrick as a suspect without further judicial review but they cannot move forward. The get the one cell phone that is on his person at the time of arrest but they don't even get to fry his computer.

Raffaele's flat was searched without a warrant because Raffaele invited them in. Technically this was an illegal search since Raffaele at the time was required to have legal representation. But in Raffaele's case at least they had evidence they could take before a judge: they had his shoe prints in blood in the murder room, they had a bloody footprint on the bath mat that they claimed was compatible and they had his pocket knife which matched the characteristics of what the police had told the press the day before was the probable murder weapon.

Bad move, Raf.
 
And don't forget: they got the dna results on 11/6 (maybe 7) ruling out lumumba as the rapist.

I think that Dan is right, and they never did get a search warrant because they knew they didn't have sufficient cause against lumumba. Didn't stop them from keeping him in jail, though. What they hell kind of a system is that? We have enough evidence to wiretap and jail you, but actually can't come up with enough evidence to justify a search? Really?

The police and prosecution had just paraded all three detainees in front of the media. They had to continue to hold Lumumba. They couldn't exactly let him go home that afternoon or the next day after triumphantly crowing to the world media that they got the killers.

I would like to have been a fly on the wall listening as Mignini, Commodi, the Police Chief, and Napoleoni in the next few days talk: "What do you mean, that's not his poop or his prints?", "Are you sure?", "How did that happen?", "What is going on?", "What do we do?", "We got this guy Lumumba and now the evidence contradicts it?", "Why, that scheming little bitch!" "Yea, we'll blame it on the American!"
 
Last edited:
The information that I have is that this call was only recorded in the phones memory and not picked up by the cell network. If the network had picked up this call there would have been a cell tower noted in the call detail record.

From the timeline in the "one true wiki":

Check Pellero because if I read him right it was an unanswered call and he says it should have switched to another tower and worked if it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom