Primary Timeline: An Hour-By-Hour Guide To The Events In Question

Comments

“Friday 0745 Witness places AK outside supermarket”

The witness, possibly the Conad’s manager, was said to have seen AK in the cleaners area, and then headed down Garibaldi, perhaps to her house.

May not be firm enough for you, Michael? You are certainly scrupulously fair throughout - perhaps at the cost of making heads spin trying to reconcile things!

Hi Pete. Yes, we believe the manager/owner was a witness at 0745. However, extrapolation of the reports also suggest there was a ‘second’ witness in the shop…a student. We aren’t absolutely certain of this of course.

Timeline Update:

1st Nov, New Slot:

1750 (circa) Jovana Popovic, a Polish girl who worked as RS’ cleaner, arrived at RS’ flat at about 17:50 (she had an appointment nearby at 18:00 and it was before that). She went up and Amanda was alone, Jovana waited for Raffaele to ask him for a lift to get luggage from the station. Raffaele soon arrived and in a cold tone he said “OK”

1st Nov, New Slot:

2040** (circa) Jovana Popovic later got a message that for some reason there is no need to get the luggage and after finishing the violin lesson at about 20:20 she went back to tell Raffaele at around 20:40, and through the intercom she spoke to a laughing Amanda who said that Raf was there and invited her up. She did not go up

1st Nov, EDIT to existing 2040 slot concerning the ‘Serbian’ student ‘Jovanovic’:

2040** Serbian student, Jovanovic, ‘met’ (Could do with clarification as to whether he simply passed AK, or actually engaged with her in some way) AK on Corso Garibaldi. AK and RS were at RS’s flat at this time and before (per AK/RS). NOTE: It is almost certain that the Serbian ‘Jovanovic’ is in fact the Polish ‘Jovana’ Popovic

END OF UPDATE

The fact that Jovanovic is almost certainly Popovic is most useful, since that helps clear some of the seeming congestion of events at 2040 on Nov 1st.

I just wanted to say, that that is a most beautiful picture headlining the article, one that would look wonderful framed on any wall. But truly, here is where beauty and terrible sadness collide, for it was here that poor Meredith was last seen alive by another human being that was not her killer. For me, that picture is therefore one of the most poignant in the whole case.

So many wish that we could rewind the clock. Have her head back up those stairs…

Michael, it’s your timeline and you can paste in whatever times you want, but the fact is that Amanda called Filomena at 12:08 on Nov. 2, according to the records provided by the phone company.  They spoke four times, not three.  Amanda placed the first call, and Filo placed the other three, at 12:12, 12:20, and 12:34.

Thanks for these additions, Charlie. I suspect they are not in Michael’s timeline because they have not been made available to the public, but only Michael can confirm that.

If and when this information is provided, for example during the trial, it can be added to the timeline.

As for Michael pasting in whatever times he wants, I doubt that was his method. Again, his information comes from published sources and is always subject to correction from published sources.

Jovana Popovic cannot be Polish.  It is a Serbian name.

Both her names are Serbian, I think, Carol? I know a family of Popovic’s and a Jovana in Belgrade.

Michael, Jovana was a music student, who also cleaned for RS, right?

Jovanovic also looks like a Serbian name. I am not sure there are any Polish people involved.

Charlie - those times may be true, but at the moment they are coming from only one source, a source which cannot be regarded as ‘independent’. I would therefore like to see verification from at least one independent source before adding them into the Timeline.

On Jovana Popovic - there has always been some confusion about this witness. In the early part of the case it was reported that there was a ‘Polish neighbour’ that had seen Knox entering/leaving Raffaele’s apartment, but no statements were released. Later, there was the story that a ‘Serbian student (Jovanovic)’ had ‘met’ Knox in the street. I am confident now that they are in fact one individual and that errors in reports from the early days of the case made it appear as though there were two individuals. Popovic is indeed a Serbian name and I’m happy to make that adjustment. She has been reported as being a music student, but it has also been reported that she was Raffaele’s cleaner. It is therefore likely that this was a part-time job for her to help fund her studies and would explain the nature of her relationship with Raffaele.

Update - New Date, 30th October, with one entry:

1630 - 1700 A new witness, around 40 years old and known only as ‘Fabio’, has given testimony that he saw all three suspects together with Meredith: ’…I used to go to the University of Foreigners and I knew the house in via della Pergola because my friend from Florence lived there a few years ago. I remember that mid-afternoon on October30, more or less between 4′30-5pm, I was in front of the pizzeria Contrappunto because I had just parked my car near the building. I noticed four young people coming out of the gate which leads to the house in via della Pergola. They were walking two by two; …Kercher Meredith with Sollecito Raffaele and behind them, Amanda Knox with a young black man who looked very similar to Rudy Guede, although he was partially covered by Sollecito. I just caught a glimpse of him. I know him by sight because I often used to see him in front of the University for Foreigners while he was handing out fliers for the Merlin pub, I think. This was around three years ago when I used to go to the University for Foreigners. I’m 99% sure that the young black man walking with Amanda on October30 was Rudy Guede. Then, when I got my car, it started raining hard. They were wearing dark clothes, except Amanda who stood out because she was wearing a red, eighties-style coat. I only knew Rudy out of the four. I recognised them without a shadow of doubt when I saw their photos in the papers and on television after the murder. The four came out of the gate and were going towards Piazza Grimana.’

Timeline Update:

October 30th, new slot:

Evening Patrick sacks Amanda from working in Le Chic. By Tuesday, October 30, his patience ran out. He told Amanda she could carry on handing out club flyers, but could no longer work in the bar.  “She looked at me blankly and walked away,” he says. “The club was busy and I didn’t see her again that evening.”

October 31st, new slot:

Evening Amanda is in Le Chic. She was attending a Hallowe’en party at the club, knocking back the free red wine. “She was all over two American boys,” Patrick says. “There was no sign of Sollecito and I didn’t see her leave.”

November 1st, new slot:

0300 (Some time after) After locking up Le Chic at 0300, Patrick Lumumba goes to a club where he bumps into Meredith celebrating Halloween “I mentioned the idea of her working for me again,” he says. “She smiled sweetly and said she couldn’t wait, and she’d bring all her friends back to my club for me.”  This is the last time Patrick ever saw Meredith alive

Michael,
I hope your source is not the Daily Mail. This may be true, but would require a better source before it gets put on the timeline!

Hello Skep,
Well, as you know, this is actually quite an old interview by the Sunday Mail (the latest updates) and for a long time I wasn’t prepared to enter them into the Timeline. I made the change for two reasons actually.

1) Finally being able to view the Dateline program, it being loaded up Online, Patrick on Camera repeated some some of that information which he gave in the Sunday Mail interview (the firing of Amanda, her flirtatious behaviour etc,.)

2) In consideration, after his interview, Patrick went to some lengths to deny his comments in the mail interview associated with his treatment by the police, yet he did not do so in regard to his comments about Amanda and Meredith. His denials were ‘selective’, rather then of the complete interview.

For a while, I did consider entering the slots with a caveat noting the source and advising caution. I decided against it at the last minute because ultimately the Timeline is intended to be a concise ‘events’ list, not a ‘sources’ list and adding them for certain entries would set a precedent. In an ever expanding Timeline, I’m also becoming a little wary of Timeline ‘bloat’.

However, that said, when I make such a decision it is arbitrary and I’m quite happy to debate how this particular data should be handled, if it should be 1) withdrawn from the Timeline completely 2) Included, but with a caveat stating the source to allow the viewer to decide the value of the data in that particular slot 3) Left as is.

Michael, I have been thinking a lot about your question above.

Do we know the precise wording of the text message Patrick sent to Amanda Knox that evening?

I seem to recall that he told her she wasn’t needed but did not actually say she was fired. Patrick’s remarks on the NBC Dateline seems to me to confirm that.

But Patrick could still have met Meredith in the wee hours at a disco, and told her then that she had the job.

If something ticked off Meredith when she came home the night of the murder - yet another strange man (Guede) in the house, or noisy sex, or drug dealing going on, or her rent money missing - it could have been Meredith that told Amanda Knox she was out of a job at Le Chic.

Hearing it from Meredith could have really stoked Knox’s anger demons.

Hi Pete, that’s a good question. The wording of the reply text that Amanda sent Patrick has been widely published. However, the exact word for word contents of the initial text from Patrick has not. Rather, we have simply been told that the text was telling her there was no need to come into work that night. It certainly would be useful to have the transcript of that, as it’s all a part of the context.

Another interesting question of course, is what work was it exactly that Amanda was being told she didn’t need to turn up for…working in the bar, or giving out flyers? What work was it exactly that Amanda herself assumed she was going to do that evening?

This is actually quite important, for if one’s going to be working in a bar, it makes it rather difficult to make ‘other’ plans for that evening during the working period. If however, one is working giving out flyers, slipping away for a few hours isn’t really a problem, since it’s unsupervised work. Usually, it isn’t paid in the form of a wage either, rather it’s commission based. Just a couple of days before Meredith’s murder, Amanda was also telling her flatmates that she was going to quit her job with Patrick as he hadn’t paid her. So, there are still some rather important outstanding questions regarding Amanda’s work status.

It is a tragic case, but I’m glad that I discovered this website. It presents a wealth of evidence which is not readily available in English. The quantity of evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito does appear to be more substantial than many English language sources would have you believe (this is distinct from the quality of evidence, which I will mention later). So I am considering more seriously the possibility that they had a role in the crime, or in a subsequent cover-up.

But I also feel that many of the authors of this site are exhibiting a bias in favour of the prosecution. When they speculate, the speculation always seems to favour the prosecution. For example, the speculation about what Raffaele was doing on his computer at 0532, or the speculation about why Amanda chose an unconventional way to study abroad.

As a matter of interest, and to balance the speculation which favours the prosecution, I will speculate on two points which I have noticed. There are more than two points on which I could speculate, but I will leave the rest to the defence lawyers.

Raffaele’s father telephoned at 2040 on the night of the murder. The call was taken by Raffaele’s answering machine. To me, this proves very little. Raffaele could have been in the bathroom when the telephone rang and then chose not to call his father back that night. Or he could have been near the phone and just chose not to pick it up, for a number of innocent reasons. This explanation is supported by the click on Raffaele’s computer at 2110. Also, the fact that his father’s call went unanswered at 2040 does not prove that he didn’t speak to his father at 2300. Perhaps his father was out and called Raffaele later from a mobile telephone. There’s a lot of potential doubt here.

Amanda’s housemate Filomena (and also the police I believe) claim that when they arrived at the house, the victim’s clothes were in the washing machine and still warm. I find this odd, as most washing machines rinse the clothes in cold water to save energy, so the clothes come out cold. Now there are several possible explanations. Possibly they have a type of washing machine which rinses the clothes in hot water, although I have never seen one. Possibly they have a combined washer/dryer, out of which the clothes would emerge warm. Possibly there was an error in the translation. Possibly the witnesses made a mistake, and instead should have said that the clothes were wet, or that they heard the machine operating. Finally, there’s the chance that for some reason the witnesses are lying. Again, this piece of evidence needs to be examined carefully, and could turn out to be worthless at trial.

In most high profile trials the prosecution emerges with fewer pieces of credible evidence than they had at the start, whether they win or lose. Think about how strong the case against O.J. Simpson looked at the Preliminary Hearing. It looked like the prosecutors had a compelling case, but it fell apart in court because the investigation had been minimal and the evidence tainted by incompetent and dubious police officers. (I also think the police likely had the wrong man, and if you think O.J. is guilty, I thoroughly recommend the book “O.J. Is Guilty But Not Of Murder” by William Dear.)

So it’s likely that some evidence in this case will be shown to be tainted. It’s also likely that some witnesses will be shown to be unreliable (statistics about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony are quite disturbing). Some witnesses will simply be mistaken, but it’s possible that others may have been deliberately inventing their testimony because they want to be involved in a high profile case. Anyone remember Bill Wasz from the O.J. Simpson case? It was shown fairly recently that he likely invented his story about being hired to kill Nicole Brown, even though he was a career criminal with a number of genuine connections to characters involved in the case.

If the translation of Judge Micheli’s reasons is accurate and represents the complete picture, I disagree with his reason for finding Hekuran Kokomani credible. The fact that he saw the tow truck only proves that he was on the street at the right time. He could have made the rest up (in a similar way to Bill Wasz). His story about throwing the telephone and olives sounds ridiculous, and it sounds extremely fortuitous that he had an encounter with all three suspects. Of course, that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. And the claim that Rudy offered 50 and then 250 Euros to hire Kokomani’s car is interesting, as 250 Euros is the amount of money that Rudy had the opportunity to steal.

One part of the prosecutors’ case that I find very unconvincing is the suggestion that the defendants were walking around barefoot in pools of blood. Who walks around barefoot in pools of blood? The two explanations I can think of are that taking their shoes off was part of some kind of game they were playing with the victim previously, or that they took their shoes off to avoid getting them covered in blood. As they all did the same, it suggests some organisation, and was probably not a silly idea one person had under the influence of drugs. But I don’t find either explanation convincing. Are there any alternative theories?

I hope the court will think about the subtle possiblities in this case, such as the fact that there can be a grey area between innocence and guilt, even if the law only permits “Not Guilty” and “Guilty” verdicts. Perhaps Amanda and Raffaele weren’t responsible for the murder, but tried to alter the crime scene for some unknown reason, or for no logical reason because they were high on drugs. Perhaps they’re innocent but are lying. Perhaps they’re guilty but the police are lying. Perhaps they’re scared because they did drugs and really can’t remember. All these permutations happen in real life. The jury needs to decide the fairest outcome.

Best wishes,

Chris

PS: More PDF versions of files on the website would be appreciated. PDF files are more widely compatible than PPS, and updating my version of OpenOffice would take forever (I would use the free PowerPoint Viewer, but they don’t offer it for my operating system).

Hi Chris,

You wrote:

“When they speculate, the speculation always seems to favour the prosecution. For example, the speculation about what Raffaele was doing on his computer at 0532”.

Raffaele Sollecito using his computer at 5.32am on 2 November is significant because it proves that he lied to the police when claimed that he had slept until 10am.

Sollecito lied from the very beginning; he hadn’t called the police when the postal police turned up at the cottage, and he and Knox weren’t waiting for the police. Sollecito gave three different alibis, and lied deliberately and repeatedly to the police. He wasn’t surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am, he didn’t speak to his father at 11pm and he didn’t accidentally prick Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment.

Sollecito admitted in his witness statement that he had lied to the police:

“In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

Sollecito was given another opportunity to tell the truth and he chose to repeatedly lie again. He still doesn’t have a credible alibi for the night of the murder. There is only one plausible explanation for Sollecito’s deliberate and repeated lies: he was involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

You wrote:

“Also, the fact that his father’s call went unanswered at 2040 does not prove that he didn’t speak to his father at 2300. Perhaps his father was out and called Raffaele later from a mobile telephone. There’s a lot of potential doubt here.”

There is NO doubt whatsover. Sollecito didn’t speak to his father on his landline or mobile phone at 23.00pm. If he had done, there would be phone records to prove it. This isn’t exactly rocket science.

You wrote:

“One part of the prosecutors’ case that I find very unconvincing is the suggestion that the defendants were walking around barefoot in pools of blood. Who walks around barefoot in pools of blood?”

I don’t understand your confusion. There was a bare bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom. The trail of bloody footprints leading from Meredith’s room to the bathmat had been cleaned away. Two different sets of bare bloody footprints, which match the foot sizes of Knox and Sollecito, were revealed by luminol.

Yesterday’s revelation that a woman’s bloody shoe print was on a pillow under Meredith’s body and the size is compatible with Knox’s foot size is significant. It is further irrefutable proof that Meredith’s murder was not committed by a lone wolf and that a woman with a foot size compatible with Knox’s was involved. I suspect the significance of this will be lost on you.

The bloody shoe print is not the only piece of evidence that links Knox to the crime scene. Knox’s DNA was on the handle of the double DNA knife, which was used to stab Meredith, and Sollecito’s lawyers claim that Knox’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra.

You wrote:

“It’s also likely that some witnesses will be shown to be unreliable.”

The ONLY witnesses who have been shown to be consistently unreliable and dishonest are Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. A fact which you have conveniently failed to acknowledge.

It would be extremely naive and gullible to believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who have been shown to be compulsive liars, are telling the truth, and that the postal police, officers from the Perugia Flying Squad, Meredith’s friends and her Italian housemates are all lying.

Chris,

Having looked at the evidence, and given that AK and RS have had 16 months to finally give a coherent explaination of where they were and who they were with on the night of the murder, I hope you would agree that if AK and RS were NOT brought to trial, we would all be demanding to know why?.

Washing Machine

As I understand it, the washing machine was actually running when the Postal Police arrived and had stopped, but was still warm, when Filomena and the other Police officers arrived.

The whole question of what the defendants were wearing on the night of the murder (not just Amanda’s shoes) has yet to be clarified. RS claimed he couldn’t remember if and when Amanda changed her clothes.

Phones

It has been established that RS was lying about a call to his landline at 23:00

Who walks around barefoot in polls of blood ?

I would suggest anyone involved in a cleanup. It is much easier to wash blood off your feet than off shoes, which would have to be disposed of later. My cleaner mops the floor in bare feet.

Kolomani

Micheli doesn’t give much wieght to his evidence, however he did know about the breakdown truck, at a time when only the people present knew about it and claimed to know Guede from the agritourism place he worked. As more evidence becomes available, especially about drugtaking, Kolomani may become more important to the case.

Guilty or Not Guilty

Many people on this site have felt that it may be proved that one or both the defendants were only involved in the cleanup. If they are ‘innocent but lying’ there is a simple remedy ... tell the truth.

Where next:

Or to next entry Perugia: The Jury Selection Has Now Begun

Or to previous entry Formal Kercher Request That Trial Be Behind Closed Doors