I don't need to, this is canon as far as I'm concerned. It happened and it's well documented by the police forensic investigators. Do a quick google search and you'll see. I don't have time to jump through hoops for ya sorry!

Yeah, that means you lose.

I'll be shocked if such a thing existed.

The sites arguing both sides are huge, at least the truejustice site is, I haven't frequented the pro-Amanda sites

In my best Columbo impersonation.

"Uh, I don't mean to bother you, but..Nah never mind. Wait...You know what's bothering me. That washing machine. I know it's a samll thing in the big picture of this case, but...when the police arrive uh...it was running...with a load of laundry...and yet they don't test it. Seems kind of odd that they would arrive at a crime scene, a bloddy crime scene...and the washing machine was running and they, uh, didn't check it...That just seems odd to me. Does that seem odd to you? Nah. Probably just me."

Cro

so you expect others to cite sources from other sites constantly, which is fine, but refuse to do it yourself?

yea... umm. why was the washing machine running? doesn't that mean somebody was in the house as recently as 9am? doesn't that necessitate a cleanup?

She was not raped but a small amount of Rudy's DNA was in her most likely from a finger.

The evidence against her is overwhelming and would take a long time to type out all over again.

The she is innocent camp is based on either ignoring evidence, making prosperous situations plausible to explain the evidence, or claiming that every expert involved made mistakes but never offering any evidence to support those claims.

I wouldn't call it jumping through hoops, it's merely citing your sources which Henry17, Poker Reference and others have been more than willing to do.

Personally, I think we should all cite sources whenever possible

Ok I misinterpreted what Henry said. But still I disagree with his contention that since Amanda is suspected now that she will stop even though she still has violent tendencies.

If you're arguing that someone touched a mouse or keyboard at 9:26 you must accept that the clones were successful, regardless of what happened to the original.

If you are arguing that the hard drive was scorched at any time prior to the cloning, you have no 9:26.

Which is it?

i'm gonna need that documentation just as you have requested of other in this thread. and i'm curious when exactly the hard drives were fried. was it after there were multiple copies of the activity made?

No I don't expect others to quote sources constantly. I'm saying that it isn't in dispute that the Postal Police fried hard drives as they attempted to clone them. The defense requested additional testing of them in the original trial and then Massei rejected the request. No one disputed that the hard drives did indeed get fried. I'm fairly sure I've read an actual court document or Postal Police document that details explicity what was done but I'm not going to look for it because no one is disputing that drives got fried.

And I'm not talking about Rafaelle's mac.

Amanda does not deny being in the house.

yimyammer posted a graphic of her movements a few posts back.

That is what makes the story so crazy in that at a minimum she would have needed to cross the entire hallway multiple times as well as sit in a bathroom with **** that has not been flushed since the night before doing her hair and all the time never notice the blood on the floors or walls.

Are you talking about Amanda's, then? It was never admitted as evidence as far as I know, and it wasn't discussed at her trial. Odd for a super-significant artifact, isn't it?

The purpose of the analysis of Raf's computer was to verify his alibi that he was at the computer all night, or prove he was lying.

wtf, they claimed they were on Raf's computer all night. who cares about any other computer

Can you guys show me the proof that the washing machine was running? Because it wasn't.

Because the other computer's could have exonerated them? That's why I said the computer evidence isn't cut and dry.

And if we accept 9:26 it's almost certainly a persuasive alibi.

It is unclear if the original was destroyed. The only person who claims it was is Amanda's mom in the press.

The computer expert details what he did and the first thing was clone the drive so that all parties involved had a copy and sync the time.

The computer expert writes a detailed report of all the activity. None of this was ever contested in the actual court room.

All the discussion of destroyed original drives was in the media.

The only reason a destroyed original would even be a factor is we entertain the idea that the computer expert cloned the drives then removed all traces of this 9:26pm activity from all the clones in some grand conspiracy.

This is a meaningless distraction but that is the Friends of Amanda's MO. They just keep raising red herrings of stuff using made up stuff.

And if the screensaver analysis is true it's really persuasive, but I haven't seen the data on that.

Probably no one has time to jump through hoops for you.

Again: If you're arguing that someone touched a mouse or keyboard at 9:26 you must accept that the clones were successful, regardless of what happened to the original.

If you are arguing that the hard drive was scorched at any time prior to the cloning, you have no 9:26.

Which is it?

I think it's more likely there is no proof, but thanks for your contribution. And just because I like too see people eat crow, Massei page 321 references the drives in Amanda and Meredith's computers being damaged and unable to retrieve.

Why should we given you refuse to back up any of your BS claims?

I will anyway because it is relevant and because I actually know the case.

The evidence was in Filomena's testimony

Blonde, bespectacled Filomena Romanelli also posed a string of problems for the defence. She said that when she returned to the house they shared on 2 November 2007 the washing machine was warm. She later identified most of the clothes inside as those of the victim, Meredith Kercher, a student at Leeds University

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...her-trial-knox

Page 321 is a discussion of the phones.