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

[LondonJohn]

When people make arguments that if she ate later it would make the 9:00-9:30 time more likely one sees the confirmation bias. While at eight o'clock starting time would put 9-9:30 in heart of GE time it also makes 9:30-10 much more likely than a 6-6:30 dining time. Candace says she didn't eat with the other girls because she didn't feel well. Because I don't believe CD or any true crime novel "facts" when no other source is available, I remain skeptical about this and am trying to find more sources about the evening.

Then I'm afraid you either don't understand my argument or you don't understand the statistics behind it. Or both. I am not confirmation-biassed in this regard, and I resent the suggestion that I am.

By the way, using an 8pm meal start time in addressing my argument is the construction of a straw man. My chosen range of meal start times (which in my opinion is entirely borne out by the evidence and testimony) is 5.30pm at the extreme early end, through to 7.00pm at the extreme late end. If you'd cared to create an even bigger strawman, you could have suggested that Meredith might have started eating at 8.40pm. I thought your arguments were better than this.

If you want me to explain exactly how and why, with reference to the probability distribution bell curve, a 9-9.30 ToD is more probable (in relation to, say, a 9.30-10.30 ToD) if the meal start time is 7pm than it is if the meal start time is 6.30pm, I will be happy to show you in detail. I already stated this. And I also stated that yes, it seems counterintuitive, but it's true. Instead, you chose to come to your own "conclusion" that this was some sort of nonsensical confirmation bias at work. Shame on you.

 

[LondonJohn]

Samson - I think the point LJ was making is that if she ate later it would be more likely that the GE would started between 9 and 9:30 which is true BUT it is also true that the probability that it would be between 9:30 and 10 would also go up. In essence if there is a graph with the X axis being time of day by having the commencement of the meal later the whole graph shifts to the right. Unless the meal is moved to just before 9 the probabilities increase in the 9 - 9:30 time but they also increase after 9:30.

We don't know exactly what and when she ate and from the studies it's hard to judge how long a pizza as described mixed in with apple crisp would take to digest.

LJ assertion is further damaged by his mother using stewed apples instead of fresh ones in that crumble he enjoyed as a boy

This whole odds thing is not the way to look at it anyway. Some horses that go off at 50 to 1 win. Sure it makes it less likely but if there is only a one percent chance does that rule it out (50 to 1 is 2% I know)?

The other side would say that with the knife, the footprints, the bathmat print, the staged break-in and their behavior it doesn't matter that Meredith should have started GE because she didn't.

Think of it this way. If the known location of an alleged shooter was at a distance from a victim, from which a trained marksman only had a one percent chance of hitting the victim, would that let him off? How about if his DNA was found on the bullet and prints on the gun?

For me this logic is just the reverse of the PGP listing a bunch or stuff that doesn't point to guilt but just doesn't look right and when added up makes them guilty.

If it truly could be proven that she couldn't have lived past 9:05 that would be one strong case for innocence.

No, that's not the point I was making at all. Do you want me to construct the graphs to show you what I mean?

 

[LondonJohn]

LJ assertion is further damaged by his mother using stewed apples instead of fresh ones in that crumble he enjoyed as a boy

As another facetious aside, the stewing of the apples to which I refer is the stewing that occurs during the cooking process of the crumble itself. The apples stew in their own juices as the crumble topping bakes and browns.

Although there actually is a school of thought that the apples (and rhubarb, if used) should be stewed briefly on the stove-top prior to placing into the oven dish, in order to ensure that they break down sufficiently by the end of the baking time. But that's not what I was referring to: the method to which I refer involves placing raw sliced apples directly into the oven dish (and adding sugar and spices, and a touch of cornflour to my preference), then topping with the crumble mix, then placing in the oven. The (initially raw) apples then stew beneath the crumble top.

 

[Grinder]

No, that's not the point I was making at all. Do you want me to construct the graphs to show you what I mean?

Sure. Go for it.

Are going to use the mini meal for your GE times?

ETA - while you're at it please let us know if Candace was wrong and Meredith did eat right away with the other girls. I'm willing to look at other testimony or interview transcripts with the girls but the one from Amanda's page doesn't give one the feeling that the times are precise at all.

 

[Grinder]

As another facetious aside, the stewing of the apples to which I refer is the stewing that occurs during the cooking process of the crumble itself. The apples stew in their own juices as the crumble topping bakes and browns.

Well it sure didn't read that way -

By the way, just for the sake of accuracy, the dessert Meredith ate was not an apple crisp. It was an apple crumble. It's a British dessert that's sort of equivalent to a cobbler. It consists of stewed fruit in a casserole dish (in this case apple), with a "crumble" of rubbed-together flour, sugar and butter sprinkled in a layer on top in a sort of gravel consistency.


From the girls - so every now and then stopped the film then we
share; then, in mid-films, we have prepared a
apple crumble, which is a kind of Apple Pie

Sort of all pies have fruit that stew in their own juices - maybe you can make a graph

 

[LondonJohn]

The same guy that claimed a 9:20 scream that people here accept to fit their theory also said the sex was consensual and the police at first suspected that it was..

I do think that this need addressing and confronting (and not for the first time....).

You are implying here (I believe) that one should either believe Guede or disbelieve him - and that to "choose" to believe some of what he says, while at the same time "choosing" to disbelieve other parts of his version of events, is intellectually dishonest.

But that's simply not what is happening in this instance. What some - including me - have tried to do is examine Guede's motivation for constructing the various elements of his version of events. By attempting to do so, it becomes more possible (though obviously not infallible) to hypothesise when Guede is telling the truth (i.e. where it suits him best to do so) and where he is lying (again, where it suits him best to do so).

So let's take the two elements of Guede's version that are mentioned here: the "consensual sex" element and the "scream at 9.20-9.30" element. I would argue strongly that the first of these is likely to be a lie: it should be abundantly clear to any normal-thinking person that Guede has to claim the sex was consensual (given that he cannot deny the presence of his DNA in the victim's vagina), for to do otherwise is to admit to a criminal offence there and then. And taken together with what we think we know of the victim's character, and the other evidence and testimony in the case, it's highly likely that this element was a lie that was told for Guede's own self-interest.

Now, on to the "scream at 9.20-9.30" element. As I and others have discussed here many times before (perhaps you missed it?), it's reasonable (in my opinion) to suppose that Guede was concerned at the time when he made this statement (while he was on the run in Germany) that earwitnesses outside the cottage might have heard the victim screaming, and might therefore be able to pinpoint the time of the scream(s). He might reasonably therefore have decided that his version of events had to place the scream at the correct time, in order to avoid the possibility of flat contradiction by reliable witnesses further down the line.

For example, suppose Guede's version of events had been that he had had sex with Meredith, and that it was only some time after the event (say 10pm+) that he'd gone to the toilet and the mystical intruders had swept in and killed Meredith. If one or more witnesses then came forward to testify with certainty that they had heard a loud terrified woman's scream at 9.20pm, Guede would immediately find his version of events being gravely challenged. He therefore (in my opinion) knew that had to concoct a curious version where consensual sexual interaction started, but where he (Guede) had to terminate the sexual activity abruptly in order to go to the toilet, whereupon the intruders burst in etc etc. That was (in my opinion) the only way in which Guede could fit both the proven sexual interaction and the c9.20pm scream into the very narrow time frame.

Of course, my opinion is that the truth is that none of this curious dance ever happened. The truth is that Guede confronted Meredith shortly after she arrived home at 9pm, and that he attacked and stabbed her by 9.20, in the course of a serious sexual assault. But of course Guede doesn't want to admit to any of this. And yet he knows he has to correlate the scream time in order to match any potential witnesses.

And that is how it's reasonable to suppose that some parts of what Guede said are accurate, while other parts are not. The crucial factor is what one thinks Guede needs to say in his own best interest.

 

[Samson]

I do think that this need addressing and confronting (and not for the first time....).

You are implying here (I believe) that one should either believe Guede or disbelieve him - and that to "choose" to believe some of what he says, while at the same time "choosing" to disbelieve other parts of his version of events, is intellectually dishonest.

But that's simply not what is happening in this instance. What some - including me - have tried to do is examine Guede's motivation for constructing the various elements of his version of events. By attempting to do so, it becomes more possible (though obviously not infallible) to hypothesise when Guede is telling the truth (i.e. where it suits him best to do so) and where he is lying (again, where it suits him best to do so).

So let's take the two elements of Guede's version that are mentioned here: the "consensual sex" element and the "scream at 9.20-9.30" element. I would argue strongly that the first of these is likely to be a lie: it should be abundantly clear to any normal-thinking person that Guede has to claim the sex was consensual (given that he cannot deny the presence of his DNA in the victim's vagina), for to do otherwise is to admit to a criminal offence there and then. And taken together with what we think we know of the victim's character, and the other evidence and testimony in the case, it's highly likely that this element was a lie that was told for Guede's own self-interest.

Now, on to the "scream at 9.20-9.30" element. As I and others have discussed here many times before (perhaps you missed it?), it's reasonable (in my opinion) to suppose that Guede was concerned at the time when he made this statement (while he was on the run in Germany) that earwitnesses outside the cottage might have heard the victim screaming, and might therefore be able to pinpoint the time of the scream(s). He might reasonably therefore have decided that his version of events had to place the scream at the correct time, in order to avoid the possibility of flat contradiction by reliable witnesses further down the line.

For example, suppose Guede's version of events had been that he had had sex with Meredith, and that it was only some time after the event (say 10pm+) that he'd gone to the toilet and the mystical intruders had swept in and killed Meredith. If one or more witnesses then came forward to testify with certainty that they had heard a loud terrified woman's scream at 9.20pm, Guede would immediately find his version of events being gravely challenged. He therefore (in my opinion) knew that had to concoct a curious version where consensual sexual interaction started, but where he (Guede) had to terminate the sexual activity abruptly in order to go to the toilet, whereupon the intruders burst in etc etc. That was (in my opinion) the only way in which Guede could fit both the proven sexual interaction and the c9.20pm scream into the very narrow time frame.

Of course, my opinion is that the truth is that none of this curious dance ever happened. The truth is that Guede confronted Meredith shortly after she arrived home at 9pm, and that he attacked and stabbed her by 9.20, in the course of a serious sexual assault. But of course Guede doesn't want to admit to any of this. And yet he knows he has to correlate the scream time in order to match any potential witnesses.

And that is how it's reasonable to suppose that some parts of what Guede said are accurate, while other parts are not. The crucial factor is what one thinks Guede needs to say in his own best interest.

It is further likely that he confirmed the time from one or both of Meredith's phones. 9 20 is actually quite a specific time, and could be very accurate. Since he was almost certainly in the house before Meredith arrived home, does this imply he engaged in an attempt to talk his way out of a dilemma. If 9 20 is correct, he either sat on the toilet in silence hoping she would leave again, or engaged in an encounter for that 20 minutes. The latter is more likely because gastric emptying must have been imminent at 9, when stress kicked in and ceased it. His break in history reveals a pattern of trying to explain his presence in terms of good intent.

 

[Samson]

Another vital element to understanding Rudy's careful use of verifiable information is that
his defence lawyer (Biscotti I think) emerged from a discussion with him, and said he didn't name anyone because there was no one to name. Even though they were in custody, he could never know, and indeed couldn't expect, that an alibi wouldn't emerge, and disclose him to be a bare faced liar. He never named them as perpetrators until they were convicted.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

machine translations of testimony

Grinder,

You keep talking about translations of the testimony. To which site do you refer, this one or another one?

 

[Grinder]

It is further likely that he confirmed the time from one or both of Meredith's phones. 9 20 is actually quite a specific time, and could be very accurate. Since he was almost certainly in the house before Meredith arrived home, does this imply he engaged in an attempt to talk his way out of a dilemma. If 9 20 is correct, he either sat on the toilet in silence hoping she would leave again, or engaged in an encounter for that 20 minutes. The latter is more likely because gastric emptying must have been imminent at 9, when stress kicked in and ceased it. His break in history reveals a pattern of trying to explain his presence in terms of good intent.

Well he didn't say 9:20. He said 9:20 to 9:30. Why would he have looked at the time? What possible reason would there have been for him to find Meredith's phones and look for the time.

Once again you bring in GE but you still have no idea when she actually started eating.

When exactly did he make his statement? How long after Amanda had made her accusation with the scream included?

Not one person had come forward in the 11 days before his Skype call saying they heard the scream. He does in fact point a finger at Raf during the second Skype.

) But, an Italian?

jack says: (7:12:22) Patrick or Raffaele?

Rudy Hermann says: (7:12:24PM) I think so.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:12:24PM) Right. I don't have much money, unfortunately.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:13:06PM) No Patrick.

jack says: (7:13:14PM) Raffaele?

jack says: (7:113:37PM) I can send you some money

Rudy Hermann says: (7:13:38PM) The guy was Italian, because we insulted each other.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:13:49PM) And he didn't have a foreign accent.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:14:01PM) And how?

jack says: (7:14:07PM) So, the Raffaele on TV?

Rudy Hermann says: (7:14:18PM) I think so​

.

So he basically names Raf from seeing him on TV. Doesn't seem that worried about Raf having an alibi.

 

[Grinder]

Grinder,

You keep talking about translations of the testimony. To which site do you refer, this one or another one?

I mostly use Amanda's site. I hadn't seen this one but will explore it. I use Word and MSFT to translate whole documents. I used a dark side translation of the second Skype call because I couldn't find it elsewhere.

 

[Samson]

Well he didn't say 9:20. He said 9:20 to 9:30. Why would he have looked at the time? What possible reason would there have been for him to find Meredith's phones and look for the time.

Once again you bring in GE but you still have no idea when she actually started eating.

When exactly did he make his statement? How long after Amanda had made her accusation with the scream included?

Not one person had come forward in the 11 days before his Skype call saying they heard the scream. He does in fact point a finger at Raf during the second Skype.

) But, an Italian?

jack says: (7:12:22) Patrick or Raffaele?

Rudy Hermann says: (7:12:24PM) I think so.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:12:24PM) Right. I don't have much money, unfortunately.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:13:06PM) No Patrick.

jack says: (7:13:14PM) Raffaele?

jack says: (7:113:37PM) I can send you some money

Rudy Hermann says: (7:13:38PM) The guy was Italian, because we insulted each other.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:13:49PM) And he didn't have a foreign accent.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:14:01PM) And how?

jack says: (7:14:07PM) So, the Raffaele on TV? Rudy Hermann says: (7:14:18PM) I think so​

.So he basically names Raf from seeing him on TV. Doesn't seem that worried about Raf having an alibi.

The reason I bring in GE is because I think it is a critical path to innocence to try to prove Guede was in the house before Meredith, for all the obvious reasons. Clearly a component of that proof is Meredith's digestion, and the likelihood she was stressed or killed by Rudy at a time consistent with all that, which should be argued is the earliest time for the strongest alibi. I am not convinced by the scream either, but was addressing LJ's post as part of the general discussion. I doubt the scream will ever have any real meaning, and I am not even sure people scream when they are being attacked. Is there some general behaviour to expect I wonder.

The highlighted part shows Rudy hedging his bets. "I think so", is completely different to "yes", and leaves him unexposed to Callunia.

 

[JREF2010]

I doubt the scream will ever have any real meaning, and I am not even sure people scream when they are being attacked.

I was under the impression, in PGP land, the scream was a huge piece of evidence to convict.

I'd give a "silver dollar" to privately speak to the jurors/pretend judges, and find out what each one believes and what swayed them to vote for the guilty verdict.

 

[Grinder]

The reason I bring in GE is because I think it is a critical path to innocence to try to prove Guede was in the house before Meredith, for all the obvious reasons. Clearly a component of that proof is Meredith's digestion, and the likelihood she was stressed or killed by Rudy at a time consistent with all that, which should be argued is the earliest time for the strongest alibi. I am not convinced by the scream either, but was addressing LJ's post as part of the general discussion. I doubt the scream will ever have any real meaning, and I am not even sure people scream when they are being attacked. Is there some general behaviour to expect I wonder.

The highlighted part shows Rudy hedging his bets. "I think so", is completely different to "yes", and leaves him unexposed to Callunia.

I'm sure calunnia was a major concern for him. Not

Btw, someone said he knew he had left DNA in Meredith. I don't think he did know that but he did know the police had said she had a sexual encounter and at first consensual.

You bring up GE because it fits your assertion but we really have no idea when she ate. Rudi's time of scream can be massaged to seem credible but it isn't. As you say, she may not have screamed at all.

If his story were true then saying "I think so" could just be the truth. Unlike Raf when asked about the theft he answered as a normal person would. Funny how when Rudi makes a perfectly normal conditional it's clever covering for him.

Maybe Raf started Naruto and ran up there after giving Amanda a Xanax. Explains her lack of memory and makes everything fit, even Rudi's story.

 

[codyjuneau]

Greetings CodyJuneau,
I read your post late last night before I hit the sack but I recalled it this morning as I was searching for a photograph online. For I too had recently wondered if Meredith was maybe gonna take a nice hot shower on that chilly November night before she started to study with that borrowed history book of Robyn's.

These 2 photo's below, from 1 of the Italian magazines, show why I don't believe that Meredith started to undress her clothing herself.

92 photo's are in the Italian article link, most you've probably seen:
http://www.corriere.it/foto-gallery...-50b6ec24-882f-11e3-bbc9-00f424b3d399.shtml#1





Why?
Because the placement of her bra, as seen better in the 2nd photo, makes it seem more likely to me that the same person who removed it and placed it there, also placed her pants and panties where they too were found...

Maybe she did take her shoes and socks off herself near her closet though
when Rudy Guede, by surprise, entered her bedroom and then...

Thoughts?
RW

PS-Is that the history book on the floor by her sweatshirt jacket and closet?
Is that her handbag that she was carrying that night, lying on the blue floormat cover by her shoes and socks?
Or did she have the brown purse with her at Robyn's, that was found on her bed after the duvet was removed?

.
Greeting to you too RW.

Is that a kiter in your Avatar? Is it you?

I think the book on the floor is some kind of dictionary. It says Collins on it.

I think the white bag lying close to the mat is the handbag Meredith was carrying that night. I suspect she carried the brown purse inside the handbag. There is a double earphone/earbud wire coming out of the handbag and going under the duvet.

I think Meredith normally positioned the mat alongside her bed so she would not have to step on a cold floor in the morning. I checked pictures and that is where the other three girls positioned theirs. So the mat was probably moved during the assault and anything lying on the mat, like shoes or socks, may also have moved with it.


One thing that really stands out to me in the very last photo you posted is that there is a significant amount of blood staining on the floor in the area between Meredith's bed and the pillow, and probably under the pillow. The blood soaked towel was also found there, mostly under the duvet, which implies to me that the towel was used before the duvet was placed there, and that the towel was used to wipe the area close to the bed. In fact I think that Rudy may have wiped all the areas of the floor with the towel except where Meredith was lying and bleeding, over by the wall.

If so, it would be AFTER wiping up the floor that Rudy positioned the duvet on the now clean or cleaned floor, and dragged Meredith's body to where it was eventually found.

I am not sure why Rudy would do that. I have speculated before that he might have intended to do a clean up, then wrap Meredith's body in the duvet and remove it from the scene, but later realized the futility of it, or just could not organize it.
.

 

[Desert Fox]

There could have been some remorse or at least shock of what he had just did. . . .
He covered the body as a result.

 

[codyjuneau]

There could have been some remorse or at least shock of what he had just did. . . .
He covered the body as a result.

.
Perhaps, but the duvet was not just on top of Meredith. She was partially wrapped in it. When the duvet was peeled back, Meredith's right arm and right leg were on top of it. Also the pillow had pushed a kind of dent into the duvet.
.

 

[anglolawyer]

Well he didn't say 9:20. He said 9:20 to 9:30. Why would he have looked at the time? What possible reason would there have been for him to find Meredith's phones and look for the time.

Once again you bring in GE but you still have no idea when she actually started eating.

When exactly did he make his statement? How long after Amanda had made her accusation with the scream included?

Not one person had come forward in the 11 days before his Skype call saying they heard the scream. He does in fact point a finger at Raf during the second Skype.

) But, an Italian?

jack says: (7:12:22) Patrick or Raffaele?

Rudy Hermann says: (7:12:24PM) I think so.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:12:24PM) Right. I don't have much money, unfortunately.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:13:06PM) No Patrick.

jack says: (7:13:14PM) Raffaele?

jack says: (7:113:37PM) I can send you some money

Rudy Hermann says: (7:13:38PM) The guy was Italian, because we insulted each other.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:13:49PM) And he didn't have a foreign accent.

Rudy Hermann says: (7:14:01PM) And how?

jack says: (7:14:07PM) So, the Raffaele on TV?

Rudy Hermann says: (7:14:18PM) I think so​

.

So he basically names Raf from seeing him on TV. Doesn't seem that worried about Raf having an alibi.

But he has an out if it turns out Raf does have an alibi. He expresses himself provisionally (which he would also do if he were telling the truth since he didn't know Raf and identification from a photo of someone he may not have got a good look at in the hypothetical confusion of the confrontation would be difficult anyway).

 

[anglolawyer]

.
Greeting to you too RW.

Is that a kiter in your Avatar? Is it you?

I think the book on the floor is some kind of dictionary. It says Collins on it.

I think the white bag lying close to the mat is the handbag Meredith was carrying that night. I suspect she carried the brown purse inside the handbag. There is a double earphone/earbud wire coming out of the handbag and going under the duvet.

I think Meredith normally positioned the mat alongside her bed so she would not have to step on a cold floor in the morning. I checked pictures and that is where the other three girls positioned theirs. So the mat was probably moved during the assault and anything lying on the mat, like shoes or socks, may also have moved with it.


One thing that really stands out to me in the very last photo you posted is that there is a significant amount of blood staining on the floor in the area between Meredith's bed and the pillow, and probably under the pillow. The blood soaked towel was also found there, mostly under the duvet, which implies to me that the towel was used before the duvet was placed there, and that the towel was used to wipe the area close to the bed. In fact I think that Rudy may have wiped all the areas of the floor with the towel except where Meredith was lying and bleeding, over by the wall.

If so, it would be AFTER wiping up the floor that Rudy positioned the duvet on the now clean or cleaned floor, and dragged Meredith's body to where it was eventually found.

I am not sure why Rudy would do that. I have speculated before that he might have intended to do a clean up, then wrap Meredith's body in the duvet and remove it from the scene, but later realized the futility of it, or just could not organize it.
.

Oh well, if we must discuss this ... FWIW my theory is he was turned on after he assaulted her (maybe also before and during) but he found the blood off-putting. So he did what he could to mop it up, staunch it or whatever and by covering the floor with the duvet he obscured some of it. Then he pulled her onto the duvet (as you can see by the position of her right leg and arm) undressed her and jerked off. The duvet was part of his preparation for sexual activity, as was the pillow.

 

[codyjuneau]

Oh well, if we must discuss this ... FWIW my theory is he was turned on after he assaulted her (maybe also before and during) but he found the blood off-putting. So he did what he could to mop it up, staunch it or whatever and by covering the floor with the duvet he obscured some of it. Then he pulled her onto the duvet (as you can see by the position of her right leg and arm) undressed her and jerked off. The duvet was part of his preparation for sexual activity, as was the pillow.

.
Both of our theories/hypothesis are probably not worth much Anglo. If there is one thing I have learned, it is that when it comes to specifics about what happened in this case, just about everybody interprets just about everything, differently.
.