Thank you, Steve!
Steve,
Thank you. Your are/have been simply incredible to give us a place to discuss this case. Thank you!
SB,
Bonjour a vous. Ca va toujours?
Thank you Steve!
beep:
Ca va trs bien, merci! Le printemps arrive!
SB,
N'est-ce pas! Dans la poesie, c'est le moment de la naissance.
Thanks very much Steve for the brand new thread!
Cool!! Thanks Steve! This will sure make Traduco happy... for a little while anyways.
Michael UK
Hey friend, did you read my posts concerning your last post on the old thread?
Beep -
"If I may, I would like to point out two other things as well. Assuming Rudy Guede is not lying, he did say that that Meredith was upset about losing her money and that she became furious. Several people have pointed out here that Meredith's anger would not have subsided so easily and that it would have precluded any kind of romantic evening. Additionally, it is my understanding that Meredith suffered three wounds, one of which was fatal. RobertM and others have pointed out I believe that these were 'intimidation wounds' with the final one being in my opinion one of rage. A botched drug deal would have meant a single wound in the heart or some other vulnerable body part. In my opinion, the wounds inflicted on Meredith are 'intimidation wounds' with one 'rage wound'. I could be wrong on this, but whenever I look at criminal acts like Meredith experienced, I just see rage. Criminals in general are must better than we think in exterminating their enemies. They do not like to leave behind a lot of evidence. In this case, you see a whole lot of evidence; which implies that whoever did do this were complete amateurs. I agree with others here who have said that after the crime was committed, a 'uh oh' moment occurred."
Perhaps not, but she may have been glad of the company...in fact, some ladies crave 'closeness' when they are upset. As for the wounds....they indicate at the least....that the person with the knife was playing with it around her neck in an intimidatory fashion...it would have not taken much more for a slip with that knife or a burst of anger or panic to draw it back and puch it through. I don't think those who did it saw themselves as 'criminals'...I think rather they were 'playing' at being criminals (which at the end of the day renders them into the same thing)...these were indeed amateurs. I certainly agree there was an 'uh oh' moment...although I imagine that it was some rather heavy expletives used in place of 'uh oh'. I responded to your 'doorbell' post on the previous blog.
Skep, Minotaur -
"It is true that Goofy Abdar was the source for that rumor, and was probably the person who planted it on Frank's blog. Frank shares your view on this aspect of the case. So maybe the more interesting question is why Goofy Abdar planted the idea, and why he has hinted at access to unpublished police reports to back his claim?"
This is a very good point. Either this character is telling the truth...in which case the 'Hash Robbery' is indeed a valid theory, as valid as any we have to date. Or, they are planting misinformation on the back of some very big claims. Considering the closeness of this individual to the family of one of the suspects this would be most interesting and would require further investigation. Therefore, either way, this is an interesting development 'worthy' of scrutiny.
"It is only after Lalli was gone that we see words like "rough" sexual intercourse".
Hi Sparrow
Actually, the Italian press has reported that from the very beginning.I have to dig out the reports, but I clearly remember
that there has always been uncertainty as to Meredith had been violated, because only bruises were found on the body even at the preliminary stages of investigation-not so severe to justify rape, but enough to hypothesize "rough" intercourse-
However, I don't think that lack of extreme violence marks on the body is enough to rule out sexual assault. Victims can be paralized by fear or just remain passive in order to avoid further damage (self-defense technique), which would result in objective findings of "rough intercourse" only. This is also prosecution reasoning.Actually,they have hypothesized non-consensual intimate touching (the bruises) and even if "standard penetration" has not occured, this is still considered sexual assault,which is a crime under the law.As a matter of fact, the trio is being held for complicity in homicide and sexual assault, not rape.
Unfortunately, Meredith cannot tell us how it really went, so investigators are trying to figure out the most reasonable hypothesis,by evaluating not only the visible signs of violence on the body, but also other circumstances such as testimonies of Meredith's friends.
: Is Rudy going to be heard by the PM?
A: I wish Rudy could be heard by him. The others have been questioned so many times while Mignini never really interviewed him. He had just a couple of questions during the GIP interrogation. But Mignini is such a good person and an excellent PM.
from Franks blog, Perugia Shock.
I just wanted to put Biscuit's words into perspective. If RG wanted to speak to the PM, Biscuits would just have to notify La Procura and the PM would go listen.
Open Question -
One thing that has been bothering me is the mobile phones (again). We have evidence of Rudy going into Meredith's bag , his DNA as well as Meredith's blood being found inside...we have him in the murder room. However, I recall 'no' mention of any traces of blood being found on the mobile phones....only mention of fingerprints. Why are there no micro traces of blood on the phones, which I think we can agree weren't bleached?
Damien,
Good work. I guess that puts an end to Rudy Guede telling us just who the attacker was that killed Meredith. It is amazing about the stonewalling that is currently going on between the people in custody. We were lucky to get those diaries/stories/tall tales/explanations/ whatever from them.
I guess if Rudy Guede is either unwilling or unable to identify the attacker of Meredith to the Authorities, then his story must be considered false; because after all, the real killer could then be found. If both Raffale Sollecito and Amanda Knox are also done talking as well, then the Authorities can only fall back on the motive of an either premeditated or un-premeditated sexual attack on the person of Meredith Kercher.
This might explain Rudy Guede's lawyer threatening to sue, and indeed, already has, anyone who claims that his client murdered Meredith. But Rudy Guede does/must know who did it. I do not think it was just his cowardice that made him flee the scene; he must have been an active participant up until the 'uh oh' moment.
Michael UK
There have been several theories put forward here about the phones. I personally do not believe that Rudy Guede was responsible for getting rid of the phones. And these are the reasons why. He fled the scene of the crime too quickly. He did not have the time to think about the phones. He was definitely in the bathroom at some time. He was only inside the house for about 40 minutes time. Later, he went to see his friend Alex I believe and even laments in his diary, that he did not have a phone. He was also seen later that night seen at the Discoteque. In his mind, he did not commit the crime so he could probably disassociate himself from it. One of Kermit's theories is that the phones were thrown from the road by someone else, most likely, the clean up crew. I prefer that theory because indeed, if we think of his three abandonment theory, the perpetrators locked Meredith inside her room to die and probably thought it would not be a good idea to have them inside for fear she might try to call someone. Later on, they realized they had them in their possession and just simply had to get rid of them. What better place then the ravine outside the city walls. It so happens that they arrived in the garden of the only home in that general area. The perpetrators could have easily cleaned the phones, thus erasing their fingerprints.
When you have 5 minutes, watch and learn:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WkLHXKHb1Vc
Anonymous -
"When you have 5 minutes, watch and learn:
"
Firstly, I'll point out that all the supsects in this case are 'adults'...not 'children'. Secondly, I think we are all well aware that 'sometimes' people make false confessions...just as we are well aware that people 'often' make true confessions. What 'confession' discussion is that you are responding to? What is your point...what is it exactly that we need to 'learn'?
bpcl -
Thank you for your response. I'm in complete agreement with you about the phones.
"When you have 5 minutes, watch and learn:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WkLHXKHb1Vc
Anonymous | 03.18.08 - 5:11 pm | #"
And when you have five minutes, give yourself a handle so you can join the discussion here and we can reply to the points you might want to make. If you look at earlier threads, you'll see that the issue of Amanda's confession (if that is what you are referring to) has been dealt already. I think we've pretty much covered that one, but if you have new information or insight we're all ears, provided you give yourself a handle.
Incidentally, if you're interested in the topic of false confessions, it was raised again recently on another Meredith Kercher related blog, in connection with a book on the subject.
Firstly, I'll point out that all the supsects in this case are 'adults'...not 'children'. Secondly, I think we are all well aware that 'sometimes' people make false confessions...just as we are well aware that people 'often' make true confessions. What 'confession' discussion is that you are responding to? What is your point...what is it exactly that we need to 'learn'?
Michael (UK | 03.18.08 - 5:56 pm |
Ok just remember it. Nothing more to say:
Anonymous
"Nothing more to say."
I didn't think you had.
Steve....we appreciate you allowing us to have this open thread! Thanks so much!
"I do not think it was just his cowardice that made him flee the scene; he must have been an active participant up until the 'uh oh' moment."
bpcl | 03.18.08 - 4:16 pm | #
Beep...I SO agree with you!
"It is easy to see that he wouldn't want to talk about what they did sexually out of respect for her." Sparrow | 03.18.08 - 2:13 pm
Hi Sparrow.... As soon as I read the part of his diary claiming there was nothing more than a kiss, my first thought was, "I bet when is/was confronted with the fact that his DNA was found inside her, he will probably claim(ed) that he only lied about it at first because he didn't want to dishonor her." not for a moment do I believe that he is that sensitive. Plus if Rudy really believed he was writing a "private diary" that no one else would read, this wouldn't make sense. (Though I am aware that he may never have thought of it as a private diary). If he wants the authorities to believe he thought his writings were private though, I doubt they would give an excuse by him such as being sensitive to her reputation any credence at all. If he didn't kill MK himself, he admittedly left her to DIE! Although a lot of Rudy's words can be touching,I think he is absolutely a liar, and take everything he says with a grain of salt. Maybe I should be more sensitive to his BS, but I'm not. First of all his story of being on the potty is such a load of crap (no pun intended). How convenient for him. I'm also convinced he had to know there was a phone available based upon the time line (MK's call with her Mom). AND I believe that two phones lying around would be hard to miss if he truly wanted to make a call. If they weren't out in the open, then they were in her purse, which he appears to have gotten into. People jusr don't put their cell phones away in a drawer, as service is lost at that point. If RG gave a damn about Meredith, and if he honestly didn't think there wzs a phone available, he would have run as fast as he could directly to a pay phone and called the police anonymously, instead of going to dance with his buddy.
Indie...Thank you sooo much for the valuable links you posted for me! I had never been able to find the one on Disqus, and there were lots of posts there! Thanks to your links, I realized that I had saved the rest of the Haloscans correctly though. That was so kind of you to go to the trouble to post all of that. I really appreciate it!
Oceania I too, enjoy reading your theories! We definitely need to look at this from every possible angle. I'm glad you stuck around.
Question for all....re:Meredith's purses. If I remember correctly, the one on the bed was found to have blood and Rudy's fingerprints?? The one they gathered recently from the closet also had blood on it, and it is the one she was actually carrying at the time? It probably doesn't matter, but it seems strange to me that the one she was using would be put away (closet I think?) and the one she was not using, on her bed. Am I just over-analyzing this?
I am really not good at condensing my thoughts.....sorry....again....for the long post. 
Uh-Oh! I didn't mean to leave bold on above....
Stacey,
The points you make about Rudy Guede are precisely the reasons why he doesn't speak anymore about the topic. He knows who the killer is because he was there and even admitted fighting with him. The fact that he has clammed up so to speak means that he is as involved in this crime as the others are, whomever they might be.
As disappointed as others might be in Amanda Knox, I am disappointed in Rudy Guede. All of the seemingly kind words he has mentioned about/for Meredith Kercher simply do not wash with me because he is not fulfilling his responsibility towards her by telling all that he knows and identifying the assailant against whom he says he fought. The time line for Rudy Guede is just too small. He says he arrived at the cottage to meet Meredith at 8:38 pm. She arrived at about 9:15 pm. We know Meredith started a phone call with her Mother at 9:30 pm. Assuming she finished the call at 9:45 pm gives Rudy Guede precisely 40 minutes or so to do all that he said he did in his diary. As his guardian said about him, Rudy Guede is a 'fantastic liar'
Sparrow,
I just read over my last post, and my response to you sounds so mean. I'm sorry! The rude way it was written is not directed at you. I just get ill thinking about what RG did. I hope you won't take it personally.
Beep,
What do you think about Meredith's two purses? Or am I remembering something wrong?
re:purses.....I didn't mean to say Rudy's "fingerprints," but his DNA. I was in a hurry but should have proofed before posting it anyway...
Stacey,
Actually, I have not really studied Meredith's purses as of this moment. Sorry about that.
Mr Huff, our collective thanks for allowing us, a rather disparate group of individuals from around the globe, to continue to discuss this fascinating murder mystery.
Rhonda and Stacey, hi, thankyou both for your supportive posts recently.
Michael, your open question re blood on the phones, this is such a good point and one that really puzzles me. Maybe it's just that we don't have any of this kind of analysis leaked (so to speak) of the phones as yet, and you're right about being unable to clean the phones thoroughly as most phones have all sorts of little crevasses around the numbers etc it would impossible to clean them completely of any blood or organic matter. Maybe also the phones had not been in a place at the crime to receive any DNA fallout and/or maybe the hands of whomever disposed of them had been cleaned of any blood, or as an accessory did not have any blood. Was it ever reported or established whether the phones were switched on or off when they were found ? I seemed to remember in a very early report that Sra. Elisabetta
heard one of the phones ringing either before or just after she had picked it up and it was an abusive call, it may have just been another piece of over enthusiatic reporting. I always thought if the phones were switched on the investigators may have been able to work out what time the phones moved from the cottage as a key way of marrying up what witnesses supposedly heard and saw etc. If only phones could talk (scuse the pun!).
I know I have seen it.
Could somebody point me to the reference made to Meredith's phone conversation with her mother on the night she died?
Could somebody point me to the reference made to Meredith's phone conversation with her mother on the night she died?
Brian S. | 03.19.08
The only reference I can spot is contained in this article. Its not clear where or how they got this info?
http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11...rdo-
amanda.html
The circumstances acclarate say that the last person to listen to the voice of Meredith before meeting his murderers (or his murderess) is the mother in England. Meredith la chiama alle 21.30 del 1 novembre. Meredith calls to 21:30 on 1 November.
Plus if Rudy really believed he was writing a "private diary" that no one else would read, this wouldn't make sense. (Though I am aware that he may never have thought of it as a private diary).---Stacey
Hi Stacey, I didn't think your post sounded mean at all. But this "diary" was not a true diary and never meant to be private. It's Rudy's statement. It was obviously meant for the world to see, because he's talking to people in it. The first 2 pages, which we didn't translate, are a letter to his basketball coach and and the coach's family. On those two pages he tells them how much he appreciates the kindness they showed him, how they made him feel like a part of the family, etc., etc. And the last two pages, which we also didn't translate, consisted of messages to friends, including at least two women who were mother figures to him, as well as childhood friends who had nicknames for him.
I just wanted to put Biscuit's words into perspective. If RG wanted to speak to the PM, Biscuits would just have to notify La Procura and the PM would go listen.
damian | 03.18.08 - 3:42 pm | #
Maybe it's not that Rudy has anything new to say to the PM. Maybe Biscotti wants the PM to question Rudy, so Rudy can defend his story, but mostly so Biscotti can get a feel for what the PM is thinking in regards to Rudy.
One thing that has been bothering me is the mobile phones (again). We have evidence of Rudy going into Meredith's bag , his DNA as well as Meredith's blood being found inside...we have him in the murder room. However, I recall 'no' mention of any traces of blood being found on the mobile phones....only mention of fingerprints. Why are there no micro traces of blood on the phones, which I think we can agree weren't bleached?
Michael (UK | 03.18.08 - 3:55 pm | #
This is such a great observation. They may have evidence from the phones they haven't revealed. But if not, this helps rule Rudy out as the phone thrower.
Sorry to go back again but this has been puzzling me for a while; why did the judge write that AK and RG were in the different bathrooms at the same time? Could it be that the drop of mixed blood was 'dated' and found to have been left at the same time as RG claims he was in the other bathroom? Is there another, more plausible explanation for the judge's words? I presume that the police know when the blood was left there. How precise is the dating of blood again...are we talking hours or minutes? (Sorry if this has been covered)
why did the judge write that AK and RG were in the different bathrooms at the same time?---Damian
I've never seen this discussed here. It's the first I've seen of it.
Ciao Passerotto,
Judge. '..le tracce ematiche della Knox in un bagno, e i segni inequivoci della presenza in contemporanea, nell'altro bagno, di Guede.'
The judge says AK and RG were in the different bathrooms at the same time.
Anonymous | 12.23.07 - 8:10 am | #
That was me forgetting to sign in at Christmas.
...because of the source and the wording, I thought it was interesting. I guess it depends on how long it took to 'date' the drop of blood and how accurate that dating is. It has been discussed here briefly and the 'concensus' seemed to be that it wasn't important...
...because of the source and the wording, I thought it was interesting. I guess it depends on how long it took to 'date' the drop of blood and how accurate that dating is. It has been discussed here briefly and the 'concensus' seemed to be that it wasn't important...
damian | 03.19.08 - 4:47 am | #
Hi Damian. Maybe Nicki has an answer. It seems incredible that they could determine that the blood and poo were deposited at the same time, during the same minutes, however. Could "contemporanea" in this case be interpreted as being a more general time frame? Like that night, or within a three hour time frame? It seems not the best way to use the word, but maybe?
I guess I end up asking the same question you are, Damian. Nicki will come to the rescue, I'm sure. I've gotta go. Ciao.
I also thought that maybe we had lost something in translation but in this context, I really think it can only mean 'at the same time.' In Italian, the meaning is clear. Since RG's business can't be 'dated' with any accuracy, but the blood can, I'm assuming that the forensic analysis of the blood ties in with RG's statement. Of course, I may be wrong, but only if those fornsic results weren't in at the time. (In my humble opinion) Either way, if that drop of blood has been dated to the evening of Nov 1, I guess that would be bad news for AK's team.
Damian,
They can say that both blood and feces were deposited in a similar time range, I think the "contemporanea" is an inference of the judge from blood and feces heving apparently been deposited at a similar time.E.g.Rudy mught have left his traces at 1030 pm. and Amanda at midnight...that wouldn't put them in the bathrooms at the same time.
Hi Nicki...but if that is what he meant, wouldn't he have written that? What he wrote is very clear, why he wrote it less so. Would you exclude the possibility that the dating of the blood ties in with RG's statement (or something else) and as a consequence he wrote that they were in the different bathrooms at the same time?
Not news as such, but Il Messaggero dell'Umbria is talking about the summit meeting again today...in March or the start of April.
The dating of the blood can tie in with RG s statement, but only approximately. e.g.we can't say that blood has been deposited exactly at 1135 p.m., only that it was deposited between time X and Y. Amanda's blood has been dated to be "fresh" enough to have been deposited much later than when she claimed she left home.
thanks Nicki...any idea what kind of gap there is likely to be between x and y? (cioe, how exact is the dating of blood?)
The only reference I can spot is contained in this article. Its not clear where or how they got this info?
http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11...rdo- amanda.html
The circumstances acclarate say that the last person to listen to the voice of Meredith before meeting his murderers (or his murderess) is the mother in England. Meredith la chiama alle 21.30 del 1 novembre. Meredith calls to 21:30 on 1 November.
DLW | 03.19.08 - 1:17 am |
DLW
OOps don't know what happened there
Thanks for the info.
I wonder if this is any more accurate that the phantom phone calls which didn't happen between AK and RG.
I wonder if this is any more accurate that the phantom phone calls which didn't happen between AK and RG.
Brian S. | 03.19.08 - 7:37 am
Brian S, You're right, possibly not true at all. Thanks for pointing that out. I experienced first hand how inaccurate some media can be, and am normally diligent about checking sources as soon as I read anything, but I didn't on this one. I had in my head it had been pretty well confirmed, but I should know better than to trust my memory these days.
You add a lot to this board. Thank you!
Brian S, '...the phantom calls which didn't happen between AK and RG.'
Do we know they didn't happen?
Amanda's blood has been dated to be "fresh" enough to have been deposited much later than when she claimed she left home.
nicki | 03.19.08 - 6:07 am | #
Do you have a source for that nicki? I guess that would be significant...
Il Giornale dell'Umbria reported on Saturday that the results from the analysis of the computers are due in this week. We'll see if any of them are leaked...
bcpl - I am thinking of a statement made by Amanda Knox in which she said to her parents, "I cannot lie, I was there that night".
-----------
I think we've already 'established' more than once that her comments were taken out of full context. Her mother claims Knox was referring to being at RS's house that night and not the cottage. Not that I'm defending Knox, I'm not - but if we're trying, as you say, to separate fact from fiction, then her comments shouldn't be taken as fact if they were taken out of context (which appears to be the case).
As far as both their phones being switched off at the same time, let's not forget that Knox says they were together that evening, and RS says they were not (at least not for the whole evening.) If they WERE together, why WOULDN'T they switch their phones off? There doesn't seem to be anything sinister in that at all. Once again, I am NOT defending either of them (since I feel they're both guilty of something, even if not the actual murder) - but it makes it much harder to piece together if their phones (and Knox's comments in jail about 'being' there), keep being bought up as 'significant' points - when I don't feel either of them are, particularly Knox's comments you refer to.
Same thoughts regarding what you said about Knox's dna being on the knife along with Meredith's dna. It doesn't prove a thing from everything I've read about it. It was 'news' released by the police months ago, but nothing substantial has been made of it.
P.S Accidentally posted this in the 'old' blog!
Something else to bear in mind:
Meredith Kercher's killers may have faked sex attack
From Nick Pisa in Rome
Last Updated: 1:54am GMT 04/02/2008
The killers of Meredith Kercher, the British student murdered in Italy three months ago, may have faked evidence of a sex game to cover their tracks, it has emerged.
Pathologist Luca Lalli who carried out the original post mortem has now indicated to prosecutors that ”sexual violence Meredith suffered may have been simulated.”
Dr Lalli
’s original inquest concluded that Meredith, a Leeds University student from Coulsdon, Surrey, was the victim of "sexual violence."
However a fresh examination of his notes requested by the examining judge Claudia Matteini has revealed that he now believes the violence may have been "simulated to make it look as if she had been the victim of a sex attack."
Sources said that Dr Lalli had reached this conclusion because no ”bruising consistent with a rape was found on Meredith’s body.” He also added that the ”depth and size of the wound to Meredith’s throat mean she may also have choked on her blood.”...
The Telegraph
I just wanted to put Biscuit's words into perspective. If RG wanted to speak to the PM, Biscuits would just have to notify La Procura and the PM would go listen.
damian | 03.18.08 - 3:42 pm | #
_________________
Maybe it's not that Rudy has anything new to say to the PM. Maybe Biscotti wants the PM to question Rudy, so Rudy can defend his story, but mostly so Biscotti can get a feel for what the PM is thinking in regards to Rudy.
Sparrow | 03.19.08 - 4:14 am | #
_________________
As disappointed as others might be in Amanda Knox, I am disappointed in Rudy Guede. All of the seemingly kind words he has mentioned about/for Meredith Kercher simply do not wash with me because he is not fulfilling his responsibility towards her by telling all that he knows and identifying the assailant against whom he says he fought.
bpcl | 03.18.08 - 10:45 pm | #
________________
Is it possible that Biscotti's message in the interview with Frank is that Rudy is now ready to tell the PM more than what his ultimately self-serving 25-page document revealed?
The late March-early April summit meeting could be very important, I think. This is where the various contradictions and inconsistencies will be brought together and examined with the three suspects and their legal counsel all together in the same room. I'm surprised it hasn't already happened.
"We know Meredith started a phone call with her Mother at 9:30 pm. Assuming she finished the call at 9:45 pm...
bpcl | 03.18.08 - 10:45 pm | #"
Remember, there is only one source for this information so far. When we first discussed it more than one month ago, it was in the context of Lalli's autopsy report, which showed that Meredith had a BAC reading consistent with a glass of wine, which was at odds with statements from her friends Robyn and Sophie that no alcohol was consumed during their evening together, which ended at 9 pm. So we have one source, and that source does not say how long the call lasted. It may have been 15 minutes; it may have been more; it may have been less. So we don't know how much time anyone had to do anything. The article also noted that Meredith was alone when she called her mother. This too has to be taken with a grain of salt before we use it to prove anything. One point Frank made recently, a propos the press reports that followed the 40-minute search and seizure last week, is that the top priority of journalists is sometimes to fill space. They get a two-sentence press release and turn it into a full column. I think all that extra column filler should be examined but mainly treated as "chaff" until it is further substantiated.
Damien
Among others, there's Van Zandt report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2233...d/22332240/
page
/5/#storyContinued
Ciao
Among others, there's Van Zandt report:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2233...d/22332240/
page
/5/#storyContinued
Ciao
nicki | 03.19.08 - 11:51 am | #
Van Zandt describes the droplet as "basically fresh blood." He doesn't say anything about how precisely it's dated, although he does seem to be convinced that it was fresh enough to put Amanda in the house on the night of the murder.
But if they use the degree of drying as a yardstick (as Van Zandt mentioned), Amanda's showering in that bathroom might have affected it. Bathroom fixtures are subject to condensation. Would the presence of moisture complicate attempts to date the blood deposit?
With time the blood cells shrink and blood coagulates according to specific labs parameters that allow forensics to determine if blood has been deposited a few minutes, hours or days before. I gather if investigators claim that the blood was deposited during the night, they have run the appropriate tests. It's their job.
'Analysts are confident that the fresh drop places her in the house the night Meredith was murdered.' (Nicki's link above)
This could be just jazzing up the article...filling space.
Like alot of the reporting in this case, it's a bit vague, but certainly pointing in the direction you mentioned nicki. Has anything similar appeared in the Italian press? Sorry to labour this, but if the forensics say that drop of blood was left there on the evening of nov1, won't that be a little difficult to explain away?!! What do you say?
However a fresh examination of his notes requested by the examining judge Claudia Matteini has revealed that he now believes the violence may have been "simulated to make it look as if she had been the victim of a sex attack."
If you examine the crime scene photo's of Meredith's bra, it is obvious that she "bled down" onto the straps.
It is obvious that she was still wearing the bra when the blood poured from her neck.
Liquid goes down hill.
Therefore TSTM, that the bra was cut from her body AFTER the death blow was made.
What male indulges in a sex crime without leaving their semen.
SB,
I agree with you in principle but this much I do know. Meredith did not reach the cottage until at least 9:15 pm. This time would include getting to the cottage, getting out the key, entering the cottage and so forth. You do agree that a call was made to her Mother do you not? Let's say she made the call exactly at 9:15 at the earliest and it only 5 lasted minutes, the minimum amount of time and it ended at 9:20 pm at the earliest, for the benefit of doubt. We know Rudy Guede ran out of the house by 10:30 pm. Assuming this time, Meredith had to be in the death throes before. Let's take the minimum amount of time for this, say 5 minutes. This would mean that the fatal blow was struck at 10:25 pm at the earliest.
This best case precise timing, to the benefit of Rudy Guede, would give him approximately 65 minutes to do all that he said he did with Meredith Kercher; and have romantic sex because his DNA is there on her body, whether it was forced or not. IMHO, he does not have enough time to do all of what he said. IMHO, he said he arrived at the cottage at 8:38 pm to give himself some more time. Unfortunately for him however, Meredith's friends can vouch that she left their home at 9:00 pm. Rudy Guede is lying on just about everything he said in his statement and he is protecting others who were involved.
What male indulges in a sex crime without leaving their semen.
Brian S. | 03.19.08 - 1:19 pm | #
One who wears a condom. One who is impotent. One who uses something else to assault... many options. But what your wrote in the first part of your post is very important. The bra was cut from her AFTER she was stabbed. It's pretty obvious. And Rudy said she was clothed when he left.
he said he arrived at the cottage at 8:38 pm to give himself some more time.---Beep
Beep, he never said he arrived at 8:38. This is something we got from way back, and I don't know where, but where is the source? He didn't have a watch or a phone (with a clock). In his own writing he believes he left the Kebap at approximately 8:30, but he doesn't know for sure. He was eating and talking before that. And he is habitually late. I don't think the precise time of 8:38 is one to be relied upon. A guy who doesn't have a watch, and is always running into friends and stopping to talk... he cannot be relied upon to give an accurate time. I really liked Michael (UK) description of what he believed to be Rudy's different way of experiencing time.
Beep
I have to agree with Sparrow on the timeline issue. Rudy is no world authority on time and, as for the two other suspects, they have some serious time issues as well. They have been wildly divergent on some issues according to their written statements. (Raffaele says they left the cottage on Nov 1 around 4 or 5, went to town and got home at 8 or 8:30; Amanda says they left the cottage at 6 and went back to Raffaele's to watch a movie, etc.) The only certainties we have to date as far as times go are those from cellphone and other digital records. My point is really that we shouldn't say such things as Meredith talked to her mum for 15 minutes because we have no basis whatsoever for saying this; we can't even say for sure that she did. This was reported exactly once.
And I have to question your statement that Rudy is lying because he wouldn't have had time to do all those things. All what things? A conversation about childhood can take five minutes; a sexual encounter can begin and go wrong in minutes; a sip from a container of apricot juice takes seconds. The one thing I am pretty sure of is that Rudy did not have time to flush the toilet (or simply forgot to) and, if the witness who saw someone like "him" is correct and he left at 10:30 pm, he probably didn't have time to do a clean-up of the magnitude that has been suggested. (Note that Biscotti hinted the other day that he will challenge this witness, who he says did not get a good look at the "black man" in question). But Rudy did have time to kill someone, or to participate in someone's demise. He is certainly lying about a number of things, but I'm not sure he's consciously lying about time, insofar as he didn't really seem to care too much about it. At this stage, given what little we know for sure and all that we don't know yet, I doubt we can solve this crime by looking at times. It is important to have a timeline, with confirmed times and suspect-generated times, and see how they link up and so on, but I don't think we can build a case on fuzzy times.
Sparrow,
Hello to you! Okay, let's give Rudy Guede the benefit of the doubt and say he arrived at the cottage at 9:15 pm along with Meredith. That still does not give him sufficient time to do all the things he said he did in the cottage that night. IMHO, he has between 40 and 65 minutes. That is simply not enough time. And we know that his DNA is in and on the body of Meredith. And from everything we know about Meredith Kercher, she was not a person to just offer herself any man she met just like that, so their encounter would have to have been extremely brief.
IMHO, Rudy Guede just does not have enough time to do everything he said in his statement and still have consensual/forced sex. I said yesterday that if Rudy Guede refuses to identify his attacker, then the authorities will have no choice but to fall back on the sexual violence angle. Once I see the entire version of his statement, I will develop a time line for everything he said he did at the cottage that night and I am sure you will see that he is basically lying, not only for himself, but others as well.
Sparrow:
Are you happy with "succhia gonne" being the right term (instead of "gomme")?
Beep:
What am I missing here? All what things? Please tell.
Sparrow,
I do believe too that there were others in the cottage that night. I do believe that Rudy Guede was telling the truth when he said he arrived there at 8:38 pm. This time coincides with certain times of others in custody. As Frank said the other day, Amanda Knox has a whole lot of explaining to do on certain, key evidence, as well as does Raffale Sollecito. I am a believer of what the Police authorities are saying happened to Meredith.
"I do believe that Rudy Guede was telling the truth when he said he arrived there at 8:38 pm."
Beep:
Here's my big problem. The 8:38 reference, as far as I know, does not come from Rudy. Every reference to it on the previous thread (I just checked) is from you or from Xin's timeline. But I don't know where it came from. I think Sparrow and Michael are right about Rudy's relationship to time.
And whether or not you believe all three were involved, it would be a bad idea to have that hanging on the very weak thread of Rudy's statement that he got there at 8:38--especially since he may never have said that.
1. MK's mother:
The report that MK phoned her mother in England on 1st November at 21.30 comes from La Reppublica of 7th November (http://www.repubblica.it/2007/11/sezioni/cronaca/
perugia-uccisa/ricordo-amanda/ricordo-amanda.html) . It is very convincing. The journalist is clearly not padding; he takes the trouble to say that 'Le circostanze acclarate dicono' that the last person to hear Meredith's voice was her mother. On the other hand he says 'Verosimilmente (la circostanza non ancora accertata), Meredith in quel momento era sola.' So he is clearly distinguishing between what he has been told for certain and what is speculation.
Like all times, 21.30 is likely to be an approximation; if she made the call from her mobile, she may even have made it while walking home from Sophie Purton's. One may speculate that it was not a long call: MK's mother was ill, and she probably phoned briefly every evening to check on her. Phone calls are expensive, and MK is known to have been prudent with money. I suspect a routine call of no more than a few minutes: "had dinner with friends, just got (or am going) home; will email you full account of Halloween over the weekend; see my Facebook for photos. Bye Bye". [Remark: when judging Facebook contents, don't forget that parents also have access, though perhaps not to everything.]
2. MK's phone-calls to the murderer:
On Tuesday 6th November the Telegraph reported that the police 'were thought to be closing in on the killer yesterday after discovering his phone number on Meredith's mobile phone. His fingerprints were discovered on the handset as well in the bedroom and front door handle of the student house she shared with three other female friends.'
This does seem to be journalistic padding, and probably derives from a report in La Stampa on Monday 5th November (i.e. before AK and RS were pulled in) which says:
'Ma nel portatile di Meredith che si nasconde la chiave del giallo. Informazioni decisive giungeranno dall'analisi dei files, che potrebbero addirittura contenere il nome e cognome del killer, e dall'esito dei tabulati telefonici dei due cellulari della vittima. C poi un super-testimone, sebbene non oculare. Sophie Purton, l'amica del cuore di Meredith, che durante l'interrogatorio-fiume cui è stata sottoposta avrebbe rilasciato dichiarazioni determinanti. '
All that says regarding phone-calls, is that 'decisive information "will be retrieved' from her mobile'.
HOWEVER, the reference to Sophie Purton (who has had the very good sense to keep her mouth firmly shut) is very interesting. We have no idea what her 'determining evidence' might have been; and its existence has, I think, not been remarked on this blog. Did someone phone MK while she was dining with Sophie? And if so who?
That is a crucial question.
3. Rudy's mobile phone:
RG's existence, and the fact that the police were looking for him (which they had been since 2nd or 3rd November, his fingerprints having been found) was first reported on 19th November, when his name was still unkonwn to the journalist, who refers to him as 'R.H.' . The report says:
'L'ultima volta il suo cellulare ha squillato una settimana fa. La chiamata è rimasta senza risposta, ma il tabulato ha svelato che si trovava a Milano. È lì che adesso si cerca R.H., l'ivoriano accusato di concorso nell'omicidio di Meredith Kercher' (http://www.corriere.it/cronache/07_novembre_19/
sarzanini_delitto_perugia_meredith_quarto_uomo.sht
ml)
It has frequently been said on this blog that RG didn't have a mobile phone at the time of the murder. But this implies that he did, and that it rang in Milan 'a week ago', i.e. on 10th or 11th November. Who was phoning him? Probably the police. And how did they find his number?
4. AK-RG phone-calls
If I remember correctly. at least one Anglophone newspaper reported that that AK and RG had telephonic contact both before and after the murder. Does anyone have a reference to this? It must have been a report postdating 20th November, but I cannot now find it.
5. The owner of this blog
has asked, concerning posters: 'if you express suspicion of who they really are, what their purpose is, please have a grounded, rational reason."
Several persons on this blog seem to believe that the poster signing him/herself 'cmellas' is a member of AK's extended family.
Can anyone here provide a documented instance of him or her posting something that was not already in the public domain?.I have already demonstrated (and been criticised for) the fact that anyone can post here under anyone else's name.
6. Damian:
Your snippets are invaluable. Please keep them coming.
SB,
8;38 pm Rudy Guede arrives at the
cottage (according to him)
8:47 pm Meredith arrives (according to Rudy Guede)
9:15 pm Meredith arrives at the cottage (from the girls testimony)
9:20 pm Pleasantries exhanged; enter cottage
9:25 pm Rudy asks for a drink;
9:30 pm Meredith calls her Mother
9:30-9:45 pm Meredith talks to her mother
9:45 pm Meredith realizes her money has gone (acc to Rudy Guede)
9:45-9:55pm The look for the stolen money (according to Rudy Guede)
9:55-10:10pm Meredith settles down; They have a chitchat.
10:15pm Phone call from Meredith's phone
10:10-10:20 pm Meredith and Rudy Guede have consensual sex (acc to him)
10:20-10:25pm (Rudy in bathroom:according to him)
10:25 pm Rudy Guede hears doorbell (according to him)
10:26pm Meredith stabbed
10:27pm Rudy Guede fights with assailant
10:30 pm Rudy Guede runs out.
If you look at these times, and if we make them better here, you will see that it is absolutely absurd that he did all of this and more while he was in the cottage that night
If Rudy is indeed telling the truth, then the other two in custody cannot be involved. If he is lying, then based on the forensic evidence, something other than what Rudy Guede said, happened at the cottage that night.
Beep:
Rudy at 8:38 -- What is the source for this? I mean other than the time line.
And I still need to know what all this stuff is. I'm not being nasty; I just want to understand what you're saying.
Start with 8:38: source?
SB,
I am looking for it now. Rudy Guede is the one who said it I am sure. I will need some time. And I know you are not being nasty with me. You must and have every right to question anything I post here.
SB,
Whilst Guede admitted that he had been with Meredith on the evening of the 1st November and that they had entered the house at about 8.30pm together, he denied being responsible for death.
http://www.everything2.org/
index...node_id=1923930
Section 8
Guede said he had met Meredith a month before her death and that they met again at a Halloween party on the eve of her death. He said he and Meredith, who came from Coulsdon, Surrey, flirted at the party. She agreed to meet him at 8pm the following day, November 1.
Guede told the friend that he arrived at the cottage near the centre of Perugia nine minutes late. We kissed each other a bit, we touched each other a bit, I didnt rape her, he said. He then felt a pain in his stomach and went to the bathroom.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2937144.ece
Minotaur -
"If I remember correctly. at least one Anglophone newspaper reported that that AK and RG had telephonic contact both before and after the murder. Does anyone have a reference to this? It must have been a report postdating 20th November, but I cannot now find it."
Here:
"Police believe Ms Knox accused Mr Lumumba to cover up for Mr Guede, the third suspect in the case, whose bloody fingerprints were on Ms Kercher's pillow and who has admitted being at the cottage during the murder while denying he committed it himself. Sources close to the investigation said it was striking that Ms Knox never mentioned Mr Guede at all, "as if he did not exist", when in fact they knew each other and had exchanged mobile phone calls before and after the killing."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle3067558.ece
"5. The owner of this blog
has asked, concerning posters: 'if you express suspicion of who they really are, what their purpose is, please have a grounded, rational reason."
Several persons on this blog seem to believe that the poster signing him/herself 'cmellas' is a member of AK's extended family.
Can anyone here provide a documented instance of him or her posting something that was not already in the public domain?.I have already demonstrated (and been criticised for) the fact that anyone can post here under anyone else's name."
Minotaur:
If you go back to the first days of Chris Mellas posting, you'll see that Steve confirmed that the IP address was registered to a Mellas. As for your question about whether or not he has provided anything not already in the public domain, the answer to that is no. He learned about Lalli's second report before it was announced in the mainstream press, but that could be from wire services. However, I think he is Chris Mellas. The more fundamental question for me is why he decided to post here. He has not answered any of our questions about the case, except to say that Amanda Knox had on occasion used drugs (What else could he say? Her entire alibi is based on the fact that drugs addled her brain and memory.), that she had never bought them, and that she "knew of" Rudy Guede as opposed to "knowing him." He was questioned on the last two points and never responded to those questions. He has not responded to any of the questions he has been asked. Most recently, I asked him to say whether the diaries had been released by the defense counsel as opposed to being leaked--well, if you care to, you can see how he avoided replying. Don't waste your time, though. He once again avoids answering the question.
Is he who he says he is? Probably. But what is he doing here? Wasting our time, and giving the appearance of being open to our questions and doubts.
Is it rational to challenge his identity? If we have the right to expect answers to certain questions, especially ones that could easily be answered without jeopardizing the case, then maybe the answer is yes.
Oh, and one more thing. He used this board as a forum to deny (vehemently) any link between the Knox family and Joe Tacopina, just before Biscotti filed suit against Tacopina. What was that all about?
Michael UK
The lawyer for Rudy Guede stated on Frank's blog that there were absolutely no calls made between Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede. I believe that Chis Mellas has pointed this out as well. Now it may be that there was, but the authorities have not released anything to the Public that I am aware of.
Beep:
Judging from the two sources you provide, I am more convinced than ever that it would be foolish for us to base any timeline reconstruction on what Rudy says about time!
Here Rudy says they had a meeting at 8pm and that he arrived at 8:09 (late), whereas in his diary he arrived first and she was late. Meanwhile, she left her friend's flat at around 9:00pm, not one hour earlier!
SB,
I do not mean to inundate you with this information. This is the final one and the most specific. I was basing my information on these quotes and I know they must be taken with a grain of salt.
He is the only suspect to admit he was in the house on the night. He claimed he arrived at the house at 8.38pm, and was alone with Miss Kercher.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
...meredith125.xml
Re Minotaur (and Michael):
Here is what Biscotti actually said. The bold emphasis is mine.
Q: Are there messages or calls between Rudy and Amanda that night?
A: Absolutely not. I have not been notified of any messages or calls between Rudy and Amanda or Rudy and Raffaele. Not that day nor on other days. From what I know, Rudy did not have a cellphone any more at that time.
Q: Why, did he have to sell it?
A: Maybe
Beep -
I was simply responding to Minotaur's request for a media reference...there was no intention on my part to make any statement on the truth of it.
SB,
You are absolutely correct in saying that it would be foolish to base a time line on Rudy Guede's version of time. That being said then, we cannot trust anything he says in his statement. You have said before that it contains lies, half-truths and maybe some truth. I just want to find what the 'truth' is, in it.
Beep,
So now we have at least three different times! According to this article, Rudy is indirectly quoted as saying (who was he speaking to?) that he got there at 8:38 pm. But elsewhere, he has given other times.
This article also contains other information that is dubious at best, including a phone call from Meredith's cell to her bank at around 10 pm. My conclusion is that there are few items that can be put on a hard and fast timeline at this point.
Michael UK,
I know you were guy. It is just that it had been established before and I thought I would just put out a reminder. In no way did I wish to contradict your statement.
You and loyal others come here and know these things, but every once in awhile someone comes here, that has not been here for awhile and we have to explain these things all over again. Respect.
SB,
I was hoping that you would see the time differences in what he said. That is precisely why I posted those three. I hope that Nicki, Sparrow, and Traduco can produce a pdf file of Rudy Guede's statement. At that point, I think I can discuss it better.
And what I guess I am trying to say, is from what I have gleaned from what has been posted here concerning his statement, that IMHO, he is lying about the consensual sex part. I asked Nicki a few times about how one can determine whether a woman has been raped. She reread the Pathologist's report and said that she could not give me a definitive answer on the question of whether or not Meredith was raped. IMHO, and I know you think it is a bit premature on my part, I just do not believe that any intimate behavior between both Meredith and Rudy Guede that night was not consensual. The time just is not there. And I know you could say that the attempt between the two could have failed. Call it a guy thing if you will, but I believe that Rudy Guede is lying through his teeth on this and was involved on a sexual attack on Meredith, as the Police have stated.
Biscuits...'I have not been notified of any calls or messages between rudy and amanda...'
mmmm. With the risk of sounding really boring, the PM doesn't have to (and won't)tell biscuits, or any of the other lawyers involved, anything. They are half way through the preliminary investigation and don't have to reveal anything to anybody until it is over. All the lawyers have is what the PM decided to give to the judge in order to keep their clients in prison. They will know the findings of the preliminary investigation, only when it is over. (August...September...October?)
Beep,
Rudy is lying about a lot of things, and so are the others as far as I can determine from their written statements and verbatim transcripts we have seen already. There is a lot of this sort of thing we haven't seen, and the rest--i.e., what is reported in the press--has to be taken with a large grain of salt. For me, this would also include the times provided by the papers and supposedly based on Rudy or anyone else's statements but not in quotation marks. On the other hand, I think it is interesting to look back at some of the earliest press reports and see what has been forgotten that might look more important now.
damian | 03.19.08 - 5:10 pm | #
I agree with you. That's why I posted that part of the interview. Biscotti doesn't actually deny that any calls took place. He just says he has not been informed. The same is true for Rudy's so-called lack of cellphone.
Looks like nobody's talking right now, and anyone who says they have access to any information other than what was used to keep the suspects in custody should be looked at with a great deal of suspicion.
SB,
Okay, we are in sync then. What I also find interesting in Rudy Guede's statement is the fact that he speaks to Amanda Knox as though she slept in the cottage on the night of the murder and not at the flat of Raffale Sollecito. He could not have known really that Amanda Knox had changed her story from being at the cottage and blaming Patrick, to being at the flat of Raffaele Sollecito(for he questions her alibi of saying Patrick did it). So the only logical place for Amanda Knox to have been that night for him was indeed, at the cottage. In other words, he was trying his very best to script his story line as well.
I fear this is 'starting' to go round in circles...(not that it really matters what happens here)
What do we believe? Stuff from the Italian broadsheets? the local press? the english papers? sources close to the police? the lawyers??? only stuff that has been nicked by various papers from another? stuff that's been repeated or reported only once? the suspects diaries? the relatives?
This is why the little parts of the judge's reports which have been released have particularly interested me. I think this is the most reliable source that we have and I think that the judge wrote what he wrote for very good reasons. My question from before stands; why did the judge say AK and RG were in the different bathrooms at the same time?
SB,
And so you are right to say that all three story lines are fraught with lies and cannot be trusted. And indeed, as you say, no one is talking now
Damian,
So good to see you back here and with your comments.
"This is why the little parts of the judge's reports which have been released have particularly interested me. I think this is the most reliable source that we have and I think that the judge wrote what he wrote for very good reasons. My question from before stands; why did the judge say AK and RG were in the different bathrooms at the same time?
damian | 03.19.08 - 5:23 pm | #"
Damian:
I have been thinking about this since you asked and have no good answer yet. I think that what the judges have said in their reports justifying continued detention is both critical and reliable. I also think that the summit meeting could be ver important. Have you heard any more about that? Who would call this session? Do the suspects have the right to refuse to attend and/or answer questions?
Beep -
"And what I guess I am trying to say, is from what I have gleaned from what has been posted here concerning his statement, that IMHO, he is lying about the consensual sex part. I asked Nicki a few times about how one can determine whether a woman has been raped. She reread the Pathologist's report and said that she could not give me a definitive answer on the question of whether or not Meredith was raped. IMHO, and I know you think it is a bit premature on my part, I just do not believe that any intimate behavior between both Meredith and Rudy Guede that night was not consensual."
I see a great deal of confusion on this matter....how it can be shown mediaclly or not. I shall try to explain. I'm trying to find a delicate way to do this....so please bare with me.
Take a flower. Now, when a flower is nice and happy her petals open up and the bumble bee is able to come along and collect pollen. Now say the flower is unhappy or scared or hurt...she remains closed. The only way Mr Bumble Bee can collect the pollen is to force his way in...but in so doing he 'bruises' the flowers petals...because she is not happy and therefore not open for him, she's not 'physically' receptive. For the petals to be open the flower has to be happy first.
Cheers bpcl, (and Minatour) you're very kind.
SB. It's the PM's call, the suspects must be present, with their lawyers, but obviously, they can refuse to respond.
Way OT. Allow me my first Poirot game; I hope you don't mind Michael, but are you from the west country?
My question from before stands; why did the judge say AK and RG were in the different bathrooms at the same time?
damian
Im not entirely sure, but there was some question as to why Rudy would use the bathroom at the other end of the flat, maybe dripping blood along the way, when there was a bathroom right around the corner from Merediths room he could have used. Unless that bathroom was occupied at that time. That may be part of the judges reasoning, along with the forensic evidence?
"That may be part of the judges reasoning, along with the forensic evidence?
DLW | 03.19.08 - 5:49 pm | #"
Like the mixed blood of AK and MK, for example?
I think the 8.38pm time which keeps being referred to as the time RG claims he entered the house, is more likely to be a misprint by the newspaper. They probably got confused with the time Knox's phone was pinged that night - 8.38pm? And it's not unusual for newspapers to mix things up. The odds on RG entering the house at 8.38 AND Knox's phone being pinged at 8.38 is virtually nil.
-------------
Soozie:
That's what I'm thinking....I doubt he ever said it. In this same article, the cellphone call to the "bank" is given as around 10 pm. This information was readily available, since there would have been an electronic trace of it, and yet they got it wrong.
Michael (UK | 03.19.08 - 5:37 pm
Thanks Michael, this is a tasteful and gentle explanation for a very sick crime.The point is,medical science cannot say for sure if a person has been raped or not, but only evaluate the seriuosness of the injuries and any other useful finding and speculate what could be the most likely hypothesis. This is exactly what investigators have been doing. I may sound boring, but I'll write it again a woman doesn't need to be disfigured and beaten up to death to show that rape has occurred
Just a little note on the local press. I'd be very surprised if these journalists didn't have contacts inside ILE. I'd also be very surprised if they were worried about giving the wrong impression to jazz it up a bit. Most of what I've read (and put up here) has later been 'confirmed' by the national press; the other day for example, about the things taken from the house last week, or the prick with the knife, which 'came out' a couple of weeks later. As far as I am aware however, there are two things which I've read which haven't been confirmed anywhere else. One is the summit meeting and the other concerns the luminol, 'bare' footprints, stone that broke the window etc... I used to write 'make of it what you will' after reporting what these papers say, but am not sure I want a ruddy catchphrase. I'm sorry I can't give a link for this stuff, but it's not on the web. After being here a while, I have no doubt you all have sufficent salt. I write here what I read. For what it's worth, the distinction between broadsheet and tabloid isn't as clear as it used to be for me.
Cheers DLW, nice to see you. I'd forgotten about that, you may be right...(you too SB)
Damian,
You don't need to provide any links; I think everyone here is grateful for the information. And you're right about the local papers not having the need to jazz things up.
The line between broadsheet and tabloid is getting blurrier for everyone, but I think a line still exists.
Nicki's comment "a woman dosn't need to be disfigured and beaten up to death to show that rape has occurred" is very true and may prove be very relevant in this case.
The rape issue was discussed on the PortaPorta programme. They had a female judge from Padova who specialises in rape cases and she said that in 90% of the rape cases these days the victim does not have any signs of the brutality that would normally be associated with rape cases of even 5 to 10 years ago. She said that most rape victims these days are more likely to
go along with everything the attacker wants, they accept their fate, esp if they have a gun or knife at their throat and are only concerned with
coming out of it alive.
My question from before stands; why did the judge say AK and RG were in the different bathrooms at the same time?
damian
Hi Damien, Maybe the judge drew this conclusion because the reports from the ILE said that RG had left his
calling card in one bathroom and a droplet of AK blood had been found in another bathroom, and that according to the ILE report, the blood spot was thought to have been left there during the time frame that the murder occurred. The blood spot will of course be hotly contested by the AK defence team and their forensic experts as circumstantial and whether the ILE has a really strong case re exact scientific proof that can give the blood spot an exact date and time
remains to be seen, personally I have my doubts in this case. It may be that luminol or other scientific products used in the investigation at the scene may have destroyed or contaminated characteristics of that partuicular bloodspot. One of the problems with luminol, although it can test for the presence of blood it may prevent any further testing for other qualities, I also understand that household bleach can give the same reading as blood with luminol.
Does anyone know of the link to the Skype conversation Rudy Guede had while he was in Germany?
Beep:
Frank has some of it verbatim on his website (look in the entries for November/December 2007). There is also an article in the timesonline with highlights from the conversation. If you go to timesonline and keyword "Rudy Guede," you'll find it.
Beep:
Check timesonline Nov 21 for an excerpt.
If they can't estimate the time of death more precisely than a seven hour range, how can they determine the age of a blood droplet? If it's easier to determine the age of the blood droplet, why didn't they use that technique on droplets of blood in Meredith's room to determine her time of death?
All that talk is mumbo jumbo meant to baffle the public, most of whom are happily ignorant.
Hi Pinecone. Who is trying to baffle the ignorant public with mumbo jumbo?
PS. Do you know how accurately blood can be dated?
Pinecone -
"If it's easier to determine the age of the blood droplet, why didn't they use that technique on droplets of blood in Meredith's room to determine her time of death?
"
Because at best, that would only give them the time she 'started' bleeding. Part of the problem is knowing exactly how long it took her from that point to die. However, nobody has suggested that a bloodspot will give you a time to the 'hour' in any case...it would be a window of at least a few hours.
nicki: "A woman doesn't need to be disfigured and beaten up to death to show that rape has occurred"
-------
nicki, I completely agree. Submitting to sex through sheer fright is common among rape victims, especially when threatened with a weapon. I would imagine Meredith was quite literally paralysed with fear during most of her ordeal - although she obviously tried to fight back at some point, or how did she manage to grab a handful of hair?? That must have been during some sort of struggle (a tragically futile struggle, but a struggle all the same).
Also: "Dr Lalli has indicated to prosecutor Giuliano Mignini that there are "no markings or bruises" on Miss Kercher's body that indicate she was raped or sexually assaulted. However Dr Lalli said that there did appear to be evidence of "some form of sexual activity" and that he could not rule out that she had been forced to take undergo a sex act "under the threat of violence."
******
I'm confused about this: there were no markings or bruises? What about the report that stated she had bruises on her cheeks which were consistent with having her face "forced to the ground"? And the bruising to her gums?
Does Dr Lalli mean there were no bruises as in "internal injuries"? Are there normally internal injuries when a rape is committed? I wouldn't have thought it was common if the victim was compliant through fear. Surely the other bruises would confirm nothing at all was consensual about any of this?
-----
Time of Death -
Part of theor problem in rounding down TOD as I understand it...was the broken window (from the feigned break in) which effects the ambient temperature of the body. In a sealed environment this remains more consistant...allowing a more accurate TOD to be given from the gradual loss of temp of the body over time and how that loss of temp effects the corpse at different stages.
This may be redundant, but I just want to put it here for the record. I know it will take up space too. I will have to accept SB's hypothesis that the time Rudy Guede arrived at the cottage based on this conversation is unknown. If Rudy Guede did publicly say that he had an appointment with Meredith between 8:00-8:38 pm he either was mistaken/misquoted or, maybe was trying to line himself up with the call from Patrick to Amanda Knox at 8:38 pm
Rudy Guede's Skype conversation released by the Police, from Frank's Shock Blog
"I had met Meredith the night before, at Halloween party, at spanish people's house. There we took an appointment for next evening. "
"That evening in her house there were other people."
" I tried with her and she accepted it. We didn't do anything, just some oral sex. They talked of sperm but absolutely there couldn't be my sperm. We stopped 'cause nor me neither her had a condom."
"While I was in the bathroom I heard the buzzer ringing. When I heard the noises I came out of the bathroom with my pants still down and I fell, I couldn't stop him while he escaped."
"I couldn't see him well. He had brown hair. Maybe chestnut. I know he's italian 'cause we insulted each other".
"Then I tried to aid Meredith putting a towel on the wound. I don't know why I didn't call the ambulance."
"When I went away the glass of the window wasn't broken and Meredith was dressed. Only Amanda and Raffaele may have done this."
Soozie UK -
"I'm confused about this: there were no markings or bruises? What about the report that stated she had bruises on her cheeks which were consistent with having her face "forced to the ground"? And the bruising to her"
Hi Soozie...I think what he meant was 'vaginal' bruising...which I was tentatively trying to explain in my flower analogy. This should occur even if a woman is taking part under 'threat' ....because things aren't....well, they just aren't receptive....even if in her mind she's trying to obey and not actively resisting. This is a matter of female physiology.
SB,
Merci beaucoup de tous les informations concernant la conversation Skype entre Rudy Guede et son ami (C'est--dire la Police)
Also Michael the front door was supposedly left open this could have had a faster cooling down effect as you explain. I was looking at the break in room photos the other day from Kermits PPT and realised that although the smashed internal windows were open the external shutters were closed suggesting a break in feigned from the inside? Im sure you already covered this in very early posts and surely this one easy for the ILE to be accurate on?
Oceania -
"Also Michael the front door was supposedly left open this could have had a faster cooling down effect as you explain.
Well yes....but only if we are to believe Amanda's version of events. The window was broken we 'know'....the open door is only down to a version given by one of the actually suspects. But, certainly...if that is true it would have effected the ILE's ability to acurately determine TOD.
Hi Michael . . . yes, I understand what you're saying about the 'receptive' part. But it's a possibility (a really long shot) that he could have forcibly applied some kind of lubricant gel/ointment, in which case brusing would still not occur. But I suppose that would have been discovered during the autopsy? I'm only guessing at this stage - but if a rapist selected a victim that he knew, then a lubricant would cast some sort of doubt as to whether sex had been consensual or not. I also read (in the same report I posted the excerpt from) - that the possibility Meredith had sex the day before couldn't be ruled out either. That doesn't make sense to me as there's no suggestion RG was with her the night before.
By the way, where in the UK are you?
------
Oceania -
"I was looking at the break in room photos the other day from Kermits PPT and realised that although the smashed internal windows were open the external shutters were closed suggesting a break in feigned from the inside?"
I also saw a picture from inside the room showing the rock on the floor and the window broken....but the shutters were open. Be aware, some of the pictures used in Kermit's PP's were taken before the crime took place....whilst others were taken quite a while after.
Michael UK
I think it is safe to say that Meredith suffered the fatal wound before 10:30 pm. Given that information, the question is, how long would it have taken her to expire? I wouldn't imagine it would take, say more than 1 hour, given the type of wound she received(Opened on both sides of the neck)and the amount of blood loss. What say you?
Soozie UK -
"But it's a possibility (a really long shot) that he could have forcibly applied some kind of lubricant gel/ointment, in which case brusing would still not occur."
Indeed...but as I recall in the ILE's latest raid amongst the stuff they took was a pot of vaseline...although I would imagine the presence of any lubricant would have been discovered in the autopsy as you say. So...either none was found, or it was....and they have kept that part quiet. I'm in Sussex
Blood dating:
Anyone interested in this subject can go to www.ojp.usdoj.gov for a long discussion on the subject that dates from 2003. The person presenting the data (S. Anderson) has since completed research work and written or participated in the writing of several articles on the subject (you have to pay for them). Here is an excerpt from her 2003 talk (emphasis mine):
MS. ANDERSON: Thank you and good morning. Today I'm going to speak about a method to determine the age of a biological sample. First, I want to talk about the specific need for a method to determine the age of a biological sample. Over the past several years, traditional PCR (polymerase chain reaction) has revolutionized the forensic community because it gives us the ability to place a person at the scene of a crime. But problematically, traditional PCR provides no information on when a sample was actually deposited.
That is why we've developed temporal PCR, which will help to estimate the time that the sample was deposited. In combination, traditional PCR and temporal PCR will provide both a spatial and a temporal link to a crime scene.
These methods have potential applications for both military and law enforcement use, specifically in tracking suspects. If traditional PCR can link Osama bin Laden and identify what cave he had occupied, then temporal PCR can help approximate how long ago he had occupied that cave and, if given in a relevant amount of time, we could approximate how far he could have traveled in a given time frame, potentially aiding in identifying his current location.
Temporal PCR can have an advantage when the suspect and the victim have close ties. I'm going the take everybody back to the O.J. Simpson trial. They found Nicole's blood in O.J.'s Bronco, but one problem with this piece of evidence was that the prosecution wanted to say that the blood was 2 weeks old, dating from when the murder had occurred, while the defense was saying that the blood was 6 months old (when Nicole had cut herself in the Bronco). This piece of evidence had to be thrown out of court because they couldn't determine how old the sample really was. But temporal PCR would allow for the identification of an approximate age for this sample.
Beep -
Expiration time would have depended on a number of factors...how much and for how long did the victim move about...so raising heart rate and speed of blood loss (perhaps even increasing damage), how panicked was the victim....the more...the higher heart rate and loss of blood, when was the knife withdrawn...the doing of which while the victim was still alive would have 'greatly' increased blood loss,...what position was the victim in...if in one where blood could have flowed out of her mouth instead of down her bronchia say... would have increased the time to suffocation and just what efforts were made to help her in stemming the flow of blood and for how long....this would have 'increased' the time to expiration...so, it is potentially quite complicated.
Michael: Indeed...but as I recall in the ILE's latest raid amongst the stuff they took was a pot of vaseline.
---------
Vaseline. That could be used as a lubricant of sorts.
You guys are all amazing!
Soozie UK
"Vaseline. That could be used as a lubricant of sorts."
Indeed. I do have to wonder...for what 'other' reason then that would they have taken it?
Here is a list of what they took:
Meredith's purse, 2 guitars, 2 Harry Potter books, a hair-dryer, Amanda's sweatshirt and a little pot of vaseline.
Blood dating:
Skeptical Bystander | 03.19.08 - 9:22 pm
As of now, blood dating by temporal PCR is a dream, and it will not likely become a reliable tool. There are too many variables, including environmental variables. Even if this dream had become a reality, the Perugia folks would not be able figure out the results because of the broken window and open door.
Pinecone,
Thanks for the information. Of course, we don't know for sure that the door was open. However, the window was certainly broken.
So what is the state of the art on blood dating?
Blood dating:
I'm still a little confused. The Michigan State University Forensics department has a link to a website (www.crime-scene-investigator.net) with an article on collection and preservation of blood evidence (George Schiro is the author) that says:
"Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) DNA analysis
Analysis of certain DNA sequences that have been copied multiple times to a detectable level. PCR based testing works well on degraded samples and "small" samples (pinhead size). Currently, it is not as statistically individualizing as RFLP analysis; however, more DNA sequences for PCR analysis are being discovered and in the near future it will be as statistically individualizing as RFLP. PCR based technologies have also withstood rigorous court challenges on its validity. Recently, there has been some concern over the possibility of incidental contamination giving false results in PCR tests. At least one study has shown that if PCR protocols are followed, it is not likely that incidental contamination will give false results. The only way that false results were induced was by direct cross contamination of wet samples. (2)
Presently, the courts do not recognize blood evidence as evidence that can be absolutely linked to an individual, such as fingerprints, bitemarks, broken fingernails, and handwriting. If DNA analysis is utilized, then blood evidence falls into the category of evidence that can be linked to an individual with a high degree of probability. Originally, RFLP DNA analysis was given the misnomer "DNA fingerprinting." The courts have since ruled that a DNA result can only be given in statistical terms. A forensic scientist cannot testify that a bloodstain came from a specific individual. He or she can testify that based on population studies, only one person in several million or billion has a particular DNA profile. He or she can then testify if the suspect or a victim has that DNA profile."
He was asked what his reaction had been when he heard that a young girl had been found dead.
"Initially I said nothing, I did nothing. Then two of the people working in the shack [bar] were called in for questioning. I was told then by another local to stay away and not to say anything," Mannion said.
Michael Mannion told the BBC he left Anjuna on the 23 February and had been travelling around India since, scared for his life.
Rudy 2
the Perugia folks would not be able figure out the results because of the broken window and open doorPinecone
I cant imagine that the front door being left ajar would have much of an effect in Meredith room, particularly since Merediths door was closed and locked. Also Amanda said she took a shower there, so it couldnt have been too cold inside. I wonder if any of the perp(s) had the presence of mind to know that an open window in her room would make the TOD more difficult to determine. Or if the broken window was meant to be an emergency escape hatch if somebody unexpected came to the house at the wrong time, or simply used as a (feint) means of locking the bedroom without a key and breaking out of the house as police initially suspected.
SB: Useful info on pcr replication.
"I cant imagine that the front door being left ajar would have much of an effect in Meredith room, particularly since Merediths door was closed and locked. Also Amanda said she took a shower there, so it couldnt have been too cold inside."
These are both excellent points.
Can we conclude then that the open window in Filomena's room would have no impact on the house temperature either ? We know it was starting to get quite cold by Nov 1st in Perugia and a house can chill down immensly during the night if you leave doors or windows open. Just how much that affected their ability to tell TOD
we can only guess.
She would have showered in the bathroom, of which she would have presumably closed the door and warmed the bathroom up to some extent with the heat from the shower. The fact she showered dosn't really prove that the house was not cold.
Actually, if I remember correctly the temperature was unseasonably warm on that day. This was explored on an earlier thread. Check temps for the dates in question. If the door had been left open, not to mention windows open, and it was cold, this would be evident. There would be a draft as well. I guess this makes it odd that the signs of break-in were not noticed. Very incoherent, the whole thing.
Until after the shower, I mean.
Very odd.
The break in was only really evident in Filomena's room, the photo I looked at the other day (and I have tried to go back to Kermits link in ThreadII but it seems to be broken)was definitely taken after the event as it had the
'letters' marked where the rock was on the floor etc the windows were open inwards but the external shutters appeared to be closed as the window space was completely black. It was the updated files Kermit reposted late Feb and Kermit said they were lifted from the ILE video of the house which you would presume they took the day of discovery and before anyone tampered with anything. If the shutters were closed then Filomena's room would have been darkened and the rock and broken glass perhaps not obvious unless you entered the room and switched on the light, which according to AK testimony didn't happen until later. If the front door was open, as AK reports, she may not have felt this unusual considering there were other flatmates and friends always coming and going (if AK is innocent she may have thought it could have been Meredith and Filomena didn't seem to be too far away) she may have thought someone had just gone out briefly and this alone did not alert her to anything untoward.
From the other ILE photo's we can see the place looked relatively normal, AK says she noticed some blood spots and the unflushed toilet and thought them strange but basically was preoccupied with showering and changing, putting some washing on, collecting the mop and returning to RS. I guess these are the exact kind of points that make this case so intriguing, the circumstances and much of the evidence all seem to be able to be read either way.
Buona Pasqua a tutti, I hope you all enjoy a very happy Easter with your family and friends.
For what it's worth, RS claimed his reason for staying in the night of:
"We
returned to my house around to the 20:00-20:30 and there I made
another pipe and saw that as it was a holiday, to take myself with
extreme tranquility, without the smallest intention to go out inasmuch
as outside it was cold."
From yesterday's Messaggero dell'Umbria.
L'annuncio arriva da fonte investigativa. Entro il mese di marzo (massimo i primi giorni di aprile) il pm Mignini passera' al capitolo piu importante dell'indagine, quello relativo al confronto diretto tra gli indagati del delitto di Meredith Kercher, gli arrestati AK, RS e RG. Verranno messi uno di fronte all'altro con domande dirette rispetto ai loro alibi e all versioni fornite...
Dal confronto una possibile verita'? L'attesa e' carica di tensione. Sopratutto dalla parte di RG, L'unico tra gli arrestati che certamente si trovava sul luogo del delitto al momento dell'omicidio. Gli altri hanno solo indizi (communque pesantissimi) a loro carico e testimonianze contro. Dal confronto potra' arrivare finalmente quella possibile verita' su chi sia la persona che Guede vede la notte del delitto in quella casa. Lui parla di una persona che ha visto in volto, ma fino ad oggi non ha riconosciuto alcuno. Per ora neanche RS.
Intanto arriva un'altra testimonianza importante nel delitto di Meredith Kercher...Gli investigatori della polizia, coordinati dal pm Mignini, sono tornati nella villetta per sequestare altri oggetti legati in qualche modo al delitto. E probabile che l'urgenza del quarto sopraluogo dall'inizio della vicenda sia stato necessario proprio per riscontare quanto suggerito dal nuovo teste. (The aticle goes on to list the objects taken from the house, specifying that the 2nd guitar belongs to one of the Italian girls, that various items of clothing were taken from various places in the house, that the 'vampire teeth' were also taken, along with the cape and the tub of vaseline, which the journalist says..potrebbe essere collegato al movente sessuale del delitto.
OT The sun has just come out, after five hours of snow...
Sure, it's freezing in the house, there's blood in the bathroom, shit in the toilet, can't find my friend and I am so very worried about her, the door was open when I came home, but you know, I think I'll just take a shower.
I'm sure it would be real easy to mix up two separate drops of blood with that of my roommate (the one I was so terribly concerned about whilst taking my shower in a freezing cold house) Hope little Miss A got that sweatshirt thoroughly bleached. She's going to walk and she is going to be famous. Hugh will offer her 6 figures and she will laugh all the way to the bank. I'm thoroughly disgusted.
From Raffaele's diary: As soon as we arrived in the house I put aside the mop in the entrance
and I directed myself towards the other rooms in order to see what the
devil had happened. Those moments I remember well because I was shaken
and alarmed. I seem to have seen that Amanda had taken the mop bucket
and it carried it in to another room (from the text not shown, but
evidently the mop had been brought back to house of Meredith and
Amanda). The first thing I noticed was that the room of Filomena
(called Molli) had the door wide open. Ah, I forgot, Amanda had opened
the house with the keys (that I have repeatedly asked myself inasmuch
as she had said to me that she had found the entrance door wide open
when she entered before). We saw that Filomena's bedroom was in
completely disorder: broken glass on the floor and the room upside
down, it was an absurd mess. The window was broken on the left side
and was open.
Temperatures in Perugia on Nov 1 and 2:
Nov 1:
min 48 F (11 C)
max 55 F (13 C)
average 52 (12 C)
Nov 2:
min: 46 F (8 C)
max: 59 (15 C)
average: 52 (12 C)
If the door was in fact left open all night, after a day where the temperature was several degrees below average for the period, and given that the walls of the cottage were thick stone and that Filomena's window according to RS was wide open, it is clear that that the apartment would have been abnormally cold. The previous days had been unseasonably cold as well. A draft would have been created by the front door and the window being "wide" open (according to Raffaele). It is unlikely that anyone coming into the cottage with the front door open would have failed to notice that (a) it was very cold and (b) nobody else was home.
I don't know about anyone else, but if I came home and found my front door wide open, I would not go inside or, if I did, I would carefully check each and every room to make sure nobody was lurking before getting in the shower or doing my laundry.
There is something that just doesn't add up here. Why did Amanda not call Raffaele immediately? When did she call her mother? After taking her shower and doing a load of wash?
I don't care about anyone being famous or infamous; I would just like to see this part of the story put into a sequence of micro-events that makes some sense. It is this part of the story that is most incoherent based on the accounts given by the two suspects and the police (as stated in the judge's first report).
When did Amanda take the mop to Raffaele's? In his diary, he says it was the next morning. Does this mean that before returning to check out the wide open front door, Meredith's locked door and the blood spots (Amanda apparently not noticing what Raffaele saw straight away--that Filomena's room was a mess and the window was broken and wide open), and in spite of expressing concern to Raffaele because she could not reach Meredith, that Amanda and Raffaele took the time to mop up at his place? I am now thoroughly confused about the timeline they have given.
"Actually, if I remember correctly the temperature was unseasonably warm on that day."
I miswrote this comment. I meant unseasonably cold. Indeed, the temperatures all around that period were colder than normal/average for the period according the the weatherunderground archives.
Everything, I see, is stasis! Steve H is indeed so good to let it run. Do remember to see the xin timelines at blogpsot. Nice to see you are participating again,