Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[otto]

From her trial testimony:

"AK: Um, around, um, we ate around 9:30 or 10 "

It seems 9:30 is the best time she could remember once she'd had time to really think about it. 9:30 can't really be looked at as any sort of excuse, nor is it very far off from the actual time they ate. But as I've stated, none of it matters because they're alibi was that they were at home all night.

Yes, that is one of the times she provided. In her written statement of Nov 6, she stated that she was "definitely sure" that they ate late, possibly as late as 11. I don't think we can pick and choose which of Amanda's statements to quote. It is the totality of statements that is the problem. She gave times of 9:30, 10, and 11. The truth is that dinner was about about 8:20.

 

[miley]

My understanding is that her phone registered that she was at Via Aquila when her phone received the text.

Patrick's attorney explains to Frank Sfarzo why his cell pinged near the cottage:

Patrick and Amanda exchanged their sms while he was at the bar and she in Corso Garibaldi. In the middle there's via S.Antonio, and that's why it appeared that Patrick's cellphone was in via S.Antonio instead of the bar.
The lawyer uses the occasion to remind me that even the presumed change of cellphone never occurred, whatever importance it may have had. If you ask, just to know, why Patrick admitted it, even the lawyer gets mad...
http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2008/03/when-truth-comes-out.html​

if I'm reading this correctly, Patrick never actually switched phones/sim cards - he only admitted to doing so under pressure.

 

[otto]

Not everyone has a clear sense of time. I generally do, so I'm surprised that some people are so vague about what time it is. But then I also have a clear sense of geography and am often surprised to find that many people have only a vague sense of where they are relative to well-known landmarks.

The supposed "lie" about where she was when we received PL's text message seems to serve no purpose. So why do we assume it was a lie rather than a mistake?

Amanda seemed to have no problem knowing what time it was when she had to attend class ... and presumably she was aware of whether she needed to eat before class, and whether she ate before class. I see no reason why she could not have the same capabilities when it comes to going to work.

 

[Allusonz]

Who was it saying that there was a 1 second call from AK to MK?

I see 3 calls listed from AK to MK in a 4 min period.

16 sec (ringing, no answer)
4 sec (voicemail)
3 sec (out of service)

Doesn't look so hinky when you see it in B&W and the correct info is published.

IIRC correctly sleuthy, she actually reached a recording on at least one of those calls, not a voice mail recording either, more like an out of service message

ooops you already detected that i am bad!!

 

[otto]

Malkmus, do you have a link for the cell phone times?

ETA: found the information on page 323 of the Motivation Report.

 

[otto]

Patrick's attorney explains to Frank Sfarzo why his cell pinged near the cottage:

Patrick and Amanda exchanged their sms while he was at the bar and she in Corso Garibaldi. In the middle there's via S.Antonio, and that's why it appeared that Patrick's cellphone was in via S.Antonio instead of the bar.
The lawyer uses the occasion to remind me that even the presumed change of cellphone never occurred, whatever importance it may have had. If you ask, just to know, why Patrick admitted it, even the lawyer gets mad...​

if I'm reading this correctly, Patrick never actually switched phones/sim cards - he only admitted to doing so under pressure.

Who is Frank, and is there a link?

 

[Nova]

Yes, that is one of the times she provided. In her written statement of Nov 6, she stated that she was "definitely sure" that they ate late, possibly as late as 11. I don't think we can pick and choose which of Amanda's statements to quote. It is the totality of statements that is the problem. She gave times of 9:30, 10, and 11. The truth is that dinner was about about 8:20.

Except the "totality" of times given may simply indicate she wasn't paying attention to the time and/or they ate a leisurely dinner, snacking through the evening.

I still can't find an answer to my question about RS' father's testimony. Did the father say RS SAID they had just finished the salad and fish? Or did the father say RS SAID he was doing dishes, and the court just assumed that meant dinner had been concluded?

 

[Nova]

Amanda seemed to have no problem knowing what time it was when she had to attend class ... and presumably she was aware of whether she needed to eat before class, and whether she ate before class. I see no reason why she could not have the same capabilities when it comes to going to work.

I didn't mean that she was literally retarded and unable to tell time when required to do so. But some people just aren't clock watchers. (And as a former college teacher I can promise you there are plenty of students who have trouble getting to class on time.)

Look at testimony re time in other cases. The only testimony that seems reliable is when people remember they were watching a certain TV show and the time can be gaged from that or because they had reason to look at a clock at the crucial moment. If it's true that AK headed off to work 90 minutes early, she may have been very casual about time.

 

[otto]

Except the "totality" of times given may simply indicate she wasn't paying attention to the time and/or they ate a leisurely dinner, snacking through the evening.

I still can't find an answer to my question about RS' father's testimony. Did the father say RS SAID they had just finished the salad and fish? Or did the father say RS SAID he was doing dishes, and the court just assumed that meant dinner had been concluded?

Raffaele's father's testimony was at least 45 pages in length. I suspect that the court was careful to establish whether Raffaele simply washed dishes or whether he was washing dishes for a particular meal - thus the additional information about a meal of fish and salad. I suspect that given that the kitchen floor was covered with water after 8:42, very little cooking was done in the kitchen after that time. (see post 325 this thread)

What it means is that Amanda had no idea when she ate dinner, but we know that she ate dinner at about 8:20 because of independent testimony. What we know is that Amanda "doesn't remember", as usual, and that she had no alibi for the night of the murder.

 

[otto]

I didn't mean that she was literally retarded and unable to tell time when required to do so. But some people just aren't clock watchers. (And as a former college teacher I can promise you there are plenty of students who have trouble getting to class on time.)

Look at testimony re time in other cases. The only testimony that seems reliable is when people remember they were watching a certain TV show and the time can be gaged from that or because they had reason to look at a clock at the crucial moment. If it's true that AK headed off to work 90 minutes early, she may have been very casual about time.

Amanda was punctual:

"Teachers at the university said they had been aware that Ms Knox lived in the same house as the murdered woman, but did not learn she was a suspect until her arrest on November 6, the day after the writing test. They said Ms Knox had been a keen and punctual student, "always in the front row", and had talked a lot about Seattle, which is twinned with Perugia."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2869155.ece

And what I do know, after 20+ years of working for law firms, is that except in cases of the most extreme criminal corruption (I've never heard of such a case, actually, I'm just allowing for its theoretical possibility), the lab does NOT decide what is divulged and what is withheld.

 

[SleuthyGal]

I'm convinced that those who decided AK and RS were guilty wouldn't believe anything they said.

They could be hooked up to polygraph machines and it still wouldn't help.

Once a mind has been closed, it tends to stay as closed as an oyster and will simply not consider that it might be wrong.

 

[Nova]

Raffaele's father's testimony was at least 45 pages in length. I suspect that the court was careful to establish whether Raffaele simply washed dishes or whether he was washing dishes for a particular meal - thus the additional information about a meal of fish and salad. I suspect that given that the kitchen floor was covered with water after 8:42, very little cooking was done in the kitchen after that time. (see post 325 this thread)

What it means is that Amanda had no idea when she ate dinner, but we know that she ate dinner at about 8:20 because of independent testimony. What we know is that Amanda "doesn't remember", as usual, and that she had no alibi for the night of the murder.

Actually, AK DOES have an alibi for the night of the murder: RS. But under pressure of interrogation, LE got RS to admit he couldn't say for sure what AK was doing while he slept. (To my knowledge, RS never gave specific testimony as in "AK was gone from 10 to 2.") Any alibi that depends on a sleeping person is by definition weak, but it isn't unusual when crimes occur at night.

If the dinner time is so important and the speculation is that RS' father mentioned the specific meal at 8:40, I am surprised the court didn't mention said fact in the Motivation Report. Quite the oversight that.

I don't think we can know whether cooking and the washing of dishes stopped when the lead was discovered. Some people make do (particularly when they don't own the property and longterm damage isn't their problem).

 

[SleuthyGal]

I was watching Dateline NBC (a true crime story) and one of the suspects had an alibi -- his wife. He was there the whole night although they got her to admit that during the time she was asleep she obviously couldn't be watching him and thus it was possible he got up at some point in the middle of the night.

The point?

This is a very common tactic police and prosecutors use to try and chip away at an alibi. They use the sleep angle a LOT.

So RS saying he "couldn't be sure what AK was doing while he was asleep" is not some code for "I did a crime." It's almost a standard interrogation tactic!

 

[otto]

Actually, AK DOES have an alibi for the night of the murder: RS. But under pressure of interrogation, LE got RS to admit he couldn't say for sure what AK was doing while he slept. (To my knowledge, RS never gave specific testimony as in "AK was gone from 10 to 2.") Any alibi that depends on a sleeping person is by definition weak, but it isn't unusual when crimes occur at night.

If the dinner time is so important and the speculation is that RS' father mentioned the specific meal at 8:40, I am surprised the court didn't mention said fact in the Motivation Report. Quite the oversight that.

I don't think we can know whether cooking and the washing of dishes stopped when the lead was discovered. Some people make do (particularly when they don't own the property and longterm damage isn't their problem).

I think I read, way back, that Raffaele's father bought the apartment for Raffaele, arranged for a weekly housekeeper, gave Raffaele an allowance, and ... we know he kept close tabs on Raffaele.

 

[otto]

I'm convinced that those who decided AK and RS were guilty wouldn't believe anything they said.

They could be hooked up to polygraph machines and it still wouldn't help.

Once a mind has been closed, it tends to stay as closed as an oyster and will simply not consider that it might be wrong.

I'm confused. If this means that the prosecutor would not believe anything Amanda or Raffaele said, I would have to agree.

 

[Allusonz]

Hey Sleuthy,
I'm not sure if you were around during the Ron Hendry discussion... of all theories, his wins hands down.

Here is a quote from Hendry (last part sounds like you):

"Typically, with major accidents, the police have little time to spend on a job before having to move on," Hendry explains. "I come behind them and usually spend a great deal more time. In cases that occurred months or years before I was brought in, the most relevant evidence is a set of photos of the accident scene. My technique is to study these photos intensely and then acquire enough information to do a scale layout. My approach is to analyze and interpret the physical evidence and review how it corresponds with witness accounts. I never start with witness accounts in any analysis."​

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december042010/amanda-know.php

you know miley i never thought of it in that context it does remind me of sleuthygal

 

[trillian]

I think Hendry's conclusions make the most sense in this case.

What made me first doubt the case against them was the poop left in the toilet. A threesome prank sex game doesnt make people poop and not flush, but someone who doesnt want the person who just walked in the door to know they are there - perfect sense.

So Rudy is just trying to be quiet by not flushing. Perhaps he even plans just to run out the front door but finds that it needs a key. Then the crime happens very quickly from there. The fact that she didnt finish a call with her mother (or call back), didnt take her jacket off, had not finished her laundry, and her stomach had not yet emptied all point to it happening just after she arrived home.

 

[Nova]

I think I read, way back, that Raffaele's father bought the apartment for Raffaele, arranged for a weekly housekeeper, gave Raffaele an allowance, and ... we know he kept close tabs on Raffaele.

Ah, I see. Thanks. Still and this is just a guess: a kid whose father buys him a flat and pays for a housekeeper isn't going to obsess over a little water spillage.

 

[Nova]

I think Hendry's conclusions make the most sense in this case.

What made me first doubt the case against them was the poop left in the toilet. A threesome prank sex game doesnt make people poop and not flush, but someone who doesnt want the person who just walked in the door to know they are there - perfect sense.

So Rudy is just trying to be quiet by not flushing. Perhaps he even plans just to run out the front door but finds that it needs a key. Then the crime happens very quickly from there. The fact that she didnt finish a call with her mother (or call back), didnt take her jacket off, had not finished her laundry, and her stomach had not yet emptied all point to it happening just after she arrived home.

That makes a lot of sense.

There is a report somewhere of another occasion when RG neglected to flush. (I remember this because the whole subject icks me out.) So maybe it was bad habit of his or maybe you are right that he was being quiet.

I'm thinking MK probably recognized RG because of his friendship with the boys downstairs, including MK's boyfriend. That's a simpler and more logical reason for a simple robbery to escalate to murder than "sex games gone wrong."

(ETA this timeline:

http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/timeline-2.html


contains a lot of speculation by the author; but putting that aside, testimony has MK arriving home around 8:50pm. Computer records place RS (and per RS, AK) in his own apartment until 9:46. by 10, MK's cell phone is being used to try to access her bank.

If MK was attacked before she took her jacket off, neither RS nor AK could have been there. (Not even if the infamous fish-pasta-salad dinner was finished by 8:42.)

If one ignores the evidence that MK was attacked shortly after she got home, then RS and AK still have less than 14 minutes to leave RS' flat, kill MK and try to use her cell phone to access her bank account.

I think in my mind I just went from "not proven" to actually "not guilty."

 

[otto]

Ah, I see. Thanks. Still and this is just a guess: a kid whose father buys him a flat and pays for a housekeeper isn't going to obsess over a little water spillage.

Raffaele had a leak under the sink while doing the dinner dishes, and the water spilled, or "flooded" (per Amanda), all over the kitchen floor. The spill was so significant that they decided they needed a mop to clean the spill, and then ... did nothing about it. Maybe they were too stoned and out of it to understand that the water needed to be cleaned up immediately for obvious safety reasons. Under normal circumstances, an intelligent young man like Raffaele, who came from a good home, would know to clean up the mess. Under normal circumstance, I would expect Amanda to know that the spill needed to be cleaned up. Instead, between the two of them, they decided to do nothing until the next day ... a very unusual decision ... unless their brains were soup.