The True Crime Weblog Message Board

I've been going through recent La Nazione (Umbria) editions. Last week they published a partial transcript of the declaration of Sra. Nara to Mignini. My translation is not good, but I think I've got the gist of it:

TITLE: "An Agonising Scream"

SUBTITLE: The Victim's Cry and the Escape of the Assassins

"I heard a scream ... but a scream .... an agonising scream that made my skin creep ... well .... it was the voice of a woman ... a woman ".

Amongst the evidence there is also the transcript of the declaration of a 68 year old Perugian woman who resides in Via del Melo (from the window of her house she can see the roof of Mez's house - ndr.) and which the prosecutor wants to refer to, in order to establish the time of the crime (the woman says she heard screaming around 23.30 - ndr.), as well as [to establish] the simultaneous "escape" of more than one person, thereby supporting prosecution theories.

Here are some excerpts:

PM Mignini: "Are you capable of knowing where the scream came from?"

Witness: "From the cottage"

PM Mignini: "From the house of Via della Pergola 7"

Witness: "Yes. Because it is true that people were always joking around and that they would chase about, with their cars on the piazzale [here she is apparently talking about the open upper level of the public carpark and the general noise from there] and many times people spin their tires, so [now back to the night of the crime] I looked out from my bathroom window, I looked up and down, but ... because I see the end of the carpark and the beginning of the carpark, but I didn't see anyone on the [upper level?] terrace ... that minute that I stayed watching through the window I heard the trampling of gravel, of leaves ... that came from the driveway ["vialetto", I believe she's referring to the girls' access ramp] where we don't see [?] the leaves below ... then I heard running ... running to escape."

PM Mignini: "How long after the scream?"

Witness: "Eh oh God it could have been two seconds, a minute and then after I saw ... "

PM Mignini: "But you were looking out over / watching?" [I get the impression he's asking if she opened the window or stuck her head out]

Witness: "No because I have plants, but I could see through the window pane which doesn't have ... shutters or anything but is only glass, double paned, but only glass. Then I could hear running on the iron stairway ... "

PM Mignini: ".... this iron stairway where does it lead to?"

Witness: "Well it goes from the carpark and ends up at the Via del Melo, where there is an iron gate. And shorty afterwards to Via Pinturicchio"

PM Mignini: "Someone was climbing these stairs, this iron stairway."

Witness: "Running"

PM Mignini: "Running, a single person or more than one?"

Witness: "At that point I heard a single person"

PM Mignini: "And someone else .... but was there someone else?

Witness: "Well, someone ran away from the driveway toward Via del Bulagaio."

((ORIGINAL ITALIAN TEXT AT END OF POST))

Before summer, I asked twice by email the owner of another blog who's in Perugia to give me a hand and tell me which flat is Sra. Nara's, using this numbered image. He didn't get back to me. I don't think Nara is in the lowest level of apartments, as from those you wouldn't be able to see the girls' roof, which Nara says she can. I also think her flat is closer to the girls' ramp from the street, rather than being close to the iron stair (the iron stairs' location is not so important, as the noise they produce would be heard by all neighbours. Maybe 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, or 26).





«HO SENTITO un urlo ... ma un urlo.... un urlo straziante che mi ha fatto accapponare la pelle... ecco .... era la voce di una donna ... di una donna».

C’è anche la trascrizione del verbale di una donna di 68 di Perugia, residente in via del Melo (dalla finestra di casa sua vede il tetto di casa di Mez ndr.) tra le testimonianze che la procura vuole citare per collocare l’ora del delitto (la donna dice di aver sentito gridare intorno alle 23.30 ndr.) e la ‘fuga’ simultanea di più persone per avvallare la tesi accusatoria.

Di seguito ne riportiamo alcuni stralci:

PM Mignini «Lei è in grado di capire da dove veniva quest’urlo?»

Teste «Dalla casetta»

PM Mignini «Dalla casetta di via della Pergola 7»

Teste «Si. Perché è vero che fanno sempre degli scherzi che si rincorrono che ci sono delle macchine sopra al piazzale e tante volte anche sotto sgommano ha visto fanno in quel modo, allora io ho guardato dalla finestrina del bagno ho guardato di sopra e di sotto però ... perché vedo la fine del parcheggio e l’incomincio del parcheggio, però io non ho visto nessuno sopra il terrazzo ... quel minuto che io mi stavo ritirando sopra la finestra ho sentito uno scalpiccio di sassi, di foglie ... che veniva dal vialetto ... di lì da noi non ci sono le foglie di lì di sotto...poi ho sentito a correre... a correre, a scappare.

PM Mignini «Quanto tempo dopo l’urlo?»

Teste «Eh oh Dio sarà stato due secondi, un minuto e poi dopo ho visto ...»

PM Mignini «Ma lei si è affacciata?»

Teste «No perché ho le piantine ma vedo tra il vetro che non ho la ... la serranda e niente è solo vetro, doppio ma è solo vetro. Io poi ho sentito a correre su la scala di ferro ... »

PM Mignini «.... questa scala di ferro dove porta?»

Teste «Allora parte dal parcheggio e arriva fino alla via del Melo dove c’è un cancello di ferro. E poi Via Pinturicchio insomma»

PM Mignini «Chi saliva le scale, queste scale di ferro »

Teste «Di corsa»

PM Mignini «Di corsa, una persona sola o più d’uno?»

Teste «Una persona sola sentivo allora»

PM Mignini «E qualcun altro ....e invece qualcun altro?»

Teste «Invece qualcun altro scappava dalla parte del vialetto verso via del Bulagaio».

On November 7, the same date on which the most recently released AK statement was written, here is what Raffaele wrote in his prison diary (the "you" is his father):

I remember that I surfed the Internet for a bit, maybe I watched a
film and then that you had called me at the house or that anyhow you
sent me a goodnight message. I remember that was Thursday, therefore
Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I don't
remember how much time she was absent and remember that subsequently
she had said to me that the pub was closed (I have strong doubts
regarding the fact that she was absent). I am straining myself to
remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of
which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.

At least here, Raffaele has no recollection of the lesbian trauma conversation. In fact, he is in the process of gaining wiggle room on AK's constant presence or her partial absence, to be ready for future revelations. In other words, he partially retracts his Nov 5 statement, and on November 8 he says:

Meredith left (MK/AK flat) in a hurry at around 4 pm, without saying where she was going. Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don't remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8.30 or 9pm.
"At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner."

Kermit wrote:

I don't think Nara is in the lowest level of apartments, as from those you wouldn't be able to see the girls' roof, which Nara says she can. I also think her flat is closer to the girls' ramp from the street, rather than being close to the iron stair (the iron stairs' location is not so important, as the noise they produce would be heard by all neighbours. Maybe 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, or 26).

I thought it was ground level, but maybe not. However, from the CBS interview with her behind closed shutters, I seem to remember that her building was yellowish in color.

Kermit, this is really intriguing. I've always wondered where she lived.

Can I throw up an Acrobat version of that numbered shot for you?

Your numbers are easy to read when magnified.

Fast Pete wrote:Kermit, this is really intriguing. I've always wondered where she lived.

Can I throw up an Acrobat version of that numbered shot for you?

Your numbers are easy to read when magnified.

Go for it. That shot is from maps.live.com.

skeptical bystander wrote:I thought it was ground level, but maybe not. However, from the CBS interview with her behind closed shutters, I seem to remember that her building was yellowish in color.

You may be right, but I remember that the cottage is below the upper level of the carpark. I think (not sure) that "street level" (ie. level with Via del Melo, or with the top level of the carpark) windows might have a hard time seeing the girls' roof.

You are right about Sra. Nara and the door she is interviewed through, but maybe that's the common stairwell access door for all flats in her building. Dunno.

I'm off now, ciao

It will be interesting to see how the Knox clan try and discredit Sra. Nara.
It will probably be along the lines of mad old bag, retarded and senile, deaf, blind and so on.
Do you see a pattern emerging here?

skeptical bystander wrote:I thought it was ground level, but maybe not. However, from the CBS interview with her behind closed shutters, I seem to remember that her building was yellowish in color.

Skep, didnt the interviewer try to simulate some climbing-up, to test whether Sra Nara could hear something?

If so, that puts her on the American second floor.

She would see the roof of the house from there. But definitely not from ground level.

The most yellow building is to the right in this shot.

If you are right about the yellow, Kermit's apartment 21 looks to be the likeliest.

(Kermit, are you sure there are only three apartments in that building? Not six?)

Fast Pete wrote:(Kermit, are you sure there are only three apartments in that building? Not six?)

I'm not sure of anything. However, she seems to have to perches for viewing the carpark and Bulagaio ravine: her bathroom and another window. Not sure at all. I think a single window would be too narrow an apartment (although I have lived in a number of single room/windowed apartments in my life.)

Am really off now. caio

FP wrote:

Skep, didnt the interviewer try to simulate some climbing-up, to test whether Sra Nara could hear something?
If so, that puts her on the American second floor.
She would see the roof of the house from there. But definitely not from ground level.

No, he did the experiment from the apartment of someone in the same building, because Sra Nara would not speak to him or let him in her place. The apartment of the neighbor looked to be on the top floor, and was definitely above Nara's. At one point the camera looks down below to the street.

I am confused about which floor. PS says ground floor here (from an interview with Nara), but this could also be a language problem. Maybe it was on the first floor in Europe, which would indeed be the second floor for Americans. I remember asking for clarification on this, but I'm not sure I got it:

Q: How can you say there were people fleeing right after?
A: I'm on the ground floor. You can hear the steps very clearly here. Because when someone walks on the iron stair, it makes noise. On the other side there's gravel and you can tell right away when someone steps there.

In the comments section for that entry, someone noted (correctly) that the neighbor whose apartment was used for the experiment had double-glazed windows, which Sra Nara does not have.

Good night, Kermit, and thanks. Incidentally, the CBS 48 hours episode can be purchased online but is no longer available free of charge.

Kermit, (ciao!) I think you are right, the apartment is a longer one than the neighbors'.

This might be one of her windows at left here. The one with the frillies drying on the railing.

Presumably the window to the left (not in shot) could be the bedroom window.

How long has Sra. Nara lived in her place?
Anyone know?
Probably quite a while with her being an elderly lady.
I say this because I bought this house I am in now 20 years ago and I know exactly which way sounds are coming from, without having to look out the window for instance.
I know when the family of squirrels we have round here have been in my back garden even though they haven't touched the nuts my kids put out for them.
Lets hear it Knox clan, is she wrong too?

Kermit,

From the information we have are you able to put flags on your photo above for the following:

the car / truck breakdown location
the Albanian's car location when he supposedly saw the black sack
where Rudy was located according to the Albanian's testimony

If all these facts are still in the confusion stage, I realize it may not be too accurate.


I believe I just found the bird's eye photo I was looking for the other day.

skeptical bystander wrote:I am confused about which floor. PS says ground floor here (from an interview with Nara), but this could also be a language problem. Maybe it was on the first floor in Europe, which would indeed be the second floor for Americans. I remember asking for clarification on this, but I'm not sure I got it:

Q: How can you say there were people fleeing right after?

A: I'm on the ground floor. You can hear the steps very clearly here.

Her entrance would be on Via Del Melo, the higher-level passage behind the houses that is clearly visible in Kermit's aerial shot. All the main entrances are there.

She could be on the ground floor of the Via del Melo, and one floor up from the top deck of the parking building.

I love these sleuthing skills of Kermit, FBN, and so many others here.

The Machine wrote:

Brian S. wrote:Maybe I should add that what I speculate the suspects will say at trial and the real truth are not necessarily the same thing.

However, I do believe Amanda has a hold over Raffaele and my personal opinion is that it was he who inflicted the death wound.

You've expressed this belief before without really explaining why you believe it was Raffaele that inflicted the fatal wound. I'm interested in hearing why you believe this. Rudy in his last witness clearly suggests that it was Raffaele who killed Meredith. However, the police believe it was Amanda who killed Meredith and I think they're right. The knife found at Raffaele's apartment must have been the murder weapon and it has Amanda's DNA on the handle and Meredith's DNA on the blade and that was after they had scrubbed the knife with bleach. Imagine how much of Meredith's DNA would have been on the blade if it hadn't been cleaned with bleach. The knife also left an outline of blood on the bedsheet which shows that the knife was covered in blood and probably not used to inflict the two lesser wounds on Meredith's neck.

I believe Amanda has a hold of Raffaele too otherwise he would have come clean from the beginning, but I think it's not because he killed Meredith but because he suggested and planned the sexual assault, torture and murder of Meredith and played an active role: forcing Meredith to undress at knife point, cutting her bra with his knife, holding her while Rudy sexually assaulted her and possibly causing the two lesser wounds on the neck.

I take Amanda's nervous fit at the police station when she started hitting herself violently on the head as evidence that she was freaked out from thinking about what she had done. Maybe, we'll never know who inflicted the fatal wound, but it's clear that both of them played very active roles which stops either of them pointing the finger at each other.

Just got back:

The reason I have always fancied Sollecito as the killer dates back to very early on:

According to his web profile his favourite song is Sweet Dreams - I explained that the other day. Raffaele says he listenes to the words while Amanda goes for the rhythm. Sweet Dreams is an angry song full of hate , all about gaining revenge. His favourite film is Hamlet, an angry story, full of hate, all about gaining revenge by killing someone. He likes Manga, traditionally comics with heroes playing out the struggle between good and bad. His favourite sport is kick boxing, he collected knives.

It was obvious from statements his father made very early on, that at the age of 24 for whatever reason, he kept Raffaele on a very short leash. When he spoke to Kate Mansey on the 3rd November, he took a phone call from someone which resulted in him becoming angry and telling whoever he could speak to who he liked. It was very early on that the rumours surfaced of his mother's suicide(even if there wasn't confirmation) and his fathers recent marriage to a glamorous new woman. Raffaele said he smoked to relieve stress. Most people of his age smoke because they like the sensation.

Back in his home town, at one stage, he went to a school for "doctors orphans"???

ISTM that he really was one uptight guy with probable good reason. Full of anger and probably hate.

ISTM that whoever actually killed Meredith had to be full of anger and hate for the world.

Over the time since those early days I've become even more convinced that it was he who struck the fatal blow, whatever the contribution from the other two.

About Amanda's head banging. I would suggest it's quite possible that when she was questioned in the first few hours following Raffaele's desertion, she was banging her head as she struggled to come up with a new story. This response is not unknown when a person is in a situation where they don't know what to do.

Neither was the recent court appearance the first time Raffaele has refused to face the other two. After Rudy made his statement in march, Mignini said it was unlikely that the prosecution would know exactly who did what unless one of the suspects decided to tell them. He tried to organise a "face to face to face". Rudy was up for it. We never really heard from Amanda's camp but there was no way Raffaele's team would allow him to go to a face to face without first being shown Rudy's statement.

I could go on and on.....

Brian wrote:

His favourite film is Hamlet, an angry story, full of hate, all about gaining revenge by killing someone.

There is no doubt that Raffaele has some troubling favorite songs and films. The story of Hamlet is about revenge, murder, incest, real and feigned madness, grief that transforms itself into rage, etc.

Not to mention the knife collection.

Good night or day or whatever it is where you are.

Brian,
They both were an accident waiting to happen!
He's unstable with issues - and so is she!

I would say that possibly the murder of Meredith was a result of a symbiotic relationship between them, without this really being apparent to each other at the time.
It seems to me a marriage made in hell.

An off the leash sex crazed sociopath hooks up with a murderous knife obsessed mouse with mommy issues, he enjoys the first proper sex he has had in his life and Knox being the most experienced and dominant here, just does that - dominates him, which is why I always refer to him as her poodle.
Because he is!
He was well and truly snagged in her erotic coil.

This is also why I think she struck the fatal blow as she was by far the most dominant in the relationship and also roped Rudy in as she was having sex with him too.

skeptical bystander wrote:On November 7, the same date on which the most recently released AK statement was written, here is what Raffaele wrote in his prison diary (the "you" is his father):

I remember that I surfed the Internet for a bit, maybe I watched a
film and then that you had called me at the house or that anyhow you
sent me a goodnight message. I remember that was Thursday, therefore
Amanda had to go to the pub where she usually works, but I don't
remember how much time she was absent and remember that subsequently
she had said to me that the pub was closed (I have strong doubts
regarding the fact that she was absent). I am straining myself to
remember other details but they are all confused. Another thing of
which I can be sure is that Amanda slept with me that night.

At least here, Raffaele has no recollection of the lesbian trauma conversation. In fact, he is in the process of gaining wiggle room on AK's constant presence or her partial absence, to be ready for future revelations. In other words, he partially retracts his Nov 5 statement, and on November 8 he says:

Meredith left (MK/AK flat) in a hurry at around 4 pm, without saying where she was going. Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don't remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8.30 or 9pm.
"At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner."

That is how these things also struck me Skep.

Once Amanda had decided that regardless of whatever Raffaele said(how could she trust him anymore after what had just happened?) she was with him, she stuck to a strategy which was fixed. She wasn't about to let Raffaele get away. The stories she recounts of the evening 1st may well have happened on another evening. It makes it easy to be consistent with a description of the events and the get out, if needed, is to claim later that you had the wrong evening.

Raffaele meanwhile is blowin in the wind. The decision on whether or not he was with Amanda can be made at a later point in time depending on the circumstances. I think his flowers came too late.

DeathFish 2000 wrote:Brian,
They both were an accident waiting to happen!
He's unstable with issues - and so is she!

I would say that possibly the murder of Meredith was a result of a symbiotic relationship between them, without this really being apparent to each other at the time.
It seems to me a marriage made in hell.

An off the leash sex crazed sociopath hooks up with a murderous knife obsessed mouse with mommy issues, he enjoys the first proper sex he has had in his life and Knox being the most experienced and dominant here, just does that - dominates him, which is why I always refer to him as her poodle.
Because he is!
He was well and truly snagged in her erotic coil.

This is also why I think she struck the fatal blow as she was by far the most dominant in the relationship and also roped Rudy in as she was having sex with him too.

And at this point in time, your opinion is just as valid as mine.

What I wanna know, is who we give our money to, if it turns out the knife was in Rudy's hand.

Fast Pete wrote:Kermit, (ciao!) I think you are right, the apartment is a longer one than the neighbors'.

This might be one of her windows at left here. The one with the frillies drying on the railing.

Presumably the window to the left (not in shot) could be the bedroom window.

Well, I'd make a horrible sleuth - I can't see very well in the dark! But I did just watch the 48 hours piece - maybe you all can tell where her apartment is. There was a comment made that while they were upstairs at the neighbors, they were looking "straight down onto Meredith's house". I'll give it a shot - I think Nara's is #21 or #22 in Kermit's picture.

[font=Comic Sans MS]EDIT: I AM RETRACTING MY GUESS OF 21 or 22 - I'M PRETTY SURE I'M WRONG![/font]

It's in Part 5 of the videos (They are all only about 8 minutes long)

http://search.cbsnews.com/?source=cbs&q ... x&x=11&y=8

Part 5 of "A Long Way From Home"

Thanks a lot Tara, I for one will go look.

Meanwhile here is another shot. Here's a closer look.

The two middle-floor balconies are Kermit's apartment 21 in a house that Skep thinks was yellow which would look directly down on the top of the cottage.

I have some shots (not posted yet) from the railing right above the cottage of the houses above. Only the highest floors can be seen from there.

But the distances are short and at night (as I've remarked before) this is a very silent place.

(Edit: Tara below decides it could not be this house. I agree. The CBS clips confirm (1) one floor above ground floor; (2) two or so houses beyond this one. I will link to some new shots, and wait for Kermit's stamp of approval.)

after a year in the slammer (the term refers to the hrd slamming of metal doors and also the clanging of keys the ones you do not have)

it starts to get to people, memories of real life, where you lived your life, when and how you wanted to begin to become like some distant dream.

I can imagine it getting to Sollecito, in fact, to all of them, dealing with life inside is hard too, also because of the kinds of people surrounding you, so if you are innocent it'd be hell but even if you are guilty and inexperienced with having to deal with all of societies negativity around you in the form of the people banged up, then it's tough.

If you were not corrupt, the prisonmay start to change you for bad, depending on your mind and your views and what it is you are there for, how and why, and of course, whether you are innocent ior not is another thing but, I'm quite sure, if these people had been innocent, they're actions would have been different, I know I would not give a shit about what people thought of me I'd go nuts every chance i got screaming out my innocence, why??? Because of the fact of innocence.

Brian S. wrote:And at this point in time, your opinion is just as valid as mine.

What I wanna know, is who we give our money to, if it turns out the knife was in Rudy's hand.

Brian,
I have never thought for one minute Rudy was the aggressor here, maybe I'm wrong but the other two seem too strong an influence to be ignored.
If it turns out that Rudy was the killer, then I will be very surprised.
I just can't see in a million years what would be his drive in doing this.
I don't know but I just don't think he had that in him to do it but I do think the other two had.
I always think about the skunkweed and being moronically stoned to such an extent that one is removed from reality.
Their mentality being such that they can't even recall where they where?
Could you argue if this was the case, that they could have instigated this madness in their stoned and blank "can't remember" spots during the evening?

Brian certainly has me looking at the two of them in a new light.

Make that two new lights. One each.

I think if Rudy was killer they'd have fingered him before midnight.

Pete,

I just took another look at the film. It looks like she's in a kind of peachy-orange building, with a dark colored bottom or foundation part. It also looked like her balcony was more of an alcove type with a railing across instead of one that sticks out off the side of the building?

I know you'll know just which one since you've been there!

DF2K wrote:I always think about the skunkweed and being moronically stoned to such an extent that one is removed from reality.
Their mentality being such that they can't even recall where they where?
Could you argue if this was the case, that they could have instigated this madness in their stoned and blank "can't remember" spots during the evening?

I've smoked for 45 years. For the last 20 or more I've grown my own(I live well out in the sticks and no longer have any contact with the world of street purchase). I'm probably somewhat a connoisseur of skunk(only the best will do and I know how to grow it, I have my favourite strains, there is a difference) . I've always worked, my kids went to Uni and have good jobs and until my recent semi-retirement I ran my own company installing computer networks. It never made me forget, it never made me mad or angry, although I will allow it's sometimes kept me in the armchair.

Alcohol or some kind of speed related chemical is far more likely to produce aggression and "blank spots".

Brian,
I have always thought that it was much more than pot which was involved that night. And that is why Rudy was there, not really even as a dealer. Maybe he dealing, maybe was the in between to find what they needed, or else maybe he was buying from Raffaele. Regardless, I think they were doing speed or x or pills. It would certainly help with the cleaning process. Hence the stolen money issue and argument. Did Amanda go back to the cottage knowing Meredith had money? Did she discuss this with Raffaele? Will be interesting to hear testimony to actual bank accounts. Don't forget. Just because you have money in your account does not mean you don't have a limit for withdrawal each day.

Brian wrote:

What I wanna know, is who we give our money to, if it turns out the knife was in Rudy's hand.

Always and only to Meredith's family, even though money is no consolation for their loss.

Jumpy wrote:Brian,
I have always thought that it was much more than pot which was involved that night. And that is why Rudy was there, not really even as a dealer. Maybe he dealing, maybe was the in between to find what they needed, or else maybe he was buying from Raffaele. Regardless, I think they were doing speed or x or pills. It would certainly help with the cleaning process. Hence the stolen money issue and argument. Did Amanda go back to the cottage knowing Meredith had money? Did she discuss this with Raffaele? Will be interesting to hear testimony to actual bank accounts. Don't forget. Just because you have money in your account does not mean you don't have a limit for withdrawal each day.

More from Amanda's 7th November statement about Raffaele's depression following the death of his Mum:

Ms Knox appears to have tried to redirect police suspicion to her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito. The day before, she had accused Diya “Patrick” Lumumba, a Congolese bar owner.

“Who was the real murderer?” she wrote. “Why did Raffaele lie? What made me think of Patrick?”....Ms Knox claimed that Mr Sollecito had confided to her that in the past he had used cocaine and acid and that he suffered from depression.

Ms Knox admitted that she and Mr Sollecito had smoked marijuana on the day of the murder, but she could not remember if they had read, studied or made love. She did remember having taken a shower together. She said that her memory of events was confused partly because of the drug but also because she was “in a state of shock and exhausted”.

She wrote: “I have serious doubts about the truth of my declarations. This is all very strange, I know, but what happened is as confusing for me as anyone else.”

She said that on the evening of the murder she had been at Mr Sollecito’s flat, and they had eaten a meal. “After supper I noticed blood on Raffaele’s hand, but I had the impression it might have come from the fish we ate.” ...she wrote “All the police must read this”, Ms Knox listed “all the men” who “knew Meredith”: Mr Lumumba, a Swiss man called Peter, a North African called Ardak, an Algerian called Yuve who worked at Mr Lumumba’s bar, a Greek named Spyros and a Moroccan that she knew as “Shaky” and who worked in a pizzeria. Witnesses have said, however, that these were friends of Ms Knox, not Ms Kercher. She also described Rudy Hermann Guede, the fourth suspect, who was arrested in Germany this week and is awaiting extradition to Italy, but did not name him, even though she is said to know him well.

Police suspect that Ms Knox named Mr Lumumba as the killer to cover up for Mr Guede...

The Times - 22nd November

Brian S. wrote:
The reason I have always fancied Sollecito as the killer dates back to very early on:

I've mentally run a lot of different scenarios but the one I keep coming back is of Sollecito as killer as well. I imagine that a "prank" (obviously, of a very unfunny kind) or an argument got out of hand and once the point of no return had been crossed (either physically, or with Meredith identifying her tormentors), Sollecito went back in to an injured Meredith and finished the job, so to speak--in a sort of twisted parody of taking manly responsibility for killing an injured animal or even a giant scary bug. (I'm sorry, I am really not trying to make light of Meredith's suffering here; I really just imagine them sort of seeing it that way.) Amanda may well have been crouching with her hands over her ears in the kitchen.

My interest in this case is mostly psychological (which is why I tend to sit back in silent admiration when those of you who are good with evidence and scenarios and photos and timelines do such good work with the material we have). It also seems to me that both Amanda Knox and her mother have a predilection for men with anger issues, anger simmering beneath the surface and scarcely contained--and perhaps a surrogate for their own unexpressed anger.

(And before you-know-who asks--no, I do not have qualifications as a psychologist! Just a student of human nature, as Skep once said to me. And even if I were qualified, I certainly wouldn't attempt to make such diagnoses based on what we have before us!)

Finally--I would hate to start convicting people based on their taste in books and film and music, having a predilection for the dark stuff myself, but as we've said here about so many things, it does form one small piece of a puzzle. And to that end, I have to say that until Brian mentioned it right now, I've never thought about the words to "Sweet Dreams" (guess I'm like Amanda, about the music instead of the words)--and now that the song is stuck in my head (thanks Brian! ) I agree that the lyrics make it seem a strangely revealing choice alongside the other things we've learned about Sollecito. (And it's an odd choice for a young man his age because it's a song that was popular before he was born, unless he is thinking of the Marilyn Manson version.)

Brian wrote:Alcohol or some kind of speed related chemical is far more likely to produce aggression and "blank spots".

[font=Comic Sans MS]Hi Brian. I'm really not sure speed would fit the bill here. Speed isn't inherrently an agressive drug, it's a stimulant and is 'euphoric' in nature. Whilst people on speed may 'appear' more aggressive, in their general mannerisms and how they speak, that isn't actually down to 'aggression', rather it's a 'physical' effect of the drug. 'Tolerance' of others may be lowered though perhaps and parranoia may occur in cases of overdose. Moreover, speed lasts a 'long' time...24-48 hours (72 even if overdosed). The effects of it would be blatantly clear when looking at Amanda and Raf on the 2nd. Their muscles are relaxed, not tensed, their jaws aren't grinding away and their movements aren't speeded up and energetic. Neither are they wide eyed or staring. All 'inevitable' effects of speed, especially if such an amount were taken as to cause them to act so far out of character the night before.

It doesn't cause memory blackouts either. Even if mixed with alcohol, it wouldn't fit the bill. For one, someone speeding naturally is averse to drinking, since it is not what the body craves, being a depressant. But, if someone forces themselves to drink alcohol on speed say, the effect will be that the depressent of the alcohol will serve to nutralise the stimulant of the speed (or vice versa if the amount of speed taken is more powerful then the amount of alcohol consumed...speed will sober a person up and quickly). Therefore, one will be one or the other, drunk or speeding, but not both.

The kind of mix that could certainly cause periods of memory loss as well as heavy aggression, is a lot of downers taken with alcohol...specifically, something like...12-14 tomazipams (valiums) with a skinfull of alcohol.

Of course, this is all stated not taking into account any potential pre-existing mental issues, or even some sort or allergy to a particular drug, which may potentially cause a user to have an unexpected reaction to any given substance. Another potential, is if Raf say was on some medication for his depression which reacted badly with something else . Many depression/anxiety drugs are tranqulisers and no few contain flouride. Flouride is the most powerful tranquiliser known to man and will increase, when mixed in minute amount amounts (parts per billion) with any other tranquliser its strength by 20 times. For example, what do you get if you add flouride to tomazipam? A: Rhohypnol. What do you get if you take Rhohypnol with alcohol? A: A very, very bad mix indeed.[/font]

On the location of witness Nara's apartment...

Tara wrote:I just took another look at the film. It looks like she's in a kind of peachy-orange building, with a dark colored bottom or foundation part. It also looked like her balcony was more of an alcove type with a railing across instead of one that sticks out off the side of the building?

That was excellent, Tara, the CBS video. Great find. Tells us a lot.

I have a bunch of shots and screen captures of the CBS video that are suggestive of where Nara lives, and I'll post them on the TJMK blog at lunchtime NYC time.

Kermit sure sets us galloping off in some interesting directions. Very unique talents, that guy. My six days in Italy are directly his doing!

What a trip, too. I have rarely soaked up a place as I did Perugia. I hope you all get to go.

TLC,
I have saved the content of your post but removed it because you reintroduce the PM message that was published last night. There is no board in the world where people are allowed to publish PMs without the permission of the author.

ON FILM - CAR PARK CAMERA

MEREDITH RETURNING TO THE COTTAGE ALONG WITH RUDY AT 20:53

Google Translation of TGCOM

Scout wrote:

I've mentally run a lot of different scenarios but the one I keep coming back is of Sollecito as killer as well. I imagine that a "prank" (obviously, of a very unfunny kind) or an argument got out of hand and once the point of no return had been crossed (either physically, or with Meredith identifying her tormentors), Sollecito went back in to an injured Meredith and finished the job, so to speak--in a sort of twisted parody of taking manly responsibility for killing an injured animal or even a giant scary bug. (I'm sorry, I am really not trying to make light of Meredith's suffering here; I really just imagine them sort of seeing it that way.) Amanda may well have been crouching with her hands over her ears in the kitchen.

What did you say your credentials in the field of psychology were?

Given RS's familiarity, comfort level and fascination with knives, the horrid idea of finishing things once they had gone wrong is one I have thought about too.

Brian S. wrote:ON FILM - CAR PARK CAMERA

MEREDITH RETURNING TO THE COTTAGE ALONG WITH RUDY AT 20:53

Google Translation of TGCOM

If there was some sort of friendship, it makes leaving Meredith at her time of need an even more despicably cowardly act on Rudy's part of this murder.

Meredith and RG did not return to the house together.
http://tinyurl.com/428g74

I'm just dropping in. What's happened to Soozie?

Just in case that link didn't work, try this.
http://tinyurl.com/3ovcle

I'll be around tonight, for what it's worth. I hope a few things get cleared up. What's happened to Soozie?

.

Link with the video clip


.

Welcome back Damian!

Thanks for the link.

Brian, Damian:

Where is the actual video? I clicked around on those two sites, no luck.

Damian wrote:

What's happened to Soozie?

Nice to see you Damian. Soozie has been briefly suspended for publishing a PM without the author's permission. I'll be posting Steve Huff's take on this shortly. In the meantime, can we do what 90% of the members here want to do? Post about the case.

The number 7 camera installed in a parking lot of the Umbrian capital also incorporates the entrance of the home theater of murder.


Do they mean the car park entrance or the front dooor?

What about Amanda and Raffaele?

Is there video of them coming by?

Fast Pete wrote:Brian, Damian:

Where is the actual video? I clicked around on those two sites, no luck.

Pete, My link doesn't work. I'd posted it before I tried it.

Fast Pete wrote:Brian, Damian:

Where is the actual video? I clicked around on those two sites, no luck.

If you click on my second link and then again where it says 'Esclusivo; le ultime immagini di Mez viva', you'll see it.

I just see a white blur going across.
Is this supposed to be Meredith and Rudy?
I don't get it.

Damian wrote:

If you click on my second link and then again where it says 'Esclusivo; le ultime immagini di Mez viva', you'll see it.

I found that by scrolling down the page you get the title and a screen capture of the video and clicking on the title opens it. But it is pretty grainy.

I think the first white blur is Meredith and then you see Rudy walking from another direction. You see him pretty well. In a coat and sneakers! They are not together.

Is that right Damian?

skeptical bystander wrote:Damian wrote:

What's happened to Soozie?

Nice to see you Damian. Soozie has been briefly suspended for publishing a PM without the author's permission. I'll be posting Steve Huff's take on this shortly. In the meantime, can we do what 90% of the members here want to do? Post about the case.

I'll post things tonight about the case, things that have been missed. I'll also post about possible reasons for people leaving the MB. I think that's important too. There's no point denying it. I think it's best to have it out in the open.

I've never commented on what the moderators do on this board. I find it all very dull and distracting. But if you ban/suspend a friend of mine, one of the best-loved posters on this board, it's bound to come as a shock and it's normal for people to want to understand what you are doing.

You didn't ban Minatour when she did the same...

I'm just trying to understand Skep, that's all.

Can someone describe what the video shows.

It needs MS Silverlight to run and at the moment I'm not on a Windows PC.

Jumpy wrote:I think the first white blur is Meredith and then you see Rudy walking from another direction. You see him pretty well. In a coat and sneakers! They are not together.

Is that right Damian?

Hi Jumpy. Yeah, that's right. The classy journalists on the show say they are the Nike sneakers and that he was wearing that jacket when he was arrested, for what it's worth.

The print says it goes against Kokomani's testimony because it isn't raining.

The also say it conflicts with Rudy saying he waited in front of the house.

Who leaked this video??

The police must have it but also the suspects lawyers.

Hi Brian. Jumpy had it in a nut shell. The footage was taken from one of the cameras at the car park. In the background you can just see someone dressed in white. The journalists say the police believe this to be Meredith. She was alone. Then a man walks from behind the camera, going in the direction of the house. You can see him from behind. This is believed to be RG. The journalist says that the shot of RG was taken before the one of the figure dressed in white.

damian wrote:Hi Brian. Jumpy had it in a nut shell. The footage was taken from one of the cameras at the car park. In the background you can just see someone dressed in white. The journalists say the police believe this to be Meredith. She was alone. Then a man walks from behind the camera, going in the direction of the house. You can see him from behind. This is believed to be RG. The journalist says that the shot of RG was taken before the one of the figure dressed in white.

The journalist says that the shot of RG was taken before the one of the figure dressed in white.

Then this would agree with Rudy's story. He said he got there first.

In light of the fact that this video is said to dispute Kokomani's testimony, was this leaked by Rudy's team?

Brian S. wrote:The print says it goes against Kokomani's testimony because it isn't raining.

The also say it conflicts with Rudy saying he waited in front of the house.

Who leaked this video??

The police must have it but also the suspects lawyers.

Brian, bear in mind that this land is full of shit journalists and that these bunch are some of the worst. Maybe it started raining later? I'm not sure how it conflicts with what RG said either, if what the journalist said is correct ie, 'ma prima di lei'...

BTW, it's camera number 7.

One thing about rain and cameras. Rain starts and stops and is tough to see on camera. On a recent trip it rained and rained and rained. I took pictures galore and you can't really tell it was raining. Photographers love it for the light, but that's a whole different story.

Not saying whether it was raining or not that night.
Just saying I'm not gonna base it on the cameras but instead witnesses.

(but not a drop on me) Hey now, Damian

Rain or not, there's dna on the knife. Will the rain wash that away?

So the guy walking past the barrier with the type of quilted jacket and sneakers is Rudy?
Who says it wasn't raining?
The light reflected off the water on the road is there for all to see.
That doesn't happen on a dry road.
Also the rubbish frank spouts about no rain seen on any CCTV footage is just that, rubbish.
CCTV camera's are, I am sure you'll agree not exactly broadcast quality.
For rainfall to be picked up by a CCTV camera it would have to actually hit the lens or be a total deluge, as the resolution is not high enough to discern it.
If that is Rudy he does look like he is wearing his wet weather gear.

Fast Pete,

What in the sam hill are you talking about? I'm confused...


Maybe this should be deleted too? (Not that I'm not still confused or anything)

Damian wrote:

You didn't ban Minatour when she did the same...
I'm just trying to understand Skep, that's all.

Soozie is not banned; she was suspended to prevent her from publishing any other PMs. She can come back any time, as long as she agrees never to do this again for any reason to anyone. In the case of Minotaur, it happened at the beginning here and it in fact was (possibly) due to a misunderstanding. Minotaur thought she had posted something that I "ignored," when in fact her first post never got sent. Thinking she had been ignored, she posted the PM. I removed it immediately and she was very quick to recognize why that is never tolerated and move on. I will ask Steve Huff to step in and say a word about that if you want. One of the results of the first publication of a PM is a post for all to see saying that this is not tolerated anywhere, anytime.

A friend of mine, who also happens to post here, emailed me to say she would be devastated if anyone posted any of her emails or PMs without her permission.

This is something everyone who posts has to agree to. It is non-negotiable.

Soozie apparently feels wronged because I told her she had her facts wrong. Wilkes was suspended, not banned. After suspending him, my hope was to ban him. But the other moderator and administrator felt differently, so we decided to keep the suspension in place and think about it. I can see why Soozie may have thought he was banned, but not because of any announcement to that effect. So I am sorry that I replied to Soozie's PM by expressing my hope. There.

I am more than happy to step aside as moderator and administrator and let someone else take over. Really. I am close to being happy to step aside as a poster too because, in spite of the efforts of 90% of this board to stay on topic and focus on Meredith, there is a recurring need to bicker right now. Is it boredom while waiting for more news? Is there some underlying need to get into spats about things that don't matter?

Anyway, have a great day posting on the board everyone. Please forgive me in advance for not replying to any more messages on this topic. And if anyone here believes that it is okay to publish private information, then I suggest at the least you organize a poll. Let the entire board decide.

As for me, I'm going to take a deep breath and move on.

damian wrote:Meredith and RG did not return to the house together.
http://tinyurl.com/428g74

Damian's link works. I'm not sure this video changes anything at all. The white figure in the distance is apparently Meredith, and then we see the dark figure of Rudy passing directly in front of the camera. So what does this change? Not much, really, if anything. Also, to my eye it's hard to tell if it is raining before 10PM when these shots were taken, but it could easily have been raining later. I suspect this has been leaked by the Sollecito's to try and snag some headlines and bolster their case on Friday. The only thing is says to me is that Rudy would have arrived at the cottage alone.

Damian

Soozie found it incorrect that when someone complained about Wilkes, Wilkes was put away instantly, it seemed like that to Soozie, while on the other hand others had also complained for months about Wilkes and his ways and nothing happened.

Soozie used the word 'banned' and it was pointed out that Wilkes had only been suspended, but in a PM to Soozie, it had been said he would be banned, so Soozie did nothing wrong.

She was asked to apologise to Michael and refused based on the fact she had acted correctly according what had been made known to her. She took offence to the fact the request was made openly on the board instead of just diplomatically in a PM.
She is upset that she has not had a single message from the board, just one saying that she is banned not suspended.

She felt helpless, and that's human, but I can't see that there were ill intentions from either. You cannot apologise when you have done nothing wrong.

Soozie reproduced a PM which I think is wrong, and she too, thinks it is wrong, she knows it is, but, everyone makes mistakes and I hope the people it concerns can quickly make up and admit both made mistakes but both are good people.

Everybody needs to just clean it up. Shake hands.

I like the idea of a thread for members only. I'd rip into each and every one of you. I swear.

A thread for members only? but I thought we were members? Come on, now, don't confuse the poor blonde, okay?

Let's get back to who we are all here for...MEREDITH KERCHER. Right now, we're making Knox & Co. happy as piggies in shit. (no offense meant to piggies anywhere)

xo

Fair enough!

Fly by Night wrote:

damian wrote:Meredith and RG did not return to the house together.
http://tinyurl.com/428g74

Damian's link works. I'm not sure this video changes anything at all. The white figure in the distance is apparently Meredith, and then we see the dark figure of Rudy passing directly in front of the camera. So what does this change? Not much, really, if anything. Also, to my eye it's hard to tell if it is raining before 10PM when these shots were taken, but it could easily have been raining later. I suspect this has been leaked by the Sollecito's to try and snag some headlines and bolster their case on Friday. The only thing is says to me is that Rudy would have arrived at the cottage alone.

What it does is confirm the first part of Rudy's story.

He says he thinks he left for the cottage sometime around 8:30.

He arrived first and had to wait a short while until Meredith came back from from her friends.

It would appear that Meredith arrived back at 8:53 camera time.

Just a month or so ago, the telephone call at 9:30 was confirmed as being made to Meredith's mother.

Rudy obviously didn't pose a threat to Meredith between 8:53 and 9:30

Brian S. wrote:[


It would appear that Meredith arrived back at 8:53 camera time.

Just a month or so ago, the telephone call at 9:30 was confirmed as being made to Meredith's mother.

Rudy obviously didn't pose a threat to Meredith between 8:53 and 9:30

(I'm still not too sure how to quote things here)

Good point, Brian. For the first 40 minutes, it would seem Rudy didn't want to hurt Meredith. How long was that phone call to mom?

Did Arline Kercher know that Rudy was with Meredith or in the house?

Didn't Raffaele's lawyers want to get a look at this footage?

That is easy to say Jumpy but right now Soozie has no acces to her and people can know nothing about what happened.

So, I think it is still wrong until Soozie is allowed to post and is treated with the respect she deserves.
She did the only thing she could when being ignored and mistreated, she proved hoiw it was that she was correct.
Nothing changed with that, she was corect.

It just is unpleasanrt if you are banned without warning and no message(s) at all about it.


All carry on, what??

TLC wrote:

Damian

Soozie found it incorrect that when Fast Pete complained about Wilkes, Wilkes was put away instantly, while on the other hand others had also complained for months about Wilkes and his ways and nothing happened.

While it is true that Soozie found it incorrect and stated this about a month after the fact, in fact Wilkes was not banned and was not put away instantly because of Fast Pete. I came home to 4 PMs from 4 people asking that he be removed. I suspended him so that I could take the time to see what had got people so riled and talk to my fellow moderator/administrator. So two things: Wilkes was not banned and he was not suspended because of Fast Pete. I have already explained this for anyone who cares to go back and read the whole sorry exchange.

Soozie used the word 'banned' and it was pointed out that Wilkes had only been suspended, but in a PM to Soozie, it had been said he would be banned, so Soozie did nothing wrong.

Fine. No harm done. My bad. But it remains true that no such ban is in place. If you look at the same exchange, I explained the difference between the two because it is important. It is not just semantic.

She was asked to apologise to Michael and refused based on the fact she had acted correctly according what had been made known to her. She took offence to the fact the request was made openly on the board instead of just diplomatically in a PM.

In fact, I opined that I thought Soozie should apologize to Michael and why. Again, anyone who is interested can just go read the exchange and decide for themselves. Soozie felt otherwise and said so. All I did was state my opinion. I am sorry that this wish was expressed publicly. I should have done so in a PM, where the protection of each person's privacy is safeguarded. I am sorry. It won't happen again.

She is upset that she has not had a single message from the board, just one saying that she is banned not suspended.

Unless Michael's PM did not arrive, this is not true. Michael wrote a long and thoughtful PM and I don't think the word "ban" was used once. In fact, I don't think "suspend" was either. I myself sent Soozie three PMs, the contents of which I would like to remain private. Maybe she did not receive them?

You cannot apologise when you have done nothing wrong.

Actually, I think you have to sometimes just to move on. So again, let me apologize profusely.

Soozie reproduced a PM which I think is wrong, and she too, thinks it is wrong, she knows it is, but, everyone makes mistakes and I hope the people it concerns can quickly make up and admit both made mistakes but both are good people.

This is a non-negotiable point: posting the contents (all or some) of a PM or email message written by another person without his or her prior written consent is wrong, under all circumstances. Minotaur did it once and apologized. I think I quoted Steve Huff at the time with his permission; I'll have to find that. There can be no exceptions to this rule.
However, you as a board can decide that publishing PMs and other private information is okay. Organize a vote on that if you want. But do it quickly. I want to know; I would never ever again post on a board or in a forum where this is authorized and I suspect I am not alone.
Until then, this is a mistake and whoever makes it has to acknowledge it and make a solemn promise never to do it again under any circumstances. Trust is the foundation of this kind of forum. It can't work otherwise.

I was drawn to this place because a young woman full of promise was brutally murdered. The evidence suggested she had been brutalized, humiliated and possibly bullied. If this is no longer the place where justice for Meredith is the only real concern, then please tell me immediately and I will leave. Today. Then someone, maybe Michael since he is the co-moderator, can contact Steve and figure out where to go from here.

I agree that having moderators can be a real drag. Maybe you guys should try functioning without one.

And I'll be gone also.

I can always post elsewhere.

How about we start a new thread:

"I'm pissed and this is why"

I checked the memberlist and it looks like everyone is on there. If somebody has been banned, would they still be on the list? Maybe I'm missing something. Either way, sounds like everybody is sorry.

I feel like I'm in fucking kindergarten here. Or worse yet, high school.

MEREDITH KERCHER. Remember her, anyone? Bueller?

The video is a lot more exciting than the TC board housekeeping, but...

Soozie found it incorrect that when Fast Pete complained about Wilkes, Wilkes was put away instantly, while on the other hand others had also complained for months about Wilkes and his ways and nothing happened.

Put away? Gulp! Not just neutered?! Actually, two corrections to your claim, TLC:

1) I didnt complain about Wilkes as such; I merely saw a very valuable board grinding to a halt for the x'th day in a row, and I thought it on point of collapse with collateral damage.

2) And the moderator at the time in effect told me to join the queue... for the first time ever, it seems, a whole bunch of complaints had arrived more or less together.

I didnt read the jail-house lawyer, or all of the many rebuttals, great fun though of course they were.

And Soozie sorta thanked me for (seeming to) provide the straw that broke the camel's back.

Fast Pete wrote:I didnt complain about Wilkes as such...

I'm sorry - what is a Wilkes?

TLC wrote:

Soozie has no acces to her and people can know nothing about what happened

This is not true. She has my email address and has been in contact with a number of people who have contacted me.
Perhaps what is causing the problem is technical: there is no "suspend" function. When someone is asked not to post, administratively the only way to enact that is to use the ban control function. Michael was physically ill after what happened last night and I was that, plus I had to go out. Given the seriousness of the offense, and in light of a couple messages saying "she better not do that to me," I felt I had no choice but to activate that function so that nobody else's PMs would be posted. That is my duty to the other people who post here. Anyone who ever posts a PM again on my watch will also be immediately stopped from posting until the problem is resolved.

The resolution is not that difficult:

You either state on your honor that you will never do that again and accept immediate and irrevocable banishment if you do

OR

You get the board to change the rules, allowing anyone to publish any private messages at any time.

Again, if you want to do that, go ahead. But please let me know so I can (1) leave immediately and (2) remove my name as moderator and administrator to protect myself from any legal liability from any consequences of allowing this practice.

IW and Frank must be laughing their heads off.

All their dreams comin true.

Will this be the end of TC?

Skep wrote:Unless Michael's PM did not arrive, this is not true. Michael wrote a long and thoughtful PM and I don't think the word "ban" was used once. In fact, I don't think "suspend" was either. I myself sent Soozie three PMs, the contents of which I would like to remain private. Maybe she did not receive them?

Skep, Soozie tried to log in and read her PM's and she got a message that she was banned. That's why she thinks she was banned. She could not read your PM's because you banned/suspended her before she could read them, apparently.

Sparrow wrote:

Skep, Soozie tried to log in and read her PM's and she got a message that she was banned. That's why she thinks she was banned. She could not read your PM's because you banned/suspended her before she could read them, apparently.

Thanks, Sparrow. It's odd, because I did the technical thing about an hour after the fact. I can remove the technical ban on access in that case and she can pick up her PMs from me and Michael. She has my email address and I believe Michael's as well. Perhaps she should contact one of us directly to sort this out.

The video seems to be clearly Rudy walking alone towards the flat. And possibly Meredith walking towards the flat a little earlier at 9:52. But there was a supposedly video of someone who looked like Amanda taken a few minutes before these images. Amanda’s lawyers seems to have been able to have that image discounted because it wasn’t clear enough. However the police still have it, and I believe have used it to build a partial timeline of who arrived when?

Passions also run high because there are a lot of new developments in this case.

Did anyone hear part of RG's interrogation? The audio was played on TG2 last Thursday. The tapescript was written up in one of the local papers. There was a mixed response from various defence teams; some said they wouldn't comment while others claimed that the audio could have been edited to give the wrong impression. RG said he would need to see the man in the flesh to be able to try and identify him. He was asked to give the name and surname of this person and said 'Raffaele Sollecito'. Perhaps this issue is connected to his absence at the first hearing. RG could say 'Yes, that's the man I saw.'

Part of AK's e-mail (dated Nov4) to her friends was published in GU today. Amoung other things, she claims that she was in the kitchen when Meredith's door was opened.

DLW wrote:The video seems to be clearly Rudy walking alone towards the flat. And possibly Meredith walking towards the flat a little earlier at 9:52.

The video gives the impression of having been zoomed-in for the TV broadcast version - they do that a lot. And it is very compressed.

I looked at the CCTV monitors in our own parking building and they have a much wider field of view than we are seeing here.

This really matters; we have presumed here that the video captured the dumpsters, maybe the Albanian, and probably the breakdown truck.

I had expected Meredith to be coming down the steel stairs - that is the shorter route for her - but what we see suggests the stone steps.

Is there any thinking here on where Guede was coming from? I'm puzzled that he came from the direction of the steel stairs.

Other than Chic, where could he have been?

damian wrote:Perhaps this issue is connected to his absence at the first hearing. RG could say 'Yes, that's the man I saw.'

Koko may have had the same unfortunate reaction.

Sollecito will be the one with the blond wig on Friday.

EVERYONE PLEASE READ STEVE HUFF'S ANNOUNCEMENT. It is here on the board under NOTICE:

http://truecrimeweblog.freeforums.org/n ... 8-t45.html

DLW wrote:The video seems to be clearly Rudy walking alone towards the flat. And possibly Meredith walking towards the flat a little earlier at 9:52.

You meant later, not earlier, didn't you, DLW (according to the printed comment) ?

So allegedly, Amanda's email says she was in the kitchen when the door was opened. Her mom says she was on the phone with her. Raffaele says she saw in the room and was crying, wondering who could have done such a thing to Meredith.

She's either *mistaken* or she can bi or even tri-locate.

‘Meredith Kercher rincasa to 20.53 and not be out more. Shortly after Rudy Guédé also crosses the door, dressed in the same quilt when they arrested him in Germany‘…. L'Occidentale

Hi Buetit. I could have read this wrong. It’s a little vague. I took it to say shortly after Meredith's arrival, Rudy also crossed the door.

DLW wrote:‘Meredith Kercher rincasa to 20.53 and not be out more. Shortly after Rudy Guédé also crosses the door, dressed in the same quilt when they arrested him in Germany‘…. L'Occidentale

Hi Buetit. I could have read this wrong. It’s a little vague. I took it to say shortly after Meredith's arrival, Rudy also crossed the door.

DLW,

The discrepancy may be due to different sources. I have not seen the L'Occidentale report. I was relying on Damian's posts

Damian wrote: The journalist says that the shot of RG was taken before the one of the figure dressed in white.
...
I'm not sure how it conflicts with what RG said either, if what the journalist said is correct ie, 'ma prima di lei'...

(By the way, WELCOME BACK, DAMIAN ! You were sorely missed.)

I think this " before / after " point is quite important. I hope it will soon be clarified.

As of now I am a little confused : do the times in question refer to the newly released telecamera shots (man-seen from-back / Rudy approaching the house, white blob / Meredith idem) or to other shots showing them entering the house ?

Fast Pete wrote:Other than Chic, where could he have been?

Rudy didn't come from his place or Le Chic. He'd been around town, visited a friend, went for a kebab before meeting another friend and telling him he had a meeting fixed up with a girl . He left this friend he thinks sometime around 8:30. The names and details of who he saw and where he went are in Rudy's diary.

Hello All,

For those of you who could not see the "Studio Aperto" video link, here is the You Tube link:

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=zZ0VavpuTnE

Brian wrote:

Rudy didn't come from his place or Le Chic. He'd been around town, visited a friend, went for a kebab before meeting another friend and telling him he had a meeting fixed up with a girl . He left this friend he thinks sometime around 8:30. The names and details of who he saw and where he went are in Rudy's diary.

Here is the passage, from the translation by Sparrow, Nicki and Traduco:

Before my meeting with Meredith, I went to the town center. I walked around, to see where to eat. Then I decided to eat at the Kebap, so I went toward the one that’s next to “La Tana dell’Orso.” I met Philip there, an Austrian friend who was speaking with a girl and he directed me to the Kebap and I ordered something to eat. I waited a bit because in front of me there were two girls who were ordering. Then I ate and went towards Philip, who was still talking. With Philip I talked at length, then we agreed to meet later at Alex’s place. I told Philip I had to go meet someone, and he jokingly asked me if it was a guy or a girl. I pointed out it was a girl, because he was referring to an awful one-night stand that happened to me a few days before, regarding a “guy.”

Then I headed for Meredith’s house. With all the running around I did, I think it would have been around 8:30, approximately. Because we were supposed to see each other at that time, even though I didn’t have a watch I tried to arrive on time, because I usually arrive late. As I arrived in front of the house, I noticed a white car with headlights on, and a Druggie-Pusher I often saw on Garibaldi Avenue, but I didn’t make much of this, and I went into the yard. I knocked on the door, but no one answered. I went downstairs to the guys’ place, but no one was there either. So then, I waited in the yard.

Brian S. wrote:

Fast Pete wrote:Other than Chic, where could he have been?

Rudy didn't come from his place or Le Chic. He'd been around town, visited a friend, went for a kebab before meeting another friend and telling him he had a meeting fixed up with a girl . He left this friend he thinks sometime around 8:30. The names and details of who he saw and where he went are in Rudy's diary.

I wouldn't use Rudy's diary as an authoritative source of information. None of the suspects have given an honest account of what happened that night because they were all involved.

Skep wrote:Then I decided to eat at the Kebap, so I went toward the one that’s next to “La Tana dell’Orso.” I met Philip there.........I told Philip I had to go meet someone.......Then I headed for Meredith’s house. With all the running around I did, I think it would have been around 8:30, approximately.

Map with the location of La Tana dell’Orso:

Perugia by night

It's in Via U. Racchi

The Machine wrote:

Brian S. wrote:

Fast Pete wrote:Other than Chic, where could he have been?

Rudy didn't come from his place or Le Chic. He'd been around town, visited a friend, went for a kebab before meeting another friend and telling him he had a meeting fixed up with a girl . He left this friend he thinks sometime around 8:30. The names and details of who he saw and where he went are in Rudy's diary.

I wouldn't use Rudy's diary as an authoritative source of information. None of the suspects have given an honest account of what happened that night because they were all involved.

It's not at all a question of using Rudy's diary as a source of authoritative information. Quite the opposite. It's using the video as authoritative to enable some check to be made on what he said in his diary


Rudy's said he left Philip near La Tana Dell'Orso sometime around 8:30 pm. He is seen in the video coming down the car park ramp sometime just before 8:50. If this is the natural route between there and the cottage it would be confirmation that part of his story is accurate. One would assume Philip has confirmed this meeting with Rudy since he is so explicitly named its only natural the police would have checked on that.

[/quote="Brian S]

What it does is confirm the first part of Rudy's story.

He says he thinks he left for the cottage sometime around 8:30.

He arrived first and had to wait a short while until Meredith came back from from her friends.

It would appear that Meredith arrived back at 8:53 camera time.

Just a month or so ago, the telephone call at 9:30 was confirmed as being made to Meredith's mother.

Rudy obviously didn't pose a threat to Meredith between 8:53 and 9:30[/quote]

I'm not sure it confirms very much. We don't know what Rudy was doing exactly from when got to the cottage until Meredith arrived back. I think it's more likely that he met Amanda and Raffaele during this time in or around the cottage. It's impossible to make an accurate identification of the person seen at 8.53 pm. I thought Meredith arrived back at around 9.05 pm. We don't don't actually know where Rudy was until 9.30 pm. He may not have been at the cottage.

TM wrote:I think it's more likely that he met Amanda and Raffaele during this time in or around the cottage. It's impossible to make an accurate identification of the person seen at 8.53 pm. I thought Meredith arrived back at around 9.05 pm.

He's not with Raffaele and Amanda in the video. Besides at this time they can be placed back in Corso Garibaldi.

It's possible Meredith's friends may know enough about what she was wearing to enable some kind of identification in an enhanced frozen frame image.

Merdith's arrival at 9:05 has been just as big a guess as Rudy's 8:30.

She left her friends place at "about" 8:45 and walked halfway back on an approx 10 min journey with one of the other girls. The 9:05 guestimate allowed for the two girls to talk for 5 minutes before they went their separate ways.

Thankyou Jools for the utube link.

Brian S. wrote:
He's not with Raffaele and Amanda in the video. Besides at this time they can be placed back in Corso Garibaldi.

It's possible he met Amanda and Raffaele where there were no CCTV cameras. Amanda and Raffaele turned off their mobiles at 8.40 pm, so they may not have been in Corso Garibaldi.

Brian S. wrote:It's possible Meredith's friends may know enough about what she was wearing to enable some kind of identification in an enhanced frozen frame image.

Merdith's arrival at 9:05 has been just as big a guess as Rudy's 8:30.

She left her friends place at "about" 8:45 and walked halfway back on an approx 10 min journey with one of the other girls. The 9:05 guestimate allowed for the two girls to talk for 5 minutes before they went their separate ways.

I can hardly make out the figure that is supposed to be Meredith. Maybe, Rudy did tell his friend that he had arranged to meet up with a woman, but the woman wasn't Meredith, but Amanda. I don't believe Rudy's account of what happened that night. There must have been a meeting between Rudy and Amanda, and probably Raffaele, before they all attacked Meredith.

Brian S. wrote:

Skep wrote:Then I decided to eat at the Kebap, so I went toward the one that’s next to “La Tana dell’Orso.”

Map with the location of La Tana dell’Orso...

Thank you for the address, Brian.

And thank you for the scepticism, Machine. I think you are right.

La Tana dell’Orso is in the wrong direction entirely. It's in Via Ulisse Rocchi which I just posted shots of.

It enters the basketball square through the famous city gate by the School for Foreigners.

Guede'd be nuts to walk from there down Via Pinturicchio and then back via the steel steps and the parking facility.

It adds at least a quarter of a mile to the trip, and it's not an especially interesting walk.

Methinks the Guede diary lies. What was he up to?

Brian S. wrote:

Skep wrote:Then I decided to eat at the Kebap, so I went toward the one that’s next to “La Tana dell’Orso.” I met Philip there.........I told Philip I had to go meet someone.......Then I headed for Meredith’s house. With all the running around I did, I think it would have been around 8:30, approximately.

Map with the location of La Tana dell’Orso:

Perugia by night

It's in Via U. Racchi

See map on link below: one "+" click and one "up arrow" click gives all the detail

The direct route from Via Ulisse Rocchi to the cottage goes straight through the car park. It can't be more than 5 minutes walk.


Perugia Online

skeptical bystander wrote:As I arrived in front of the house, I noticed a white car with headlights on, and a Druggie-Pusher I often saw on Garibaldi Avenue, but I didn’t make much of this, and I went into the yard. I knocked on the door, but no one answered. I went downstairs to the guys’ place, but no one was there either. So then, I waited in the yard.

There would certainly be more than one car in the area, but this one stood out. Hasn't Rudy refered to Sollecito & Knox as "a drug-dealer and his customer"? Sollecito's car is black, right? Even so, was Rudy trying say something between the lines here?