Amanda Knox New Motivation Report RE: Meredith Kercher Murder #1 *new trial ordered*

[Sonata]

I wish they would go back to Kokomani. I am convinced he may have been involved.

Just to check - is there anyone on this board who has any doubt about Rudy's involvement in the murder?

 

[MichaelSmith]

I wish they would go back to Kokomani. I am convinced he may have been involved.

Just to check - is there anyone on this board who has any doubt about Rudy's involvement in the murder?

JMO but it was Kokomani's car outside the cottage at 8pm and Rudy was going to meet him but I don't think he was inside the cottage when Rudy killed her.

 

[MichaelSmith]

"Knox told police that she was in the flat when Meredith Kercher was murdered and actually stuck her fingers in her ears as Kercher screamed, according to The Star. Amanda's additional year of sentence resulted when she went on to name the alleged murderer at the scene as Patrick Lumumba, her employer at a bar in Italy."

http://www.examiner.com/article/amanda-knox-getting-bald-spot-as-defense-wraps-up-case

Knox knew that more than one person was involved, and that is supported by the evidence. She knew that Meredith bled to death before the cause of death was known.

She found out how Meredith died from Luca in the car on the way to the police station Nov 2. Why is it after all these years you don't know this?

 

[Sonata]

JMO but it was Kokomani's car outside the cottage at 8pm and Rudy was going to meet him but I don't think he was inside the cottage when Rudy killed her.

Interesting. Do you think Rudy was a lone wolf? Or do you think maybe Kokomani was there to help breaking in/driving away?

 

[MichaelSmith]

Interesting. Do you think Rudy was a lone wolf? Or do you think maybe Kokomani was there to help breaking in/driving away?

I think Rudy did it alone but met Koko outside the cottage an hour before Meredith arrived home. How and why they met up and who covered it up is the mystery. Probably a drug deal, it might explain Guede's violence?

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Knox knew that more than one person was involved, and that is supported by the evidence. She knew that Meredith bled to death before the cause of death was known.

What evidence do you believe supports the involvement of more than one person. That is not what Massei's summary indicates.

 

[Malkmus]

"Knox told police that she was in the flat when Meredith Kercher was murdered and actually stuck her fingers in her ears as Kercher screamed, according to The Star. Amanda's additional year of sentence resulted when she went on to name the alleged murderer at the scene as Patrick Lumumba, her employer at a bar in Italy."

http://www.examiner.com/article/amanda-knox-getting-bald-spot-as-defense-wraps-up-case

Knox knew that more than one person was involved, and that is supported by the evidence. She knew that Meredith bled to death before the cause of death was known.

You keep citing one thing, but saying something different. Do you think you've convinced anyone that she said three or even two people were involved in the murder by posting her statement where she hears one person in another room commit the act?
For someone who repeatedly tries to make someone else out to be a liar you sure do post a lot of misinformation.

 

[sherlockh]

I rebutted your arguments from comment #601 in comment #604, and you did not respond to the rebuttal. I suggest you reread Massei.

Snipped. I did and nothing you said proves anything. You simply don't agree with the autopsy (as if you were there), and are completely ignoring the arguments. Dr Lalli was right when he noticed the mushroom and he was right to state that a factor like stress would influence the process so that we can't say anything definite about it. The mushroom by itself already destroys the 'lack-of-duodenum contents' theory because it shows that everything was completely normal after 9pm.

In the autopsy, Dr. Lalli noted the following: "... oesophagus containing a fragment apparently a piece of mushroom

These claims were essentially repeated at the hearing on April 3, 2009 (see pages 36 and following the hearing transcripts, April 3, 2009) in which the presence of a fragment of mushroom in the opening of the lower stretch of oesophagus was confirmed, thus in a phase of non-digestion;

He added, however, that the digestive process is influenced by many factors like the type of meal, cold, stress, physical conditions and so on, and that to his knowledge there were no reliable studies that could establish "by how much the digestive process can be changed by these factors" (page 86).

If after 9pm everything was normal with the duodenum then how can minutes later the lack-of-duodenum contents become suddenly not normal? That is absurd.

Then you completely ignore the delaying factor stress and this just so happened to be indicated by Rudy that both Amanda and Meredith were fighting. I told an example of the stress that athletes feel before a game, I see at JREF that somebody quoted another example.

This "brain-gut axis" helps explain why researchers are interested in understanding how psychological or social stress might cause digestive problems. When a person becomes stressed enough to trigger the fight-or-flight response, for example, digestion slows or even stops so that the body can divert all its internal energy to facing a perceived threat. In response to less severe stress, such as public speaking, the digestive process may slow or be temporarily disrupted, causing abdominal pain and other symptoms of functional gastrointestinal disorders.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsl...tter/2010/August/stress-and-the-sensitive-gut

BBM. So in no way it has to be the stress of torture or a state of panic. Something far less severe can already delay it, although I do believe that the fight was huge because it resulted in Meredith being killed after all.

Then there is an interupted phone call Meredith made at about 9pm to her mother. This is IMO an indication that Meredith was not alone at the time and in the presence of somebody familiar to her. Otherwise she wouldn't eat and drink something. If anything, we can only conclude the lack of duodenum contents shows that Rudy was not lying about the fight and that there was big trouble between Amanda and Meredith.

Then there is Rudy himself and a whole bunch of witnesses who all indicate a later TOD.

 

[sherlockh]

This entails believing that Meredith and Rudy went into the cottage together. I don't believe that, nor do most people. There's no reason to think he wasn't there from the times he states. The only difference being that Meredith wasn't there until 9.

Of course he is lying, but what has that to do with the timing? If he had known that Meredith arrived at 9pm then he would have said 'they' arrived at 9pm. It is no coincidence that for both arrival and 'scream' time he mentions :20-:30. The difference is exactly an hour and that is what he is trying to say here. Meredith was attacked after an hour.

 

[sherlockh]

You keep citing one thing, but saying something different. Do you think you've convinced anyone that she said three or even two people were involved in the murder by posting her statement where she hears one person in another room commit the act?
For someone who repeatedly tries to make someone else out to be a liar you sure do post a lot of misinformation.

Knox standing in the kitchen with her fingers in her infected ear and not doing anything while her roommate is being murdered doesn't exactly make her uninvolved.

 

[Malkmus]

Knox standing in the kitchen with her fingers in her infected ear and not doing anything while her roommate is being murdered doesn't exactly make her uninvolved.

Actually it does. Or does that mean Nara Capazelli was also involved?

Nor does this have Nothing to do with ottos claim that she knew three people were involved.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

From the English summary of Raffaele Sollecito's appeal document: "An item of food found in the 3rd distal esophagus was kept in a container but never tested to determine what is was, which likely was an apple from the apple pie desert she ate after dinner and not a mushroom from her home. The defense requests that this sample be tested to confirm what it is. If the sample is apple as the defense believes, the time of death would be closer to the range that the defense suggests, 9:30pm to 10:00pm." Whether it was a mushroom or apple is interesting but not an absolutely vital issue to either the prosecution's case or to the defense's arguments in my judgment. Even if Meredith had eaten a mushroom, it would not change the issues surrounding the lack of material in her duodenum.

IMO the emptiness of the duodenum makes the Mignini/Massei timelines unlikely, just as Meredith's phone records between about 9:58 to 10:15 PM independently do the same thing. The same is true of the lack of a second call to her mother, the lack of texting, the failure to remove the laundry. Moreover, these improbabilities are multiplicative. One more thing: Meredith's apparent t(lag) for this meal was longer than average or median values, so much so that even if one moves the time of her last meal much later, to 7:45 for example, it does not make Massei's TOD more likely than one closer to 9 PM.

If someone believes that Amanda went to her apartment around 9 PM without Raffaele and that there was a confrontation shortly thereafter, then lack-of-duodenum arguments are unlikely to persuade him or her otherwise. However, such a scenario raises other questions: How did Amanda alone communicate with Rudi? How did she communicate with Raffaele if not by cell phone (there being no record of communication between Amanda and Raffaele)? How quickly could Amanda go from acting normally (Popovic) to being so messed up on drugs that she would participate in murder? Why didn't Curatolo see Rudi? I don't mean this as an exhaustive list.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Snipped. I did and nothing you said proves anything. You simply don't agree with the autopsy (as if you were there), and are completely ignoring the arguments. Dr Lalli was right when he noticed the mushroom and he was right to state that a factor like stress would influence the process so that we can't say anything definite about it. The mushroom by itself already destroys the 'lack-of-duodenum contents' theory because it shows that everything was completely normal after 9pm.

SNIP

Then there is an interupted phone call Meredith made at about 9pm to her mother. This is IMO an indication that Meredith was not alone at the time and in the presence of somebody familiar to her. Otherwise she wouldn't eat and drink something. If anything, we can only conclude the lack of duodenum contents shows that Rudy was not lying about the fight and that there was big trouble between Amanda and Meredith.

Then there is Rudy himself and a whole bunch of witnesses who all indicate a later TOD.

Your arguments are devoid of merit. I demonstrated that Lalli was wrong in his statement about the length of t(lag) by citing the actual scientific literature. You are ignoring this, not I. The presence of food in the esophagus does not destroy any theory on your unsupported say-so. I'd love to see a citation, but I would settle for hearing your line of reasoning.

The issue with the food in the esophagus was that it was not rigorously tested for identity. Elsewhere in the Massei report one can find reference to the presence of apple, from the apple crumble, bolstering the hypothesis that the food in the esophagus was also apple. According to you we can use lack of duodenum contents to buttress Rudi's absurd claim about an argument? That is a wild extrapolation from the data IMO.

 

[Malkmus]

Of course he is lying, but what has that to do with the timing? If he had known that Meredith arrived at 9pm then he would have said 'they' arrived at 9pm. It is no coincidence that for both arrival and 'scream' time he mentions :20-:30. The difference is exactly an hour and that is what he is trying to say here. Meredith was attacked after an hour.

Why would Rudy admit that he actually got to the cottage at 8:30? Because there was a witness who could place him there at that time if he said otherwise - the "drug dealer" parked out front. That's why he's honest about what time he got there, and why he also says that he had to wait for Meredith to arrive home.

 

[sherlockh]

Why would Rudy admit that he actually got to the cottage at 8:30? Because there was a witness who could place him there at that time if he said otherwise - the "drug dealer" parked out front. That's why he's honest about what time he got there, and why he also says that he had to wait for Meredith to arrive home.

Sounds like you are able to read his mind. Where is this 'drug dealer' witness? How does he know that drug dealer witnessed him? How does he know that drug dealer would remember the exact time of him being there? Why in the world would he think that drug dealer would ever come forward? Why does he think there are no witnesses to Meredith arriving there at 9pm? Doesn't really make a lot of sense does it? You are just picking a few things and wanting them to be true while other things must be a lie. I don't see the logic in this.

 

[sherlockh]

Your arguments are devoid of merit. I demonstrated that Lalli was wrong in his statement about the length of t(lag) by citing the actual scientific literature. You are ignoring this, not I. The presence of food in the esophagus does not destroy any theory on your unsupported say-so. I'd love to see a citation, but I would settle for hearing your line of reasoning.

The issue with the food in the esophagus was that it was not rigorously tested for identity. Elsewhere in the Massei report one can find reference to the presence of apple, from the apple crumble, bolstering the hypothesis that the food in the esophagus was also apple. According to you we can use lack of duodenum contents to buttress Rudi's absurd claim about an argument?

I don't find the mushroom is an apple argument very convincing. None of us were there during the autopsy except for the coroner. Do we really need a scientific test to distinguish a mushroom from an apple? Again you are ignoring delaying factors such as stress. Other then that, I don't see the point in repeating myself yet again. Besides Naruto was tossed so what is even the point of arguing about an earlier TOD? I don't necessarily disagree with the Appeal court that the TOD was a bit earlier by the way although the 22:15 is a bit too early IMO. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle and is closer to the calculations of the coroner (22:50).

 

[sherlockh]

Actually it does. Or does that mean Nara Capazelli was also involved?

Nor does this have Nothing to do with ottos claim that she knew three people were involved.

Nara never specified that she knew somebody was being killed when she heard the scream, nor was she present in the cottage where she would have been able to do something. Knox explained she was present and aware of what was going on. However she did not do anything about it and under Italian law this makes her involved. The same goes for her bf who at one point she puts at the scene as well. So the total of people that were involved is 3 according to Knox herself.

 

[Malkmus]

Sounds like you are able to read his mind. Where is this 'drug dealer' witness? How does he know that drug dealer witnessed him? How does he know that drug dealer would remember the exact time of him being there? Why in the world would he think that drug dealer would ever come forward? Why does he think there are no witnesses to Meredith arriving there at 9pm? Doesn't really make a lot of sense does it? You are just picking a few things and wanting them to be true while other things must be a lie. I don't see the logic in this.

How I've come to the conclusion Rudy was at the cottage from 8:30 to 9:30:

1. He says so himself TWICE
2. He has no reason to lie about those times
3. He states there was a drug dealer he knew parked outside the house when he arrived. More reason not to lie about the time he arrived if that person later placed him there at that time.

How you have come to the conclusion Rudy was at the cottage from 9:30 to 10:30:

1. Because in one version he describes Meredith and he going to the cottage at 8:20/30. He must be off by an hour, despite this really meaning he would be off by a half an hour.

But for some reason my explanation seems baffling to you?

If Rudy is mistaken about the times he was there then who's to say he isn't off about the amount of time he was there? You see, by saying he is so off about his own memory of the time he was there means you can't rely on him for any time.

Your questions about the witness are irrelevant. Who cares "where" he is? Maybe it's Kokomani. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's someone who didn't pay attention. Why does Rudy have to be sure the witness would remember exactly what time he was there? He only has to assume he would remember. The point is Rudy saw someone who very well could place him at the cottage at the time he arrived.

Regardless, he says himself he was there from 8:30 to 9:30 and to change that based on a lie about Meredith having a date with him doesn't change that.

 

[Malkmus]

Nara never specified that she knew somebody was being killed when she heard the scream, nor was she present in the cottage where she would have been able to do something. Knox explained she was present and aware of what was going on. However she did not do anything about it and under Italian law this makes her involved.

I'd love to hear your assertion that if two females are at home and a male attacks one of them and the one not being attacked doesn't do anything that she is also involved in the act. I think many if not most would find this to be very offensive towards victims who have actually been in that situation.
But Patrick never killed Meredith and Amanda was never outside the room covering her ears so what's the point of this?

The same goes for her bf who at one point she puts at the scene as well. So the total of people that were involved is 3 according to Knox herself.

You must've known I would ask for a citation for this. Or are you going to reference some taken out of context tabloid story.

 

[sherlockh]

How I've come to the conclusion Rudy was at the cottage from 8:30 to 9:30:

1. He says so himself TWICE
2. He has no reason to lie about those times
3. He states there was a drug dealer he knew parked outside the house when he arrived. More reason not to lie about the time he arrived if that person later placed him there at that time.

How you have come to the conclusion Rudy was at the cottage from 9:30 to 10:30:

1. Because in one version he describes Meredith and he going to the cottage at 8:20/30. He must be off by an hour, despite this really meaning he would be off by a half an hour.

But for some reason my explanation seems baffling to you?

If Rudy is mistaken about the times he was there then who's to say he isn't off about the amount of time he was there? You see, by saying he is so off about his own memory of the time he was there means you can't rely on him for any time.

Your questions about the witness are irrelevant. Who cares "where" he is? Maybe it's Kokomani. Maybe it isn't. Maybe it's someone who didn't pay attention. Why does Rudy have to be sure the witness would remember exactly what time he was there? He only has to assume he would remember. The point is Rudy saw someone who very well could place him at the cottage at the time he arrived.

Regardless, he says himself he was there from 8:30 to 9:30 and to change that based on a lie about Meredith having a date with him doesn't change that.

I care. So do you have a witness who saw Rudy arriving at 8:30pm or are you making all of this up? Maybe this...maybe that... I simply quoted what Rudy said in that Skype Call. I don't have to make up these kind of silly stories about mysterious drug dealers. The Appeal Court used the Skype Call to indicate the TOD was earlier than 11:30pm and came to the conclusion that TOD was at 10:15. So obviously they included that Rudy was off with his timing. It is impossible to come to a TOD of 10:15pm when the Appeal Court had taken Rudy's words literally. I feel like I am defending the Appeal Courts reasoning now which is in no way my intention