Meredith Kercher murdered-Amanda Knox appeals conviction #17

[Nova]

The problem for the defense is that witnesses like Capezzali and Curatolo have been very detailed in what they witnessed. Saying they don't remember exactly the day or date so therefore whatever they have to say isn't important anymore isn't going to work IMO.

Capezzali had never heard such a horrible scream ever before in her life. It is a total coincidence that exactly at the time the scream occurred she passed by the window on the way to the toilet. Curatolo was very specific about where the couple was standing, what they were doing and what they were looking at. And we know that at that time of the night there was indeed something to look at near the cottage gate. These small details are important and determine the reliability of these witnesses.

How can a witness confusing the day and time NOT be important? Particularly when she doesn't appear to live in a building where street sounds carry.

 

[Nova]

Thanks for the clarification. I still find it hard to believe that everyone was keeping hush-hush, basically waiting for the tow truck to leave to kill Meredith. Any thoughts on all the other problems with the eyewitness testimony?

Indeed not. And all of the proposed theories involve some sort of social engagement that escalated into violence. Yet the broken-down car and tow truck people saw no lights in the cottage.

So the party-that-got-out-of-hand couldn't have started until after the tow truck left. And now we're getting too close to the time when MK's phone pinged at the disposal site.

Whether one uses computer records, cell phone records, stomach contents or eyewitness testimony, there simply wasn't time for AK and RS to have conspired with RG to commit murder.

 

[sherlockh]

How can a witness confusing the day and time NOT be important? Particularly when she doesn't appear to live in a building where street sounds carry.

She didn't confuse the time. She just couldn't tell the exact time. Her memory of what day or date it was is not important since she remembers what happened the next day.

Mrs. Capezzali specified and made clear that at night there was the scream and in the morning there was the finding of the dead girl.

I am confused about what day or date it is all the time. That doesn't mean my memory of important past events is corrupt. I have no idea what day it was when 9/11 happened but I know exactly where I was and what I did. I also don't remember what time I got coffee the next day. So now you will say my memory of where I was and what I did when 9/11 happened is wrong? I don't think so

I don't know what you mean with street sounds don't carry there.

She specified that the noises of cars and people reached her from the car park underneath her residence, and this generally went on until one o’clock in the morning.

 

[Malkmus]

Yes, I already clarified the problems with Curatolo. I don't see any problem with Capezzali. The court noted the inaccuracies but what really matters is that what she heard is reliable. The scream was confirmed by Monacchia and Rudy (whose statements are now part of this appeal).

Rudy puts the time of the scream at 9:20.

All that can be concluded from Monacchia and Capazelli is that at some point that night a scream was heard. How can there be any certainty over what time the scream was heard when one didn't know what time it was and the other imagines headlines printed before the murder was discovered? The only person who would know for sure when Meredith screamed is Rudy and I don't see why he would lie about that.

 

[Malkmus]

She didn't confuse the time. She just couldn't tell the exact time. Her memory of what day or date it was is not important since she remembers what happened the next day.

But her memory of what happened the next day is completely imagined. This is very important. All we can ascertain from her testimony is that maybe at some point she heard a scream.

I am confused about what day or date it is all the time. That doesn't mean my memory of important past events is corrupt. I have no idea what day it was when 9/11 happened but I know exactly where I was and what I did. I also don't remember what time I got coffee the next day. So now you will say my memory of where I was and what I did when 9/11 happened is wrong? I don't think so

I don't know what you mean with street sounds don't carry there.

Wow, where were you during our debate over Amanda remembering what time she ate dinner wrong? :crazy:

Here's the thing. You or I not remembering what time we drank coffee is irrelevant. What time we hear someone scream is verrrrry important, as it could determine the outcome of someone's fate in a criminal trial. If she heard a scream on a different night, it could have been someone else (For a number of reasons).

 

[Malkmus]

Yes, I already clarified the problems with Curatolo. I don't see any problem with Capezzali. The court noted the inaccuracies but what really matters is that what she heard is reliable. The scream was confirmed by Monacchia and Rudy (whose statements are now part of this appeal).

Massei's reasoning is... mind-boggling:

The fact that other people, who were heard on this point, stated that they did not hear any such scream, does not detract from the reliability of the statements of Mrs. Capezzali, having declared that she had heard a scream when she had woken up to go to the bathroom.

It is also held that the indication given by Mrs. Capezzali at some points of her deposition, according to which the day after she heard the scream she is supposed to have seen the posters with the news of the murder, should not weigh upon the reliability of the deposition and on the exactitude of her memory relating to the scream and its date.

He doesn't give any reason why her testimony shouldn't be ignored, just states it shouldn't just 'cause.

As I've stated, even if we believe she heard a scream, her memory of when things occur is so bad that timing the scream so precisely seems impossible.

 

[Allusonz]

The time of death has to be between 9 and 12:15. 9 is when she arrived at home, and 12:15 is when he cell phones bounced off a tower near the garden where they were found the following morning (Meredith's father called at that time). There isn't really anything to narrow down that time, so it's all speculation.

Again the t lag depends on a number of variables which in this case is known such as there being no abnormal pathology. There are a number of studies regarding transit (t lag)

"The time taken for food or other ingested objects to transit through the gastrointestinal tract varies depending on many factors, but roughly, it takes 2.5 to 3 hours after a meal for 50% of stomach contents to empty into the intestines and total emptying of the stomach takes 4 to 5 hours. Subsequently, 50% emptying of the small intestine takes 2.5 to 3 hours. Finally, transit through the colon takes 30 to 40 hours"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrointestinal_transit_time#Transit_time

Since the duodenum was empty and the friends testified that they ate between 6 - 6:30 you cannot push the t lag times past what is scientifically known, and we know the stomach contents had not passed and there was no abnormal pathology

The cell phone pinged at 22:13 in the area of the garden not 12:15. Please check RS's appeal for this information as 22:13 is 10:13

 

[Allusonz]

Honestly, all i can think is that AK might have gone home to get clothes and stuff since they had a trip the next day. RS didn't want her to walk alone because it was dark, so he drove her. They arrived, maybe spent time in the house and discovered blood etc while they were getting stoned. Maybe they didn't see the window because the door was closed and MK's door was closed but not locked. They might have eventually opened MK's door because they realized they hadn't seen her for a couple hours and it was getting later. Then they saw the murder, flipped out, locked the door and got the heck out of there. Its possible that RG was in the vacinty, returning to check out the crime scene and saw them running out of there.

That's all I can think of.

I can't think of a scenario, where AK knows she has to work that night, that she can somehow meet up with RG between 815pm and 840pm (850pm at least if she was talking to RS's friend at the house) to hook up with RG and escalate a murder by 930pm. RS can arrive later on, but at least AK has to be there.

The murder must happen by 10pm or the phones do not have enough time to get to the garden by 1013pm. Unless the prosecution is right and the defense is wrong that the phone wasn't in the garden at 1013pm.

Also the scenario has to include a need for AK and RS and RG to keep themselves separated into two camps for all this time, meaning no one has rolled over on anyone in all this time, and the closest one of them got was saying he saw someone who looked like RS and "heard" Ak's voice, after months and months of exposure to media-based "facts." I just can't believe that if AK didn't participate, but saw RG, she wouldn't have told that. Why after all this time isn't RS saying the hell with Ak and RG, so he can get out of jail?

I don't know. T

Neither can I. I would think their minds would be on other things IYNWIM

 

[Allusonz]

Wonder if there would even be negligence if someone was in the same house while someone was being killed, but too inebriated or stoned to realize what was happening - would be like they were sleeping while someone was murdered...

I've though that AK/RS might fit this scenario - and realized the next day that what they thought they dreamed actually happened... and then figured, lots-of-luck trying to explain this to authorities... still, the fact that AK didn't run home, actually has me believing she wasn't at the cottage at all while the crime took place...

I know the fact of them being too stoned to do anything has been brought up before. My question is if they were that stoned how could they of even made their way through the streets of Perugia, then AK be able to instruct them in a different language while stoned out of her mind. I can barely understand some whom have had too much to drink etc. in my own language let alone another

 

[Allusonz]

The problem for the defense is that witnesses like Capezzali and Curatolo have been very detailed in what they witnessed. Saying they don't remember exactly the day or date so therefore whatever they have to say isn't important anymore isn't going to work IMO.

Capezzali had never heard such a horrible scream ever before in her life. It is a total coincidence that exactly at the time the scream occurred she passed by the window on the way to the toilet. Curatolo was very specific about where the couple was standing, what they were doing and what they were looking at. And we know that at that time of the night there was indeed something to look at near the cottage gate. These small details are important and determine the reliability of these witnesses.

Yet can't identify the individual that she heard scream or the people she heard running. Add that to what Malkmus has posted and I believe it puts her testimony as stated at Mind Boggling

 

[Allusonz]

I've been noticing a pattern when it comes to eyewitnesses in this case. On multiple accounts, said witnesses have given incriminating testimony around events they believe happened, just on the wrong day. Curatolo swears he saw AK/RS at the basketball court - but on the wrong day, as realized by his account of the buses; Capazelli says she heard a scream and the next morning saw the headlines - again the wrong day; and when Rafaelle told police that Amanda had left him that night to go to Le Chic and a party, those events did happen - only it was the night prior. I wonder if this is a common police tactic.

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

Be careful it might be contagious as it seems to have affected PLE etc. :giggle:

 

[sherlockh]

Rudy puts the time of the scream at 9:20.

All that can be concluded from Monacchia and Capazelli is that at some point that night a scream was heard. How can there be any certainty over what time the scream was heard when one didn't know what time it was and the other imagines headlines printed before the murder was discovered? The only person who would know for sure when Meredith screamed is Rudy and I don't see why he would lie about that.

Rudy puts the time of the scream around 10:30pm since he left shortly after.
I don't see the point arguing the certainty of the timing. It is too bad the witnesses didn't carry a stopwatch but that is what happened. We can argue if the scream was at 10:30pm or 11:30pm or somewhere in between but what is the point?

From Rudy's Supreme Court doc:

He had left the house on via della Pergola at around 22:30.

 

[sherlockh]

But her memory of what happened the next day is completely imagined. This is very important. All we can ascertain from her testimony is that maybe at some point she heard a scream.

Wow, where were you during our debate over Amanda remembering what time she ate dinner wrong? :crazy:

Here's the thing. You or I not remembering what time we drank coffee is irrelevant. What time we hear someone scream is verrrrry important, as it could determine the outcome of someone's fate in a criminal trial. If she heard a scream on a different night, it could have been someone else (For a number of reasons).

No, it is not imagined. She is just mixing up events. Same as Curatolo who mixes up events from the evening before. So if you reason like that it is very relevant to remember when you drink your coffee since that is how you deduct that these witnesses are making things up which is completely false.

 

[Malkmus]

Rudy puts the time of the scream around 10:30pm since he left shortly after.
I don't see the point arguing the certainty of the timing. It is too bad the witnesses didn't carry a stopwatch but that is what happened. We can argue if the scream was at 10:30pm or 11:30pm or somewhere in between but what is the point?

From Rudy's Supreme Court doc:

That's precisely my point. It's possible Meredith screamed that night, but pinpointing the time to implicate RS/AK is futile.

 

[Malkmus]

No, it is not imagined. She is just mixing up events. Same as Curatolo who mixes up events from the evening before. So if you reason like that it is very relevant to remember when you drink your coffee since that is how you deduct that these witnesses are making things up which is completely false.

Not sure if you realize, but we're more in agreement that you might think.

 

[sherlockh]

That's precisely my point. It's possible Meredith screamed that night, but pinpointing the time to implicate RS/AK is futile.

I guess I don't really understand the problem then. It is not just possible. It is a fact for all the reasons already mentioned. We know the scream occurred because 3 different witnesses confirm it. The only thing left is the exact timing and whether that was 22:30 or 23:30 or somewhere in between doesn't exclude AK and RS nor does it exclude any of the other witness statements. Except maybe for Dramis who was rather specific that she heard running right after 23:30.

 

[sherlockh]

Not sure if you realize, but we're more in agreement that you might think.

I doubt it. You don't hear me comparing my current memory of drinking coffee the day after 9/11 10 years later, or the memory of 60(something?) year old Mrs. Capazelli after a month of when she read the paper after she heard the scream, with Amanda's memory of having dinner the day before her roommate was murdered half a day later.

 

[SMK]

From latest review of Burleigh text:

According to Burleigh, the crime scene was not secured, and DNA evidence that was allowed as evidence in court was not solid or reliable. Burleigh lived in Perugia and attended the trial to try to determine what really happened. She also corresponded with many of the players, including Knox, and excerpts are included in the book.

At times, the book is a bit long on the background of Perugia and its secrets and customs, but the details Burleigh uncovered during her research are compelling.

The early days of the appeal show that Knox's lawyers agree with Burleigh. Reuters reported that experts Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti told the court they found no evidence to support original police conclusions that the blade of the knife thought to have been used to kill Kercher carried traces of the victim's blood.

The trial is set to resume in September after a break for the summer.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/didn/5317100/story.html#ixzz1WEL4Smg0

 

[SMK]

Interesting excerpt from a PMF post; one of the few not calling the "Knox Groupies" a bunch of deluded circus nuts and imposters. I agree with the premise but not the conclusion:

I find it abhorrent to cling to pieces of evidence we thought we had, that turn out to be wrong. Really abhorrent, and exactly like the FOA. I believe that we cannot claim to be impartial and keep an open mind, unless we are willing to concede that some "evidence" is not valid. I strongly feel that this attitude strengthens the evidence that still stands. And I feel that there is quite a lot of that. I absolutely cannot believe for a moment that Amanda and Raffaele will be acquitted.

http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=402&start=2000

 

[wasnt_me]

RG didn't say anything about that in the skype call. I know that much, but he also said she was full dressed....so....I don't think it's impossible that he covered her, but I also don't think that it's impossible that someone like Rs, AK, or even FR discovered the body, covered her, and locked the door. The thing is, the leaving the door wide open part just doesn't seem to match any of the roommate's behavior.

I would think if FR happened to come by there and discover it, she would have made sure the door was locked because her computer was in there. Also, I think AK would have locked the door for a similiar reason. I just don't think either of the homeowners would have left the door wide open all night. Unless, of course AK was lying about that. If you're staging a break-in and (as other people theorize) you break the worst window, then I'm not gonna take the leap that you are cunning enough to think leaving the door wide open makes the burlgarly more believable. As some have said asked why RG didn't go back out the window, I'd think a stager might assume the "burglar" would go back out of the window. The only reason he wouldn't is if he were carrying something like a TV or couldn't see to get back down. Anyways, I don't think a stager would be thinking about that and thus leave the door wide open or lie that the door was wide open. They'd just assume the police would believe the burglar entered and exited from the same point.

So since I think that and don't think AK or FR would have been careless in locking up the house and keeping Mk's resting place from being disturbed, I have to believe one or two things, AK lied about the door being wide open or AK and RS weren't there.

RG on the other hand, did not know about the trick door. So I can see him closing it, but it coming back open. The police did the same thing. I saw a picture of the door with the gate closed and police tape on it, but behind the gate, the door had come open.

In this post I did earlier, I was referring to the front door. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion, because I don't think I made it clear that I meant the front door, not MK's bedroom door.